If a major terrorist attack like 9/11 occurred tomorrow would President Bush be blamed for it?

Question

I wouldn't blame him. I'd blame the people who actually did it.

Answer 1

Sure.

Why not?

With all the little bats.

Blind as a bat.

Hanging upside down.

Still living in caves.

Could not even see the frogs running for cover.

Revealation 16.12-13

What do you think?

Answer 2

yes, people tend to blame the government for everything. plus bush has a really low public standing these days.

Answer 3

Any administration would be blamed for not taking more and extreme action against deterring terrorists.

Answer 4

Actually if you excersize some deeper thinking you'd realize that Bush declared war on terrorism and terrorists worldwide. Before only a select few were at war with the US now all of them are thanks to George W. Bush.

So if a terrorist attack occured tomorrow would Bush be blamed? Common sense would say so, and rightly so..

Answer 5

Yes, it is on his watch just like the first attack.

Answer 6

Yes Bush would be blamed and the blame would be unfair because it is virtually impossible to defend against every attack by terrorists.  The best hope is to stop as many as possible.

It is also somewhat unfair to give Bush credit for no terrorist attacks having occurred since 9/11 because if the terrorists were determined to attack on US soil they would have succeeded by now.

Answer 7

I agree. Blame the puppet masters, not the puppet.

Answer 8

Yes, even if he didn't do it.

Answer 9

He may get blamed, but he would never be charged or asked to take account for it.

He would walk away with bloody hands, but he would still walk away.

Answer 10

Ofcause he'll be blamed. Americans blame him for everything that goes wrong.

Answer 11

It depends. Did he ignore the warnings like he did before the first one?

Answer 12

It's not just the people who did it who should be blamed.  It should be the masterminds and the people who financed it.  Bush has already shown that he makes stupid choices, so yes, I would blame him.

Answer 13

Of course I would blame the people who actually did it.  But isn't Bush blamed for everything, especially by the Democratic party, who now has the majority in the House, and the Senate.

What many of the American people do not understand is that even though the President of the U.S. is the Commander and Chief.  He is not responsible for all the bills that are past by Congress.  So his only power is to veto it.  

Then there are bills that only an individual State can vote on, and if past it is only for that particular state.  Then it is up to that States, Governor.

I can go on and on.  But I am sure you get my drift, which is that a President does not have unequivocal power.  This is called DEMOCRACY, not ANARCHY.  The government is run by the people, and for the people.  I am so proud to be an American.

Answer 14

Why not?  He's been credited with preventing an attack over the last six years and ten months, so if there's another attack why shouldn't he be saddled with the blame for it?

By the way, by the same logic that credits Bush with protecting us, Clinton actually did a better job.  The first attack on the World Trade Center came in December of 1993, during Clinton's first adminstration.  There was not another attack on America here at home until September of 2001.  Since Bush took over in late January of 2001, that means that Clinton "kept us safe" for seven years and one month, or three months longer than Bush, so far.  And that's giving Bush the credit for the first eight months of his first adminstration.  

Look, I don't think the policies of either president "kept us safe," I'm just trying to point out that if you're going to insist that Bush has kept us safe, then you have to admit the same thing about Clinton.