Did the Clinton Administration ever blame Bush 41 for WTC attack in '93?

[Postman]

Think about it.

Clinton took office in January 1993. The first attack on the WTC occurred a month later.

Did we ever hear the Clinton administration point the the finger at Bush 41 for "allowing" the attack to happen?

Compare that with how Clinton has been getting the blame from these creeps for 9/11 which happened, not 1 month into the new administration, but 8 months into it and with warnings from their own counter-terrorism chief and CIA.

Maybe we should look into the ineptness of the Bush 41 administration in defending the USA.

[Nlighten1]

1. Indeed we should...and while we are at it..

I would like to re-examine the Oklahoma City bombing too.

[SoCalDem]

2. And, please consider this as well..

#41 had VAST CIA and foreign policy experience.. Why did HE not know about these guys.. It's all a smoke screen.. They didn't even know that USSR was imploding or that the Wall would come down..

He was spending us into oblivion to combat the USSR's "threat", when they were so broke that they could not have picked up a tab at McDonalds...

[King_Crimson]

3. IMHO the old man was involved...

in JFK's murder! Only person I ever heard of that can't recollect where he was on 11/22/63! At that time he was in the employ of the CIA!

[alcuno]

4. Or Somalia. George Sr.'s final gift as he was booted out of office.

[Lindacooks]

5. No

Because they are grown-ups.

Unlike the two-year-olds currently occupying the White House.

[mot78]

6. I used that arugment on a Freeper and he didn't give a good response

Repugs are hypocrites when they bring up Clinton and 9/11. Clinton only had 1 month to stop WTC 1993, were as * has 8 months to stop 9/11.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Well knock me over with a feather!

[prodigal_green]

7. No, he was on the job from DAY ONE

He didn't need a one-year ramping-up period or whatever nonsense the BADministration keeps spewing.


It also kills me that they keep bringing up the Cole and whining, "why didn't he start a war right after that?" Um, because the presidential election was going to be in three weeks? Because saddling an incoming president with a brand new war is a Republican trick? Because they liked to check facts before starting a land war?

Assholes, each and every one of them.

[mot78]

9. Whenever Clinton tried to attack Al Qaida, the Repugs would

shout "wage the dog" and accuse Clinton of doing it for poltical reasons. My FR thread from '98 on my sig line is a good example.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Right. What the freepers are asking for was another Somalia.

Good thing that Clinton didn't give the Bush Administration military plans for retaliation against the U.S.S. Cole. The Bush
Administration couldn't even maintain Sandy Berger's hand's on approach to ferreting anti-terrorism.


But, there is definitely a problem here between presidential transitions. Within a month of Clinton's first term, we had the bombing of the WTC; and after nine months of the Bush Administration we had their total destruction. I think our enemies have spotted our weakness.

[imax2268]

12. I'm serious...

just imagine if Clinton did start something after the Cole bombing...I can hear it now..."Oh...he left us his war to clean up"..."he couldn't get the job done so we have to finish it"...

I can just hear them saying that shit...man they piss me off...

[MadProphetMargin]

11. Naw. Clinton wasn't really big on blaming his predecessor, unlike

the GOP...the party of excuses.