Seems to me, it just shows America and the World how weak Bush really is. I think Bush should just do his job and IF successful, then rub it in Clinton's face ... and not until !!!
2006-09-24 10:24:32 · 17 answers · asked by pickle head 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
good point
2006-09-24 10:30:50 · answer #1 · answered by Mr.happy 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Then how does blaming Bush for everything under the sun (like what democrats have been doing non stop for the last 6 years) help kill or capture Osama Bin Ladin?
So what....Democrats are allowed to be critical of the President to the point of stupidity but Republicans should keep their mouth shut when they have criticism? Hmmm sounds hypocritical.
BTW>If liberals want to help the War on Terror, they can shut their mouths when tempted to bash the president and his national security policies when put in front of a microphone and stop printing secret information about our methods about the War on Terror (like the NY Times did) at the specific request that they not by the White House. HMMMMMM
2006-09-24 18:04:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, I dont believe it helps, but it does point out some flaws in what some are willing to overlook for the sake of party lines.
I dont perceive Bush as being weaker than Clinton- who fired 22 cruise missiles at an empty building, cheated on his wife, lied under oath, yet many Democrats seem to view him as a great President.
How many other Presidents in the history of the United States have been caught with their pants down?
2006-09-24 17:41:58 · answer #3 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only time Clinton's failure to stop Osama is mentioned is when his supporters complain that Bush has not done so. Quit blaming Bush for not doing the job Clinton failed to do or quit praising Clinton.
2006-09-24 17:36:31 · answer #4 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's an alibi for Bush's failure to get the Terrorist. We got those dictators in WW2 in the 20th century but we can't get the head terrorist in the world in the 21st century? If Clinton was still president instead of Bush I can't imagine the conservatives having much compassion for the president for failing to get Bin Laden. In fact when Clinton ordered an attack on Bin Ladens camps back in the 90s the conservatives accused Clinton of "waggin the dog".
2006-09-24 20:40:44 · answer #5 · answered by timespiral 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blaming anyone for anything ultimately serves no purpose, unless a crime was committed. While Bill Clinton did have opportunity to get Bin Laden, he didn't......but we can hardly blame him for everything Bin Laden did since then.
It's the same with Bush. He has done the right thing time and time again with terrorists and Iraq, yet the media and Democratic Body go out of their way to make everything good look bad.
2006-09-24 17:28:50 · answer #6 · answered by tjjone 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, it is just that some people are really frustrated with everything being blamed on Bush wrongfully, that they decide to play their opponents game by blaming something on Clinton. Clinton could have done a better job, but it was not entirely his fault by any means. What's done is done
2006-09-24 17:34:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thats "President"George Bush.And who cares what the world thinks of us..,they hate us no matter what we do.And Clinton contradicts himself continuously and he said he doesnt criticize President Bush but thats his favorite past time when hes on foreign soil.
2006-09-24 18:08:25 · answer #8 · answered by halfbright 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact that Clinton was a coward, doesn't help Bush catch Osama.
Clinton didn't care about his country, all he cared about was having selfish fun.... a good time with taxpayer money.
It hurt us then, and doesn't help us now.
2006-09-24 17:30:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
FIRST OF ALL YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. CLINTON HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THE OSAMA MATTER, IT WAS BUSH ALL ALONG. BUSH IS BEAST FRIEND WITH OSAMA AND OWES HIM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT MONEY OSAMA LOANED HIM YEARS AGO. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ALL APART OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER AS PREDICTED. YOU NEED TO GO THE THE LIBRARY AND LOOK UP BUSH'S PAST RELATIONSHIP WITH OSAMA AND YOU DONT HAVE TO GO TO FAR LOOK IN THE 90'S . GO TO THE WEB SITE I LISTED BELOW AND YOU WILL OPEN YOUR EYES TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN THIS WORLD AND THIS UNITED SNAKES OF AMERICA.
2006-09-24 17:35:32 · answer #10 · answered by onlyluvchi 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It does not. It is only George W(impy) Bush's way to distract from the fact that HE CAN'T DO THE JOB. Not to mention the fact that Bush has no intention of killing the son of the Arab that bailed him out 20 years ago when W(impy) was almost bankrupt.
2006-09-24 17:31:50 · answer #11 · answered by my_iq_135 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋