not looking for a debate here just want to hear different views without all the "Bush Bashing" This issue is on Osama not Sudam INSANE.
2006-09-13 17:39:26 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Billy could have taken him out, but he chose to do his best impression of an Amoeba instead (being his typically spineless self, as usual).
2006-09-13 18:37:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not EXACTLY true. Yes, Clinton had the opportunity to capture Bin Laden, but the CIA advised against it, because at the time Bin Laden was a CIA asset (and might still be...). Al Quaeda is a creation of the CIA, and Bin Laden has been "handled" by the CIA for years. The CIA was instrumental in the Russian-Afghanistan conflict, with our forces aiding Afghanistan and Al Queada. As you might have noticed, the Taliban is taking hold again in Afghanistan, opium production is 200% what it was before the U.S. attack, Al Queada is operating with no hindrance, Bin Laden travels freely between the Afghan-Pakistan border, and NO ONE is doing anything about it. Now, you were saying about Clinton? How about Bush NOW? Who CARES what Clinton COULD have done? What's the current administration doing NOW? It's obeying its boss - the CIA! (Who JFK wanted to do away with. Hmmm...)
2006-09-13 18:54:10 · answer #2 · answered by valmay 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush Bashing in two words TORA BORA. Bush allowed a total of 80 American foot soldiers on the ground to get him. When Prez Clinton tried to do anything the Republicans started yelling "tail wagging the dog" . Remember when our embassies were bombed in Africa. NO YOU DON'T . Do you remember Monica's Blue Dress ..oh hell yeah. You can go back and look on the Internet. The Republicans were afraid the strikes against the terrorist was going to distract from the brouhaha over that damn dress. It was a disgusting spectacle. So X-Prez Clinton didn't have the full support of the people behind him. But Prez Bush DID! And they screwed it totally up. TOTALLY.
2006-09-13 18:37:32 · answer #3 · answered by Libertarian56 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you realize Mr. Bush could have done the same thing the summer preceding 9/11 when Osama was in an American run hospital being interviewed by a CIA agent.?So in my mind , the burden is off Clinton.
2006-09-13 17:44:59 · answer #4 · answered by bconehead 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I was there, I retired from the Marines in 1996, after 30 years, was in NAM from 1968 to 72 spent 3 tours there and A lifetime fighting for you! The Saudi es handed Bin Laden to Clinton, but he said no. I'm tired of our politicians, But I still love this country.
2006-09-13 20:21:40 · answer #5 · answered by basscatcher 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How long ago was Clinton in office again? I forget because so many keep going on his presidency. . . Are there a few sensitive people here that wish to try and point out that there are those just as dumb and clueless as their guy is?
Why would Clinton kill OBL? Back then, he was aiding the US with its dealings in the middle east (yes - to further his agenda, but he still was doing so). Why would someone be killed for helping the US?
And Bush has had many years to do it as well. At least Clinton could FIND OBL when he looked for him. . .
2006-09-13 18:02:29 · answer #6 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. And this will be a big party of Clinton's legacy. Like Neville Chamberlain in England leading up to World War 2; meeting with Hitler and having the wool pulled over his eyes.
Clinton's legacy is already showing signs of having more bad than good characteristics. And he (and his loyal following) is not liking it. But what can one expect from a failed administration?
2006-09-13 17:50:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Oliver North warned Congress during the Iran Contra hearings in the mid 80's during Ronald Reagan's administration.
2006-09-13 17:49:52 · answer #8 · answered by mik 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Clinton should be held somewhat responsible for the terrorists attacks.
While he was busy with his "so called lovers"
He could have probably taken down Osama.
I can't stand the way everyone (liberals) act like he is such a saint.
2006-09-13 20:34:29 · answer #9 · answered by pixles 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Before there was Clinton and George Dubya there was GEORGE H.W BUSH!!! Yes folks him and Reagan armed, trained, financed Bin Laden and his boys in the 80's. C.I.A members warned them not to keep giving support to Bin Laden but they did anyways. Reagan called Bin Laden a hero for gods sake.
Bush and Reagan also armed Iran, Taliban, and Saddam. Bush and Reagan made this guy what he is even before Dubya and Clinton.
2006-09-13 17:45:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes...after the attack on the USS Cole. Had Osama bin Laden been handled then, 9/11 may have never taken place
2006-09-13 17:42:14 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋