do it ? Was that the day he came this close to killing Osama bin Laden ?
2006-10-09 16:42:24 · 7 answers · asked by missmayzie 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Clinton was a reactive President. He wouldn't have done **** without them doing something first.
As for Osama. "We missed him by hours," sure buddy... First of all why launch a cruise missile strike? There should have been a S.E.A.L or Army Delta group operating in that area with an ongoing mission to hunt and kill the guy, especially with what Clinton claimed to have known about him. But that's Democrat policies at its best, no action until you check with the President first. Republicans try to put people in leadership positions that can act on their own. Unfortunately when the wrong person is put in charge, things like Iran-Contra can happen.
What's funny is that containment of Osama by the methods above were the norm back during Reagan and Bush, Sr. We did **** like that and nobody knew. If it happened under Clinton he would've been bragging about it all over the place. I'd still hate the guy, but at least 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Another funny thing is that Reagan never had to threaten to bomb the USSR to stop them. He knew that our chances of physically stopping them are slim and insignificant compared to convincing them not to do it. Eventually, the USSR broke, NK will follow, but not for awhile. Our resources our needed in the Middle East for now. NK is a smaller version of the Cold War. Just play along with them and feed their ego a bit to keep them from doing anything foolish. Once we can devote more resources to them we'll break them like we did the USSR.
2006-10-10 19:34:39 · answer #1 · answered by goopup 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Bill Clinton was able to find a solution to the problem without starting a war that would get innocent people killed.
When George Bush had six years to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, why didn't he? Was he too busy sawing wood at the ranch while Osama Bin Laden has continued to roam free for five years after Bush pledged to bring him in "dead or alive"? I guess the plan was to bring him in dead...of old age.
2006-10-09 19:46:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He is a Democrat, the Republicans refused to back any of this ideas.
Bush is a Repulican, the Democrats refuse to back his ideas.
You see a pattern here. Check Rep vs Demo for past 40 years.
Who are the real losers????? AMERICANS
2006-10-09 16:46:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
yeah lets blame it all on bill clinton
2006-10-09 19:24:51 · answer #4 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
me and everyone else totally agree with Jerry, give him the 10 points!
2006-10-09 17:11:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Agree with Jerry...political parties suck.
2006-10-09 16:52:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because he is a p*ssy.
2006-10-09 16:50:37 · answer #7 · answered by WitchTwo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋