2006-09-28 16:03:35 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If he admits that it was even 0.000001% his fault, he (and the other republicans) will immediately lose support from their followers and voters. However if he blames Clinton, the democrats will lose support (if they present the information in a convincing manner even if they have to lie). THAT'S RIGHT I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU ABC!
2006-09-28 16:12:54 · answer #1 · answered by desert_falcon932 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is it easier for Clinton to blame Bush for 9-11? Clinton should have had the nads to capture Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance. There is no direct blame for the attacks. No one here planned them, it was the Islamic Fascists. The U.S. just thought we were impenetratable and indistructible. Well, we learned a very important lesson. Let's hold on to it and hope it never happens again.
2006-09-28 23:28:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither one. Al Queda and other Islamic extremists are to blame.
2006-09-28 23:27:48 · answer #3 · answered by greg j. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋