regardless of shoulda woulda coulda it still happened on bushes shift why blame clinton why not blame bush sr. he was the one hanging out with the osma family he should have no his buddies kid was a terroist
2007-02-22 04:05:53 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Very simple, please read carefully.
1. If it happened while GWB was president it was Clinton's fault
2. If it happened while Clinton was president it was Clinton's fault
3. If it happened while Bush Sr. was president it was Carter's fault
4. If it happened while Reagan was president it was Carter or FDR's fault
do you see the pattern now?
2007-02-22 04:34:59 · answer #1 · answered by Rick 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton stood idly be and allowed Osama to gain power even when he had the opportunity to take him and even after Osama masterminded attacks against US citizens and interest. With that being said it doesn't matter what Clinton did or didn't do anymore because he is no longer in office. What matters now is stopping future attacks and to do that there is a lot of things that need doing. Fighting terrorism at it's point of origin is a start but more is also needed here in the US. Bush hasn't covered every concern that I think he should but he has started the actions that will help prevent the next attack. He still needs to take a close look at our immigration policies and the lack of enforcement of them.
2007-02-22 12:20:33 · answer #2 · answered by joevette 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
clinton had a chance, bush had a chance. the fact is getting bin laden,no-killing bin laden-should still be a priority and still is.the fact that we are hunting down and killing apocalyptical terrorists does not detract from trying to find bin laden.what started out as a positive annihilation of islamic terrorists,continues today.they cannot be reasoned with-they must be killed. osama differs himself from the rest of his ilk only by the fact that he doesn't want to die for his "cause"-which is hatred for Israel and Western society-he feels he is too important.
2007-02-22 12:19:45 · answer #3 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's that whole "accountability" issue, I suspect. Remember when our Idiot King promised to bring "accountability" and "respect" back to the White House? Must have left these items at the Reagan gravesite.
2007-02-22 12:10:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The main thing is that there is no solid proof bin laden had anything to do with 9/11. thats why they never caught him and never will. the war on terror is all bs.
2007-02-22 12:10:20 · answer #5 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋