Could Clinton be blamed for Islam army getting to powerful and about to have a nuke?

Question

I mean he did nothing well not that much plus he let them get to powerful like we did with Germany Nazis we just looked on when they got to powerful.

Radical and I bkam clinton for not doing anything before that way the war now would have been some easer.

Answer 1

Search engine Clinton -Executive Orders during his administration Clinton did sell weapons to Iran to promote their nuclear energy programs. Trouble was they did not work.
He created bills to exclude US oil companies support in the Gulf region setting Iran back 10yrs in production time and opening the door to foreign support like China and Russia.
U don't think Iran remembers these blunders? That new President sure does. Read Persian Journals and Iran newspapers.
I believe Bush could have slammed Clinton on all his screw ups yet chose the high road. Bush also was stuck with alot of military problems and a CIA/FBI who never communicated before 9-11. So, I can find alot of blame on Clintons watch. God help US all if he gets back in office.

RE: No Korea. On Clintons detail they launched a long range missile capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii (no date sorry but I was in Hawaii at the time). Fortunatly it tanked and fell into the sea short of Japan. Little was made of any effort to stop this potential threat back then. Yet they still toss missiles up. Atleast now like the one yesterday that was short range and monitored b4 it went off. TY

Answer 2

Islam is a big umbrella, care to specify a bit more or do you mean Iran? And you are going to seriously blame one out of 4 presidents that could have been doing something about this? We haven't had formal talks with Iran since 79'. So to answer your question no Clinton could not be blamed all alone...you would have to throw Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. in there as well. Might want to start wondering why Halliburton is still doing business with Iran? Does this not help them out economically? That would be treason if you ask me at this point since they still are doing business there.

Answer 3

Islam army? I did not know there was one but Pakistan developed nukes during Bush senor's administration and they are an Islam nation. If you are talking about Iran pushing their nuclear program forward, I think you can blame that on this Bush administration. Didn't GWB call them a part of the axis of evil along with North Karia and Iraq. Well the mad man president said that, ran off and recklessly attacked the weakest of the three, and the other two started working on nukes to defend themselves. What would you expect them to do?

Answer 4

He might desire to die a thoroughly organic death and the media, and his supporters, might cook dinner some thing up, something, to make it her fault. something that occurs to him from right here on out - no count if it extremely is the Republicans utilising Hillary's words against him (as though they does not have completed an identical along with his words against her in the opposite), or those small city electorate sticking it to him through balloting for McCain (nevertheless of direction his very own fault for his comments approximately them), or him dropping the election - would be Hillary Clinton's fault. If he gets a hangnail ten years from now, you extra valuable have self assurance she had some thing to do with it. confident, it extremely is ridiculous, yet it is how some distance the demonizing of Hillary Clinton has long previous. he's gained the nomination. yet it extremely is not sufficient curiously. His supporters, and the media besides, are nonetheless foaming on the mouth approximately her like a set of rabid canines. it extremely is unquestionably grow to be notably nerve-racking.

Answer 5

I did not vote for Clinton but I don't think it is right to blame him. First it is pointless to blame anyone but the Radical Islamist. They are the ones trying to oppresses and kill people.

If Clinton followed a policy that failed or wasn't the best lets talk about the policy not the person.

Answer 6

Clinton was a ******!! He ****** up the only war he had whilst in power (somalia). He believe's that getting a chew is not sexual relations!!
He thinks that by educating the middle east (schools) they are less likely to become extremist. How wrong, how do you parent the educated?, i had more inteligence than my mum and dad by the time i was 13 a was able to run rings round them.
The reason why most americans are hated around the world is because they only interfere when they need something i.e oil, when they dont they do nothing i.e zimbawae, sudan.
They think that there idealoligy(democracy) suits every country and they force there beliefs on everyone, how wrong!!
Before WWII there was no fighting in africa, middle east. The Americans supplied afganistan with soviet weapons during the afgahan soviet wars and then when it was over bailed out and left them to it which is why your hated by osama.
You, the english and other western countries are almost entirely to blame for the few million killed in rwanda and any fighting in africa today because believe it or not africa do not produce weaponry.
You believe you are the best at everything when you are not look at the poverty in USA, the highest amount of people in jail anywere in the world, the most repeat offenders in the world, Very poor state healthcare without health insurance, you believe its acceptable for ordinary people to carry semi automatics to protect themselves ( yeah right). Then to top it all off you spend billions of dollors on war instead of fixing these things first!!!
The only thing good to come out of the us ever was sliced bread and mohammed ali!!!!!!!!!

Answer 7

No, not at all.

However, bush is most certainly at fault for ignoring North Korea for his entire term of office.

North Korea has engaged in more nuclear activity in five years than they have in the previous 10.

And when he did finally even look their way, it was only to name-call and insult. "Last bastion of tyranny." Now THERE's a solid foreign policy......
***************************************
*********************************************
“Clinton met both Roh Moo-hyun and his predecessor, Kim Dae-jung: doubtless amid nostalgia for the good old days, when the US and ROK (Republic of Korea) saw eye-to-eye and engagement seemed to be working.

Clinton is a reminder that there is nothing wrong with a US president changing his mind, not least over as tough a nut as North Korea. As is now well known, early on his watch a second Korean war came uncomfortably close in May-June 1994 over the first North Korean crisis, until former US president Jimmy Carter as deus ex machina flew to Pyongyang and saved the day. Thereafter, the Clinton administration consistently pursued engagement with the DPRK, as was seen by the AF, KEDO, high-level visits in both directions and a missile near-deal aborted when time ran out.

One can, and Republicans vocally did, criticize all this as appeasement. The HEU and other revelations, not least one that the June 2000 inter-Korean summit was in effect bought by Seoul, undoubtedly leave a sour taste and damage the case for Sunshine: suggesting as they do a recidivist and cynical DPRK, which has merely been stringing its interlocutors along.

Thus one would expect a new administration, of a different political stripe, to review policy on Korea as on other matters. Given recent history, a case can be made that Kim Jong-il is beyond redemption, and therefore regime change is the only way forward. In my view, that is a wrong conclusion and also a perilous path. But had Bush pursued it consistently, it would be easier to understand. That would have entailed, if not military action (God forbid), then a better-planned version of the latter-day Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which as it stands is mere gesture politics (send a gunboat, in 2003?) adding yet another conflicting ingredient to the chaotic policy mix.

What is only too clear, unconscionable and alarming is that fully three years after George W Bush's election, and less than a year before he comes up for re-election, the US still does not have any discernible unified joined-up policy on North Korea whatever. The mixed messages outlined above are merely the latest in a long line, baffling and bemusing friend and foe alike.

This is an extraordinary dereliction of duty by the world's sole superpower over what remains one of the planet's most dangerous crises. Regardless of ideology, and granted that there are no good options, it is hard to imagine how North Korea could have been handled worse than it has been by the Bush administration. Under Bush, the US has failed either to formulate a North Korea policy, to speak with one voice (an astonishing indiscipline) or even, arguably, really to focus on Korea at all, obsessed and preoccupied as it is by West rather than East Asia.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EK26Dg01.html

Answer 8

No, probably not. It is the culmination of several factors by several factors. In a small way I blame Reagan for his Star Wars project which could be said to have encouraged the building of nuclear weapons.

Answer 9

Yes, and Clinton send Cheney over to Iran and Iraq to make sure they got those things

Answer 10

One man can't be blamed for worldwide terrorism. Unlike Bush, Clinton dealt with this country's economic issues as well. His focus wasn't on invading the wrong country.