Bill Clinton has publicly stated the reason he didn't was because he didn't get the FBI report until days before he left office........and felt it was inappropriate if he did.So he left the decision of how to retaliate to the new ppresident!
You cons always say Clinton was so soft on terrorism.Why didn't Bush retaliate for the American people for the bombing after he was sworn in?
2007-12-15 02:52:22 · 10 answers · asked by honestamerican 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
mother-why didn't you provide a link to the article?
2007-12-15 04:14:03 · update #1
as well as proof about what Clinton supposedly said after being woken up about the bombing?
2007-12-15 04:15:42 · update #2
Because Bush/Cheney were apparently waiting for their 2nd term to hold their 1st meeting on terrorism. That pesky Clarke(Head of counterterrorism) got demoted for trying to hold meetings too soon. They had more important things like Star Wars, policy meetings with Enron and oil companies, and Tax cuts to worry about.
2007-12-15 03:00:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Clinton paid down the nationwide debt by making use of extra effective than 0.5. He additionally supplied a surplus for the federal government for the 1st time because of the fact the Nixon administration. He balanced the funds continuously for the time of his Presidency. He had the dollar sturdy and the inventory markets humming. He additionally saved client self belief extreme, fees of pastime low whilst on the comparable time retaining inflation in examine, and the unemployment value became into low. Bush at latest spent each and every dime of the excess by making use of coming up a tax smash. Then he spent wildly on protection and a couple of wars that he nonetheless has no longer budgeted for. He refuse to stability the funds. His overspending has created a vulnerable dollar and a risky marketplace with international markets having very plenty extra administration over the U. S. markets. He has additionally approved some the biggest commerce deficit in heritage. particularly frankly, Bush has on no account had to stay off of a funds because of the fact mommy and daddy continually handed him each and every thing. His financial thought became into build and monetary device outfitted totally on client self belief and spending devoid of doing something to maintain that self belief. It became right into a faux backside which the american everybody is going to would desire to pay for interior the subsequent 10 years.
2016-11-03 08:44:41 · answer #2 · answered by mcclam 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Notice how hatchling who have no intelligent response to a question immediately point fingers while jumping up and down and screaming, "look over there!"
That is the response that has been fed into the void that is the hatchling group mind.
Bush is criminally negligent of his Constitutional responsibilities as Commander In Chief.
But, wait a minute. Bush was never legitimately elected. Therefore, the argument could be made that his Constitutional oath of office technically does not apply.
Furthermore, if he was never legitimately elected then he cannot be accused of failing to uphold his Constitutional oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.
It all makes sense now. The Supreme Court appointed a dictator who suspended the Constitution.
Our dictator did not retaliate for the Cole bombing because he didn't feel like it.
I hope you don't have a problem with that because you have no Constitutional right to.
2007-12-15 03:14:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
If Bill said that then he is lying , again. October 23, 2000 Newsweek magazine reported that the FBI and the CIA both told Clinton that Osama bin Laden was the man responsible.
Sandy Berger woke up the president at his home in Chappaqua N.Y. to tell him of the bombing. Several hours later he remarked to aides, "How ironic that Americans will now have to experience some of the same anger, frustration and powerlessness felt by those in the Mideast".
2007-12-15 03:45:08 · answer #4 · answered by Mother 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Both (the current and previous US presidents) didn't want to spoil their relationship with Islamic "democracies" such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Yemen (remember the civil war there in 1994, when the progressives were crushed?). Had the Cole bombing taken place in Serbia, or where Serbs could be accused of bombing it, do you think Penis Clinton would wait for the FBI report? Of course not...
2007-12-15 03:02:53 · answer #5 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Clinton has all the excuses in the world, doesn't he? I didn't retaliate for American Embassy bombings because . . . I didn't retaliate for the original WTC bombings because . . . I ran from Al Queda in Somalia because . . . I didn't retaliate for an attack on a US military boat because . . . I made a mockery of the American justice system, lied under oath, and got disbarred because . . .
I've seen plenty of Presidents continue a war, but haven't seen a President begin a war because the previous President made excuses why he shouldn't start one. Bill Clinton was / is a coward, period.
2007-12-15 03:04:19 · answer #6 · answered by Ollie 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Maybe he found out his friends in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia financially backed the attack on the Cole and decided to let the incident fade into history.
2007-12-15 03:00:15 · answer #7 · answered by Joe D 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
GEE HES IN OFFICE FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS...CLINTON HAD EIGHT YEARS TO EVALUATE AL QAEDA AND YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM A PASS....
GROW UP
clinton missed his chance, bush did what he could
the retaliation was afghanistan
next question.
2007-12-15 04:00:04 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If there no oil or money involved Bush is not interested .
2007-12-15 03:19:28 · answer #9 · answered by Blessed 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
no money in it for him and cheney.
2007-12-15 02:57:05 · answer #10 · answered by Dr. Mallikarjun 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋