Quote:
Originally posted by 350HP930
9/11 should hang around GW's neck like Enron and a lot of other disasters that occured under his watch.
He may not have been the driver when this nation's road trip towards disaster started but the fact is that he was the driver steering us down the path to destruction when the car went off the cliff.
If you want to argue that those involved in criminal collusions have no responsibility for the crimes that result because other people were involved in the conspiracy, then no criminal who is part of an illegal enterprise can ever be held responsible for his actions by those standards.
|
First I want to point out that I agree that the president is responsible for everything that happens in his administration, but he can't be held responsible for EVERYTHING that happens while he is in office.
I must however take issue with your comparing what happened on 9/11 with what happened at Enron. I think I might have missed your point on that comparison because they were entirely different situations.
As far as your last statement, are you implying that Bush acted criminally? That will take some explaining to connect those dots. If you do feel that he ALLOWED 9/11 to happen is that like saying that FDR ALLOWED the attack on Pearl Harbor? I don't understand your point I think. What would you have done differently in his position? Do you think there is any way what happened on 9/11 could have been prevented? I don't. Islamic extemists have been trying to destroy us and our way of life for decades now and I don't think they are done yet. Pointing the finger at Bush may make some people feel better but it doesn't fix the problem. If you wanted, you could make a better case that Al Queda gained their strength under Clinton's watch (who by the way WAS a criminal) and he failed to do anything to stop or even slow their cause. Assigning blame still doesn't fix the problem and it does need to be dealt with. That I think will determine Bush's legacy.
Pete