Can I get a straight answer?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkR58JaLFZ3CBXuDRl16se3sy6IX?qid=20060809190745AAELly2

Concerning the question above, I got barely any straight answers. Out of the 5 that answered, I recieved only 1 well thought out answer. Outside of that, I recieved a conspiracy theorist's website, a personal insult that answered nothing at all, a run of the mill "Clinton screwed up, so Bush can to," and a short answer that despite somewhat truth, doesn't hold the evidence and research that can shame the blind followers of the Bush Administration, so it's basically an empty "Bush sucks" statement.

Please, help me understand. Unlike many people on here, I actually care to hear from the other sides. I'm all ears, explain to me, highlight explain, why Bush should be held accountable, or why he shouldn't, and why "Clinton didn't, so why should he" is a logical excuse.

Answer 1

Probably not. But don't let that stop you from trying.

Bush should be held accountable for what he has personally done, and what he has personally ordered. Not for the side-effects that are the result of a decade or three of mismanagement.

Bush should be held accountable for what he has personally done. And what he has done is betray his oath of office.

Bush betrayed his oath of office to support and defend the constitution, by deliberately ignoring constitutional requirements and by calling the Constitution "just a g*d*mn piece of paper".

He betrayed his oath of office to ensure that the laws of this country are faithfully executed, by ordering illegal warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA and 18 USC § 2511, and ordering the commission of war crimes in violation of 18 USC § 2441 (federal laws).

He betrayed his oath of office, by actions that he has publicly admitted, and by actions acknowledged by the US Supreme Court.

So, regardless of what anyone before him or beside him or beneath him has done, he should be held accountable for what he personally has done. And betrayal of their oath of office by an elected federal official is treason, punishable by Impeachment.

Answer 2

I read the other question. The reason you are not getting straight answers is because you dont know your facts. When you present false premises, people react that way.

The terrorist that did the bombings during the clinton admin. were caught, went through a trial, and sentenced.

Bush is held accountable because the buck stops at the top of the ladder. There is also an enormous amount of evidence right now that points to 911 being a setup by our own government so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could have this war.

The reason they needed a BIG war is because during wartime, a president gets enormous amount of power given to him. During war, a president can literally ignore any other law. IE, Bush has a presidential record of close to 800 executive orders.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Taliban offerred to give Laden to Bush right after 911 but Bush said no. That was on The Newshour show in late sept 2001.

Also Bush has lied to the american people and to congress which is grounds for full impeachment. This has been proven already but the congress wont do anything. There are about 20 people who have testified they either told him themself or heard someone tell bush the truth about WMDS before he invading iraq. I saw this on Frontline. One of their shows called The Dark Side. and those witnesses are not joke people. They are people from Bush's own administration.

Answer 3

Clinton, by his own admission, had two opportunities to take Bin Laden into custody as offered by Sudan. He did nothing.
We were in Afghanistan before we went to Iraq which is where Osama is believed to be. He is difficult to find because of the terrain and the proximity to the Pakistan border.
Last I heard, Saudi Arabia just caught some terrorists so they are attempting to rid themselves of the terrorist scourge.
I'm not going to be an apologist for the Bush administration because I think they could be doing a lot more here to make us secure, but I'm glad we took the fight to them and not let them come here to terrorize us more.
The Iraq problem was not due to 9/11. It had everything to do with their weapons of mass destruction (which they had at one time- the U.N. and the world believed it and so do I- the weapons are probably in Syria now). Saddam ignored 14 U.N. resolutions to stop his pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was either 14 more ineffectual resolutions or run the risk of Saddam getting nukes and hitting the U.S. in a year or two.
I'm not sure what you mean regarding Bush's non-reaction to 9/11. If there was a non-reaction there wouldn't be troops in Afghanistan or a Homeland Security Dept.
Hope this helps and have a great day!

Answer 4

That is not an excuse. 9/11 had not occurred when Clinton was president, and the person responsible for the US Cole was assassinated.

Why shouldn't we blame Reagan? The Marine Barracks bombing in 1982 killed 242 and was the 2nd biggest terrorist incident in the world. Reagan did nothing but cut and run!

Bush will be held accountable after he is out of office! Her will be charged for war crimes and tried in the World Court!

HIS invasion of Iraq was illegal, and he gave the order and made the plans!

And he is really concerned about terrorism!

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
—Bush, answering a question about Osama bin Laden at a March 13, 2002 news conference.

Answer 5

The only thing I see Bush responsible for is sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't have any problem with the US attacking those countries, as it was justified. However, why do US troop need to be on the ground acting as policemen to help these countries rebuild. The military is for fighting not acting as diplomats to form new governments. The US should just bomb them and when they begin to regroup, bomb them again. This way we keep the enemy at bay and we don't waste American lives and money.

In this respect Bush made the wrong choice. We now have a tremendous deficit and many Americans have died and lost limbs needlessly. These Muslim radicals dislike us and Bush continues to believe the fantasy we can change their minds.

Answer 6

People look for convenient scapegoats.. I didn't like Bill Clinton although I voted for him in 1992 ( was young and dumb). I believe the "leftists" in this country are seeking retribution for the 2000 election. Where the electoral college results decided the election. If the roles were reversed the republicans would have been pissed but would have accepted it a bit better. I think the leftists see the WMD's in iraq as their golden key. (they claim he lied, a felonious act while acting as president) I think personally the weapons were moved to Syria in the run up the invasion, and we will likely see NBC weapons used in haifa or tele aviv in the not to distant future.

With the heightened alert start here and abroad, I am damned glad someone with a bit of a spine is in the oval office. The left hate it that a cowboy is in the office and it's not LBJ. (although Bush's domestic agendas are very liberal ) too much so in my book.

Answer 7

I don't know if Bush should be held accountable for 9/11; however if we do not have investigation in these issues our elected government officials can get away with anything. Holding Bush accountable for 9/11 would be the hardest thing in world to do. I would rather have investigations on going into Iraq, I believe that we could hold him accountable for that. I don't think I need to go into details of why he should be investigated for Iraq so I'm not however if you would like me too then write back and I will go into it with you.

Answer 8

Here is your straight answer.

Bush should be held accountable for the war in Iraq. The US entered this war on "flawed" intelligence. There are many who would argue that the intelligence wasn't flawed, it was spun. But in any case, the final decision was Bush's. Many civilians have died in this conflict and the death toll is large enough that it falls into the realm of crimes against humanity.

US and Saudi Arabia are on good terms. Most of the terrorists of 9/11 were Saudi. US didn't attack Saudi Arabia to get the Saudi based terrorists. They attacked Iraq. Not to stop terrorism, but to gain an important ally in the Middle East. By toppling Saddam Hussein and then implanting a government, voila, instant buddies.

Bush should be held accountable for the lies he told that lead to war. He should be charged with war crimes.

Answer 9

It actually started with Bush's father . Clinton was caught in between trying to diffuse the anger spread accross the world by the first Bush. no one really had to vote for Bush Jr. they were going to make sure he got in office to finish the work the first Bush started. in actuality both Bush's should be held accountable for planting the seed for WW3 . Now we have more enemies than ever due to using the sword instead of the pen. diplomacy works but we have to stop fighting first.

Answer 10

Your question doesn't make sense to me. you are indicating that Bush is not being held accountable for doing nothing about Osama, etc., yet the constant complaint from liberals is that he is doing too much. Osama and other thugs exists because he is supported by terrorists nations and regimes. Afghanistan was the primary supporter and harboror of al quida and their government was destroyed by Bush and a new nation is being built. Saddam's involvement financially, etc is not as clear but it is clear that his hatred of the US and his vocal support of terrorists and constant threats were emboldening terrorists activity, not to mention strengthening the threat directly from Iraq. During the nineties Democratic congressman and Clinton himself stated that Osama needed to be disarmed and/or removed. After 9/11 Bush is actually doing something about it and liberals complain he is doing too much.
So my question to you would be, "what exactly do you want Bush held accountable for?". For doing too much, as most liberals contend, or for not doing enough as you state, possibly because we have not yet found Osama's rotting corpse, which we will.

Answer 11

The problem is that you want a reasoned answer to a questuion that is volatile at best.

He should be held accountable for his actions surrounding the invasion of Iraq, as the information was either false or made up and he played fast and loose with the evidence.

It also seems that he was in collusion with Halliburton to line the pocket of that company (to which the VP still has ties).

That's a start.