It's time Democrats started blaming Bush for not stopping 9/11

The time of healing is over. The shock has worn off. The knee-jerk response for revenge has even been spent.

After reading William Pitt's excellent essay today I realized ....

It's time that we started putting the blame where it's due. At the feet of George W. Bush and company.

It's time we started saying it out loud.

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat, had been president, when this happened?

"Not on my watch" said Bush, after the USS Cole.

Bush failed to protect us. He failed to stop the slaugther of thousands of innocent people. No one even READ the report left for them by Clinton.

Do you think any Democrats will actually start to do this? And if not, why not?

He was in office only 9 months and these attacks were probably years in the making. I can easily disagree with a lot of the things he has done since then and his usage of 9/ll as his justification. But 9/11 itself it not his fault, its the fault of the terrorists themselves and their supportors.

the repukes started blaming Clinton on 9-12.

Fight back right away--don't let their lies get any traction!

I DO agree that the attacks were long in planning. But search the net. There are a lot of rationally-minded reports showing Bush's intelligence team knew what was to happen.

Allowing 9/11 has given Bush* every opportunity to destroy America's freedoms and attack any country pre-emptively. What Bush has proposed and gotten away with is monumental and monsterous and the Dems have also allowed a lot of it to happen (namely the "Patriot" Act, though the "Bush pre-emptive Doctrine" was only an outrage to only so many...). A part of Bush* surely knew and drooled with bloodlust that 9/11 would allow him to put every of his desires into action. He and his team (Rumdrinker, Conartist Rice, Colon Polyp, Wolfoblitz, and the rest.)

he also didn't take up the document about the
threat of terrorism that Gary Hart, et al put
on the table because he was so hateful of
Clinton and said he would do everything the
opposite. Well, he did. He let our country be
attacked. Clinton didn't.

Don't defend him. He had many, many warnings.

Your statement is the crux of the problem.

It WAS Bush's fault. He could have stopped it and did not.

He fucked up. Everyone who died is dead because Bush, Cheney, Condoleeze Rice and the rest of the crew didn't do their homework.

I would read it, but where is it and who is "William Pitt"? All this talk about Bush "knowing" beforehand is just second guessing. For those that attack me for saying that, please read my response #1 first. Thanks for putting me in a position of defending Bush. No sleep for me tonight.

I don't disagree with most of it, Bushes team can be said to be incompetent, but proof of actually knowing when and how this particular attack would occur is lacking. My point that blameing Bush directly for 9/11 is polically stupid is justified in the article itselft. Refer to the section that states a majority of Amercians still think Saddam was behind 9/11. From a policial standpoint one has to remember that these people will be voting.

Nobody's told the people the truth, and the ones who have don't get any airtime.

Now that we have 9 democratic candidates in the news, I believe it's time for them to start letting people know the truth.

It's a bully pulpit if there ever was one.

I'm sick and tired of people swallowing Cunnilingus Rice's notion that nobody could have "imagined" such an attack.

They were specifically warned that such attacks were being planned. Clinton's team had thwarted such attacks before. They dropped the ball. They fucked up. They are responsible.

They should be shitcanned now. Fired. Done.

There are plenty of impeccably mainstream press reports demonstrating that the security services knew -something- BIG was in the works during the summer of '01 and that the Bushies made no extraordinary response.

* was on vacation the whole of August, even though the security services were 'frantic'.

At the transition, Clinton's people presented *'s people with a plan for getting bin Laden and begged them to continue it; the Bushies ignored it.

These are the kinds of mistakes that normally get department heads fired and politicians booted from office. Not 'blame' exactly, but bad enough.

The 1993 attack got the pukes on Clinton's case.

Bush failed us big time and there's even boatloads of evidence showing he knew damn well in advance. As far as I'm concerned, Bush allowed it to happen so he could further his fascist agenda. Period.

But the Dems allowed themselves to be duped.

Nor did they even bother to even READ the "Patriot" Act. The pukes would have voted for it regardless, but the Dems were simply irresponsible.

If Gore was president, I doubt 9/11 would have happened. But that's conjecture. Bush* made this atrocity a reality, and may he bask in it for as little as possible until we get him out and this country back on the RIGHT track!

"Do you think any Democrats will actually start to do this?"
No. "Why not?" Because it would be politically stupid.

I meant to say polically stupid.

This country is already divided.

It would be stupid to participate in the ongoing cover-up by ignoring it.

They subverted a lot of Clinton's anti-errorism eforts. Most of those in office in 1996 were still in office on 9/11. Instead of going after the terrorists in 1998 they went after the President. Well, they got Bill, but let the terrorists get stronger. * LIHOP'ed 9/11, but the Pukes in congress voted for it by stopping Clinton.

if we've been asleep since 9/11.

What would people say NOW?

They'd put the blame where it's due.

I think we should start putting the blame where it's due AS IF we've just woken up.

Because, in so many ways, we have.

nothing seems to stick to him. good grief, i'll shout it from the mountaintops, bush LIHOP/MIHOP. how in good conscience could he go off for a month's vacation if he had ANY wind of this at all? he's nothing short of a monster. i'm sick of people saying, oh he's just a puppet. Tuff shit@!!! he's a fucking grown man and it's time he take responsibility for his messes - esepcially when they are treasonous. people have to quit enabling him!

every day

When people realuze that all that's occuring today was planned years before Smirk took offfice, they'll start putting the pieces of the puzzle together for themselves and be PISSED!

You can see one of the problems in this thread.

As soon as someone raises a sensible question about *'s accountability and competence regarding 9/11, we get the crazies out. "BUSH KNEW ALL ABOUT IT!" "BUSH WAS FLYING THOSE PLANES HIMSELF!" "THE PENTAGON WAS HIT BY AN ANTI-GRAVITY DIRECTED ENERGY CRUISE MISSILE FROM URANUS!" "I KNOW BUSH DID IT BECAUSE HIS MOUTH DIDN'T OPEN WHEN THEY TOLD HIM ABOUT IT!"

It's just nearly impossible for a Dem candidate to raise questions about 9/11 resposnibility without getting one foot in the 'brown organic material exiting form the South end of a Northbound horse.'

Following a major catastrophe there are normally investigations, blame assigned (fairly or not), executives fired, bureaucracies reorganized. None of that happened after 9/11 and it should have. The Dems controlled the Senate, and there -should- have been deep, probing investigations. That didn't happen and * got play the determined war-time leader. And invade Iraq without serious political opposition.

At this point, I suspect the best strategy is to focus on inadequacies in the -current- anti-terror planning. That is really pretty dismal. Most of the public will find that far more convincing than claims about past mistakes.

MIHOP and even LIHOP should probably be avoided in the public discourse, even if it's true.

BUT:

People are only now starting to wake up from the "gathering behind the president in a time of crisis" mentality, so NOW's the time to start letting them know the truth.

If people know just how badly Bush dropped the ball, just how staggering and deadly his incompetence was, he'd be more than toast. As he should be. He should be scrubbing desks with his brother Neil somewhere.

there's always a "but," isn't there?

Accusing a president of something akin to treason can't be taken lightly. To make a point of this we have to have some serious evidence and be on extremely solid ground.

Note that all of the wilder accusations against Clinton were pretty much ignored by everyone, no matter how loudly those guys yelled about them. Even the Clinton haters I know never gave much credence to stuff like Vince Foster. Most of 'em, anyway.

Where we do have them by the balls is in the response. Two wars and Osama's bin Forgotten. We only have one conspirator on trial, and they're fucking that up.

Under Clinton, you will remember, they caught not only the first WTC bombers, but McVeigh, too. And without a PATRIOT Act.

Clinton gave them everything they needed to try to neutralize al Qaeda, but they ignored it. With Clinton, or Gore, we might not have prevented 9/11, but the response would have far more effective. And, we might actually have prevented it.

Ineptitude, not treason, is where we have them. The worst administration in American history.