Why are GOPers so confused about Clinton and terrorism?

Question

Why the myth about Clinton having Osama on a silver platter? Are they that unaware of world politics? Is the 9-11 timeline that confusing?

Don't they know that Clinton tried passing terror measures, but it was the GOP congress obsessed with his sex life, and did not pass his legislation. (1998)

He was also criticized by a former Reagan aide as being "too obsessed with Osama"

Why do they forget that Bush neglected Osama and Terrorism in general in 2001?

If they continue their foolishness after considering, and comprehending these indisputable facts, maybe they can answer this:

If Clinton was so Bad, why didn't the GOP congress step up? Why didn't Bush step up? Why was Bush on vacation 30% of the time?
Why did Bush completely drop the Ball on Terror?

Also why did he attack Iraq when he knew it was not a threat? As the evidence now shows.

So NO GOPer has any logical answer to my question?

So we have a few slow GOP folks out there who don't read much outside of their spin zone.

You guys can't conjure up anything to contradict reality?

And no I didn't contradict myself. Read up. Iraq was no threat, bush knew it.

He dropped the ball, because he let osama go, ignoring other real threats and creating millions of new terrorists around the globe, blowing post 9-11 world wide unity.

You people just don't read much, do you?

Answer 1

Very well stated.. and all good questions.. I can't wait to see all the Repblican excuses.... should be worth a laugh.

But you hit it right on!

Answer 2

Too bad the 9/11 commission didn't get all the documents from the Clinton administration because Sandy Berger stole them and snuck them out of the national archives in his underwear, only to destroy the documents, now the public will never really know what happened. Its a shame you Clinton apologists forget that when you try to disconnect him from terrorism and apologize for his inept handling of his chance to nab Osama.

Answer 3

Where did you get all this crap blasting the GOP.

Clinton had EIGHT years to do something before Bush got in there and he did squat! Don't blame Bush in 2001, what about all the time when it was Billy Bob's watch. You have to admit that Bush didn't have much time in office before 9/11.

Answer 4

Obviously you have not heard the audio tape of Clinton giving a speech in which he says he could have had Osama. But because he hadn't broken any of our laws he didn't feel he had the right to take him. "I plead with the Saudi's to take him but they said he was too much of a hot potato". Yes, he did have him on a silver platter but refused to take responsibility for him. Had he done so, 911 MAY HAVE never happened. BTW: Your question makes you sound like a liberal hack. No common sense.

Answer 5

Clinton would not kill Osama,because he was afraid there were women and kids around. Always concerned more with public opinion then doing the right thing.

Although Mr Clinton accepted that the Taliban regime was inextricably linked to bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network, he refused to consider any military action against it. Envoys were twice despatched to Afghanistan to deliver warnings to the Taliban.

The Clinton administration believed that these would be interpreted as ultimatums similar to that subsequently outlined by President Bush before Congress on Sept 20.

However, Mr Clinton's national security team was reluctant to move beyond rhetoric. "There were verbal scoldings but that was about it," said Gen Shelton. "When discussions came up of what are we going to do, the military focus stayed on Osama bin Laden himself and his outfit."

Mr Clinton authorised the assassination of the al-Qa'eda leader and his lieutenants but would not agree to any operation that could have killed women and children around bin Laden.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/20/wclin20.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/12/20/ixnewstop.html

Answer 6

Is this Michael Moore? Come on, Mikey... fess up. I think Clinton AND Bush didn't take Al Qaeda seriously enough before 9/11.

Clinton decided to sit and watch interns all day while bin Laden’s terrorists are attacking Marines in Yemen in 1992, the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers incident in 1996, bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and bombing the USS Cole in 2000.

Iraq not a threat? Why did Hillary vote FOR force against them? How about John Kerry? Slick Willy himself?

Let us not forget that John Kerry and Bill Clinton also thought Saddam was a threat. John Kerry said: “If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03) Kerry also said: Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)
Kerry Questioned Saddam’s Actions With Respect To His WMD Capability. “Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
Kerry Said “Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real.” “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
Kerry: “I Am Prepared To Hold Saddam Hussein Accountable And Destroy His Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ On War In Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 10/6/02)
Kerry Defended Clinton’s 1998 Attacks Because Saddam “Is Pursuing … Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)

Bill Clinton went so far as to order an attack on Iraq in 1998 as reported by CNN. "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. He also said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
Additionally, Clinton said, "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." Isn’t that what George W. Bush is doing?

Why do Dems forget their guy messed up, too?

Answer 7

You're so deranged that you just contradicted yourself. Bush dropped the ball, next sentence: he attacked Iraq when he knew it was not a threat. What??????

WHEN HAS IRAQ NOT BEEN A THREAT?!!! What evidence now shows otherwise?

Answer 8

It's a just a matter of shifting the blame of 9/11.....Republicans know that Bush dropped the ball big time, and their strategy now is to shift the blame on Clinton so they minimize the backlash that will hurt them for future elections.....they will probably try and blame Katrina on Clinton also.

Answer 9

to help unconfuse the, you might point out some of Bush's failures in regard to terrorism:

Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.
Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

Answer 10

Wait...are you saying Clinton wasn't a terrorist!! Are you sure about that?

Answer 11

Whoever said politics had to be rational