During Bill Clinton's term, we had numerous terrorism attempts and several vows by Bin Laden himself that there would be major attacks on US soil. Clinton, knowing that inciting a war in Afghanistan would cause Americans to burn him at the stake when the first US soldier drops dead, opts to do nothing. Thus he will more or less be looked upon in history as a peaceful and effective President due to little violence and a good economy (thnx Reagonomics). Bush comes in and soon after we have 9/11. Clinton dodges a bullet. Bush faced a similar dilemma with Saddam that Clinton had with Bin Laden. However he opted to take down Saddam's regime, sacrificing his reputation and indeed faced widespread criticism. I'm not crying poor George, as I am on the fence on his actions like everyone else. But I do know one thing. We have not been attacked since 9/11, and if we are again to become victims of terrorism, it definetely won't be by Saddam, the worst terrorist of our time. Your thoughts?
2006-09-11 14:46:41 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
lying coward definitely
2006-09-11 14:48:26 · answer #1 · answered by Nav 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Lying Coward.
Bush spent about half of the first nine months of his presidency on vacation, the result was 9/11 and yet he claims to be the 'war president' who can provide security for America. During the Vietnam war, he chose the best way to legally dodge the draft by joining the reserves. Even then he was too lazy to show up for work. He claims to support the troops, but sends them to war without the proper equipment and then cuts veterans benefits. After all this, he would still have us believe that he is a brave military man.
It is astounding that this man has been able to say one thing and do the opposite for so long and get away with it! It isn't just war and security either. He campaigned for No Child Left Behind, then refused to fund it. He claimed that "By Far, the Vast Majority of My Tax Cuts Go to Those at the Bottom" but the poor aren't better off today and the middle class is being squeezed out of existence while the richest get even richer. So much for family values. He must have meant that he was concerned about HIS family value.
No matter how you look at it, he's a coward who can't tell the truth.
2006-09-11 15:11:24 · answer #2 · answered by nospamcwt 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Where did you get your information on the Clinton administration from? That ABC special they aired last night and tonight. That stuff is not true, that whole movie is biased for the Republicans. The co-executive producer is a Republican with not one democrat consultant used for the making of that film. So you tell me? It took 7 years for the terrorists to attack after the '93 incident, it has not been that long since the 2001 incident. I'm sorry but I would much rather have the prospects of getting a good job and raising a family on a stable income without the fear of violence outside my door, rather than worry about some people that live in sand dunes. I think Bin Laden knew exactly what he was doing, he knew that Bush could not resist going to war if something(anything) happened. So now by us being in a war for 5 years it has greatly deteriated our economy, it has affected our morale at home, and it has killed our men. We are NOT strong, he is NOT a hero. We are suffering on both sides, over seas at war, and here at home. People are suffering, we are never going to be able to change others views, we just need to be to protect ourselves from their violence. To me that means beef up security in the states in every aspect and keep to ourselves a little more. Bush is an oil man with an unrealistic agenda, thats all there is to that.
(*note* sorry if I seem a little rude, I don't mean to be, I'm just very angry with the whole situation. Bush has lied time and time again, what does it take for people to take off their rose colored glasses)
2006-09-11 15:06:07 · answer #3 · answered by allsmiles_24seven 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
you're basically getting your self right into a pissing contest. Time to enable circulate of the gangster mentality. the two events are working as a collection to injury the country. Whom ever comes after BHO, will proceed the ball rolling, basically like Bush continued Clinton's stride. stop being a lemming, and attempt to have an unique concept. there is the place the subject is, no person thinks for themselves any further.
2016-11-07 03:32:51 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that Bush has started something that can't possibly ever be finished except by an apocolyptic event. Hero? No. Coward? No.
My question is, how are we going to get out of this without the greatest destruction ever known to man?
2006-09-11 16:22:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How is he a brave hero, has he put himself in danger some way? If he were to go and fight on the front lines, (which i know is impossible) then he would be a brave hero. He is a coward. He didn't sacrifice his reputation by going to war in Afghanistan, the public loved him for it. Everytime a president goes to war their ratings in the polls shoot up, and Saddam Hussein is not the worst terrorist of all times. He was the ruler of a country, where as terrorists are guerillas. I find it offensive that you think Saddam was worse than Osama Bin Laden, the man responsable for what happened 5 years ago.
2006-09-11 14:56:18 · answer #6 · answered by Lambchop08 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Great question. Good answer to it too by the way.
Here is a little fact you left out. Bin Laden actually said that the main reason he attacked us on 9 11 was because he thought we would not retaliate. An idea he got from the fact that we pulled out of Somalia after we were attacked there. He viewed us as a weak nation.
The attack on the USS Cole didn't help either.
2006-09-11 14:49:40 · answer #7 · answered by USMCstingray 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You stated-
"We have not been attacked since 9/11, and if we are again to become victims of terrorism, it definetely won't be by Saddam, the worst terrorist of our time. Your thoughts?"
Just gotta tell ya that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 911!
Nothing to do with anything in this country- never threatened anything here.
yes he was aweful to his ppl in Iraq- yes there were attempts on bush sr life once- that is why were over in iraq..let us not forget the facts here....
its Bush's personal revenge for his daddy
coward or hero...time will tell
2006-09-11 14:51:47 · answer #8 · answered by wutta-croc 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Neither. He's just a man in an untenable position. I may not agree with him, or his policies, but I certainly won't degrade him for doing something that many people only *think* they can do better.
It's much like those arm-chair quarterbacks on game day, and I'll still opt to admit that I don't honestly think that I could do the job any better & I'd probably screw it up worse, and that would just give people someone else to slam and make fun of, instead of getting out there and doing something constructive instead of spouting off.
2006-09-11 14:56:09 · answer #9 · answered by Shadow 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
a brave coward.
I say brave because he has the audacity to believe in and push for what he wants despite the general public opininon.
I say coward because I believe if he wanted to stop terrorism he would go after the read sources and keep us on track. the immigration B.S was just a distraction.
I also say coward because I want to make up a title for him.
=D
2006-09-11 14:49:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lying Coward. Simple as that.
2006-09-11 15:27:52 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋