To those all think Bush made America safer in the last 8 years, wasn't the only major attack on USA occured ?

Question

when BUSH just came into office? Was the attack random or did it coincide with Bush coming into office? Was did Bush orchestrated the whole thing so justify for his invasion of Iraq?

Answer 1

Good grief, you people and your conspiracy theories.  President Bush had been office for 9 months before 9/11.  Get your facts straight.

Answer 2

If that helps you sleep better at night, then you go for it.  Facts are there to be understood or ignored, your choice.

Answer 3

The attack of 9/11 happened less than 8 months after Bush took office. Considering how trashed the democrats left the White House, I am surprised they even had time to find the stationary.

The planning and preparation of the attack had been going on for years prior to 9/11. In other words, during CLINTON's administration. He is the one that did not respond adequately to the bombing of the USS Cole, the Kobar Towers, or the 1st World Trade Center bombing. He is the one that did not accept the gift of Osama bin Laden when it was offered. His administration is the one that set up the wall that prevented the sharing of information between the FBI and CIA that might have been able to stop it.

The attack was not random, but well thought out and well executed. I do not think it had anything to do with the election and everything to do with hitting the US in its economic, military, and political centers. it was only as a result of the efforts of an ad hoc militia on flight 93 that the Capitol (and all the congressmen and senators therein) was not hit. Granted, some think the White House and the president was the target, but either way it was to be a strike at the political heart of the country.

There has not been another major attack on the US since 9/11. That is in large part as a result of treating terrorism as a war instead of a criminal matter as we had prior to that time. As a criminal matter, law enforcement is severely limited in the gathering of information and in stopping terrorists. Basically, they have to commit the crime first and we hunt them down after the fact. With the advent of mass casualty attacks on civilians, a major paradigm shift from prior terrorist tactics, combined with the availability of chemical and nuclear weapons or the information on creating them, it is unacceptable to wait until thousands of people are murdered at one time before there is enough evidence to justify a search warrant.

As for the war in Iraq, that was not a new war but a continuation of hostilites from the 1990-91 Gulf War as a result of Saddam's failure to abide by the conditions of that ceasefire. It was duly approved by the Congress and enforced each of the 17 UN demands for Iraqi compliance. The fight against terror was a factor, but a secondary one. It was well known that Iraq supported terrorists. When Al-Qeada declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, all the better. Which would you have, the bad guys fighting against a well trained, well armed, and well armored professional military backed up by tanks, aircraft and artillery over there or them coming here to go against lightly armed police and (for the most part) unarmed civilians?

I think you need to do a more careful study of history.

Answer 4

Yes, I predicted Bush would go to war after I watched him pick a fight with every little country he could within his first 90 days in office. Diplomacy escapes him.  

Answer 5

Chupecabra, grays , reptilian, Republicans bombed the levees.  Make sure you make your tin foil hat in the shape of a pyramid or it wont work.

Answer 6

Well, Clinton had the chance to catch Bin Laden 8 yrs but he didn't do a thing.  Lets not forget that when one of our ships was attacked in Yemn, he didn't do a thing. Too busy chasing after his interns I guess.

Answer 7

Oh please. Did you know it was the second time the world trade center had been attacked?