Nero fiddled while Rome burned, but we know what Clinton did (it involved a Cigar and a barely legal young girl).
Now, for the 8 years of his "presidency", the Taliban and Al Qaida were allowed to flourish in Afghanistan. He actually refused to take bin Laden because Reno questioned the legality of taking bin Laden from a country (The Sudan) with which we had no extradition treaty.
Should Clinton be immediately arrested and tried for accessory to the murders of the 9/11 victims, the USS Cole, the victims of the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and countless other deaths attributed to "Bloody Bill Clinton"?
2007-07-12 04:43:07 · 18 answers · asked by nom de paix 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
jacob l; you LIE like all those of your party. The Cole was bombed 10/12 of 2000...
You put the LIE in LIEberal!
2007-07-12 04:50:24 · update #1
Michael P; you LIE...
Clinton was ordered disbarred by the US Supereme Court.
2007-07-12 05:06:55 · update #2
Conservatives and liberals alike, if they are guilty, hangem high! Especially if they are caught in corruption scandals. That should be an automatic lifetime ban from holding public office! Then they might think twice.
2007-07-12 05:17:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, the Government was given detailed information on Al Qaida, Bin Ladin and his networks whereabouts and activities by the Russians in 2001, prior to 9/11,...yet the Bush Administration chose to do nothing about it.
March 7, 2001: "The Russian Permanent Mission at the United Nations secretly submits “an unprecedentedly detailed report” to the UN Security Council about bin Laden, his whereabouts, details of his al-Qaeda network, Afghan drug running, and Taliban connections to Pakistan and the ISI. The report provides “a listing of all bin Laden’s bases, his government contacts and foreign advisers,” and enough information to potentially locate and kill him. It is said to contain an “astonishing degree of information.” The US fails to use the information in any noticable manner. Alex Standish, the editor of the highly respected Jane’s Intelligence Review, concludes that the attacks of 9/11 were less of an American intelligence failure than the result of “a political decision not to act against bin Laden.” [Jane's Intelligence Review, 10/5/2001; Times of India, 10/8/2001]
So by what you are saying, shouldn't we try and convict Bush as well?
2007-07-12 05:17:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
For as much as I dislike Clinton, I'll have to say that I believe your reasoning is flawed in this matter. Clinton, by his inaction in Sudan, and the U.A.E. did allow for Bin Laden and Al Quaeda to propogate and flourish, however this inaction cannot be directly attributed to intent in relation to the incidents of 9/11.
A similar argument might be made to the inaction of George Bush Sr., in not taking out Saddam at the end of the first Gulf war, allowing so many of our forces to be murdered in Iraq under the current administration.
Yes, I agree that for a married man who based his campaign on "reinstilling family values in the american people", he probably shouldn't have been getting BJ's in the oval office.
He was a horrible president.He took this country from being on the economic rise as a result of the two previous administrations, into the toilet, and left W to clean up the mess. But the murder idea which you suggest is a bit of a stretch.
Don't worry. We'll most likely end up with another Oval Office Democrat flushing our economic prosperity soon enough, and we'll have someone brand new to hate.
2007-07-12 05:06:42 · answer #3 · answered by xooxcable 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
your question has an analogy in the incident of Mahabharata the Indian Mythology before 5000 years, Lord Krishna Hindu God , encourages Arjuna to fight and kill Kauravas.
In this the whole cream of Indian Valour was destroyed in Mahabharata. war.
Had Krishna not enticed Arjuna to fight , there would have been peace. there would not have been loss of life and India would have remained strong and no body would have dared to attack India like Moguls and Hoons and Barbarians who claimed major parts of Eastern and North Eastern part now Afghanistan and Pakistan would not have fallen to them and India would have remained Hindu country... In this 5000 years lot of things have happened. which otherwise would not have happened. and India would not have suffered partition and there would be no Pakistan and no nukes from Pakistan to Iran . or Iraq No terrorist activity in Pakistan means USA would have enjoyed peaceful life without 9/11 ,,
Look where these Ifs and Buts lead us...
what ever has happened it destiny and what ever will happen too it is destiny
Be yourself and enjoy life , live love and laugh
2007-07-12 05:10:09 · answer #4 · answered by krishprud@yahoo.co.in_KISHORLAL 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was not disbarred, and he was acquitted of perjury. In each case, unlike Scooter Libby. The only President ever to be disbarred was Richard Nixon. (Who had the only Vice President ever to be disbarred, Spiro Agnew.)
And a "shyster" is a lawyer, particularly an incompetent or dishonest one. Since Clinton hardly ever practiced law, he cannot be said to have been incompetent or dishonest in the process thereof, and therefore is not a shyster.
He is, however, an ex-President. The day is coming when George W. Bush will also be one, and then, thank God Almighty (and the 22nd Amendment, if not a Congress with enough spine to impeach and remove him for actual crimes, unlike Clinton), we will be free at last.
2007-07-12 04:55:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
European here, so maybe I do not have privilege to answer?
your country is so different then the rest of the world. So immature politically in that President Clinton been out of office near 8 years and still some want him in headlines.
Why not be creative and discuss DARFUR, Terrorists in Middle East, glaciers in Greenland failing, the failure of Christians and Muslims to talk to not at each other.
President Bush, his polices are topical, but to look at Clinton or Reagan with discoloured vision improves nothing except
to side rail current issues that are imposing.
2007-07-12 04:56:00 · answer #6 · answered by redefourit 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If we use the same argument the shortminded liberal screwballs use against Bush, then ABSOLUTELY.
Oh, and caldude, Clinton had many MANY more warnings that Bush buddy. In fact, he let bin Laden HIMSELF live. So, according to you, Clinton should have already been hanged.
2007-07-12 04:50:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Gee, you sound very frustrated. Is your point that President Clinton followed the advice of his Attorney General and decided not to violate the law? After 6 years of George Bush's presidency, is it still too soon to hold him responsible for the failures of his presidency?
2007-07-12 05:14:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yeah sure. just as soon as we charge Bush with over 3000 unlawful deaths in Iraq. And that way we will began a chain. We can get all the Presidents for unlawful deaths, FDR, IKE, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush One, just keep naming them. You must be really desparate to suggest such a silly charge.
2007-07-12 04:55:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Considering that Bush had 2 warnings (by Tenet in July 2001 and the August 2001 PDB "bin Laden determined to strike in US") and ignored both of them, charge him with murder and negligence as well.
oops, forgot about those, didn't ya?
2007-07-12 04:48:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋