I love when Clinton emphasizes with his index finger...."I contracted to kill him..." (about bin Laden), that's great, you know, for a good intentioned Liberal. But it sort of sounds Republican to me. Any thoughts on this?
2006-09-24 15:17:10 · 8 answers · asked by Yo it's Me 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton can say what he wants, to try and pave the way for "wifey-poo", but, the fact still remains, he could have done something about Bin Laden back in 1993, along with the other attacks, against the US Embassy in Africa, and the USS Cole, BUT, he didnt do shat! I mean, come on people, the fact still remains, he didnt want to get something too big going on, then he may be forced to do his job, which would take time away from Monica!!
Poor President Bush started out his Presidential term with a big mess to clean up, with a bunch of terrorists, led by Bin Laden thinking the US is easily bullied!! It takes a REPUBLICAN to let them all know that we will not be pushed around!
2006-09-24 15:34:29 · answer #1 · answered by Katz 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It sounded kinda sopranos to me, lol...or like one of those wives caught in a contract-killing scheme...'contracted to kill him'!
That sounded nice and technocrat to me, honestly. The Republicans would have made it sound like they got in there with their bare knuckles and strangled the evildoer themselves, like they's wrestlin' with the devil....
It did have a bit of a shocking air to it, but I can't think of it as anything but good for the ultimate albeit non-eligible for the presidency Dem to come right out and say we want the man dead! The Dems gotta get people past the idea that it's not in their nature to want people who vow to destroy their civilization to stop breathing their hate and scheming their schemes by forcibly stopping their breathing and scheming if need be. It's great to be a pacifist, but I don't think the Dems will get elected on a pacifist platform, and Clinton's great appeal was to come off plainly and squarely as someone who could be smart, caring, and not take crap at once (the great third way or middleground or whatever the hell the pol moniker was for his apparently hard-to-reproduce persona). Mike Dukakis got screwed by Dubya's dad and Karl Rove's hero Lee Attwater by hesitating to show murderous rage ...the Dems maybe need some of that I'd be out there killing al-qaeda til the streets run red, but better directed then what the state-building GOPs are playing at kinda rhetoric that Clinton was hinting at in his remarks with Wallace. I think it might be very good for Dems to come off angry right now!
2006-09-24 23:07:01 · answer #2 · answered by Michelle H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basic politics. Catching bin Laden is important now, so it's important to Clinton. Probably wasn't important then but his wife is running for President, so it's important to him now. It will make him more important in the history books. "Contracts?" Interesting.
2006-09-24 22:36:34 · answer #3 · answered by Tony Z 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That bothers me. If the president can put out a "contract" on people, what has been going on all of these years with other former presidents and who have they put "contracts" on...
2006-09-24 22:34:08 · answer #4 · answered by linus_van_pelt68 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was sort of middle of the road, NAFTA is a good example of that, he could have vetoed that bill, but didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if he is being factual about that.
2006-09-24 22:20:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is done all the time!! Bush has a few million for the murder of Osama as well!!
2006-09-24 22:21:37 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
same like bush tried to kill saddam
2006-09-24 22:20:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well torture...contract killing....you say potato I say potatoe....
we are all sooo messed up.....
2006-09-24 22:19:37 · answer #8 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋