The proof is there, all you have to have done is lived through the Clinton embarrassment or be able to read. Being able to admit it is something that will probably only come with maturity and experience.
2007-07-28 08:57:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by jim h 6
·
2⤊
6⤋
You are leaving out some very bad sanctions against Iraq which had an extreme impact on what Saddam Hussien could accomplish. All he could do was cheat on the oil sales. He had no weapons. That is why they had the oil for food program. You would have said Clinton was nuts if he would have started a war on terror just like many think Bush is nuts. What about papa Bush not finishing the job when he attacked Iraq? Our presence on Saudi land during that war is why Bin Laden attacked the WTC in the first place in 1993. How can you blame Clinton for what Bush has done. Bushco over-reacted in my opinion and made matters worse.
I don't understand why people argue these points. There is always another point to be made. But what is the point.?
2007-07-28 16:04:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
You're right. It was Bill Clinton who illegally invaded Iraq on the pretext it had weapons of mass destruction. It was Clinton who planned the invasion so poorly that Iraq became a lawless country, full of looters and ethnic factions that were trying to kill each other, after the invasion resulted in toppling the Iraqi government. Clinton also ordered the abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Clinton was also responsible for removing civil liberties with the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. That darn Clinton was also responsible for the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Clinton also outed a CIA agent because her husband disagreed with him publicly. Clinton also hired a pathological liar as an Attorney General. Clinton enacted massive tax cuts for the rich while setting a record for military spending, resulting in massive deficits.
Yup. It's all Clinton's fault. Dubya could never possibly screw things up so badly.
2007-07-28 16:03:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Well, Bush had a Republican Congress to work with and so had all of the votes necessary to do the things he wanted to do.
So right now, how is handling of the Iraq war Clinton's fault? As I recall, Bush has been in office for 7 years now.
2007-07-28 16:18:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Let's agree that both men sucked as presidents.
Every president inherits some difficulties from the previous president... this has happened from George Washington to modern times... this is nothing new.
But I think the reason why most Americans are angered by Bush is because of his poor management of the Iraq War. Forget why we went there in the first place... Bush underestimated the region's problems and did not prepare for very realistic scenarios. He was overconfident, a man in his position cannot be overconfident when he is leading a military campaign.
2007-07-28 15:57:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by cattledog 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
I think that it would be harder for Bushites to admit that the president should accept his personal responsibility. Clinton made mistakes, but even with that being said, Bush brought a lot of problems to this country when he assumed power.
2007-07-28 16:57:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course, Georgie is perfect. He NEVER made a mistake in his life. (sarcasm). There was only one guy on earth that was ever perfect and they crucified Him.
To blame all of Bush's bad decisions and faux pas on Clinton is so typical of the neocon pass the buck attitude.
2007-07-28 16:51:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is hard to get the democrats to admit any thing that their party has proposed since FDR is wrong. I give you welfare, social security, the IRS tax system, HUD, VA Hospitals, and the food stamp programs for starters. All fraught with corruption and mismanagement and yet they want to not only continue them, but to add Health Care to the system. They won't admit that involving government in our lives, only makes our lives worse. I just don't understand why they would continue to throw good money after bad, and then blame the republicans for these programs they started not working.
2007-07-28 16:08:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by libsticker 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Events in Kosovo are evidence that we cannot simply reek havoc on another nation, then turn our backs and leave them to deal with the resulting problems alone.
clinton's foreign policies did nothing but detract from this country's status, security and preparedness.
If hillary is allowed to sit in the White House, we can expect nothing but a repeat of his formula for disaster.
There is simply nothing that implies anything would be different.
2007-07-28 16:15:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Nothing Clinton did forced Bush to invade Iraq. Nothing. He didn't read a report from Clinton on Iraq and decide to invade 2 years later. If anything Clinton was wrong. Saddam wasn't engaging in terrorist attacks against the US. Bush's problems are of his own making.
2007-07-28 15:59:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋
Many problems of today are the result of previous administrations.
Government has been tugging on that same chain since the 1920's (as far as I'm concerned.)
edit:
Ummm, Milo... Is that your parties avatar ya got there?
2007-07-28 15:56:36
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋