2006-08-09 07:45:46 · 8 answers · asked by region50 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
i am not looking for someone to blame, that wont get us anywhere, maybe it's time to start thinking of sloutions instead of just bashing the presidents.
2006-08-09 07:52:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are some things that can properly be laid at Clinton's feet.
Failure to deter NKorea's nuclear ambitions. Heck he even gave them a nuclear plant! And Albright danced, DANCED!!!, with L'il Kimmie the troll. That's pathetic and inexcusable.
His failure to do anything regarding Osama and alQaeda, after several attacks. He actually decreased the military and intelligence budgets following the first WTC bombinb. Yes, decreased. Nor shall we forget the Jamie Gorelick change that prevented the CIA from sharing info with the FBI - info that might have led to investigations of the terror suspects who came into this country and then committed the heinous acts of 9/11.
His failure to do anything regarding Iraq. His awful military decision to attack in Somalia (then refusing the military's request for armor to do the job he gave them), then cut & run.
He had his failures, though so many people defend him and make excuses and rationalizations for his failures. No, he is far from being responsible for all the problems, or even many of the problems. But do not excuse him from problems he was instrumental in perpetuating.
2006-08-09 08:12:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Colonel David H. "Hack" Hackworth, with 8 Purple Hearts, 10 Silver Stars, and the Distinguished Service Cross, didn't have much use for Clinton, according to his book "Hazardous Duty". Hackworth can't comment anymore. He's buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
2006-08-09 07:59:17 · answer #3 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So terrorism is in basic terms a concern for Republicans , if that's genuine then why can we could continually save listening to from the left, on your international Muslim enthusiasts do no longer prefer to reason you injury so curiously like this could be your dream come genuine, an Allie on your conflict for skill. Do you think of they ask what political social gathering you belong to formerly they decrease off your head?
2016-11-04 05:27:11 · answer #4 · answered by shuey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would actually perfer to be called a Republican, if you don't mind. I think Former President Clinton played a roll in what has happened, by not doing enough about terrorism while he was in office. However, acknowledging that he did little while he was in office, except play at being president, it's understandable. Thank You.
2006-08-09 07:53:08 · answer #5 · answered by rosi l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not neocons, just intelligent thinking people. By the way you left out Gore, Albright, Reno, etc...
2006-08-09 07:50:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would answer you, but I'm not a neocon.
2006-08-09 07:49:19 · answer #7 · answered by obviously_you'renotagolfer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not only him, but he have his part, for sure...
Investigate yourself, you will understand that Clinton, or Bush, or Kerry, it's all the same, and the treat is bigger than we thought..
2006-08-09 07:52:23 · answer #8 · answered by The Patriot 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋