English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why blame Clinton for something Bush has done nothing I mean if you are going to blame someone you should come with some results.
Though maybe he is going to pull the bunny out of the hat before election day,conviniently.

2006-09-09 09:55:34 · 20 answers · asked by idono 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

20 answers

Exactly, thank you, he is not looking because Osama is his Business partner.

George W. Bush is a Moran. He should be impeached and executed for high treason of the United States of America.

Hes too stupid to think, he paid his way through elementary, middle, high school. and college, if not he would be stuck in the first grade!

He was never elected either time. He LOST the popular vote TWICE!

2006-09-09 12:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by Jeremy© ® ™ 5 · 0 1

The problem with catching the s.o.b. is that in the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a large region of very rugged terrain. Also Pakistan will not let our forces into their country. The Pakistani army in the region has enough problems with the local population not recognizing the government. Thus you have problems with intel to catch him.

As for Clinton, I don't blame him for not killing Osama. He should have taken him when he had the chance but at the time Osama did not break any laws here in the U.S.. So he actually had no legal means of prosecuting him just because he wanted to harm us.

As for the bunny. I hope so. As long as we catch him I don't care when. Hopefully soon.

2006-09-09 10:02:12 · answer #2 · answered by intelect1 2 · 1 0

Blame Clinton for not getting Osama in the first place when he had a chance. Blame Bush for not finishing what Clinton didn't do is totally absurd.

2006-09-09 09:59:47 · answer #3 · answered by ginger13 4 · 2 1

you are writng this to pick a fight on line becasue your too small ot ask those in real life who would probably rip the stuffing ot of your monicalovingaviodingtheissue butt. Clinton refused to see his secret service for 3, count em, 3 yrs of his last term, everyday the security council went to his office and every day he said, 'not today',, and every day they could only shrugg their shoulders and say 'we're in trouble'. ask goeorge popolousidis, his ex press agent, and ask why he left while clinton was still in office. WHY? Because clinton refused to see his security councel for the last 3 yrs he was there,
Yes, you libral buttwipe, clinton is totaly and completely accountible for 9/11, 120%!
He cuould have stopped all this crap had he kept his zipper zipped and his security council adviced.

2006-09-09 10:06:04 · answer #4 · answered by tally m 3 · 1 0

Could that be because Bin Laden's brother was a major investor ($16 million) in all of the failed Bush businesses before he was Governor of Texas? That's why all of Bin Laden's relatives were flown out of the U.S. on Sept. 12th 2001.

2006-09-09 10:02:21 · answer #5 · answered by Perry L 5 · 0 1

no 1 knows where osama is, they only know the general area where he might be, the area of the middle east where they suspect he mayb hiding is very dangerous and hard to navigate territory even for the experienced person living there. but if the US ever finds out his excat location i will be sure that a BIG plume of smoke will be coming from that location.

2006-09-09 10:39:32 · answer #6 · answered by Paper_boy 2 · 1 0

Wake up people its Pakistan that prevents Osama from being caught. If your talkin about the new "docudrama" well then you should understand that just calling your movie a docudrama gives the makers a licence to lie.

2006-09-09 10:05:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Osama bin laden was offered by the Afganistan government to any country but the U.S in Oct of 2003.

The Dept of Defence dragged its feet sending in ground troop into Tora Bora, because Rumsfeld did not like taking orders from the CIA
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

They want to blame clinton, so badly, as to excuse themselves that under BUsh's watch under his presidency, under his guidence under his failures he failed the american people.

the myth they gave Bin Laden to clinton is simply that a myth. speard by the Right wing echo chamber.
please refer to:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408120011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130004




AS for what the clinton adminstartion.
HEMMER: The White House says that before they even arrived at the White House, the previous administration was obsessed with nothing. I want you to look at a picture that we saw last week from NBC News -- an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan. They allege, at the time, why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out. This was August of 2000. ( Full story)

CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States and around the world at the millennium period, they stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia, they stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world, they authorized covert lethal action by the CIA against al Qaeda, they retaliated with cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan, they got sanctions against Afghanistan from the United Nations. There was a great deal the administration did, even though at the time, prior to 9/11, al Qaeda had arguably not done a great deal to the United States.

If you look at the eight years of the Clinton administration, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of fewer than 50 Americans over those eight years. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 Americans were killed in Lebanon and there was no retaliation. Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed on Pan-Am 103 and there was no retaliation.

I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal. In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this "little terrorist" [Osama] bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

HEMMER: It seems like this could go for pit for pat, almost a ping-pong match. [I'd like to] show you a couple of images of the USS Cole bombing in October 2000, a few weeks before the election that saw George Bush take the White House. Prior to that, August 1998 in Tanzania and Kenya, the U.S. Embassy bombings there. If you want to go back to Beirut, Lebanon, the early 1980's, the White House is now saying go back to 1998, back to the fall of 2000.

CLARKE: Right, and what happened after 1998? There was a military retaliation against al Qaeda and the covert action program was launched, the U.N. sanctions were obtained. The administration did an all-out effort compared to what the Bush administration did. The Bush administration did virtually nothing during the first months of the administration, prior to 9/11.

President Bush himself said in a book when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said "I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus, it was the focus of my team." He is saying that. President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say this.

2006-09-09 10:06:34 · answer #8 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 1

Confusion.
Clinton forced Sudan to let Bin Laden go.
He wanted to be friends.
Bin Laden said Clinton was a coward. He made the mistake of thinking that all Americans were.

2006-09-09 10:00:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Oh, George has done something, alright. He's <> the CIA sub-committee that was specifically assigned to track bin Laden. George needs bin Laden to remain free and a convenient bogeyman with which to scare the sheeple. George never did want to catch bin Laden; that would be inconvenient as all get-out.

2006-09-09 10:01:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers