2007-03-15 04:06:57 · 12 answers · asked by james B 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They just hate to admit to following an idiot and so they make excuses. Actually they should join most of the country and the world and see what Dubya is all about and work with us to set things right. But some people just blindly follow no matter what.
2007-03-15 04:11:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
below no circumstances heard a republican blame Clinton for 9/11, inspite of the reality that i won't deny that they think he's rather in charge. all people who say the blame is squarely on Clinton is being unreasonable and unfair. Obama does not get a bypass from republicans on the economic gadget for this reason of actuality he had a democratic abode and senate his first 2 years to bypass what ever he want as a thank you to repair the economic gadget. not something President Obama promised has come to fruition on the venture. 9/11 exceeded off relitively early in his term (below a twelve months) so some accountability ought to be share with the previous administration. President Obama keeps to communicate approximately what he inherited virtually 4 years into his first term, consequently not seen as a competent chief for not taking any responnsibility and passing the blame. Im not finding out on aspects, purely explaining it as I see it.
2016-12-18 14:16:52 · answer #2 · answered by spadafora 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What have I blamed on Clinton????
I've been pretty consistent - Clinton's economic policies were, but for the 1993 tax hike, sound. It's that his party's base, which includes his wife, were AGAINST those policies and still want to do the opposite - that's what bothers me about the Democrats.
I'd take Bill Clinton over any Democrat and over some of the Republicans running.
2007-03-15 04:21:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because if they had to take stock of all the things Bush is responsible for, it would be earth-shaking to them.
They elected him based on the notion that he was going to be a strong President - because he SAID he was going to be a strong President. Unfortunately, what makes a strong leader is not stubbornness, but realism, flexibility and the ability to make every attempt to peacefully co-exist with the other citizens of the world. (War being a LAST resort, when all other attempts have been exhausted and failed.)
The truth is, the Clinton excuse might have been valid for a couple of months, but Bush has been President for six years now and nothing has gotten any better. Even if Clinton had been the crappy President they want the world to believe he was... a GOOD President would have been able to turn things around in two terms. Bush has failed. Failure is hard to accept.
2007-03-15 04:14:10 · answer #4 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I see some blame Clinton for not stopping terrorism but Bush claims that the Patriot Act is indispensable in the war on terror. Clinton did not have the Patriot Act during his admin. therefore either it is inappropriate to blame him or the Patriot Act isn't that vital. personally I believe it is the latter.
2007-03-15 04:35:13 · answer #5 · answered by Alan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a conservative and I blame Clinton and Bush equally.
2007-03-15 04:10:21 · answer #6 · answered by steve_spackle 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I guess You don't know any true Conservatives. A real Conservative will tell you that NOT EVERYTHING Mr. Bush does makes us all ecstatic. I take exception to plenty of issues that Mr. Bush refuses to address. Big issues like his refusal to secure our borders or to tackle tough immigration issues.
2007-03-15 04:14:48 · answer #7 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Simple, hypocrisy.
2007-03-15 04:10:16 · answer #8 · answered by mixedup 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
state = denial
2007-03-15 04:17:01 · answer #9 · answered by Mark 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they are both scoundrels.
2007-03-15 04:11:36 · answer #10 · answered by seattleogre 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋