If Clinton had responded to any number of the terrorist attacks on US, would we be fighting 'Clinton's' war?

Answer 1

He did respond by bringing them to justice.
Unless you mean wage war on a whole
country for what a few people did.
But that would've been
ultra retarded.

Answer 2

a lengthy winded speech for effective although the spectacular diagnosis is that we are stuck between 2 factions of their civil conflict. can we win? effective we may be able to yet no longer the way this administration is doing it. Our enemy of 9/11 and many the different incidents is Al-Quida. That truth change into no longer even suggested by the final. Why?? Is it because of politics?? we would want to continually no longer be contained in the area we are in at found in Iraq. Our efforts should be ridding the international of Al-Quida and the a number of different terrorist agencies. Pull again to the border of Syria and Iran and quit overseas combatants from getting into Iraq and enable those in touch contained in the civil conflict wrestle one yet another until eventually there's a sparkling winner then we may be able to bypass again in and help Iraq set up a authorities that they could stay by.

Answer 3

I am not a fan of Bill Clinton but trying to defend Bush's war policies by attacking Clinton doesn't work for me. Bush has been incompetent at best at managing the war and pathetic at its worst in analyzing his enemies and their recruitment success.

Both have made poor attempts at curbing terrorism but at least Clinton has not sharpened the terrorists' recruitment tools like Bush has. Terrorist attacks have increased greatly in the West, our allied nations, and we have had a huge casuality rate (4000 deaths from 9/11, about 4000 soldiers dead and about 20,000 severely wounded soldiers... some injuries are worst than death in my estimation; ask the soldiers with brain injuries from IEDs). Clinton failed but Bush has failed and blundered badly.... IF you must compare the two then I will take Clinton's record over Bush's hands down on this topic.

Answer 4

This is Clintons War. She favors keeping our troops their for another 5 years, and voted for the unconstitutional resolution that gave the President a blank check to do as he please to enforce U.N. sanctions. American soldiers are fighting to uphold sanctions eminating from a global body. Its sad.
Im voting for Ron Paul because hes the only true anti war candidate.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/

and personally i like cut and paste answers

Answer 5

The republican congress stopped Clinton at every turn. The things Bush has done were after 911. That's because, before that, no American would have allowed our Constitution to be crumpled like toilet paper.

Answer 6

This is Cheney and Bush's war. Blaming it on anyone else is just dishonest.

Carlos the Jackal...Abu Nidal were brought to justice in the Clinton Years...Osama bin Laden wasn't on the radar screen in those years...despite Oliver North's fantasies.

But hey maybe Ollie could hook up with his Iran-Contra Iranian contacts and settle all this nonsense with Iran. I mean it worked for Reagan...why not for Bush??

This stuff cracks me up...during the Clinton Years...all I heard was "this is Reagan's economy"...and now that it's all gone to heck...it's all Clinton's fault. Man..I wish the party of responsibility would actually take some.

Answer 7

Clinton was never an oil man, Cheney's Halliburton scandals had hurt the VP's credibility.

Answer 8

As I recall when Clinton attacked Afghanistan, cons demanded he apologize to them and claimed he was "wagging the dog."

Answer 9

Excellent. Now how do we remind a nation hell bent on returning him back to the White instead of the Big House where they belong. Keep writing on. Aloha !

Answer 10

That's true...If he had any interest at all for the safety of the American people he would have done something about all the Terrorist strikes in Africa and right here in America...If he had have taken interest our Towers would most likely still be standing.