English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

First, he's questioned about not killing Osama Bin Laden four times when he had the chance, and not accepting him from Sudan when they offered him. And now, people are looking back at what the Clinton administration did for North Korea under Albright and at the behest of Jimmy Carter to aid their nuclear pursuits in the 90s. No wonder liberals never want the actual RESULTS of their actions and policies analyzed and evaluated. They are fully aware of what failures they are!

2006-10-10 17:35:04 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

Keep trying to rewind history back to the Clinton administration, that's cute. MAYBE some folks will be detracted from Bush's problems with the war, the Abramoff lobbying scandal, Foley's pedophilia, Hastert's knowledge of same, PlameGate, Ralph Reed's failed bid at the Georgia Primary, and Bob Woodward's book.

Very cute. I give you an "A" for effort.

Oh yeah...nice job of how Bush really stalled North Korea's nuclear capacities after discovering Iraq's WMDs, yes?

Willy may have been a skirt-chaser, but he didn't lead America into an unfounded war that has cost nearly 3,000 lives of U-S soldiers.......

2006-10-10 17:37:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7 5

He admitted that looking back he didn't do everything he could have to get Osama Bin Laden, but that was before we knew how big of a threat he was. At the same time, President Clinton left a strategy for getting Osama Bin Laden and many expert opinions that Osama Bin Laden should be a priority for the Bush Administration. President Bush ignored all this and even after September 11th has still failed to go after Osama Bin Laden in a productive way.

As far as North Korea, President Clinton had ongoing negotiations and a strategy that seemed to be working. Once President Bush took office he had everything Clinton had been working on stopped and since than North Korea has built and tested a Nuclear Weapon.

So who is the failure here?

2006-10-10 17:42:37 · answer #2 · answered by Alex 3 · 3 2

Dear Matt, I'm not a US citizen. You are probably a GOP partisan.
Clinton did many things wrong, I think. But N.Korea held to the non-proliferation treaty while he was President. When Bush called N.Korea, Iran and Iraq the axis of evil and became aggressive towards then, they withdrew and now they have the bomb. (Certainly also because they had nuclear knowledge not only from Pakistan, but also from the Clinton administration)
Under Bush the budget deficit is on an all time high and still increasing, the economy is slowing down and economists are hoping for a soft landing instead of a depression. HOPING, mind you!
Whose actions would you rather analyze and evaluate?

2006-10-10 17:44:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Really? Lets examine how McCain and Condi both managed to condradict each other today. First you had McCain blame Clinton for North Korea, then you had Condi saying basically the exact opposite. So which is it? Quite frankly, what exactly has Bush done since 2001 concerning North Korea? Oh yeah, more cowboy deplomacy. Har, har, har, what a joke.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/10/st-mccain-blames-bill-clinton-for-north-korea/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/10/condi-backs-clinton-over-north-korea

LOL, McCain' s a neo con you fool. Why do you think he said what he said today? Get real. He's paroting the neo con motto, bash Clinton and blame him for everything.

2006-10-10 17:57:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Why does Clinton have to be the scapegoat for everything you Republicans do wrong?

The Clinton years had less unemployment (unless you count the people nowadays who are forced to get jobs with the raised cost of living), a bursting-through-the-roof economy, higher morals and ethics (the bj is nothing compared to Bush's "values"), an aggressive anti-terror Intelligence campaign (although not a perfect one), a reduced deficit and balanced budget, a higher approval rating, a higher standard of living for the middle class, more respect for the Constitution, greater support from many other countries, and a net profit surplus of $127 billion.

The Bush years has had more unemployment, a lower standard of living for the middle-class, a lower approval rating, a worsened economy (because it is only supported by big business), a president who spies on his own people and violates international law, also an aggressive anti-terror campaign (one that is failing miserably), and a HUGE disapproval from all around the world.

2006-10-10 17:51:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

the truth about bill is there for any fair minded person to understand. Clinton lied to congress, had many affairs, many questionable deaths surround the Clinton ( read Clinton Chronicles ) the CIA operative in Afghanistan during the Clinton Adm. himself calls Bill Clinton a lire. he left office with this country in a recession, his cuts in military and intelligence agency's continue to severely hurt the USA effort abroad. I could keep going all night. Not to mention the Mark Rich pardon, I still want answers to that.

2006-10-10 17:50:45 · answer #6 · answered by Work In Progress 3 · 1 2

Can't you and your other neo-cons take any responsibility? Never mind, your question answered it. It is really sad, and I mean SAD, that with all of the hypocrisy and stupidity going on in the White House at this moment, you want to still try to blame an ex-president who served 6 years ago.

"dumbya", cheney, rove, etc, are all to blame. Even your party is basically blaming each other, or have you missed the press conferences about Foley. Get a clue...

2006-10-10 17:46:19 · answer #7 · answered by linus_van_pelt68 4 · 2 1

Donald Rumsfeld sold North Korea $200 million worth of nuclear reactors.

Rumsfeld was a director at a Zurich engineering firm called ABB for 11 years, making $190K per year. ABB sold “light water nuclear reactors” to Kim.

2006-10-10 17:47:48 · answer #8 · answered by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 6 · 1 2

North Korea was exactly the same in the 80's as it is now. I wonder why Reagan or Bush Sr. didn't do anything about them, either?

2006-10-10 17:57:25 · answer #9 · answered by amg503 7 · 2 1

If Mr and Mrs Clinton would keep their collective mouths shut, people wouldn't keep talking about him. He's the first pres. in our history that has gone out and publically critized a sitting president. Even the first Pres. Bush kept his mouth shut about Clinton when there was plenty to say. Clinton did nothing while in office to assure our security in the future. He placated...that's it and now we have to deal with HIS failures.

2006-10-10 17:54:55 · answer #10 · answered by Cinner 7 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers