Or will she just ignore it like her husband did?
2007-12-17 13:23:21 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm rambling dillon?
I should report you because your answer is not an answer. If I had a dime for every time someone did that to me I'd have about 3.20. And furthermore.....Ah forget it I'm rambling.
2007-12-17 13:30:06 · update #1
Yes. She will be, but she will be more tactful and intelligent about it. Her husband actually did a very good job quelling international turmoil. Bill Clinton is the reason that there hasn't been an IRA attack on London since he was in office.
2007-12-17 13:39:26 · answer #1 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Do you have any idea how ignorant you look when you constantly disregard the truth like this?
Those responsible for every terrorist attack during Clinton's administration (including the two right wing conservative white Americans) are either dead or in prison now. The one exception being the 2000 bombing that happened 3 months before Bush took over (you know when Bush had just finished campaigning averaging 3 mentions of Iraq per speech but not one of AQ or OBL). The intelligence on this was handed to Bush. Why did Bush choose not to continue Clinton's excellent record. And why did he stop going after Bin Laden only months after 9/11? Was it part of a Republican policy to ignore terrorism (after all Gingrich and co pilloried Clinton for going after OBL in 1998 - they seemed to think a politically motivated impeachment was a more important priority for the President than defending our nation).
2007-12-17 21:57:04 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
From Dick Morris on Hillery
1. She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qeada phone calls to/from the USA .
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qeada cells & supporters in the USA .
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists, even though such tactics might save American lives.
2007-12-17 21:47:14 · answer #3 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hillary isn't tough on anyone except the Patrol officers and Marines who serve her. As far as being tough on anything else, she is further tough on her constituents, because she does absolutely nothing to earn the pay she is supposed to be making in the Senate, not running for President 18 months before the election.
No, she'll be exactly as her lame husband was. Ineffective and excuse prone. Did I mention a liar? No, she'll lie a bunch too.
2007-12-17 21:31:51 · answer #4 · answered by Jeff L 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
republicans and bush supporters ignore the facts, clinton tried to fight terrorism while the republicons fixated on bill's penis.
It wasn't an "accident" that 9/11 happened with bush at the helm.
2007-12-17 21:39:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think she would use the same policies her husband did.
2007-12-17 21:45:56 · answer #6 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What the heck are you rambling about?
The additional details were funny and the answer is NO.
2007-12-17 21:27:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Duo will ignore it again
2007-12-17 21:28:06 · answer #8 · answered by phillipk_1959 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Being tough on terrorism is usually code for being tough on anyone with a hint of colour in their skin, or, god forbid, a beard.
Its also code for failure to respect basic human rights.
Finally, its code for "sucking up to voters".
2007-12-17 21:26:43 · answer #9 · answered by Meta 3 · 2⤊ 7⤋
She will be just like Bush, picks on the countries that can't fight back, while ignoring the real threats that could f*** us up.
2007-12-17 21:32:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋