What's the point of blaming a guy whose been out of office for over four years? Are they tired of criticizing Bush?
2006-09-25 00:34:35 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
President Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he didn't act on it. The result was 9/11 and many other terrorist attacks which lead to the present war. How many lives do we have to lose before people wake up and accept the reality that if we don't stop terrorism America will fall into the hands of terrorists.
2006-09-25 00:38:35 · answer #1 · answered by missingora 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋
I don't blame Clinton for not capturing Bin Laden. I blame Clinton for being a liar regarding facts which he himself tried to justify in a taped interview, and is now claiming the event never happened. I am referring to the Sudanese government offering to extradite Bin Laden, and Clinton refusing. He now states he contracted the CIA to kill Mr. Bin Laden, but they couldn't get to him. There is no question that Mr. Clinton is a liar. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. They are constantly shouting what a liar Bush is, but praise Mr. Clinton. Talk about a credibility problem!
kishacheyenne: Thank you for illustrating my point so aptly. Facts don't matter to liberals. Truth doesn't matter, unless it is the truth they want to hear. Something they don't like the answer always comes back, Bush did it!, or it's just Conservative hate mongering. Well facts don't lie, and in this case the facts don't look good for Clinton, and that is why he has fallen back on his usual tactic. Deny, Deny, "I didn't have sex with that woman", deny.
2006-09-25 00:54:52 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that we need to stop blaming any president at a time like this.
No, I do not believe that Clinton was responsible for not capturing Bin Laden. as a matter of fact, any'one who looks into it will find that Clinton had a plan to assasinate him, and it was caught up in red tape.
Clinton was very angry about it.
I wonder who tied his hands on this one.
Clinton was also angry about being accused of vulnerability over Monica Lewinsky.
His real attitude was, so I was making out, big deal, I am a dude, but I can still have Bin Laden killed.
2006-09-25 00:47:14 · answer #3 · answered by theodore r 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Clinton certainly had his problems. But he could never have gotten away with the things Bush has done. The people were rushed to judgment after 9/11, thinking the government knew what it was doing. If Bush had gone after Bin Laden instead of declaring war on a country, that has killed more civilians, he would be dead now. We are worse off now than we ever were. I wonder if there is anyone who can think of the country, more than just wanting to be president
2006-09-25 00:44:39 · answer #4 · answered by jackie 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
The short answer would be that the Republican party is in trouble for the mid term elections, and will do anything to deflect attention from their disastrous record. If they blame Clinton, then obviously W could not be to blame, therefore the republican party is not to blame for the rampant increase in terrorism since they took office.
Must of have been Bill Clinton. Coulda got Bin Laden. Didn't do it, so we had to go and invade Iraq, and by doing this the world has become less safe since Iraq is now a haven and a breeding ground for terrorists. But if Mr. Clinton would have done his job, it would not have been necessary to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and no links to terrorism.
They will try anything to deflect attention from that fact, and it will only get worse from now until the election.
2006-09-25 00:41:44 · answer #5 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 6⤊ 3⤋
its called shifting the weight, its a defense mechanism the Bush supporters and Bush are using to take the focus off of their own failures. Clinton authorised a hit on Bin Ladden, and as slick Willie said if he was president he'd have more than 20.000 troops searching for him! But Bush wanted to take down Iraq, at the expense of course of American lives, and allowing Bin Ladden to escape
2006-09-25 00:43:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
No, but in his 8 years in office Clinton had minimum 6 - 7 chances to take out Bin Laden and chickened out every time. He was more worried about arabs getting mad at him than he was concerned to kill a head terrorist.
2006-09-25 00:39:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
That was a Fox thing....they don't criticize their own.
Clinton has the balls to show up on Fox. I would like to see some of those right wingers interview on a network OTHER than Fox.
2006-09-25 00:51:16 · answer #8 · answered by powhound 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A new book out: "HIRED GUNS" by Pelton proves Clinton saved bin Laden eight times.
9/11 could have been prevented.
Maybe why it's being brought up is because people are finally getting tired of Clinton's bullsh*t and lies. He still out there lying every day.
2006-09-25 00:41:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
not blaming him. pointing out facts. the fact is they were at war with us and we were not at war with them. that includes the first eight months of the bush administration. the issue now is are democrats going to stop playing politics and start wanting to win this war.
2006-09-25 00:45:16 · answer #10 · answered by rmisbach 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋