9/11/2001 vs. 9/11/2012

[carlfense]

The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.

 

That’s what Republicans are arguing in 2012. Which is pretty funny, if you don’t count the dead Americans, because it’s the opposite of what the GOP said 10 years ago.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/10/blame_obama_for_the_libya_consulate_attack_but_don_t_blame_bush_for_9_11.single.html

[Army Husker]

Can't say I see a glaring similarity between the 2 attacks.

 

One involved at least 2 presidential administrations (depending on where you believe 9-11-01 could have been prevented) and several failed organizations (CIA, State Dept and FBI for starters).

 

Can't say where the point of failure occurred in the recent event...if I had a guess, I would say outsourcing embassy security, which isn't an uncommon thing these days. No proof on that, just a hunch.

 

 

After reading the article, I summed it up as nothing but an election year counter by the left to an election year accusation by the right.

[JJ Husker]

Carl- Surely you can't think these two 9-11's have anything in common except the date. The first one took us by surprise. Sure we had indications that Al Queda wanted to attack us and people were trying to track these threats behind the scenes. But the way it played out simply was never imagined as possible. Fast forward eleven years. We know better now. We understand their desire to cause us harm and to do it on key anniversary dates. I have no equivocation in not blaming Bush for the original but, this most recent attack against Americans, should have had a much better chance of being allowed for and somebody does need to be held accountable. Basically, fool me once-shame on you. Fool me twice-shame on me.

 

It does appear that the administration is quite willing to throw Hillary under the bus. She is claiming that ahe is responsible, but pointing the finger at security "experts". I guess that is how these dems take responsibility. Maybe I'm crazy but I thought the President of the United States was ultimately responsible for the safety and security of Americans at home and abroad at our embassies. Doesn't the President get daily threat assessments from NSA? Who in the chain failed to pass on heightened security requests? How far did those requests travel up the chain? Who is ultimately responsible for that chain? Clue- it isn't Hillary Clinton. So, it does make a person curious why she is now claiming SHE is responsible, all the while blaming underling security experts. Hey, maybe it couldn't have been foreseen or prevented but it sure doesn't seem that is where this is headed. Irregardless, the two 9-11's are totally different. Unless you don't feel we should learn as we go.

[carlfense]

Carl- Surely you can't think these two 9-11's have anything in common except the date. The first one took us by surprise. Sure we had indications that Al Queda wanted to attack us and people were trying to track these threats behind the scenes. But the way it played out simply was never imagined as possible. Fast forward eleven years. We know better now. We understand their desire to cause us harm and to do it on key anniversary dates. I have no equivocation in not blaming Bush for the original but, this most recent attack against Americans, should have had a much better chance of being allowed for and somebody does need to be held accountable. Basically, fool me once-shame on you. Fool me twice-shame on me.

 

It does appear that the administration is quite willing to throw Hillary under the bus. She is claiming that ahe is responsible, but pointing the finger at security "experts". I guess that is how these dems take responsibility. Maybe I'm crazy but I thought the President of the United States was ultimately responsible for the safety and security of Americans at home and abroad at our embassies. Doesn't the President get daily threat assessments from NSA? Who in the chain failed to pass on heightened security requests? How far did those requests travel up the chain? Who is ultimately responsible for that chain? Clue- it isn't Hillary Clinton. So, it does make a person curious why she is now claiming SHE is responsible, all the while blaming underling security experts. Hey, maybe it couldn't have been foreseen or prevented but it sure doesn't seem that is where this is headed. Irregardless, the two 9-11's are totally different. Unless you don't feel we should learn as we go.

Take a step back and look at your accusations. How many of those are equally as or more applicable to 9/11/2001? Read these accusations again: are they not representative of both?

 

The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.

I remember 2001. I remember the GOP response to the claims of a cover up (mostly because I was one of those reciting them). If you question the president you're unpatriotic.

 

(Also, not intended as a slight, but I think you mean "regardless.")

[Nebula]

Posted before I was done. Will finish and post. It's...very cynical. A honest reflection of how I feel about our government, back to Delay and reaching into Reid and Pelosi, and both Presidents to occupy office since 2001, as well as who they have around them. (More relative to Bush...but not completely.)

[JJ Husker]

Yeah, regardless is better. For some reason I have come to use those words interchangebly even though I realize they are not.

 

I agree to a certain extent that there is a bit of unfairness or hypocritism (is that a word?) in the two issues. If Obama now is to be held accountable for American safety, then Bush also need be held accountable. So, in using your example, yes it is not consistent to claim it is unpatriotic in the case of Bush while at the same time lambasting Obama for it. But, I do feel the exact situational differences are enough to expect a better response in 2012. Much of the 2001 attack can be fairly written off as being extremely hard to anticipate. I would like to think we are now much more keen to the Al Queda situation today. However, I was not one to say it was unpatriotic . I do feel it was not productive. As an analogy, I'll use the theatre massacre in Denver. It is ludicrous to think that Cinemark should have had heightened security at a movie theatre. We simply had not experienced anything of that magnitude before. That probably is not a good analogy however because I still would not expect a theatre chain to be able to prevent something like that again. I do expect it of my government though especially since it looks like requests for additional security were made and the obvious expectation of being extra vigilant on a day such as September 11th of any year following 2001.

[Ziggy]

3 years difference. Bush was in his first 9 months on the job. Obama was on his 45th. The second attack happened on the anniversary of the original 9/11 which should have been a major reason to increase security at all US interests around the world. Especially in hot spot areas such as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

[knapplc]

I spent years defending Bush II over the inane allegations about 9/11. I'm not doing that with Obama. You people want to believe that Obama should have stopped this attack? Knock yourselves out. I'm weary of these nonsense conspiracy theories.

[walksalone]

Our intel community sh*t the bed on both points. Thats it.

[sd'sker]

Our intel community sh*t the bed on both points. Thats it.

well said. but i can not imagine the stress of protecting americans abroad and at home from terrorists.

[Ziggy]

I don't know if anyone could have stopped Libya from happening, but an increased security force should have helped. I mostly have a problem with how it was handled after it happened, then the fact it happened in the first place.

[carlfense]

3 years difference. Bush was in his first 9 months on the job. Obama was on his 45th. The second attack happened on the anniversary of the original 9/11 which should have been a major reason to increase security at all US interests around the world. Especially in hot spot areas such as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

More importantly, President Obama has a (D) after his name.

[walksalone]

Our intel community sh*t the bed on both points. Thats it.

well said. but i can not imagine the stress of protecting americans abroad and at home from terrorists.

 

That has to be a tremendous strain on our resources. I wonder if thats why I saw Private Security guys in one of the pictures, and not Marines.

 

I've said though, there are plenty of places, we have no business being in. Libya, the middle east in general, happens to be one of those regions...

[JJ Husker]

3 years difference. Bush was in his first 9 months on the job. Obama was on his 45th. The second attack happened on the anniversary of the original 9/11 which should have been a major reason to increase security at all US interests around the world. Especially in hot spot areas such as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

More importantly, President Obama has a (D) after his name.

 

So you guys ever tire of playing that card? Oh look, someone disagrees, must be a partisan hack. It really does reduce your credibility when you have that as your fall back position. Once you accept there really are some fundamental differences in how people think and perceive these things, maybe then you'll give up the playground name calling tactic. Also, it is a rational fact that many of these predispositions have roots in party ideology. It shouldn't surprise anyone that a right leaning person prefers right leaning ideas so you can drop the charade that it's as simple as a letter behind a name. It is a much deeper issue than that.

[carlfense]

So you guys ever tire of playing that card? Oh look, someone disagrees, must be a partisan hack. It really does reduce your credibility when you have that as your fall back position. Once you accept there really are some fundamental differences in how people think and perceive these things, maybe then you'll give up the playground name calling tactic. Also, it is a rational fact that many of these predispositions have roots in party ideology. It shouldn't surprise anyone that a right leaning person prefers right leaning ideas so you can drop the charade that it's as simple as a letter behind a name. It is a much deeper issue than that.

Who was name calling?

 

The problem with your theory is that when Obama has embraced GOP positions the Republican party has decried them as terrible and many here mindlessly followed the party line. That is not a difference of perception. You need look no further than people who absolutely loathe Obama because of Obamacare and post here about why they are voting for Mitt Romney.

 

In that way, you're right. It is a deep issue.