Is President George W. Bush responsible for the 9-11 attack?
368734
no.  he is responsible for the USA's responseto the attack.
1109592
DO YOU THINK GEORGE W. BUSH HAS UNLEASHED WW111?
859559
oh i agree with you there! i think he is doing the best he can being one man and having so much on his plate. the United states is having major issues especially with terrorists and wether bush was president or not, they still would have attacked us they were planning it for years and years and they hate us. i bet if a different president were in office everyone would hate him too because people love to blame someone when things go wrong but the bottom line is he is our president, the one who is fighting for us, maybe we should blame .. hmm i dont know .. the terrorists who flew planes into our buildings and killed thousands of innocent people on an ordinary tuesday morning!\noh and kia u are worried about terrorism cuz he is in office.. that is because they attacked while he was in office not because of him! the point of him not giving up the war is to keep terrorists from gaining strength again!
1032285
You people need to remember 9/11 and what could have happened since then . More attacks and more innocent people killed . Just ask someone who lost a loved one in the 9/11 attacks and see if they like Bush .\nAsk yourself , would you like his job ..... I don't think so ....
537006
Here is a perfect example.  Check out page 3 of the report below.\n\nCompletely setting my political views aside if 9/11 hadn't happened there is no way that Bush would now be our president.\n\nThat being said I think whatever benefit he got from 9/11 has been eaten up in the last year or so.
913475
1) "Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania."\nSeattle Times\n\n2) "Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990 provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that:\n\nA) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, \n\nB) the attack was going to involve airplanes, \n\nC) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States."   Sibel Edmonds\n \n*Would you not expect the FBI would distance themselves from admitting to finding any "hard evidence?"\n\n3) "The Bush administration called on four outside, non-government translators to review the tape, to counter possible claims that the White House had doctored it or provided an inaccurate translation." CNN\n*There seems to still be speculation about the varification of this tape. But some transcrips which followed seemed to add some validity to them.\nI think the jury's still out on this one.\n\n4) *Do not use "intelligence" as a source - it was "intellegence" that told President Kennedy that the Cubans would rise up and oust Fidel Castro if we provided tha needed aid for the Bay of Pigs Invasion - and "intellegence" that had Saddam sitting on a mountain of WMDs.\n\n5) *This statement is not true. Actual quote:\n\n"We got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden," he said at a news conference, according to Reuters. "It's a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop looking so long as I'm the president -- not only for Osama bin Laden, but anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United States of America," Bush said.\n\nIn answer to your question, of course not - no one man could pull of such an elaborate plan. Do I think al Qaeda is responsible? Yes. \nDo I think Bin Laden is a major player in al Qaeda? Again, Yes. \nIt's not too difficult to connect the dots.\n\n*my comments.
632524
I know Bush is far from the best president, but could you imagine how Gore or Kerry would have reacted to 9/11? They'd have us singing hands across America.. begging forgiveness for our mistakes.  \n\nDon't forget the opportunities Clinton had to nab Bin Laden and prevent the loss of life on 9/11.  Bush inherited this problem and protected us from further attacks (we'll never know).
109185
He is the WAR president, silly.  Now that just would not make good sense would it?  FLASH! to pn... where is the evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.  Were there any terrorists attacking the US from Iraq ? NO.\nAfter the US led invasion and occupation, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists from around the world - thanks to Bush.\nBut we caused that mess and created a political vacuum that is leading to a civil war.  Don't be a sheep and follow the sheeple that bleat 9/11 9/11 , terra terra terra. \nThey are largely uninformed and misled.
560411
I have tossed this one back and fourth for some time. I don't think our Government is responsible for the events of 9/11, but there are some holes in the official report. Those holes lead people to believe that this Government is covering things. We may never know in our lifetime what actually happened beyond the obvious, but I am 90% certain that we did not do this to ourselves.
357017
Larry Silverstein Purchased The WTC Within A Year Of The Attacks And 6 Months B4 The Attacks(9/11), He Insured The WTC Complex For A RECORD 7 BILLION $$(With A Clause In The Policy SPECIFICALLY Covering A TERRORIST ATTACK)\n\nWell.. Mr. Silverstein Recently Purchased The Sears Tower And A Short Time Ago, Insured It For ANOTHER RECORD(UnDisclosed)Amount....\n\nThe SECURITY For WTC Was Provided By (Get This) MARVIN BUSH\nA Brother To George W And Jeb(Which May Explain How The FOLLOWING May Have Occurred)\n\nIt Is Being Investigated That The Buildings Were RIGGED For CONTROLLED FALL( Which Would Have Taken MONTHS)\nIncluding Building #7 (Which Was NOT HIT BY A PLANE And Had Minimal Fire Damage)\nIt Has Been Stated By Structural Engineers(Independant Of The Hokey Investigation By The Bush Crime Family)That It WAS NOT POSSIBLE That WTC 1 and 2 COLLAPSED From The Impact Of The Planes That Hit Them\nThe REASON BLDG 7 Was Destroyed Was To Conceal The EVIDENCE That The Buildings Were Dropped From A Control Bunker In The Basement(Where The Technicians "Ignited The Fuses" So To Speak)\nIt Is VERY Difficult To PROVE As The EVIDENCE Of These Crimes ( THE DEBRIS FROM THE COLLAPSES)Were HURRIED AWAY TO CHINA For RECYCLING After The Disaster\nThe So Called TERRORISTS That Were SUPPOSEDLY Flying Those Planes (Mohammed Atta And His 19 Friends) Well..16 Of The 19 Are In Fact Proven ALIVE With The Other 3 UnAccounted For ,But Presumed ALIVE\nIt Has Been Speculated That The 2 Planes Tht Hit The Towers Were Remotely Operated By The Military With NOONE Aboard\nFlight 93 (The One That "CRASHED" In PA) Is In Fact STILL In Service\nAnd At This Time , There Is NO EVIDENCE That A Plane Crashed Into The Pentagon, Although Something(A US Tomahawk Missile???) Did Fly Into And Destroy A Portion Of It\n\nWhat Ive Told You Is In EVIDENCE In A Theory Behind The Trade Center Attack Being An INSIDE JOB ORCHESTRATED By The BUSH Crime Family , And BLAMED On TERRORISTS So That Bush Could ILLEGALLY Go To War(Without The Approval Of Congress)\n\nFor MORE On This See: Alex Jones At Ground Zero\n\nhttp://martiallaw911.info/video.htm......\n\nSee Also: Loose Change 2nd Edition (Google It)\n\nhttp://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives...\n\nhttp://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204...\n\nhttp://www.realestatejournal.com/propert...\n\nhttp://martiallaw911.info/video.htm...\n\nIMPEACH BUSH NOW
1014200
OBVIOUSLY, it's all clinton's fault. Bush couldn't POSSIBLY have fvcked anything up THIS bad, right? He's GAWD'S president, remember?
409526
Maybe but George bush is definite a terrorists
24932
I DON'T THINK SO\nBush was 24 hours stressing on his campaign WAR of Terror but wat he did was just created more Terrorrist in the middle east and Terror to all Christian countries making us feel unsafe.U won't know when the next time a building might be strike again like the 9/11 style
872424
Wake up people.  The World Trade Center was bombed for the first time when Bill Clinton was in office.  Were you born in 1999 or something?  We did absolutely nothing about that.  The USS Cole (watch your spelling, hdchackz) was bombed on Clinton's watch - we did nothing.  9/11 happened less than 8 months after Bush took the oath.  It was in the works long before that - during Clinton's watch.  Don't try and blame Bush for that one either.
265710
Bush is bad that's why. He is responsible for Hurricane Katrina, Global Warming, Tornado's, wild fires, GM and Ford cutbacks, Oil being so expensive, He is responsible for terrorism, if something is wrong we can always blame Bush.
687691
I do believe Bush and his people are behind the 9-11 attacks. Nothing out of the whole official explanation makes any sense at all. Its got more holes than a swiss cheese for christs sake. Cell phones on the plane? Where were the bodies from Pennsylvania? Etc Etc\n\nTwo of the planes are still flying around in broad fucking daylight and people are still believing the official lies. The level of denial in some people is just downright frightening.\n\n\npeace
428155
Personaly I beleive Bush could have prevented 9/11 if he could read. His advisers tried to tell him that there was an important Alqaida threat. But he didn't listen and he didn't read his important breifings.\n\nWhat a moron, but what's worse is all the morons that voted him back into office after all the stuff he didn't do right. He shoulda been impeached the first term.