looks like school is out and the kids are allowed to use their parents computers (talking about the first poster).
It has become easier to blame Bush for all the world's woes than it is to go back and remember the sins of the past.
Clinton Chopped up the military spending so much that the army could not buy modern armor for their men or equipment, but Bush gets blamed for sending in the troops without the equipment Clinton refused to spend money on.
Men get killed in Somalia so rather than finish the fight, Clinton runs, forcing the UN to pull out as well making the handful of American deaths a waste and leaving the country to rip it's self apart.
The USS Cole, the embassy bombings and the World trade center gets bombed and no real action is taken to find and capture the men responsible.
The Olympic bombing, the Oklahoma city bombings...
Clinton was a sham artist. He convinced so many people he was a great president when in reality he allowed so much death and destruction to wreak havoc on our country. he manipulated and ignored the laws and he is heralded as a hero...
It is very scary...
and now people want him back in office (via proxy to his wife).
scary....
2007-06-16 14:02:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Stone K 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
See I love it when people talk about things they know nothing about. Clinton didn't do these things as you think. Who did Clinton kill in NYC? No-one, if you are talking about the bombing, how about putting the blame where it goes. 1. The bombings were a result of the first Golf War in 1990, which was Bush Sr. 2. People have been crying for years to reduce the amount of money the defense department spends, well where do you think those cuts happen? Every time there are cuts, there are less people looking out for America, and when that happens, there is not enough people to sift through the 13,000 or so threats that they US receives each day and listen to the some 30,000 transitions we hear all the time, so how can you expect them to know what is going to happen or even have enough time to stop it.
2016-05-17 12:49:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by ophelia 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, Clinton is directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in Bosnia. Why don't people remember this? My best friend was in the Marine Corps then, and he hates Clinton now. My friend told me that when he went over to Bosnia to serve in the fashion that Clinton had dictated, he and his unit had to stand by idly on several occasions while troops lined up women and children and slaughtered them in the streets. The Marines were under order not to intervene in these acts of brutality. Why isn't Clinton remembered for these atrocities? Should he even be able to open his lying mouth about anything to do with war?
2007-06-16 14:10:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by seattlefan74 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
it's one thing to give your life for an ideal, quite another thing to give your life for selfish reasons of another...In Clinton's case it was involving us in humanitarian situations in SE Europe and Africa...It is a higher calling to give your life when genocide is taking place....Iraq is a political/economic conflict, it's hard to die for profit...ask the drivers that worked for Halburton. The Branch Dividians was a call by Janet Reno...I always hated her views on the Constitution, but for the most part, it was an isolated incident
2007-06-16 13:59:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ford Prefect 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nope. I didn't. I'm a democrat. When my President then was attacked, I spoke up.
I didn't with the elder President Bush. I was silent while the seditious and the socialists in this country called him names, spread unfounded rumors, and treated him as "guilty until proven innocent". They were good at attacking the Republicans, and I thought about being a democrat.
I didn't think about being a patriot. I didn't think about the fact that nearly half the country (the republicans) WERE real patriots, just as nearly half the country (the democrats) WERE real patriots as well.
I was one of the silent majority that let others act seditiously in my name.
Never again. They don't speak for me. Nor do you.
2007-06-16 13:56:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by mckenziecalhoun 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
I agree that Clinton has not been held responsible for the Davidians...And I hope there is NEVER another member of the Clinton family elected to ANY position of power again.
2007-06-16 13:55:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Erinyes 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Interesting. I'm starting to get your picture.
Anarchy means that the guy who lives down the street from you, who is currently kept in check by our laws, can drive his 4 x 4 across your lawn, and you had better have a bigger gun.
Today's anarchists are so naive. They envision a world with peace on their terms. Do you have any idea how many millions of people you will have to KILL to implement your dream?
2007-06-16 14:00:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Shrink 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Not to mention the intervention in the Balkans. Whether or not you think that was right or wrong, they did happen. Except perhaps in the 1920s, there's no president in during the 20th century that did not send soldiers off to a conflict.
2007-06-16 14:44:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Peter M 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
The Branch Davidians were cultists and a threat. Clinton didn't want to kill them, it just happen.
2007-06-16 14:09:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by cynical 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
might you have a credible link where Clinton gave a direct order to execute the people in that compound in waco?
Do you really think the President can control what a bunch of gungho-gunslingers in texas do, while sitting in Washington??
that situation was mismanaged in Texas, not in Washington.
2007-06-16 13:56:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by qncyguy21 6
·
3⤊
3⤋