in office?
And if you have a question about Democrats and their excuses, use your own five points for it. I'm serious. How long before Republicans stop obsessing about Bill Clinton, who hasn't been President for well over six years?
2007-06-20 03:18:16 · 28 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
sara25252: Since I have never, not once in my life, "cried" about the 2000 election, (unless you can prove otherwise, in which case I will happily eat my words publicly) your comment is trite and rhetorical.
2007-06-20 03:26:38 · update #1
kiki: Like I said, have the integrity to use your OWN five points to ask questions, please.
2007-06-20 03:41:38 · update #2
It’s a propaganda technique that sells really well to the loyal Bush base. They’ll stop blaming Clinton when the technique is absolutely no longer effective and then they’ll focus additional blame on some other entity. Bush is never to blame for anything and whatever he does or fails to do is always someone else’s fault when it goes wrong.
2007-06-20 03:42:30 · answer #1 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Some time after January 20, 2009
2007-06-20 03:22:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
I don't use Clinton or anyone else as an excuse for "Bush's ineffectiveness." Because he is not ineffective, that is an assumption or an opinion on your part.
I Blame Democrats for having a double standard. They want to hold Bush accountable, but they don't hold individuals in their own party accountable for actual, Factual, CRIMES.
Exhibit A. Teddy Kennedy. Drunk driving and killing Mary Jo Kopechne...
Exhibit B. William Clinton. Perjury to a grand jury.
2007-06-20 03:32:54 · answer #3 · answered by grinslinger 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Couldn't care less about the BJ.
What I care about and DO blame Clinton and his administration for is the separation between our intelligence departments (Thanks, Gorelick!) that ENABLED known terrorists to work under the radar.
I also blame him for turning terror attacks into "legal issues" instead of tackling the problems head on.
Refusing to take Bin Laden the THREE times he was offered to us--with his still-attached head on a silver platter! (In spite of the indictments against him!... Fat lot of good it did making it an issue for law enforcement and the courts!)
Sandy Berger's blatant theft on Gore's behalf of highly classified documents with nary a slap on the wrist.
Oh, and the great economy under Clinton was a carry-over of the efforts of Reagan and Bush 41. (When has the economy ever thrived under greater taxation?) Also due to the .com bubble which was failing as he left office.
Now, that said, Bush has NOT been ineffective. (As angry as I am about the immigration issue right now, I still support him fully on the war on terror and the economy.)
His tax cuts reviatalized the economy more than anyone imagined. This was a massive achievement given the huge economic disaster brought on by the attacks on 9/11.
Demonstrated that America is not a paper tiger by successfully ousting the Taliban. Yes, the war is still ongoing, and we haven't found bin Laden, but we have made significant progress in helping that country get on its own democratic feet.
Has been able to clearly delineate the difference between terrorists (and their supporters/appeasers) and those who are willing to fight to protect freedoms here in America AND abroad.
Saddam is no longer torturing and killing Iraqis by 100s of thousands--and was brought to justice by Iraq's democratically elected government. And again, we may still be at war in Iraq, but we have disrupted a major supporter of terrorism and are currently preventing them from coordinating into more serious and deadly attacks--perhaps even here in the states.
2007-06-20 04:40:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I do not only blame Bill Clinton about the situation that we are in on terror I also blame Jimmy Carter. When Iran took hostages Carter thought you could talk them in to submission. They weren't let go until after Reagan took office. Under Reagan there was attacks; but Reagan went after them. Bush 41 also went after them. Bill Clinton ran away from terrorism. Just as fast as his legs could carry him. He even brushed it under the rug for some one else to deal with it. I also blame the Democrats that was in congress at the time of Carter.
2007-06-20 03:50:31 · answer #5 · answered by DALE M 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Maybe when both Clintons are in jail for being Criminals. Lets see what we have now, Barack Obama is out apologising for showing Hillary and Bills suckign money out of Indian America and outsourcing jobs to India, 40,000 US Jobs outsourced to India and Barack says sorry for leaking the memo, my question why say sorry, WELL DONE Barack for showing the true colours of the Criminal Clintons
2007-06-20 03:39:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think that some of the die hard republicans will be blaming Clinton 50 and 60 years from now for problems of that time.
2007-06-20 03:23:41 · answer #7 · answered by courage 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
When are Democrats going to stop blaming Republicans for everything that is wrong in their life?
I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I'm just sick of the whining.
2007-06-20 03:33:17 · answer #8 · answered by kiki 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Ya know Bill kinda did all that to himself...he got caught...
As far as Bush, why wouldn't the Dems rise up to attack Bush and question everything?
Remember this.......Be careful what you ask for you just might get it! and with that comes the consequences of that action...Bush is defending America...Cillary wants to hand over the US.....
2007-06-20 03:37:15 · answer #9 · answered by snickers 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Two things come to mind!
1) Certain programs initiated by an out-going president sometimes take years to take affect.
2) Democrats will always blame republicans and vice versa when issues are controversial.
2007-06-20 03:23:59 · answer #10 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋