The logic some of you use for saying 9/11 was Clintons fault can be apply to Ronald Regan, if your logic has truth to it.
2006-09-08 07:41:41 · 17 answers · asked by DEEJay 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yeah but it was the Regan admin that helped Bin Laden win the Soviet war
2006-09-08 07:45:23 · update #1
Thats funny you should say it was bin ladens fault, were is he by the way?
2006-09-08 07:49:13 · update #2
X I dont even like Clinton but I will not let you blame him for something that was not his fault, if it was his fault it was just as much Bushes.
2006-09-08 09:30:21 · update #3
Yes
Anyway way you look at it, the answer is yes...
From partisan points of view = Yes
Basing this on republican logic that 911 was Clinton's fault... basically they are just trying to blame anything they can on Clinton and democrats. So, since Bush Sr simple continued Reagan's policies...
Fact based argument = Yes
The fact of the matter is that Reagan empowered B. Laden. Reagan supplied him with weapons and equipment in order for B. Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Then after Reagan got what he wanted and communism fell in the Soviet Union, he washed his hands of B. Laden breaking a lot of promises. B. Laden felt very betrayed and resentful... this is what led up to the attacks if you look at the facts.
2006-09-08 10:03:19 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we did help bin laden against the soviets and when bin laden didn't get what he wanted in return he decided to act like a spoiled child and name us public enemy number one to all that would listen. You know I wish Osama would just take his ball and go home. He doesn't play nice!
As to Regan he spent most of his administration going senile. So you tell me if he was responsible for anything? The man didn't know what the heck was going on half the time! Look at the Iran contra affairs. Geesh, I am not a die hard republican, but I really don't think Regan can be blamed for much of anything as an individual.
Clinton administration had a lock on Osama after the USS Cole bombing and the Embassy bombings in Africa. He would not give the orders to get Osama when we had him. I don't know exactly what the deal is with us not killing Osama or putting him on trial. I am sure it is a delicate balance of politics and government! Whatever our reasons, I am going to trust our leaders to the best of my ability! I will call them on their crap if I have to also. That is why I love this country, because I can speak freely.
Get a grip people, you don't just run in and react to any situation without thinking it out first! There are always valid reasons for what we do.
Good luck and take care
2006-09-08 07:59:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it would be Bush Sr.'s fault, based on the logic I've usually seen.
If the attack happens within one year of the former president's term, then the attack gets blamed on the former presented. Bush Sr. left office in January 1993, so the 1993 would be his fault. The same way Clinton left office in 2001, so the 2001 attack is his fault.
Or people can just stop playing the blame game and acknowledge that we've been hit with foreign terrorist attacks roughly every 7-9 years going back for decades, regardless of who has been in office.
2006-09-08 07:48:51 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
huge deficit spending and massive will develop to the nationwide debt. I supply the Pope more desirable credit for ending the "chilly conflict" with the Soviets than I do Reagan.... all Reagan did replaced into SPEND money that the U.S. did no longer have. Sound familiar? P.S. that's a political question contained in the Politics area of Y!A.... and also you want the politics skipped over of it???? properly listed lower than are your 2 thoughts because leaving the politics out of it truly is not attainable: For a Con: Reagan unmarried-handedly ended a 50 365 days chilly conflict with the Soviet Union and basically as unmarried-handedly restored the U.S. economy. For a Dem: Reagan replaced right into a second cost actor who gutted the EPA, de-regulated countless industries (which later proved disastrous)... and placed the U.S. right into a mind-set to deficit spending that we've in no way emerged from (except for the perfect couple of years lower than Clinton.... surely to have Bush dive proper back into deficit spending.)
2016-11-25 20:52:41 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dont blame a single person ... blame those that have a larger plan ... the truth of the matter is that the guy that did the bombing was payed 1million$ to work in a coordinated sting operation with the fbi ... the guy got nervous and taped his conversation with the fbi handler when he found out he was using actual explosives and was being ordered by the fbi to actually go through with the bombing ... this fact was actually in the news and got quickly brushed under the rug and we never heard anything else about it ... the fact of the matter is that the powerful people that have the "new world order" agenda wanted to go forward with their plans to fell the trade center in 93 ... to usher in the new "police state" measures of homeland defence and the patriot act ... they ran into problems when the guys that were under the main guy messed it up by not parking the van with the bomb close enough to the main support column to bring down the building ... they parked it about 12 feet away ... anyway .... our govt finished the job in 2001 and got there agenda through with millions of blissful americans waiving flags and supporting a bullshit war on terror not comprehending that they are the object of this new war.
2006-09-08 07:52:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look, get into some real logic here. It was really George Washington's fault. 225 years ago the British occupied NYC. Washington initiated an assault on New York. It just took 225 years for the plan to reach fruition.
2006-09-08 09:57:24 · answer #6 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's truly amazing how utterly retarded you liberals are. Your grasp of history is as pathetic as your grasp of reality.
Reagan supported Osama's effort to rid Afghanistan of the soviets when he fought with the Mujaheddin. He wouldn't have been successful without our help. Once the soviets were expelled he showed us just how gratefull he was by conspiring to attack America. This he did during clinton's reign (9 years after Reagan left office). His first attack was small compared to the second one, in part I'm sure because of the lack of response from the dumb*ss from Arkansas.
Your fixation on dismissing your party's blame for the present war is as bad as your obsession for blaming the Republicans for it.
2006-09-08 09:14:07 · answer #7 · answered by caesar x 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagan in dealing with terrorists would only not deal with them, ignoring them or spanking them at the point of conflict.
His mistake was not going far enough in going after terrorist nations, except for Khadafy. You could say he did what he could. In a round about way you could lay some blame on him for not going far enough, to prevent the 93 bombing...I don't know what it would be.
Clinton is Directly responsible for not going after Osama when he had the chance.
2006-09-08 07:49:17 · answer #8 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Planning and training for the 9/11 attacks started in 1996. Blame whoever is responsible: Osama Bin laden.
UPDATE: Deejay, if you know where OBL is, there are some people who want to talk to you. You're an idiot if you think we're not trying to find him.
2006-09-08 07:47:52 · answer #9 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. It was Carter's fault because he approved funding for the Taliban in the 70's during the Soviet occupation of Afgahnistan.
2006-09-08 07:46:17 · answer #10 · answered by erictompkins1970 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋