Since he sat on his azz on vacations for months on end and didn't follow up on Clinton Admin warning.
2006-09-26 07:22:59 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
justagran: the bay of pigs didnt happen to the U.S.. The U.S. made it happen.
2006-09-26 07:51:58 · update #1
lol...sorry I've been laughing at how everyone is avoiding answering your question and keep blaming Clinton for everything. I really don't what Bush's punishment should be. maybe we should make him go find osama since everyone is so sure that bush is the man to do it!
2006-09-26 08:25:16 · answer #1 · answered by Patricia 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What happens during an administration is that administrations fault. No matter when it may have started, Think of the Bay of Pigs disaster, about a month into Kennedy's admin. No one calls it Eisenhower's fault. I remember Clinton going after Bin Ladin and various Rep senators carrying on about how Clinton was trying to divert attention from his sex life. Just remember that the first World Trade Center bombers are in jail now, and Bin Ladin is still out in the world. I personally think its an indication of this administrations inability to take responsibility for anything remotely unpleasant that makes it so childish and embarrassing. You just can't keep saying everything is someone elses fault without sounding like a spoiled child.
2006-09-26 14:42:49 · answer #2 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If you are referring to all the "hard work" that the Clinton administration supposedly did to nail down bin Laden and do its share in the war on terror - oh please... let me stop laughing first. OK, not so funny, when I think of how many lives it has cost. First, you have to know that Clinton was lying - it was if he was talking about not having sex with that woman. He always gets that ticked off when he gets caught lying. Second, you know he was lying because his lips were moving. Whenever he opens his mouth, a lie is about to spew forth.
Clinton is all about revisionism. He worried about nothing but his poll numbers the whole time that he was in office, and he had an adoring press that made sure that those numbers stayed up there. Now that he is out of office and we are gaining new insights and fresh historical perspectives, and people are not afraid to speak out because he is no longer in power, he is becoming paranoid about how history will view him - which means lots of lies will start fresh. Sorry that you bought into it, but as a liberal, open minded, independent thinking isn't going to be your strong suit.
For a really well laid out depiction of Clinton's performance and some historical background - check this out:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5888
2006-09-26 14:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
9/11 actually had its beginnings as far back as the late 1950s. When Arafat started the Fatah, and then Hezbollah was later formed, radical islam became mainstream. Since Eisenhower, no American President had seriously paid attention to the growing wave of terrorism spawned by the extremists.
However, to place the bulk of the blame for 9/11 on GWB is pure folly and idealogically-driven stupidity.
2006-09-26 14:48:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Terrorists know that the most vulnerable time is during an administration switch. It is not fair to blame W for everything. Granted he has done a miserble job in all other areas, it is still not fair to pin the blame on him. Government is all to blame.
Then again maybe the American people that voted for him should have considered that he had 3 failed oil companies on his resume before they elected him.
2006-09-26 14:38:07 · answer #5 · answered by ragajungle 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The presidents punishment will be the same as the rest of us. We have to live in this world. Skipping the placement of blame for a moment. 9-11 destroyed our innocence. Ultimately it is the American public who takes the blame because we elected the officials (both past and present) who were unable to stop 9-11.
2006-09-26 14:34:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He joins Jimmy Carter's Habitat for Humanity and builds a low-income housing development on his ranch in Crawford, TX.
2006-09-26 14:30:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nice try with your attempt to get a false premise past us. Bush had 8 months to stop Bin Laden. Clinton had 8 years. How should he be punished?
2006-09-26 14:33:12 · answer #8 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, from what I read people sure are "touchy" about their BUSH. I think we should make him, Cheney, Halliburton, the Rice burner contribute their personal money to rebuild the World Trade Center. Maybe they could rebuild New Orleans while they are at it!
2006-09-26 14:54:43 · answer #9 · answered by pacbellgal 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, Dude, it was Clinton who did nothing. He was waiting for Madelyn Albright to get approval to do something from the French. All the french can do is surrender. Clinton only got mad on the air because he feared his "legacy" would be tarnished. He left no usable plan for Bush. All his officers were draft dogers. Clinton had 2 embassies 1 in Africa, get blown up and one US battle ship the USS Cole, get blown up and did nothing. Thats why Osama did 9-11. He thought he'd get away with it!!!!
2006-09-26 14:31:57 · answer #10 · answered by stick man 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋