And when you consider that it was under Reagan that Mujahadin were given tools to become the Taliban, maybe all of the conservatives flapping their gums about how Clinton is responsible for 911 should think twice.
2007-02-26 13:34:54 · 21 answers · asked by brickity hussein brack 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Keep in mind , I was refering to George H W Bush, not George W Bush. George W Bush has done a lot to fight terror.
2007-02-26 13:39:58 · update #1
Look at the money Clinton cut from the Intelligence budget and the opportunity he had to have Saudi Arabia take Bin Laden down. And lets not forget the bombing of the Twin Towers the first time or the USS Cole. Or any of the other things that happened under Clinton. Learn some history.
Oh, and a little something else. Reagan armed the Mujaheddin almost 20 years ago. Those weapons do not have an indefinite shelf life. I'm sure some still are operational, but they are sporting an awful lot of AK47s and Russian RPGs. Weapons readily available on the open market. You can blame the Taliban more on heroin production and the $$ to buy an army much more than you can blame the US helping fight against the USSR.
2007-02-26 13:39:27 · answer #1 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
False. You took the time to list all the reasons you thought Bush Sr. and Reagan didn't do anything right, but you failed to mention: What did Clinton do?
Under President Reagan, the Soviet Union was broken apart. Any time that there was an attack or threat on America, Reagan responded with force. He let them know that if they messed with the US, then he would kick their you-know-whats. When there was an attack on the US during the Clinton presidency, however, Clinton did absolutely nothing. When the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center the first time in 1993 (the explosion in the basement), he didn't respond at all.
2007-02-26 13:52:58 · answer #2 · answered by RidiculousTallness 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you smoking? Clinton (like most democrats) was a quacker Chicken (to say it nicely) and bush is a crazed warmonger, they all sucked! Reagan was probably the best president we have had in a long time. And clinto is to blame partially for 9/11 since he did absolutely nothing after the first W trade C attack in the 90's.
2007-02-26 13:58:46 · answer #3 · answered by stoned 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im a Democrat and even I agree that Clinton had a lax policy. Reagan however did fund the Mujhadeen and Osama, while Bush was VP.
2007-02-26 13:45:20 · answer #4 · answered by go 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is too easy to blame Clinton............Reagan did help the Taliban form. They needed help fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. So even though Clinton really didn't have as much of a reason to fight terrorism wholeheartedly Reagan did supply the first weapons and training that came back to haunt America.
2007-02-26 13:39:11 · answer #5 · answered by Nagitar™ 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Still, Clinton had a ton of info he did nothing but goof with.
I think its safe to say that Clinton and Bush really wasted the intel they had.
2007-02-26 13:40:48 · answer #6 · answered by independent101 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, like 2+3=4.
2007-02-26 13:38:49 · answer #7 · answered by animalmother 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I BELIEVE HE DID. REAGAN GAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO IRAQ TO FIGHT IRAN, IRAN-CONTRA, AND CLINTON TRIED BUT FAILED. AT LEAST HE TRIED AND GEORGE W BUSH FELT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN. I BLAME BUSH FOR THE CONSTANT TERROR ATTACKS ALL ACROSS IRAQ AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.
2007-02-26 18:57:15 · answer #8 · answered by MASTERMIKE2004 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What clinton did for terror?? Hmmm that'd be a question for Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick to answer, if they are out of hiding.
2007-02-26 13:45:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
false.
Taliban was fighting with Russian then.
Regan Defeated Soviet Union.
George Bush Sr. Defeated Saddam and saved Kuwait.
What did Clinton Defeat???? Monica? LOL
2007-02-26 13:37:34 · answer #10 · answered by Quickie 3 · 6⤊ 4⤋