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

After all the attacks he did when Bill was in office, he could of had him but ohh noo---Bill had other things to do , Monica..Thanks for 9-11 Clinton family

2006-08-02 13:53:24 · 16 answers · asked by Simms 2 in Politics & Government Politics

16 answers

I really don't know why but it sure would have been nice. We wouldn't be having this war in Iraq right now. All of the things that are going on wouldn't be now. There would be a lot more soldiers alive and the World Trade Centers would still be standing. That is a question someone should answer for. He still should be held responsible for that one.

2006-08-02 14:00:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Unlike Bush, the Clinton Administration had a active anti-terrorism policy. Remember the first WTC bombing happened less then a month after he took office. He didn't blame it on Pappy bush, he went after,caught and prosecuted the ones responsible. They are now sitting in prison. He caught and prosecuted the perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack in the US at the time too. The Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh was found guilty and executed. Remember the Millennium bomber...he was caught before he could execute his plan. Clinton twice used cruise missiles to get against terrorist targets.. One was a chemical factory in Sudan and the other was a training camp in Afghanistan. Both times the right cried "wag the dog". Then there was the offer from the Sudanese government to hand him over. It was fake, the papers that were produced as proof were signed by a general that had been dead for 10 years. When Clinton left office he told Bush that Bin Laden should be his number one priority. Everyone in the Bush Administration was briefed about bin-Laden. Cheney was put in charge of the Anti-Terrorism Task Force, but it didn't meet till after 9/11. There is on important fact to remember.....9/11 happened on BUSH'S WATCH!!!!

2006-08-02 14:52:13 · answer #2 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 0 0

Bill Clinton didn't get Osama when he had the chance because he was too busy getting a ******** and giving up government secretes too the Chinese and and North Koreans.....

Beside the liberal democrat doesn't do anything with out consulting the polls.... and the polls only told him to get another cigar from his cigar box, stay at his desk and keep a smile on his face, and act like he is trying too do something about Osama...

So that is what he did he got another cigar from his box stayed at his desk and made a joke of an attempt too get Osama.

2006-08-02 15:49:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The fool that calls himself smarter than you is dumber than a stump. actually invoice Clinton changed into given the probability to seize Osama bin laden on 3 diverse events. i comprehend that really a kind of circumstances the probability outweighed the benefits and that i believe that changed into because he changed into at some fairly tremendous social adventure. there changed into no excuse as to why Clinton did not take advantage of the different circumstances in which countries actually were waiting accessible bin laden over on a silver platter. there have been rumors in 2006 that bin laden changed into useless. He changed into idea to have kidney failure and the traditional man or woman in easy words lives 5 years and ought to go by ability of dialysis remedies 2 or better circumstances a week. If no longer then you are useless in a count number of 10 to fourteen days. some human beings assert that bin laden died in December 2001 yet that lack of life changed into hidden from the typical public and that if a difficulty arose, it may be claimed that they stuck and killed him. Oddly sufficient they say that bin Ladens body changed into dumped into the sea the position no you probably can be able to do an post-mortem. @Jewkid Muslimkid ok so tell me what exceeded off even as the international commerce center changed into bombed in 1993? Bush wasn't in workplace so changed into this so talked about as interior interest one which retains from decrease back then. go take your medicine, only be certain to ask mommy even if it truly is time for them. enable her study your posts and she or he will be able to provide you a double dose.

2016-11-27 21:58:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good question. I was wondering they same. 9/11 probably would not of happened if Bill the terrorist lover clinton went after Osama Bin Hidin

2006-08-02 13:59:05 · answer #5 · answered by Ah Ha 3 · 0 0

Of course you could ask why did Ronald Regan create Osama to begin with.

Bin Laden was a nobody untill Regan gave him arms and money to fight the Russians in Afganistan. How come no one is blaming him?

2006-08-02 14:34:25 · answer #6 · answered by arvis3 4 · 0 0

Why didnt Bush accept the Taliban's offer on Sept 18&19th, 2001 to hand over B.Laden?

2006-08-02 14:00:25 · answer #7 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0 0

You are saying that 9/11 happened during the clinton adminstration.
clinton stoped being president in 2000.

If i am not mistaken, there was another president on watch when the tradgedy hit.

if i am not mistaken there is a president right now who wants credit for not being hit since but none of the credit for getting hit. does that make sense to you, it doesn't for me.

Clinton wasn't on vacation the summer of 01 when the PDB came in. or never once meet with his counter terrorism unit.

wait Clinton wasn't president it doenst fu#ken matter if he was

hell if you want to go into your little time machine, why not go back and blame regan for traing and arming his asss in the first place.
####################################
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/drumheller.html

When I came home that summer, I ran into a very close friend of mine who was working at the CTC at the time. He said, "Something terrible is going to happen," and he just can't get anybody to focus on it. He said, "Tenet's been talking to the White House."

Then, by the end of July, he said, "It seems to have gone away." Then in early August, they did the PDB [President's Daily Brief] piece for the president on that. But there was a sense. I saw it in [Deputy Director of Operations James] Pavitt; I saw it in Tenet; I saw it in my friend -- [then-CTC Director] Cofer Black's a very close friend of mine. I saw it in all these guys, that they were desperately trying to get the people to focus on this. This was a real threat.

It wasn't that people were blasé about it. It's just that the new administration had a million different things, and this wasn't what they were -- it just didn't seem to be resonating.
#####################################
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/clarke.html

That's right. By the time we'd eventually had a meeting on terrorism, in the late February, early March timeframe -- I don't think the vice president was at it, but Paul Wolfowitz was representing the Defense Department, and Wolfowitz started saying, "Well, if you want to talk about terrorism, fine; let's talk about Iraq, not Al Qaeda," to which my reaction was, "Why Iraq?" Iraq, as far as we know, has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism directed against the United States, and hasn't since late 1992, early 1993.

This is the time when Wolfowitz spouted that "All of what you say is Al Qaeda must actually be state-sponsored, because no terrorist organization could do that without a nation helping them. And the nation must be Iraq, and we know this from reading the writings of this woman, Laurie Mylroie," whom we had known about and checked out several times. She kept writing things that essentially said Iraq was behind the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Despite all of the facts being the opposite, she continued to say this.

Here was the number two person in the Pentagon saying that he agreed with her and disagreed with CIA, with FBI, disagreed with all the massive evidence that Al Qaeda had attacked the World Trade Center in '93, not Iraq. Why anybody as sophisticated as a Wolfowitz or the others would attach themselves to that sort of stuff, I didn't know.

,,,,

There's a point at which multiple visits by a senior official from the White House -- when he's telling you what he believes over and over and over again, and he's not dissuaded by the evidence that you have to the contrary, and [it's] coming in the context of a public discussion about Iraq -- there's a point at which [it] crosses the line. And you, as an intelligence analyst at CIA, are now thinking, they want me to say X. Whether or not it's true, they want me to say X.

###################################

With regards to Clinton
this dispells the myth of Sudan offer
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408120011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008



.

2006-08-02 16:48:16 · answer #8 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 1

GEORGE BUSH AND RONALD REAGAN gave money, arms, and training to Bin Laden and his boys in the 1980's

At the same time they gave money, arms to Saddam Hussein.

Then Reagan Gave money and arms to Iran.

HEY NEO-CONS, is there any other enemies of ours you have supported.

It all stems from George H.W Bush and Reagan. Thanks guys.

2006-08-02 13:59:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It was after the fact. That they say say he was involved in 911. Who are they to say ??

2006-08-02 14:02:30 · answer #10 · answered by TT Bomb 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers