They knew about Bin Laden from the start. They had 8 months. Instead, Bush chose to go on vacation as soon as he was elected president. The Clinton administration had little evidence on Bin Laden and he would have only been extradited to Saudi Arabia anyway.
But the Bush administration has no excuse. They didn't take the threat seriously. And look at the problems they have caused!
Why didn't they take the threat seriously??
2007-03-17 02:45:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
HOW COME YOU CANNOT DEFEND BUSH, BUT ONLY SPEAK LIES ABOUT CLINTON?
2007-03-17 02:57:55 · update #1
Because Bush is Bush. There's no excuse for him except that the American people made a mistake or Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) made a mistake.
2007-03-17 02:54:24 · answer #1 · answered by howardlee1977 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Bush administration showed a desire from the start of its take over to discredit and diminish the Clinton administration. Remember the "trashing" of the White House that Bush claimed the Clinton people were responsible for? By the time the GAO got around to telling people that it never happened or was minimal wear and tear, the country had moved on. There was three "W"s missing from the keyboards in three offices, and some cocktail napkins and ashtrays were missing from Air Force one, that was about it.
Bush was so busy destroying Clintons legacy, that he was determined to ignore everything that Clintons people handed off to him, that included Intel and certain 'restrictive' business rules, like the one that had airlines putting in locking, bulletproof doors to the cockpits, on the back burner.
If he had had a little less hate in his heart, they never could have taken over the airplanes used in 9/11. No one had flown a plane into a building before, but there had been plenty of hijackings.
Clinton missed hitting Osama by minutes on more than one occaision. Bush has never come that close in five years with the full force and might of the US armed forces behind him. And that was AFTER Osama attacked us on our soil, not before
The incredible whining of the Bush admin is discussed by the GAO. The trashing included such terrors as paper punchholes spelling out a dirty word and words left on whiteboards Horrors?
2007-03-17 09:56:41 · answer #2 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the only lies about Pres. Clinton is posed by lady above. the gao never reported about computers or any other furniture. the only reported about the buildings. the USA was hit in 1993 by Al-Qaeda and nothing was done. and how many other attacks on other USA targets. but Pres. Clinton did nothing. and Pres. Clinton did not miss Bin Lendin by minutes it was either hours or days counting on who you listen too.(only Pres. Clinton says minutes ) the head of the terrorist dept. in the Clinton adminstration says we had 8 changes to get him and nothing was done. so President Bush was following the lead set President Clinton. and 911 was the first attack done during his term. you got to be kidding little evidence but they handed over all the evidence to the Bush adminstration with everything they needed. is this not circular reasoning. and the report only stated that Al-Qaeda was planning to attack. not where or how or when.
2007-03-17 10:19:15 · answer #3 · answered by rap1361 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know that this may sound weird but the fact is that bin-laden might be a CIA agent who operates under the supervision of the Jewish lobby. but it might sound very reasonable as well for the Zions' main book 'Zion leaders protocol' contexts that in order to control the world the should destroy the greatest building in the greatest country _which was Britain in this time_ but now, after the rise of America.....you know! and for material evidences and investigations you might've heard about this french guy who made a web site with all the visual and material evidence (with pictures) that proves the U.S. government involvation and treachery,by the way, this guy declared that this who can give material evidences of his theory's mistake will be handed 100,000$! good luck!
2007-03-17 10:19:37 · answer #4 · answered by knight of darkness 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You say the Clinton's had little info on OBL so why didn't Bush take action on this lack of info. Sounds like you would like your cake and eat it to
2007-03-17 09:55:16 · answer #5 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Blame Clinton who had 14 excellent chances to kill him and refused to do so, because there might be civilians near.
2007-03-17 10:04:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
he didnt!...and the person you need to place this blame on his your hero, billy clinton...read richard miniter's book: "losing bin laden" and perhaps, just perhaps, you might learn a thing or two about what really happened instead of parroting democrat inanity.
2007-03-17 09:51:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
that is a whole lot of kool aide you been drinking, Clinton had several chances to get OBL, could have had his head on a spit twice, so wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
2007-03-17 09:49:06 · answer #8 · answered by 007 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess they were as uniformed as this question.
2007-03-17 09:55:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋