Spare me the Bush crimes, he killed 3685 american troops for his failured war , yea, ok suppose they all died before Americans withdrew their support for war..yep I know you never supported war in the first place. Yup Saddam never hurt a fly, these are the excuses that are used to defend Clinton.
No clintonite will acknowledge his mistakes as causes for Bush invading Iraq.
If he had caputured Laden, no 9/11, no excuse to go into Iraq.
As democrats claimed he used 9/11 as defense for war.
If anything he should be hated for that.
2007-07-30 18:54:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Can you give me proof of one thing Bush lied about? Oh, and the WMD garbage is gone...Saddam did, in fact have them. He kicked out the inspectors and while we were so busy trying to gather the votes, Saddam was busy moving the WMDs to Syria. This is proven...we have satalite photos and it was confirmed by Iraqi Generals who defected. And it wasn't even Bush who said it...it was the CIA, IAEC, other countries foreign intelligence agencies. Bush just acted on that information.
So, again, give me one thing Bush lied about.
Edit...thumbs down??? Must be some ignorant liberals who can't handle facts.
2007-07-30 19:02:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No... the project with democracy and the yankee presidency is that the President represents each and every physique interior the goverment, yet no longer each and everything that he says is from his prepare of theory or opinion unavoidably. He has a cupboard, people who write his speeches, all those gov. workers. If he replaced into very maximum suitable king, then particular you may blame him for each little thing, yet it extremely isn't a monarchy, so no, you may't blame each and everything on one man or woman because of the fact there are such a great number of companies, that that's totally complicated ot shop song of each and all the agendas, and while he or perhaps destiny she gets the replace, that's too late reason his or her human beings whould have had him say the choice... So, i think in certainty that democracy now and back would not paintings the way we expect of it does. He replaced right into a great Governonr nonetheless!!! Yay Texas!!!
2016-11-10 19:09:04 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"If he had caputured Laden, no 9/11, no excuse to go into Iraq."
That is the most insane loopdy loop of logic............ever
So blame clinton for giving Bush an excuse to be a moron?
Look Clinton is history, he aint pres no mo....get over him.
We are talking about NOW TODAY! I could care less if Clinton created the Taliban to impress Monica......I care about Bush saying screw Afghanistan and putting all our resources into his Iraq project, then screwing up everything in Iraq, and that is just the tip o' the ice berg.
YOU SAY: "Bush at best a pathological liar "
yes, and that is a big problem! then to say but but clinton blah blah does not make Bush not a pathological liar and a retard.
2007-07-30 19:02:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Seems like in your eagerness to blame Clinton you forgot about the Republican Congress, and the Republican Party. Lets re-freshen some memories together, remember the coined phrases "Wag the Dog", "Distraction from Monica-gate", "Obsessed with Bin Laden" which the Republicans associated with Clinton when he tried to kill Bin Laden.
Here are some highlights:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee - Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.
In August 1998, when he ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation -- from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil.
Republicans forget but them ignoring Bin Laden is well documented, and just as they did so did Bush, so if you have to blame anyone blame the Republican Party.
2007-07-30 19:20:59 · answer #4 · answered by Dangerous 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush was perceived to be erroneous with the Iraq war and the Clintons have supported him but lately withdrew and were against the war. The candidates are changing their stands but some have remain resilient with their views.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.
2007-07-30 19:02:12 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Here's the thing; bin Laden wasn't a threat when Clinton was in office. 9-11 hadn't happened yet. We simply didn't know.
Bush, however, was getting millions of tips aday for a month until 9-11. He could have taken action then, but he didn't.
2007-07-30 19:04:50 · answer #6 · answered by Jeremiah 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush's predecessor and mentor in many ways, too many for me. Both spin so much the country has been dizzy for 12 years so dizzy that upside down looks right side up.
2007-07-30 19:09:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are both joined at the hip.
They are both pathological liars.
Clinton left trash behind, including Monica.
Bush will leave trash behind also. Like decisions which were not in the best interest of this country.
God help us all regarding BOTH men.
2007-07-30 19:00:23 · answer #8 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
TO HELL WITH BOTH THE CLINTONS AND THE BUSHIES!
Both dynasties are a major disgrace to America and her people.
2007-07-30 19:15:59 · answer #9 · answered by Honey Girl 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋