2006-09-19 11:30:39 · 20 answers · asked by mwashburn30 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Clinton had a opportunity to get Bin Laden and prevent the 9-11 attack but he was to busy with Monica. He was a weak leader. He had 8 years of prosperity from 12 years of Reaganomics.
2006-09-19 11:34:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Clinton take on terrorism! HAA. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Clinton didn't even go to New York. And he tried to silence a statement from the State Dept. as to supress the story and make it seem like no big thing.
But, hypothetically speaking, if Clinton were in office during 9-11-01 and shouted on a megaphone. "And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon!" and rallied the country and was a great leader when we needed him most. And focused all his energy on keeping the homeland from being attacked again. And have all the troops respect. And still did the right thing without taking a poll first.....Well. I can't imagine Clinton in that light....cause Clinton aint no Bush. But if all that were true. Yes. I would support him.
I really never hated Clinton. I just really didn't think about him too much. His presidency was pretty not eventful. Until the Monica thing. That's a shame too because there were several times he could have taken action and didn't. His legacy could have been something if he had acted. Now all we will really remember him for is....Monica.
2006-09-19 19:13:41 · answer #2 · answered by babe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I will always support our military no matter who is commander and chief. Like in Kosovo under Clinton, what I did not support was his inaction in Rwanda and the massacre of over 800,000 Tutsi's. I can forgive trying to do the right thing, with the best intentions but doing nothing is criminal. Yes I would have supported Clinton on Iraq and nothing else as I did when he sent our troops to Kosovo. Once the boots are on the ground I always root for the home team, I still know we are the good guys and the libs can't take that away.
2006-09-19 18:44:07 · answer #3 · answered by razeumright 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Clinton were in power there wouldn't be a war in Iraq. He has the intelligence to know that just about any situation can be worked via peaceful means.
2006-09-19 18:48:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He wouldn`t have started a war in Iraq .
He would be smart enough to go after Bin Laden and kill him .
Al Quaida was responsible for the 9/11 attacks not Saddam Hussein..
2006-09-19 18:39:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's a horribly big if... I think if Clinton was running the war in Iraq, he wouldn't be Clinton anymore... not so much that he's afraid to fight, but just that I think he would have went after Osama more than Saddam...
2006-09-19 18:32:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because he wouldn't have attacked Iraq, without the UN. He would have gone after Osama Bin Laden, rather than bomb the hell out of Baghdad. And most of all, he has no ties to oil, or Cheney!
2006-09-19 18:44:58 · answer #7 · answered by manyolito 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he hadnt lied about the reasons for going I would support this war now, even with Bush running it.Lol.Bush running the war, or anything oh thats funny.No seriously Im more mad about the lie than the war,I know we need the oil.
2006-09-19 18:33:18 · answer #8 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Clinton was President there would have been no 911.
2006-09-20 14:35:14 · answer #9 · answered by ChaliQ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, just as I support President Bush. Heck, I even had to take orders from Jimmy Carter. How messed up is that?
2006-09-19 18:56:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋