Opinion
 

Bush not to blame for country's problems

by Ryan Loyd

It seems to me that President Bush is being blamed for everything lately. I've been reading several articles and columns over the past weeks that seem to convey the message that Bush is responsible for many of the negative things in recent years.

The failing economy is always a hot topic, but anyone who understands economics knows Bush was not responsible for the latest recession. When you create an economy that overproduces, like Bill Clinton did, it is inevitable that a recession is going to occur in the near future. And if Bush was responsible for the downturn, why did the recession begin when Clinton was still in office?

But now Democrats are saying the Bush administration is almost directly responsible for 9/11. In recent hearings, Condoleeza Rice testified before a panel about the attacks. The panel brought up the fact that almost a month before the attacks, President Bush received a report telling him that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States within its own borders.

Well, big surprise. That seemed pretty obvious to me when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. I believe the investigation found ties to bin Laden and his organizations. So why don't the Democrats bring that up in the report? And how about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995? Granted, that act was committed by Timothy McVeigh, an American, but his attorney Steve Jones discovered that partial funding for the bomb used to destroy the federal building was contributed by an outside organization. And which organization was it, you ask? None other than that of bin Laden. These findings were never brought to light in court because McVeigh would not allow it. They were later disclosed in Jones' book Others Unknown.

The point is that the Clinton administration should have done something to stop the attacks as well. So I say we blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks. If they want to blame Bush, then I want to personally hold Clinton responsible. Even though Clinton did have the opportunity to take bin Laden into custody, he chose not to. Maybe if he had, 9/11 could have been avoided. So I say the FBI should arrest Clinton for terrorism, stupidity and messing up the economy. Sound absurd? Of course it does. Or does it?

Democrats, in all of their stupidity, fail to see the larger picture. Even if Bush did receive a report that told him an attack was imminent, it still did not tell him when or where. Believe it or not, terrorists are bad people and divulging information about future attacks is not something they tend to do. In that case, let's go ahead and blame Bush for all the domestic terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. Oh wait, that's right -- there haven't been any. It seems that all those Democrats seem to forget that Bush and his team have prevented any further attacks on us.

Personally, I think Bush is doing a great job, considering the circumstances. I can almost guarantee the same course of events would have taken place no matter who was in office. It's easy to blame the president for these heinous acts, but we must remember one thing: Terrorists are absolutely determined to harm others. It is very difficult to determine when and where these attacks will take place. Think what you will of Bush, but I am tired of everyone criticizing him. Most of it comes from the liberal media or, as I like to call it, "The Puppet of Ignorance."

One thing is for certain -- being president is a difficult job, and I think Bush is doing well. He will get my vote this year.

Loyd, an accounting sophomore, 
can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu.