Clinton's administration informed Bush very well about what they knew. The military heads were the same (except Bush). Bush's father also knew of the impending problems and what they were capable of........So why are they still blaming Clinton?
It also took him 3 months to react and then in the wrong country and targeting the wrong man.
You know, I could use a 3 month vacation on the taxpayers dime, couldn't you?
2006-10-22 10:57:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by MrsMike 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
Why is it so easy to blame everything bad that happens in the United States on the President in office? Hello. He does not control the government and quite honestly, has little power in the government. 9/11 was in the planning stages long before Bush took office anyway, and Clinton screwed up when he had a clear shot at that b***tard Bin Laden and the people in the State Department didn't give it the green light, for some unexplainable reason. Don't you remember the attacks prior to 9/11 on the 2 American Embassies in Sudan and sorry, another nation I cannot remember, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. And what do you think -- that the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 wasn't just a prelude to 2001. No, clearly it was not Bush's fault. You can't point the finger on just one person.
2006-10-22 10:47:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by lovelycutiepie 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
You DO realize that presidents don't GET vacations, right? And even if they take a few moments out of their day to do their own thing, it doesn't mean that they cease being the president.
Whoever is the sitting president is the president no matter where they are or what they're doing.
Now, as for 9/11. No, Republicans have not forgotten that 9/11 happened "on Bush's watch." They also have not forgotten that President Bush had eight months to prevent the biggest terrorist attack in US history, while Clinton had eight years.
Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's "watch." Does that mean FDR was a bad president? Of course not.
The Civil War happened on Lincoln's "watch." Does that mean Lincoln was a bad president? Nope, he was one of the best.
The Great Depression started nine months after Hoover's inauguration. Does that mean Hoover was at fault? Nope.
So what's your point, exactly?
Sigh. Sounds like someone has forgotten how it works when a president is elected. They DON'T actually assume the office until January, the year after they're elected. Elections were held in November 2000. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001. 9/11 happened EIGHT MONTHS after that.
2006-10-22 10:42:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
careful now, you're initiating to sound like former President George Bush. in spite of everything he did say the financial recession got here below his watch. As for bill Clinton, different than partying on the white living house backyard in his underclothes there is not any longer lots else to declare. He exchange right into a stable time guy. Clinton did no longer something and Bush did to lots. in simple terms is going to coach 2 wrongs do no longer make a top.
2016-10-15 07:53:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question really brings up some GOOD points. I don't want to take up too much space and discuss all of them. JUST ONE
Is it any wonder, why some folks on this site have been suggesting a 'qualifying test' to pass, PRIOR to being allowed on here.
You said that you are an American(see 'our country') And YOU THINK PRESIDENT BUSH HAD 1 YEAR and 9 MONTHS TO PREPARE OUR COUNTRY FOR AN ATTACK, SPECIFICALLY 9/11...2001. . .. . . AND YOU "CLAIM TO BE AN AMERICAN".
EVERYBODY, ALL DEMS AND ALL REPS , ALL AMERICANS KNOW 9/11 HAPPENED .. .. .. ... .. 8 MONTHS AFTER PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK OFFICE. Not 1 year 9 months.
There's a huge difference. If you were off by a month or so, no big deal. But it's INCONCEIVABLE that a TRUE AMERICAN could be so far off.
GOOD DAY, SIR.
2006-10-22 11:26:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
It would be impossible to forget when 9-11 happened.
Just as it is impossible to forget that Clinton "balanced" the budget by down-sizing the military and allowing radical Islamic terrorism to grow unchecked...
Prove the 120 day vacation statement, please.
We "praise" Bush because he faced the most serious attack on US soil in over 30 years, early in his Presidency, and managed to unite Americans in fighting terrorism and strengthening our defenses.
2006-10-22 11:26:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The 9/11 attack was a plan in the works prior to Bush being in office. They were planning this during the Clinton administration most likely so don't blame Dubya for 9/11.
2006-10-22 10:39:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by chrstnwrtr 7
·
5⤊
3⤋
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The attack was planned long before he was even RUNNING for president. The real question is why would Afghanis support a group like Al-Queda after the US helped them oust the UUSR, (also while US soldiers where dying in order to rescue the muslim Bosnian minority from Christian fundamentalists). This just PROVES that you can't reason with these people.
(For the record, this is not a pro-war rant, just a pro-objectivist rant)
2006-10-22 10:53:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Al 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Why do Democrats forget that Clinton could have killed Osama at least four times and was urged to do so by many of the CIA operatives that worked in that region but he refused to every time! Further, his not doing anything about the USS Cole bombing emboldened the terrorists to do even more damage. Clinton was busy taking advantage of an intern in the Oval Office. He left that and other messes to Bush and the Republicans to clean up. Why?
2006-10-22 10:41:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
Because everything that happens during Bush administration is Clinton's fault and everything that happens after is the next guy's fault and nothing is Bush's fault
But seriously, it doesn't matter who was president, they were going to attach anyway I think.
2006-10-22 10:59:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by ash 7
·
1⤊
2⤋