I have come to the conclusion that regardless of how long the Repubs have control "to blame Clinton" will be there main source of denial/refuge.
2007-01-12 03:45:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Not for Iraq...but he is to blame for not stopping terrorism and helping bring on 9/11...
2007-01-12 03:57:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's absolutely rediculous to blame Clinton for Bush's screw up in Iraq, or 9/11 for that matter. But that is exactly what some of the righties have done, and will continue to do long after both Clinton and Bush are dead. Denial runs deep in some corners.
2007-01-12 04:02:42 · answer #2 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but let's not disregard the fact that for 8 years he did exactly NOTHING about the situation with Iraq. Doing nothing only kicked the problem down to the next guy.
I for one, thought he should have done something - anything! - but he didn't. He learned the wrong lesson from his misadventure and ignominious retreat from Somalia. He was too much the coward to do anything that entailed any political risk or risk to his swooning popularity amongst the smitten liberals.
And his multiple failures to act after repeated terrorist attacks on the US (the 1st WTC, the Khobar Towers, the US embassies in Kenya & Tanzania and the USS Cole), his reduction of military and intelligence budgets and his failure to have improved our national security should all be considered serious dereliction of duty in the face of the enemy.
Yes, he is not to blame for the current situation in Iraq, but his failures put us on a path where such action was unavoidable.
2007-01-12 04:15:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He is as much to blame as Eisenhower, Carter, Bush Sr and all the rest since 1950. He shares in the lies. What is it that makes people believe this all came about in the last 6 1/2 years? It really amazes me...
The first recorded attack on American soil by Islamic terrorists came in March of 1977 on the watch of former President Carter and literally nothing was done about it. It took place mere blocks from the White House.
For whatever "hidden" reasons people choose to believe, this President is the first to act on this and go after people who are responsible either by direct acts, or by supporting those who did act directly. Mistakes were made, who doesn't make mistakes? But acting on a thing is more effective than ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
2007-01-12 03:50:17 · answer #4 · answered by Rich B 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, you can't blame Bill. He bombed Iraq and he bombed Slobo long and hard when he was in office and I don't have any doubts he would have followed much the same course the current administration did in invading Iraq. He and his wife, daschle, kerry, and most all of the crowd now opposed to the war, were after all , initially supportive of the invasion.
(and, they were all calling for more troops justmere weeks ago- now that popular opinion has turned, they have waffled the other way. that's no way to run a country, or a war)
And, according to Durbin its been a success in every conceivable facet- we've deposed saddam, caught, tried, and executed him, we've established that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and, we've installed a democratic government.
Execpt, tell me again why should we desert them now after all we've done? I mean wouldn't it be a good idea to have a free Iraq, whose government is one of our closest allies, rather than pull out now and pray the situation doesn't erode into an all out war in the entire region. And then we'll be talking about military decisions on a much larger scale than 20,000 troops-
2007-01-12 03:57:59 · answer #5 · answered by Lane 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Might as well add him to the list. Pres. Bush has taken more than his share of blame. The Republicans have been blamed, as well as the Democrats. And you know what? Blaming someone makes it all better, doesn't it?
2007-01-12 03:49:59 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Quest 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no justification for blaming Clinton for Iraq. There are plenty of other things to blame him for....
2007-01-12 03:51:14 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Heck no it's not fair. Bush is the one with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands
2007-01-12 03:53:37 · answer #8 · answered by KARMA 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only if your a conservative that worships Bush like a god.
2007-01-12 03:53:53 · answer #9 · answered by The Maestro 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋