Just a quick question. When the Democrats attack Bush about the war in Iraq, some Republicans fight back by bringing up what Clinton did with Monica. Now back to reality, how would bringing that up help the situation in Iraq and create a resolution? What does something that happen about 8 years ago that is in no way related to the current war a reasonable argument?
2006-09-28 15:17:36 · 23 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Dana Lana - Good point, now let's look at the present. Bush has had 6 years to catch Bin Laden and he hasn't. Your argument just backfired.
2006-09-28 15:28:55 · update #1
The repukelicans fight dirty. They could never get Clinton on anything real even though they tried for eight years. So, they got him for lying about a BJ. That was his only mistake, he should have told them to blow it up their a s s. Bush, is a "man" who should be impeached because he has broken the laws of the US, international law, and the laws of God. Instead the repubicians are bring up ancient history in an attempt to hold on to their power. God help us all if they do so.
2006-09-28 15:32:54 · answer #1 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
They bring up things that Clinton did (or didn't do) prior to 9/11 since many people believe that much of the blame is his. He also said that Iraq had WMD's and made it an official policy of the US to seek a regime change in Iraq. The reason Monica comes up is to underline the fact that the man is a convicted perjurer, while the Dems love to call Bush a liar.
Clinton = convicted liar
Bush = accused, never proved liar
To use the argument that Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden is just plain stupid. He went DEEP underground after 9/11. We had assassins that had Bin Laden in their cross hairs and BJ wouldn't let them pull the trigger!
2006-09-28 15:29:23 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Boof 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush and his administration got all of their information about
Iraq's WMD from Clinton and his administration, a fact which the Bush-bashers ignore.
Clinton turned down an offer to have bin Laden turned over to him.
Clinton claimed credit for an economic boom which was really the result of Ronald Reagan's policies.
Clinton refusal to retaliate against Al Qaeda did nothing but encourage them.
Clinton and his wife tried to steal priceless artifacts out of the White House when they left.
Miz Monica was just the icing on the cake.
2006-09-28 15:25:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The difference between Bush & Clinton catching O sama is Bill knew where he was & did not try to catch him.Gw never raised his hand & promise to tell the truth then lie.GW never had a affair with a goverment employee then lie about it.GW never gave Iraq a 72 hour notice befor bombing them.GW never balanced the budget on small bussiness like Bill did with mine. I almost went out because of him& his taxes.
2006-09-28 15:45:44 · answer #4 · answered by BUTCH 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Every president, past, present and future, will always be subject to scrutiny--that's part of being president. Their legacies will always be evaluated and re-evaluated throughout history. As for attacking Clinton, most of the "attacks" I'm aware of lately, have been regarding the part he played leading up to 9-11.
Monica may or may not have played a part in the way Clinton handled terrorism. He didn't take certain actions because he didn't want to be accused of wagging the dog, according to several who worked for him. Personally, I wouldn't have blamed anyone for accusing of him of wagging the dog. He put HIMSELF in the position of someone who could not be trusted. If people would have accused him of wagging the dog, it's HIS OWN FAULT. So, in that respect, the Monica thing, COULD have played a part in the way Clinton handled terrorism.
2006-09-28 15:29:02 · answer #5 · answered by Mike N 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cause he had 8 years to get Bin Laden. Who murdered over 3000 people.
I could care less about Monica.
2006-09-28 15:24:29 · answer #6 · answered by Dana Lana 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
you're incorrect on one ingredient. there are a number of motives to attack Canada. the superb one is to keep away from yet another crappy actor/actress from coming over right here and make undesirable movies. different than for Leslie Nielson, he became into great.
2016-10-15 08:05:11 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't know any1 attacked him, He was asked a simple ?? and it hit home and he BLEW up. He cracks me up.said I tried and tried to kill bin laden, at least I tried. Well he had 8 years,just a bit more then 8 months wouldn't you say?
As much crap and name calling Our President goes through,I gotta say at least he has class!
2006-09-28 15:29:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because Bill Clinton is going around and setting the foundation stones for his Wife.And some people do not like that.
2006-09-28 15:25:34 · answer #9 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It doesn't help Iraq, it gets the public's mind off of the horrible mess we've made in the middle east and onto the mess that Clinton made on that girl's dress (I'm sorry but I had to do it). People don't want to think of something bloody and complicated, they would rather think of something that reminds them of TV and Jesus (lazy, ignorant dumbasses).
2006-09-28 15:23:11 · answer #10 · answered by desert_falcon932 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋