They couldn't do it before, why would they be any better now?
1993 - World Trade Center bombing
1998 - U.S. embassy bombing
2000 - USS Cole bombing
All these were during Clinton. Only 1 attack since Bush took office, and it was early in his 1st term:
2001 - Sept. 11 attack
Who's done a better job at defending against terrorists?
2006-09-01 06:54:17 · 17 answers · asked by Mutt 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Heck, slick Willy had Osama offered to him, but he turned the chance down.Thus the reason for 9-11.All Dems care about are poll numbers.Doing what is right for the better of our country isnt on their agenda.
2006-09-01 06:58:48 · answer #1 · answered by itsallover 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋
God, I hate handing this out with ten hours to go on a holiday Friday night before the zombies even get drunk and come out, but we have a winner.
Congratulations on winning the much-coveted Stupidest Question of the Day Contest!
Prizes include a gift certificate from Dr. Kevorkian, an autographed deepest sympathy card from such brainiacs as Paris Hilton and Larry the Cable Guy, and the New World Order's latest book, "How To Be A Speedbump."
If 9/11 had happened under Al Gore, would you be here this minute saying, "How can you blame the guy? It was only eight months into his first term, and he was on the third week of his vacation and he came back a week early even, for godsakes! What more do you expect?"
But then, if Al Gore had won, nobody would have attacked us. He's not much, but he's a little smarter than that chest-thumping Ape we've been stuck with.
Here's that shortbus imbecile's idea of ending terror:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Brilliant strategy! Thanks, Napoleon!
Compare that to how we've felt ever since 9/11 and imagine how extremely p!ssed you'd be now if you were already a psycho terrorist and that p!ssed off three years ago.
Darwin was wrong. Chimps are smarter.
2006-09-01 07:22:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
9/11 might have been carried out during the Bush administration (9 month after he was in office) but it was being rehearsed and prepared during the Clinton administration. Having said that I do not blame any of those attacks on Clinton nor Bush. I blame them on the hateful Islamic fanatics that carried them out and those who supported them. No matter how good you are, if somebody wants to get you bad enough, eventually they will succeed at least to some extent.
2006-09-01 07:09:41 · answer #3 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let's see. Go after them in Afghanistan (good move), then leave the job half done, take most of the resources and manufacture a reason to invade a country because they're itchin' to. Now it's a magnet and training ground for terrorists and extremists.
Bad move that has weakened us militarily, enriched the rich and devasted the middle and lower class American economically.
Afghanistan has a thriving opium trade, a weak government, the feudal lords are really in charge, women's rights are being turned back and Islamic law is threatening, once again, to dominate the country.
Seems the conservatives haven't done so well afterall.
2006-09-01 07:08:38 · answer #4 · answered by Skeff 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, they can't.....They do; however, do a great job of defending terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, pedophiles, and "other freaks of nature," against the good law-abiding citizens of the world. Why do you ask!?
Incidentally, you didn't mention PAN AM aircraft blown up over Lockerbee, Scotland, or American Airline aircraft blown up over Long Island, NY, (Some, like myself believe to have been covered up) also during Clinton's "reign of scarerror."
2006-09-01 07:03:32 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. US of A, Baby! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The republicans and conservatives, of course. Living in San Francisco is very tough because the liberals and democrats always protest against the US due to our protecting the citizens and our land. They protest the weirdest things like Lebanon, Iraq, Child Labor Rights in 3rd world countries (they have to work at a young age because the parents are working as well and their salaries are not enough), and the protestors are not even from those countries or have any stake in what is going on. Just liberals and democrats starting trouble and sticking up for terrorists and countries that can't even wipe their own as*es.
2006-09-01 06:59:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
definite, yet they are not even sturdy at that using fact we are gaining wisdom of greater approximately political welfare than they ever wanted us to be responsive to. to boot, the reality that the republicans in congress have postponed each and every thing else just to attempt and to respire life into those 3 subject concerns hasn't long previous omitted. The IRS difficulty isn't a criminal offense and since the tea celebration is taken under consideration one of those repulsive group no person is going to sense any sympathy for them or electorate United. There are a finished of 370 businesses who're politically tax exempt and shielded from any IRS audits using fact they don't desire to bare the source of their darkish money. Out of the 370, 70 of those are tea celebration and that's lots for purely one enterprise. This AP element is going to explode of their faces using fact it involves nationwide protection. Obama desires to enact the Federal take care of regulation which will defend A/P who're think to checklist the real data to the yank human beings. I see this as a sturdy element however the nice and cozy button is that nationwide protection is paramount and supersedes each and every thing else. honestly, there at the instant are not any protections to every physique in the worldwide, regardless of the guidelines on the books, while it involves government leaks or nationwide protection - wisely. The Republicans are making electorate indignant using fact they keep filibustering the jobs invoice and we now be responsive to that Boehner decrease the protection investment for US embassies via 3 hundred million money throughout the time of a time of conflict. The Conservatives only hate the reality that our first Black president has finished so nicely and thinking the mess Bush, and Cheney, left him this is a miracle. i think of this has blinded them to the reality that what they're doing is making them look like idiots. to boot, Hillary has shown she has what it takes to develop into the subsequent president so as that they mandatory to locate a reason to pass after her.
2016-10-01 04:30:34 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would Bill Clinton turn down the option of having Osama YoMama's head on a plate when he was president?
Nuts, Dubya would've taken that option in a heartbeat.
2006-09-01 06:59:49 · answer #8 · answered by chrstnwrtr 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well seing that the republicans have been the ruling party even before 9/11(yes they were in control of the house and senate so dont blame all of it on Bill Clinton) no of the rotten-bastards have done crap! Thow all of them out in November and lets start with a clean slate!
2006-09-01 07:01:20 · answer #9 · answered by Chuck P 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hmm, 3 small attacks under Clinton, one Horrendous attack under Bush.
Not onky was it the worst terrorist attack to ever hit American soil, it was also carried out by the son of one of the Bush families biggest buisness partners!
Excellent choice their guys...
2006-09-01 07:00:02 · answer #10 · answered by thomas p 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋