We can only guess at what Clinton did or didn't do. 9/11 didn't happen on his watch. We're getting a better idea of what Bush did and did not do. 9/11 did happen on his watch.
But consider the fact that if we don't know very much about what Clinton did, then we could speculate he didn't do very much based on the fact that the Bush administration apparently was starting to develop a closer watch on terrorists and starting funding those areas of the government because of threats and then 9/11 happened despite their efforts (meaning that Clinton didn't do enough and that 9/11 could have been prevented if he had responded to such serious threats early on). It's obvious that al Quada (sp?) is such a sprawling network and was so well-protected (at the time) by the Taliban that it could've potentially taken years to stop anything like the 9/11 attacks from happening.
Or that could not be true, and it's all Bush's fault. We just don't know.
My point is, well...at this point, blaming it on Bush because 9/11 happened under his watch doesn't necessarily mean it was his fault.
My point is, well...at this point, blaming it on Bush because 9/11 happened under his watch doesn't necessarily mean it was his fault.
...change that to...
My point is, well...at this point, blaming it on Bush because 9/11 happened under his watch might not be right. Because it happened after he was elected doesn't necessarily mean it was his fault.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-11 02:43 pm (UTC)I must have spaced out or something while reading the article. Could you help explain that?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-11 06:12 pm (UTC)We can only guess at what Clinton did or didn't do. 9/11 didn't happen on his watch. We're getting a better idea of what Bush did and did not do. 9/11 did happen on his watch.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-11 07:12 pm (UTC)But consider the fact that if we don't know very much about what Clinton did, then we could speculate he didn't do very much based on the fact that the Bush administration apparently was starting to develop a closer watch on terrorists and starting funding those areas of the government because of threats and then 9/11 happened despite their efforts (meaning that Clinton didn't do enough and that 9/11 could have been prevented if he had responded to such serious threats early on). It's obvious that al Quada (sp?) is such a sprawling network and was so well-protected (at the time) by the Taliban that it could've potentially taken years to stop anything like the 9/11 attacks from happening.
Or that could not be true, and it's all Bush's fault. We just don't know.
My point is, well...at this point, blaming it on Bush because 9/11 happened under his watch doesn't necessarily mean it was his fault.
correction
Date: 2004-04-11 07:15 pm (UTC)...change that to...
My point is, well...at this point, blaming it on Bush because 9/11 happened under his watch might not be right. Because it happened after he was elected doesn't necessarily mean it was his fault.
Re: correction
Date: 2004-04-11 07:54 pm (UTC)Re: correction
Date: 2004-04-11 08:56 pm (UTC)But yes, I believe he was.