Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hillary Clinton wins the next election. She is sworn in and the war continues as it is for nine months. Then, in September 2009, Muslim extremists fly planes into buildings in a major city in the United States.
Who is to blame? George W. Bush, for not doing enough about terrorism while he was in office? Or Hillary Clinton, or not doing enough in her first nine months in office?
I'm curious what people think about this.
2007-07-31 10:04:43 · 19 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it depends.. does she get reports placed on her desk that say "Terrorists plan to attack the US blah blah blah" or not? And does she spend her first 8 months on vacation?
The way I see it.. sometimes bad things happen.. and no one is to blame but the people who committed these actions... but sometimes people are negligent.. I feel Bush was negligent, maybe we all were... we did seem to have that feeling of invincibility here in the nation.. but it's his job to not be.
So, if she does everything she can.. and something bad happens.. then so be it.
If she d*cks around, then she is just as guilty as the terrorists.
2007-07-31 10:13:12 · answer #1 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hillary for not recognizing that we were vulnerable. Nine months is enough time to stop nuclear warfare so a plane into a building shoould be nothing. Bush and the sec of defense didnt get enough criticism for not being prepared. Its not fair to inherit terrorism but that doesnt mean you can past the buck when something bad happens, our next president should be smart enough to know that terror attakcs are imminent and should protect the citizens.
2007-07-31 17:11:56 · answer #2 · answered by Bye-Partisan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd blame the terrorists first. But Hillary would be to blame for not securing the nation. Especially if she ignored the warnings from intelligence and did nothing to protect the country and it's people just like Bush did.. And, especially if she stormed into another country who had nothing to do with the attacks.
2007-07-31 17:12:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what Hillary does. Considering that Bill Clinton stripped much of the funding for security and military of this country before Bush entered office and Bush has re-invested to build it back up to standard, I'd wait until the incident you described and then judge Hillary. Her evaluation will be based on her strategy of keeping America safe. If she shorts funding for the military and the country's security to fund National Health-Care - she automatically fails.
2007-07-31 17:19:43 · answer #4 · answered by JohnFromNC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Laying blame takes time away from finding a solution. As others posted above, it's the terrorists fault.
2007-07-31 17:21:44 · answer #5 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole problem is summed up in your question. It seems so many people just want to assign "Blame" anymore, and could care less about the solutions.
Either we are in this thing to win it (No matter who the president is), or lets just bring our guys home.
But the Terrorist problem is not just gonna go away...Only get worse...
2007-07-31 17:12:14 · answer #6 · answered by Ken C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
george would be blamed...he is the cause of all the evils in the whole world..just read the liberal post.
democrates would not take any responsibilty: remember bill clinton had a chance to deal with the terrorist and didn't ....opps my bad.
2007-07-31 17:11:07 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The one in office at the time takes the hit.
2007-07-31 17:20:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
then why cant we blame bill clinton for not doing anything after the 93 WTC bombing?
we ran in somolia, and when the kobar towers were attacked and still did nothing when the cole was attacked............
2007-07-31 17:16:11 · answer #9 · answered by james_r_keene 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton.
2007-07-31 17:08:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋