English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush walks around holding hands with Osamas brother Abdulla right here on this site http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/04/26/monitoring_bush_i_wanna_hold_your_hand.php
Now how does that have anything to do with Clinton 14 years later? Where is Bush's Osama Bin Laden Americas #1 terrorist at Bush's house at the ranch? Is Bush holding hands with him too, since he isn't looking for him at all?

2006-07-27 16:47:29 · 20 answers · asked by Jenny_is_Hot 6 in Politics & Government Politics

From the rediculous answers that the neocons posted up is the reason why all of their leaders are being indicted and going to jail. The Democrats are going to take Congress ib November and America is at war with two Countries and have 10 others hating America. You carry the mentallity of prisoners at San Quentin prison. Not too bright!

2006-07-28 04:55:41 · update #1

20 answers

It is just another repuke answer that they get from faux news. In no way is it Clinton's fault. Bush was fully informed of Bin Laden when he took office and had a full 8 months to do something about him. He still has not caught him, I wonder how they blame Clinton for Bin Laden still not being caught after 6 years.

2006-07-27 16:54:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 12 4

Osama is a main priority. The reason why people are pointing fingers at Clinton, is because they blame him for not keeping an eye on the terrorist activities that Osama was funding. During the 6 years of Osama's rise to terrorism, the CIA at the time of the Clinton administration was not obscuring details of all activities linked to Osama. Many threats from Osama proved to go blank and the times when he was successful the role was much more: "Clean up the mess" versus "Lets attack back". Unfortunately, Osama was planning something much bigger than embassy bombings and progressed to the 9/11 mess.

Personally, I doan understand why people blame Clinton. From what I remember, Clinton's administration took good care of the terrorist activites. There were no attacks on American shores. People blame Clinton for being soft, but I think it was a wonderful job enforcing peace while taking care of things when bad things did happen. For example: Kosovo, Oklahoma bombings, Columbine. . .

The administration then did things right, and now it seems like weve rushed into a war for no reason. Its foolhardy to think that Clinton did a bad job of keeping terrorists at bay.

2006-07-28 00:03:28 · answer #2 · answered by indiantrumpet 4 · 0 0

Tell that to the Americans in Afghanistan.

It's a matter of perspective. When Clinton was in power, Bin Laden was far more dangerous than he is now. I haven't heard Bush say that Laden is not a priority, but i'm sure you're taking it out of context.

Also, Bin Laden's family has publicly and financially disowned him. Sort of like your parents.

2006-07-28 10:35:35 · answer #3 · answered by smutulator 1 · 0 0

Its hard to speak to decency or morality after the likes of an ***-clown such as Clinton has stained the office of the presidency. It must be impossible to try and convince others that our freedom and way of life is cherished when our own president didn't even blink while lying under oath. In short he was the best they had to offer...."don't tell Barney Franks" our nation became the laughing stock of the planet! Hey, lets vote for a weak enabling side-show 1st lady this time around...maybe Bill can strike up a conversation about 72 virgins... and sprinkle poison in osamas grits!

2006-07-28 00:19:47 · answer #4 · answered by mitchskram 3 · 0 0

Bush was formally warned about Bin Laden and had 8 months to do something and did nothing . . . Haha! What a joke and 8 years wasn't enough. Of course thinking about it, I don't know if that is quite as funny as saying that Abdulla is Osama's brother!?! Oh wow, you guys are great.

I added a little photo of my own for you too. I have never called anyone a "troll" before, but now I know what it means and who they are talking about.

************************
Someone like you should never question other people's "brightness" when you can't spell or speak correctly.

2006-07-28 00:07:56 · answer #5 · answered by Donut44 3 · 0 0

It seems alot of people forget that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. W is a straight up a**clown.

Have you ever heard W's quote on Osama..."I don't know where he is. I don't give it alot of thought.'?

This country is in sad shape because of the lemmings that put the current administration in power. I think alot of people like to say they are Republican because the right wing spin doctors have made the GOP look like a party of privledge. And who doesn't want to be with 'the cool kids'.? But what most people don't realize is that they are voting against their own self interest out of ignorance.

I don't know. I can't be blamed. I didn't vote for that clown W either time. Lol. But I wouldn't have mattered anyway. He stole both elections. He didn't need my vote.

2006-07-28 00:57:12 · answer #6 · answered by CORSO 2 · 0 0

Seriously, get off the net, you are just too ignorant to be asking questions on here, do you realize how stupid you make yourself look??

Bush has been cleaning up Clintons mess for years!! Osamas first terrorist attack on the towers was in 1993, shortly after that, an American Embassy in Africa was blown up in Africa, then after that the USS COLE, (NAVAL SHIP) was blown up, killing many. All these were during Clintons term, did he do anything about it????????? NO! He was a coward, he was afraid to get anyone mad for sending our Military out to do their jobs!!

9/11 goes down, and we fight for FREEDOM, and attempt to get the rat who is behind it..... and you people still have so much to say..... Bush this, Bush that.

Had Clinton done his Presidential duty back then, we wouldnt be in this mess,,,

2006-07-27 23:56:38 · answer #7 · answered by Katz 6 · 0 0

That is Osama's brother? Girl, where do you get your information? If these sites you post links to are any indication, its no wonder you are confused. And who mentioned Clinton and bin Laden?
You are taking Bush's comments out of context...bin Laden is so weakened now...oh nevermind.

2006-07-27 23:52:26 · answer #8 · answered by loubean 5 · 0 0

If Clinton was a man he would have gone after Bin Laden after the world trade center was bombed the first time.

2006-07-28 00:10:58 · answer #9 · answered by cashcobra_99 5 · 0 0

you read Hillary's book of lies, this book will prove how bad she detests the Military, along with B. Clinton and VP Al Gore was even worse than I ever thought, these people have no right to be in public office. They sold this country to the highest DNC payoffs. It's sickening to think they are building a memorial to Clinton, his "library of shame"! "The Library of LIES." I saw the book review and presentation by Mr. Patterson on TV, he was frank, honest, sincere and a true patriot to this nation. He went on to tell how the White House was in complete disarray for 8 years; impeachment in my mind was too good for these arrogant nepotists. Hope the populace of New York State and New York City can read this book before they vote; should be required reading for all Democrats and GOP before they vote

2006-07-27 23:50:34 · answer #10 · answered by Heroic Liberal 1 · 0 0

Hey don’t forget about this guy, http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1180000/images/_1184118_roger_ap150.jpg. It’s Roger Clinton. He shares the same mother as Bill. This must mean that Bill is a cocaine addict too.

Your logic is flawed. Action is 100% what matters. If Usama wasn’t a priority then he wouldn’t be #1 on this list: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm. This means that more resources are put towards capturing this man than any other terrorist, rapist, or murderer in the world.

2006-07-28 00:01:15 · answer #11 · answered by Thomas the Tank 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers