... like so many blame Clinton for 9/11?
2007-11-07 10:20:37 · 15 answers · asked by specal k 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Many people blame Clinton for 9/11? More people blame Bush, or think he was behind it.
But to answer the question, they'll blame Bush because Bush bashing will not have gone away. The real people to blame I've always said are the idiots in congress!
2007-11-07 10:30:50 · answer #1 · answered by rz1971 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To remain consistant it depends on what you did in 2000. Comparing Bush and the economic slowdown to a slowdown in 2009 is not congruent. The previous slowdown began in early 2000. That's an entire year before he was president.
If you blame Bush for the last slowdown, the you lose your right to blame him for one which might come a year AFTER he is president. This is especially so after the fantastic boom we have seen in the last 5 years.
Lotsa leftists blame Bush for things that happened before he was even the Republican Nominee.
And hey, who blames (wannabe) Mr. First Lady for 9/11? He made some stupid moves, but there is enough blame to spread from Carter to Bush I to Reagan and Clinton. None of them were on a "war footing."
2007-11-07 10:44:28 · answer #2 · answered by byroncrivers 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The President has a lot more influence of foreign affairs, in his position as head of state and with his constitutional power to negotiate with other nations, than he does over the economy (Congress determines fiscal policy, and the Fed monetary policy - all the President can do is make speaches, and maybe veto really atrocious bills).
It makes a little more sense to blame a recent past president for an international development, than for an economic one. Though it would make no sense at all to blame the new president (whoever she or he may be), for an economic downturn in 2009.
2007-11-07 10:29:51 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The blame for the downfall of the economy can be pointed out to quite a few administrations. Bush has a big role in the demise of our economy, but no the only.
2007-11-07 10:34:19 · answer #4 · answered by acedelux 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we do exactally what they did when we we're attacked on 9/11 and when the great depression happened, even if there are warning signs in the previous administration you blame the current one. So that means we blame the new guy
2007-11-07 10:27:29 · answer #5 · answered by Tip 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on why it tanks.
The truth is that there is more than enough blame for the state of the economy (or credit depending on your perspective) to go around for all three branches of the federal government.
2007-11-07 10:27:02 · answer #6 · answered by ML 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about blaming Congress? They're the ones with the purse strings. And they also happen to have the lowest approval rating in history.
Or perhaps Americans themselves? Going in debt up to their eyeballs, and not taking personal responsibility for ANYTHING.
2007-11-07 10:27:22 · answer #7 · answered by Trogdor 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. We shouldn't be like Republicans.
I didn't see Clinton blame Bush SR for the first WTC attack eventhough it happened only 6 weeks into his term.
2007-11-07 10:24:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Are you saying he has been so responsible handling the nations money that it won't effect us once he is gone? I hope and pray that our next President finds a way to get us out of the mess he's created.
2007-11-07 10:32:10 · answer #9 · answered by gone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is part of it but you have to get at the root of why this is. See this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=Freedom+Fascism+Authorized&total=5&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
2007-11-07 13:42:19 · answer #10 · answered by Bloatedtoad 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋