I haven't seen anyone claim this yet. Why not?
Surely Rush and Hannity are connecting the dots as we type... No?
2007-11-07 04:21:58 · 12 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Zahid; You have a good point. Is Bush entirely disagreeable to martial law there, even though he professes to support democracy everywhere?
2007-11-07 04:43:05 · update #1
It MUST be, everything else is. If it's not Bill's fault then it must be Hillary's fault. I'm sure their pundits will figure out the connection soon, they couldn't live without their spin.
2007-11-07 04:28:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Musharraf declared martial law in Pakistan , Nothing new for Pakistan ,
But , Correct your self on the point that ,
"declaring martial law was a Fault , in the eyes of USA" NO ,
that is imposed only to "Serve US Commands Better",
So no fault on the part of Bill Clinton ,
And iff Bill Clinton have done something for this happen ,
He have done a National US service , not a fault.
2007-11-07 12:38:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gray...the idea that Clinton was offered bin Laden from Sudan is an urban myth.
Back in 1995, the U.S. didn't understand the threat bin Laden posed. They thought he was a terror financier, not a mastermind.
No Right winger ever gives Clinton credit for the assault on bin Laden's forces in 1998 that brought the name Osama bin Laden onto the world stage.
The Right has selective memory. Most like to forget that the Bush administration wanted to forget who OBL was and focus on Saddam and Cold War-era ideas.
2007-11-07 13:17:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's the United Nations fault.
2007-11-07 12:26:41 · answer #4 · answered by Smoking Man 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no, but just imagine if he really went after Usama Bin Laden through his years, (Even had an offer to turn UBL over from Sudan) where we would be right now.....
hmmm whats that connect the dot thing
2007-11-07 12:35:51 · answer #5 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you are a Republican then you would like to think so.
I like the sign on Bush's desk. "The buck stops anywhere but here".
2007-11-07 12:34:45 · answer #6 · answered by buffytou 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, nothing is Bill Clinton's fault, except a stained blue dress. Bush is to blame, for this, for high oil prices, for global warming caused by humans(junk science), and it's his fault public schools spew out uneducated lemmings. It's also his fault your car won't start and your shoes stink. He is to blame for anything else libs don't want to take responsibility for.
2007-11-07 12:30:31 · answer #7 · answered by Cecil n 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No but I'm sure Hannity will find a way to blame him. Or his wife.
2007-11-07 12:26:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Bush should support Pervez and stop with all the democracy talk.
But the Billites would scream about that, too.
2007-11-07 12:28:01 · answer #9 · answered by Kubla Con 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No Their going to blame it on Hillary.
2007-11-07 12:25:25 · answer #10 · answered by nathan f 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋