Clinton claims he has done more than Bush, but when Clinton left office Bin Laden had enough power to strike us on 9/11.
Bush however has Bin Laden hiding in a cave and afraid to show his face.
Who has really done more?
2006-09-28 06:24:10 · 33 answers · asked by tyler.durden 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
During Clinton's tenure more than 500 people lost their lives and more than 5000 were injured in five seperate terror attacks, four of which Bin Laden claimed. This does not count the people killed and injured at Oklahoma city.
Clinton had the chance to kill Bin Laden and didn't. Therefore i put the responsibility squarely on his shoulders for that which he failed to act on. essentially he failed more than 5500 families with his blowhard speeches about how he would make the terrorists pay.
Clinton is not repsonsible for 9/11. Bush is also not responsible for 9/11. Radical Islamic Muslims (terrorists) are responsible. the difference is that Bush acted where Clinton failed to act. We have not had an attack in five years which shows that the actions taken are stifleing their efforts.
At this point, it is not about blame for 9/11, we know terrorists did it. It is about preventing it from happening again and continuing to hunt these bastards down and kill them.
bconehead - no one flew out as you claim...do a little research..better yet, read the commission report. If some people did a little research for facts, they wouldn't spout out falacies..
2006-09-28 06:37:09 · answer #1 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The September 11 attacks were planned on Clinton's watch.
They were carried out the day before one of Bin Laden's right -hand men was to be sentenced in New York City.
No person with half a brain gets to blame President Bush for 9/11. You prove yourself completely ignorant by even implying that.
2006-09-28 06:37:03 · answer #2 · answered by RAR24 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
OBL probably has a new identity by now. Bush is not going to catch that man! OBL has a lot of money! Don't think that the funds are being hand exchanged! I don't give Bush credit for sh/t because it was Bush's father that started the entire incident. And now that his son was in office at the time of 911 and his tired a*s is still in office until 2008, he needs to work as hard as possible to get this sh/t corrected!
As far as Clinton is concerned---he is no longer a part of the equation. He missed what he was supposed to have done, he messed up, made mistakes, he's human! There are no perfect human beings on this planet. So let it go! Move On! Let's see if Bush can capture OBL if so good for him! If not, NEXT!
2006-09-28 06:31:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well FYI why did your DFI President fly Bin Laden's family out of the country when we Americans were GROUNDED? Bush and Bin Laden are friends duh
Also, why do OUR taxpayer dollars go to provide Secret Service security to one countries embassy ( Saudi Arabia) ?
You obsession with Clinton amazes me. Question Bush...he's the one in office and he IS indeed 100% percent accontable for the current fiasco we are economically and otherwise. Get your HEAD outta your corkhole and question TODAY's government!
Simple question I ask of Mr. Bush? WHY did you have a bran' new Department ( of Homeland Security) complete with Mr. Ridge in charge within hrs of the attack?
One poster is wrong. The attacks were planned in August 2001 on the Crawford ranch in Texas. That month is also when the new department was created.
Republican smokescreens after 6 years amaze me!
Ok then Burt you attempted to answer my question but where did these bastards go nd snopes is not a reliable source.
Why do we continue to PROVIDE round the clock protection to the Saudi Embassy and no protection to any other embassies on our soil
Your correspondance to me in this question thread proves what I just said earlier. DFI smokescreen tactics. It will take more than snopes to convince me OHHHHHHHHHH the 911 report ? Thats all fact NOT
2006-09-28 06:37:07 · answer #4 · answered by bconehead 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There are no results that Clinton did anything about
trying to get bin Laden. President Bush has done a
whole lot more.
2006-09-28 06:36:53 · answer #5 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Our military is the ones being killed out there looking for the rag head. Not Bush not Clinton not the Generals. Donald Rumsfeld is running the show on Bin Laden, and doing a terrible job of it. Things might look better for our military if he were out.They need to quit running the war from the white house! No matter what party. All these guys care about is their legacy. They will die in bed and our troops will die on the battle field. That's their legacy.
2006-09-28 06:36:46 · answer #6 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Clinton and Bush are too pu.ssyfied to admit that NEITHER of them could EVER believe 911 could have happened. Never could imagine some lanky bastard in the desert could grip a whole religious faction
They both dropped the ball and instead of pointing fingers they need to get together and work on solutions so that NO PRESIDENT ignores warnings or thinks for one moment again that the US in impervious to massive attacks or war on its soil. Next time it may be an actual invasion (911 opened us up to any possibility).
2006-09-28 06:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
This is not about Bill Clinton!
This is about Bush and his father about their unfinished work while in the White House with Saddam. Extremist doesnt have enough power. Just provocation... because Bush failed to have good relationship with the Middle East and his policies are NOT working for Isreal-Palestine and the world!
Bush sugar-coating Americans with led-war ignoring UN by spending billions everyday instead of improving social and finacial justice in his own land!
2006-09-28 06:37:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Did we all forget that Bush had to wait several many weeks to occupy the Oval Offic until it could be shown that the SUPREME GORON and the dim-witted Dems were attempting to steal the 2000 elections?
That was time wasted for the Bush administration to tackle the terrorist problem...
Maybe the Dems and lib-tards should educate themselves by reading the, "Complete 911 Timeline"...
2006-09-28 06:39:13 · answer #9 · answered by juandos 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Right...and bin Laden was hanging out at the Kabul Starbuck's just without a care in the world prior to 911. Look, both tried, both have no results. Hell, Bush even stated a few years back that he isn't all that concerned about bin Laden. Put down the right-wing Kool-Aid.
2006-09-28 06:29:14 · answer #10 · answered by Michael O 2 · 8⤊ 4⤋