2000 AS HE WAS LEAVING OFFICE? HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO DO ANYTHING! BUSH DIDN'T INVADE AFGANISTAN FOR NEARLY 6 WEEKS AFTER 9/11!!
2007-01-12 19:32:45 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
THE ONE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR BOMBING THE WTC ARE NOW IN PRISON.
2007-01-12 19:38:22 · update #1
The USS Cole attack was an al-qaeda suicide bomber. At the time, many in the military thought it wasn't a terrorist attack because they attacked the US military, not innocent Americans. However, Richard Clake still developed a strategy to counter attack al-qaeda...this was in the last days of Clinton's presidency. Bush received all the information on al-qaeda and Clarke and the CIA warned Bush about their anti- american hate...as Clarke said in his testimony the Bush administration "wasn't urgent" in their response to al-qaeda...Bush did NOTHING to stop al-qaeda and i firmly believe 911 wouldn't have occurred. Bush could care less about the attack on the USS Cole...he was too focused about Saddam and his assasination attempts on his father. Read Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke to understand the Bush's lack of leadership.
2007-01-12 20:11:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Look you are fighting a losing battle with these brain dead rebuttals in defense of Bush and put downs of Clinton. Clinton was a great president and I wish he would have had the chance to fight back with Gore and the two of them would make the Bush/Cheney regime look like kindegartners playing with toy soldiers. Clinton is brilliant and so is Gore, and they really should be running the white house, too bad we can't temporarily put them back in there to stop this mess, but we can't so now what?
2007-01-13 03:43:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm a democrat and I think you bubble is a bit off center and I think Bush is a disaster, but it is absurd to criticize him for taking 6 weeks to invade Afganistan, it is father away than North Dakota and wars take some planning. for an example of no planning see Iraq.
2007-01-13 03:41:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
if the treasonous clinton would have taken the war to the enemy after the first WTC bombing, 9/11 would not have happened. he betrayed the US by doing nothing.
he also betrayed the US military by ordering a mission in somalia then refusing to give the soldiers the equipment they requested to do the job. even after the US soldiers were being drug through the streets, he ran away like a frightened school girl instead of taking the war to the enemy.
2007-01-13 03:58:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
because he did nothing! he decided to let the next president deal with it. he also didn't do a whole lot about terrorism either. i heard an interview with the guy who carried the nuke launch codes (the football) for clinton, this guy was with clinton where ever he went and wasn't far from him when he slept. he said that clinton had about 8 opportunities to take out OBL and didn't do it. that's why republicans say that!
2007-01-13 03:46:03 · answer #5 · answered by hairpoor 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because he didn't do anything , just like Somalia....
Gee he didn't invade Afghanistan until the logistics were lined up? Shame on him! He should've sent thousands of troops over there with no extra mmo or food... Good thinking there liberalacci.
2007-01-13 03:59:57 · answer #6 · answered by Lt. Dan reborn 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What did Clinton do after the WTC was bombed during his watch?
2007-01-13 03:36:59 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because Clinton never did anything. There were multiple chances at getting Osama during the Clinton years, and his administration dodged all of them.
2007-01-13 03:54:10 · answer #8 · answered by Cthon 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.....er, um......terrism!
2007-01-13 03:37:46 · answer #9 · answered by dr schmitty 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋