[QUOTE]Originally posted by RoadDawg
It's been shown that the administration knew something was gonna happen.
Just the opposite. There was significant "chatter" during the summer that was monitored very closely. Then it eventually died down in late July/early August. Richard CLark himself said that it died down and the severe threat had passed them by. There was never any indication what percisely would happen, just that there were bad men out there that wanted to do something bad to us. pretty vague, and hard to act on.
There They were handed info from over seas including the names and pictures of a couple of the terrorists. They had a chance to detour but didn't act.
Most of the terrorists had been in country for several months, several before Bush ever took office. What was he supposed to do about them?
Also if you look at this approval % before 9-11 it wasn't all that great.
It was hovering around 50%. Better then Clinton's were after being in office 8 months. Frankly his approval numbers were nothing to complain about.
After 9-11 it was and I feel it was due to the public being upset over 9-11 and the thought of justice being done.
Well, Bush had rallied the nation together after a historic attack and reacted stronly and with resolve.
So in a sense your right but only after the gov't messed up. To also blame it on Clinton is something I find funny.
Well, Clinton HAD several chances to catch or kill Bin Laden and refused to do it each time. So, he could have prevented the attacks if he had got Bin Laden when he was offered the opportunity.
People always blame the previous administration for EVERYTHING.
Well, after bush had beenin office for half a year most of what was going on in the country was do to Clinton, for better or worse. The country is a big place and it doesn't just shift automatically when a new President comes into town.
Clinton did his good and bad things.
Nafta is about the only good one i got.
It's been shown that the administration knew something was gonna happen.
Just the opposite. There was significant "chatter" during the summer that was monitored very closely. Then it eventually died down in late July/early August. Richard CLark himself said that it died down and the severe threat had passed them by. There was never any indication what percisely would happen, just that there were bad men out there that wanted to do something bad to us. pretty vague, and hard to act on.
There They were handed info from over seas including the names and pictures of a couple of the terrorists. They had a chance to detour but didn't act.
Most of the terrorists had been in country for several months, several before Bush ever took office. What was he supposed to do about them?
Also if you look at this approval % before 9-11 it wasn't all that great.
It was hovering around 50%. Better then Clinton's were after being in office 8 months. Frankly his approval numbers were nothing to complain about.
After 9-11 it was and I feel it was due to the public being upset over 9-11 and the thought of justice being done.
Well, Bush had rallied the nation together after a historic attack and reacted stronly and with resolve.
So in a sense your right but only after the gov't messed up. To also blame it on Clinton is something I find funny.
Well, Clinton HAD several chances to catch or kill Bin Laden and refused to do it each time. So, he could have prevented the attacks if he had got Bin Laden when he was offered the opportunity.
People always blame the previous administration for EVERYTHING.
Well, after bush had beenin office for half a year most of what was going on in the country was do to Clinton, for better or worse. The country is a big place and it doesn't just shift automatically when a new President comes into town.
Clinton did his good and bad things.
Nafta is about the only good one i got.



Comment