Who's to Blame for 9/11?
With Dems in an uproar about ABC's "Path to 9/11" show tonight, I thought it'd be a good time to review who we should be pointing our fingers at with regards to 9/11. Bill Clinton, complete with a blue dress-clad Monica Lewinsky in his lap, didn't ram a plane into the World Trade Center. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove didn't plan the whole thing one night in order to further their plans to steal all the world's oil. The people responsible for 9/11 are Osama bin Laden, the 19 hijackers, and the rest of AQ.
As much as I despised Clinton's foreign policy team, I find it hard to get too upset at them over 9/11. The American people didn't give a crap about fighting terrorism in the 1990s either. We didn't think that the first World Trade Center bombing was a big deal. The African embassy bombings didn't really concern us. Oh sure, it would have been nice to catch the guys who did it, but it wasn't a national priority. We didn't really care. At the time, our government was doing exactly what we wanted them to: not much.
If the CIA had snatched OBL from Afghanistan, the Left would have been up in arms about Clinton's "irresponsible unilateral action" while the Right would have sneered about how this was just a distraction from the real issue: whether or not Clinton lied about getting it on with everyone's favorite trashy intern.
Why is it so difficult to understand that 9/11 changed everything. I don't think we should judge either the Clinton or Bush administration's actions through post-9/11 lens. That's not to say we should ignore their inaction, but rather that we should remember that our world was forever divided five years ago into "before" and "after".
Posted by at September 10, 2006 11:15 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1380
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # September 10th, 2006 4:02 PM themandownthehall |
| That's fair Kris. No problem with that. What's not fair is the Democrats refusing to even acknowledge that things were different before 9/11. That they were so serious when we know they were not. When OBL nails the US several times in the 90's and they do nothing, then try to blame Bush for not being able to shut down a plot in less than 8 months, that's unreasonable. When the Democrats stack the 9/11 commission with the very administration officials that should have been on the hot seat testifying, it's time to call shenanigans. The path to 9/11 may not be completely accurate. And I have no problem having the incorrect scenes removed, but let's face reality. The only reason they are screaming is they don't like the potiential impact on the November elections. The 9/11 commission, their reaction to fahrenheit 911, their recently released reports on Iraq show that the truth is farthest from what they care about.
|
| # September 11th, 2006 8:23 AM BVBigBro |
| The fact that things were different before 911 is the biggest problem I have with the 911 commission. Prior to 911 what would someone have had to do to make you call the FBI? They're the ones who get a free ride in the commission report.
I haven't heard Clinton saying Terrorism was a priority during his administration themandownthehall. If he did he should be called on it. As president I agree that his actions were in line with public desires with the exception that he certainly could have acted against Bin Laden personally without suffering any domestic consequences. Bin Laden was a nobody to most people on 910, but there would have been no call from the left about unilateral action. |
| # September 11th, 2006 9:12 AM Laura |
| I think the thing to focus on is what's been happening *since* 9/11. Which candidates - which parties - which ideologies - have done more to acknowledge the problem (radical Islam, Islamofascism, whatever you want to call it) and implement realistic ways to combat it? |
| # October 23rd, 2006 11:12 AM mbrlr |
| The radicals who crashed the planes are to blame.
Did Clinton fail to get bin Laden? Yes, although attempts were made. Was Bush warned about the possibility of a strike against the US? Yes. Did our President-by-uncitable-SC-opinion-who-believes-god-picked-him pay attention? No. Have we gotten bin Laden yet? No. Are we trying? Not really. Did Iraq, which we then invaded on false pretenses, have anything to do with 9/11? No. Should, in a perfect world, there be impeachments to bring some clarity to this mess and also lower a bit of extremely unChristian hubris? Yes, but that won't happen. Will Democrats take both the Senate & the House? We'll see. |
| # November 9th, 2006 1:17 PM mbrlr |
| Re the last point made in my last response here:
We saw, and at least from some of our perspectives, it was good. |
| # November 9th, 2006 3:14 PM REV |
| It is precisely those kind of LIBERAL LIES that went UN-REFUTED by Conservative Candidates that cost the G.O.P. this elecation. It was NOT "issues" because the DNC LIED about where they stand on the issues AND the Left's "Big-Guns" Nazi Pelosi, Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy, Barney 'NAMBLA" Frank and Jack "Cut-n-Run" Murtha were SILENT and INVISIBLE for 2-3 weeks before the election! IF Liberalism-Leftism is so "good" then why didn't the DNC with ONE voice trumpet their REAL agenda?!! Hmmmm?!!! |