you all say that Clinton's failures were so obvious... yet no one I can remember was calling for an all out "war on terror" back then? I don't remember any Republican senators doing it?
and if someone did... can you cite it... someone may have and I just didn't hear about it...
and can someone cite the whole "clinton turned down bin Laden" with facts also, if you want to talk about that...
2006-09-07 09:48:45 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I'm not saying Clinton shouldn't have done more... mine you... but I think that there were clear failures in both parties... and to blame it on one or the other is naive...
2006-09-07 09:54:36 · update #1
salaamrashaad: last time I checked REPRESENATIVES in the congress could DECLARE WAR? and it was a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY? is that powerless?
2006-09-07 09:56:27 · update #2
jasonzbtzl: yes, he did something... he invaded afghanistan... which was good... then he basically went away to Iraq with had few terrorists links to focus the vast majority of his energy... STILL NOT GOING AFTER BIN LADEN...
2006-09-07 10:07:22 · update #3
They were too busy going after Bill Clinton.
2006-09-07 09:50:23 · answer #1 · answered by katie 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I was to confused trying to figure out why he released Atta, and then how he let him come back into the US....and if you want to research it, it was Al Gore who was the head of the committee interviewing Ollie North who ignored his warning on Osama....if I recall it was during the Clinton Administration that we were attacked the first time, and it took 8 years to get attacked again..lets see if thnks to Bush's aggresive reponse if we can avoid the same mistake Clinton made..or do you think Clinton's answer to the bombing was enough..pyt a few guys in jail..scary.... he had a little better reaction to the USS Cole bombing with one strike..if Clinton was president in 1941, I guess he would of made 1 strike against Japan and said OK we answered..now where is that intern i was banging, this national security stuff is really cutting into my extra marital affairs, I hope no one tells my too ignorant wife that i am cheating, because she is way to dumb and blind to catch me on her own, and even if she finds out, I can smooth talk my way out and pull the wool back over her eyes... just like the whole world will do if she ever gets elected.....imagine how many countries will start sleeping with each other sort of speak, and how much she will do nothing about it. Just imagine if she was prez now...oh wow, I forgive Iran for sleeping with th Iraq terrorists ,and if they want to have some nukes, that is OK, they said they were sorry
2006-09-07 17:01:37 · answer #2 · answered by vincenzo445 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Republican Congress actually refused to give Clinton more funding to go after Al Quaida and Bin Laden, they said he was "wagging the dog" - making the problem look bad to take attention away from the impeachment.
2006-09-07 16:52:30 · answer #3 · answered by Kutekymmee 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually the Republican run Senate and House fought Clinton at every turn to capture terrorists, don't you remember "Wag the Dog"?
Check out: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005
2006-09-07 17:05:44 · answer #4 · answered by CharlieB 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All the republicans were spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to impeach Clinton while they were watching reruns of "Wag the Dog".
Now all of a sudden we should be supporting the president?
The whole thing defies logic.
2006-09-07 16:56:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton turned down Bin Laden...another Christofascist lie:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408120011
Vincenzo445: and if you want to research it, it was Al Gore who was the head of the committee interviewing Ollie North who ignored his warning on Osama.
That's an urban myth that was passed around via email. If you researched it with as simple as a google search you would know that. I love catching Christofascists in lies:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp
2006-09-07 17:07:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No but all the DEMS who are now saying we should not go sure sang a different tune back then too:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
What changed other than the fact the Bush actually did something about it?
Answerman - Get a clue, sometimes people we choose to support change and become our enemy, just because at one time we supported them to help fight a bigger enemy at the time does not mean that they could not one-day become our enemy. Your logics sucks and if it were applied we would not be allies with, or support, anybody because someday they might do something we don't like.
2006-09-07 16:53:47 · answer #7 · answered by jasonzbtzl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Gee, maybe if the rep.s had been in a position where that was possible, your question may have some pertinence. As it was, Clinton's administration was too bent on killing Texans to worry about a little rich arab guy with a serious mental problem...
2006-09-07 16:54:06 · answer #8 · answered by salaamrashaad 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The repuglicans were to busy trying to discredit probably the best person that has run the country in over 40 years. They had no time. Hell from 1996 on they had a majority in both houses and didn't say anything about Osama. Ronald Reagan their departed hero was who trained him and give him arms and you still don't hear from them that it was the wrong thing to do. To sum up repuglicans stink.
2006-09-07 16:55:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
When President Clinton had missiles fired at bin Laden's encampment the Republicans criticized him for it, they said he was trying to distract attention from their $65 million investigation into his private life, the Lewinsky investigation.
2006-09-07 16:51:53 · answer #10 · answered by jxt299 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋