2007-12-07 11:34:39 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wasn't it at the very least dereliction of duty?
2007-12-07 11:35:06 · update #1
look at dumb/stupid/idiotic these neoclowns are!
Blaming Clinton for 9/11?
do they really have their head that far up their rectums?
For the record, Bush was the idiot in charge during 9/11.
When Clinton was trying to kill OBL, idiot neoclowns were going on about how OBL was not a threat.
That the only reason that Clinton was doing this was to deflect from being investigated about Whitewater(no connection to Clinton) which led to ken starr forcing him to cover up a blown jab.
Why is it so vile for cons to think about sex, so much that it drives them nuts.
But lying about reasons for war is quite alright?
quite simply, with only 25% of the country supporting cons, we should consider a Mercy Killing, and put them out of their misery.
2007-12-07 11:55:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
First someone would have to show that an impeachable person actually knew about the pending attacks, had enough verifiable information to stop them and failed to stop them. Despite many frivolous charges no one has been able to produce a shred of evidence this is the case.
2007-12-07 19:39:48 · answer #2 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Bill Clinton was already impeached because he lied under oath. He cannot be impeached again for ignoring intelligence information that indicated there would be attacks on the US.
2007-12-07 19:44:18 · answer #3 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Bush had plenty of time to take emergency actions to prevent 9/11 based on all the intelligence information he was being given. Yes Bush can be impeached for this.
2007-12-07 19:39:20 · answer #4 · answered by this_one_dude 3 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Clinton was impeached for perjury.
Can we impeach him again for allowing 9/11 to be planned under his watch while refusing to apprehend Bin Laden when handed to him?
I say yes.
2007-12-07 19:37:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
You have been in the acid again haven't you. Maybe he should have panicked like the dems did. Oh kids i have to go the country is under attack. Then call Bill and ask who he piddled on this time?
2007-12-07 19:40:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Wait a second, he had intelligence on this??? The same intel that told him Iraq had WMD's??
2007-12-07 19:43:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Isn't it too late to try Clinton for not doing anything from 1996 to 2000?
2007-12-07 19:38:03 · answer #8 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
They were busy... trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq and taking all those vacations.
2007-12-07 19:40:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
no. first of all, there were numerous attacks in the 90's and clinton didn't do anything.
2007-12-07 19:41:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋