Several weeks after the 9/11 tragedy, word was going around in our office on who should be blamed. While a great number of people say that the Intelligence Agencies were clearly caught with their pants down, two others went further.
One suggested that the Unions, special interest groups, social policy activists, public service activists, basically anyone on the left of the political spectrum are to blame for sucking tax dollars from the Security, Military, and Intelligence Agencies in the U.S.
The other went further than that. He suggested that Democrats such as Bill and Hilary Clinton, Janet Reno, Al Gore, and even the present Democratic Senate Majority Leader (Daschle?) should be charged with 3,800 counts of second-degree murder. The reason? Depraved indifference to Human Life. To be specific, they knew about the possible threat long ago, yet they continued to hack away at the Security, Military, and Intelligence Agencies to benefit "the Hidden Communists of that Country, a.k.a. the Democrats".
So what is your word on this? Are we really to blame for 9/11? Or is the tragedy an event that no real person or agency could ever avoid?
Let's keep the fire to a minimum, please.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The liberals in power over the past decade or so did many dumb things. They do that. The absence of those actions might have prevented the attack. OR, they might not have. There's no way to tell at this point.
It's less important to place blame than it is to determine who cleans up the mess, and who's best qualified to reduce the chance of it happening again.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Clinton didn't encourage terrorists any more then Reagan or Bush did. How many Marine barracks got blown up under their watch? And Conservative up-cry about Somalia is partly to blame for the withdrawl, which is part of the reason Bin Laden & Co. used to support their notion that Americans would run at the first sign of trouble.
As for the military, I think we already had a thread about this. Bush hasn't had a chance to effect it to any great degree by the time of September 11th, so as much as Rush & Co. might hate it, the "emasculated" military Clinton left is the same exact one that has done so well in Afghanistan. And as much as I'm sure they'd hate to admit it, Clinton only had two years with a sizeable Democratic control in the Congress, so anything anyone accuses Clinton of doing to the military for six years of his term ... happened with Republicans in control of the House and the Senate.
posted
No, the Liberals aren't to blame for it, neither are the Conservatives. To be honest, both sides have made major screw-ups when dealing with not only BinLaden in particular, but the middle east in general. Both sides could have gotten BinLaden earlier, but didn't.
There's lots of what-ifs...If Clinton had tried harder, rather than just launched a few cruise missiles or accepted the offer of BinLaden from whatever country it was that had him for a while... If Bush I had finished the job in Iraq, and not needed to station US soldiers in Saudi Arabia... It's all irrelevant.
The people responsible are the bastards who hijacked and crashed the planes, and the double-damned bastards who gave them the orders. That's it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
