He is accused of not doing anything to act against terrorism, yet:
1. He fired missiles at al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and was criticized by Republicans for only trying to distract from Monica
2. He destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that the CIA suspected to be processing VX nerve gas, and although that information is now debatable, how does this attempt at stopping deadly chemical attacks show that Clinton was soft on terror?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
3. The USS Cole bombing, the last al Qaeda attack before 9/11, was not determined to be al Qaeda's doing until AFTER Bush took office yet he did nothing until 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing#Consequences_and_after-effects
If you choose to ignore these facts and talk about how Clinton was "handed bin Laden on a silver platter but turned him down," you must provide the evidence for this ridiculous claim (and no, "Rush told me" doesn't count).
2007-11-21
09:12:43
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics