It occured on your boy Bubbas watch with zero retaliation. The attack on a US Naval vessel is an act of war. Just one of many such incidents he neglected or ignored during his miserable 8 years in office. The only terrorist he ever cared for was the little terrorist in his pants that kept molesting ugly interns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_confession_5
2007-03-19 08:38:15 · 20 answers · asked by mr_methane_gasman 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I see that question smoke many Clintoon apologist out of their parents basements this afternoon to respond. Yes nitwits zero response from Clintoon. He left it for Bush to deal with.
2007-03-19 08:44:48 · update #1
Want to find the Path to 9-11? Visit the Oval office and locate the Clintoon semen stains on the carpet and follow that path for 8 long years ignoring the radical muslim menace. Take a few side trips to lie to federal gran jurys along the way.
Ha ha.
2007-03-19 08:46:54 · update #2
SquakS wishes he was a Clinton Intern.
2007-03-19 08:48:35 · update #3
clintons blow
2007-03-19 08:42:19 · answer #1 · answered by Dubya whipped my BUTT 3 · 4⤊ 7⤋
And GWB still not going after OBL. What gives?
The USS Cole attack is part of doing business as a world superpower. The Brits, French, Spanish, Roman empires all got foreign forces hit by a few wacks here and there. The FBI and CIA where involved, and a symmetric effort was put in to the investigation. A army special forces squad was on call. Whether doTerrorism is a crime that has happened for 1000s of years.
What did Ronnie Raygun do about Beiruit barrack bombing?
The FBI and CIA messed up on 9/11. Not helped by GWB's willfil downgrading for Al-Queda threat in favor of putting most effort into preparing for regime changing Iraq. Read Richard Clarke.
2007-03-19 08:58:42 · answer #2 · answered by d c 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And what did Bush do... attacked Iraq. Hey did anyone see Iraq in that article, I didn't but I may have missed it. I saw Yemen, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. Funny cause I see Saudi Arabia come up almost any time I see a story about terrorism. So I guess that my question is if I want to punish someone for doing something illegal, why would I lock up someone they don't even know.
For those of you who don't get what that means, Saudi Arabian families are funding much of the terrorism around the globe. African nations are giving sanctuary to these terrorists. Countries like Yemen are providing training grounds and recruitment for said terrorists. We attacked Iraq, hooray US, way to punish the wrong country.
2007-03-19 08:52:05 · answer #3 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How precisely did he forget approximately with regard to the priority assaults? He extremely started investigating them, yet surpassed over to Bush 3 months later. Bush made the alternative to no longer carry on with up the analyze, and likewise to forget approximately with regard to the warnings of terrorists making plans to crash planes into homes. As for Republicans' obsession with Clinton's intercourse existence - geez adult men - the two get your guy or woman existence of seek for help.
2016-10-02 09:45:15 · answer #4 · answered by rollman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, so what's your point. All you're really saying is that, in order to be truly safe, we need to attack every African and Middle Eastern country on the planet.
So why don't you tell that to our poor military, mired in Iraq while about 18 other Islamic fundamentalist "presidents" are busy murdering their own people. (I'm speaking, of course, of the "president" of Sudan.)
2007-03-19 08:51:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
9/11
London Bombing
Madrid Bombing
Moscow Bombing
Read the paper for the Bombing du jour in Iraq
There is a bunch more happening on Bush 's watch. As a matter of fact since Bush became president, world wide terror attacks have gone up exponentially.
This isn't a good point for you, Bush's countless failures build up when you talk about his war on terror
2007-03-19 08:45:19 · answer #6 · answered by Rick 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
What an interestingly perverted view of the situation.
But you're right - even if that were true, it would ABSOLUTELY absolve Dubya of not going after the man responsible for the worst terror attack ever on U.S. soil.
I fully support him now. You've totally changed my mind.
By the way, with regard to the first WTC bombing - all the people who were suspected to be involved were caught and are currently rotting in jail.
2007-03-19 08:42:45 · answer #7 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
There was retaliation appropriate to the severity of the crime. More people get killed weekly in Iraq than were killed in the USS Cole attack. The people responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing are rotting in a prison right now.
2007-03-19 08:43:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Doing the only thing he thought he was good at! Clinton was a
joke and bush is no better. Bush has really gotten pretty good at sending soldiers to die.
2007-03-19 08:49:56 · answer #9 · answered by Williamstown 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, much better if he'd used the classic Bush response and sent the U.S. military to invade the Congo.
2007-03-19 08:46:41 · answer #10 · answered by socrates 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. I remember George W. Bush running scared in Air Force one during the 9/11 attack also.
2007-03-19 08:41:35 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋