2007-02-12 03:11:39 · 13 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, no, no, you don't understand. The 28th Amendment to the Constitution allows for a double standard on this issue. When a President is a Democrat, Americans are allowed - nay, encouraged - to attack everything he does, down to where he chooses to put his penis. When a President is a Republican, however, he can do whatever he wants without fear of punishment.
2007-02-12 03:17:33 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
We attacked Clinton for his failure to do anything about Iraq, and for his multiple failures to respond to terrorist attacks - Khobar Towers, WTC bombing, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, the Iraqi assassination attempt on George HW Bush, etc.
We saw him waste time, effort and people in Haiti, Somalia and Kosovo and Iraq, without ever doing anything to counter terrorism.
He cut both the military and intelligence agency budgets, and never established any significant national security programs that might have detected and prevented 9/11. Because if he HAD established any programs, then Bush would not have had to implement so many after 9/11.
Shall we even talk about Clinton giving North Korea 2 nuclear reactors, that are now their source for weapons grade materials?
The truth is that Clinton emboldened our enemies despite the hue and cry of the conservatives for him to take action and do something.
2007-02-12 03:32:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I love how libs throw around the term "neo" to make things sound bad. If they actually knew anything, they'd know that neo-cons are a DEMOCRAT faction.
But, to answer your question, CONSERVATIVES have never emboldened our enemies. Clinton emboldened our enemies by not doing anything of consequence when our country was attacked five full times (U.S.S Cole, first WTC bombing, U.S. Embassy bombings, etc.). Clinton emboldened our enemies by cutting and running from Somalia. Clinton helped our enemies by giving nuclear materials to war-mongering nations like Iran. Even today liberals continue to embolden our enemies by calling our commander in chief a liar, completely ignoring the fact that his words echoed those of Bill and Hillary Clinton and a number of other democrats. Even today liberals continue to embolden our enemies by calling our troops terrorists (Ala John Kerry), accusing them without benifit of trial or even investigation of murdering civilians in cold blood (Ala John Murtha). Even today liberals continue to embolden and aide our enemies by demanding that we cut and run from Iraq, thus letting that country descend into an anarchy that would leave millions dead and give terrorists a foothold in that region.
So now... Who is emboldening our enemies? Think about it.
2007-02-12 03:21:33 · answer #3 · answered by Firestorm 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not for the same reasons Libs embolden our enemies by attacking Bush. You know, the one president that has actually taken action against our enemies.
2007-02-12 03:20:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They didn't "embolden" the enemy they enraged them. Clinton's reluctance to combat terrorists through appeasement gave terrorists carte blanche to act throughout the world against US interests. Attacking Clinton for ignoring the terrorists really didn't sit well with them.
2007-02-12 03:18:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
enable's purely play a touch be conscious association. close your eyes and music out the marketing campaign rhetoric for a jiffy, sparkling your ideas, and tell me the first be conscious that includes your ideas when I say "obama". what did you arise with? bin weighted down? barack? yo mama? none of those solutions are inherently any more beneficial efficient than the others, yet in trouble-free words the 2d one would nicely be construed as 'honest'. now see what includes ideas once you listen the be conscious "hussein". more beneficial many times than no longer, the reply is "saddam", and both are frequently linked with one yet another. unfair? ignorant? per chance... many germans elected to drop the surname 'hitler' in the mid twentieth century because of the ugly connotations. combatants of obama opt for ability voters to sense this same unease even as they even listen the call. even as there will be valid political factors to be made hostile to the guy, the emotional charm (or subsequently un-charm) of his call would sway many voters more beneficial than any political agendas... honest or no longer. that is why neo-cons like mr. cunningham in cincinnati do it...
2016-11-27 03:58:22 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, you have backwards. Clinton emboldened our enemies by not going after Bin Laden when he was in his clutches and by not going after WMD's that even Clinton admitted were in Iraq.
2007-02-12 03:21:36 · answer #7 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He attacked white women first & the White House!
2007-02-12 04:14:00 · answer #8 · answered by babysoftfox 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
telling someone to get out of the Oval Office with Monica and do something about terror is not attacking it's wanting to get what we paid for.
2007-02-12 03:17:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Good question. Clinton did a very good job at countering terrorism.
2007-02-12 03:24:14 · answer #10 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋