English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why vote the Clinton again?

Because of Monica Monica Monica... and Bill Bill Bill....

And then BOOM!!!! 3,000 people died.

I don't care about the **** surplus...

and please don't bring back the Clintoons.

2007-12-31 04:10:39 · 17 answers · asked by MFD 4 in Politics & Government Elections

17 answers

your logic is soooo concise and....logical
just kidding *incase the sarcasm doesn't seep through

2007-12-31 04:14:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 3

President Clinton took the oath of office January 20, 1993. February, 26 - barely a month later - terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives under the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring about a thousand people. Bill Clinton and the Democrats never dreamed of trying to blame the outgoing George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. They just began working to keep us safe from terrorism.

As reported by the "debunking" website, snopes2.com: Within a year, law enforcement officials hunted down four of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's disciples, then prosecuted and convicted them for the bombing and sentenced them to 240 years in prison in March 1994. Officials captured the prime suspect Ramzi Ahmed Yousef in 1995. A court convicted him in November 1997 and sentenced him to 240 years in prison as well. An additional suspect fled.

"In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

See: "Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans. Status: False." http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm. See also: Bill Press, "Don't blame it on Bill Clinton," CNN.com, October 18, 2001: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/index.html

Also see: Lauria, Joe. "U.S. Embassy Bombers Get Life Sentences." The Ottawa Citizen. 19 October 2001 (p. A5). As well as Randolph, Eleanor. "4 Guilty in Bombing of World Trade Center," The Washington Post: 5 March 1994 (p. A1) and "Trade Center Bombers Given 240 Years Each," The Washington Post: 25 May 1994 (p. A1).

Republicans typically couldn't decide whether President Clinton was too blasé or too "hysterical." In reality, his response was appropriately focused on bin Laden and al Qaeda according to top anti-terror officials of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. What did Bill Clinton do?

Issued January 23, 1995 his Executive Order 12947 "Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process," provided for prevention and punishment of efforts to fund terrorism and authorized the FBI and Treasury Department to investigate and prevent financial support of terrorism. It read in part:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America ... I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

This executive order provided for prohibition and punishment of transactions to support terrorism including transfer of "property and interests in property of ... the persons [found] to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of disrupting the Middle East peace process, or ... to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or services in support of, such acts of violence...."

This order held that "any transaction or dealing by United States persons or within the United States in property or interests in property of the persons designated in or pursuant to this order is prohibited, including the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of such persons [and] any transaction by any United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in this order, is prohibited."

Clinton ordered the prohibition of donations "by United States persons to persons [which] would seriously impair [his] ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, [and determined that any] investigation emanating from a possible violation of this order ... shall first be coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and any matter involving evidence of a criminal violation shall be referred to the FBI for further investigation...."

See: Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995, Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 16, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1995_register&docid=fr25ja95-126.pdf

Later, President Clinton expanded that Order, explaining to the Speaker of the House: "On January 23, 1995, in light of the threat posed by grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process, using my authority under, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ... I declared a national emergency and issued Executive Order 12947. Because such terrorist activities continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, I have renewed the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12947 annually, most recently on January 21, 1998."

He added, "I hereby report to the Congress that I have exercised my statutory authority to issue an Executive Order that amends Executive Order 12947 in order more effectively to respond to the worldwide threat posed by foreign terrorists [to add] Usama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Ladin (a.k.a. Usama bin Ladin), Islamic Army, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and Rifa'i Ahmad Taha Musa to the list of terrorists that are subject to the prohibitions contained in the Executive Order." See: "Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets," August 22, 1998 http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=22

President Clinton also ordered a "terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country," which had "already begun" when, in February 1995, the Clinton Administration introduced a counter-terrorism bill in the Senate (S. 390) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 896). Note: this was before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City bombing on April 19 that year.

President Clinton's proposals would have expanded pre-trial detention and allowed more federal wiretaps of terrorism suspects, eased deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes, allowed the detention of aliens convicted or suspected of crimes, let the President criminalize fund-raising for terrorism, and revived visa denial provisions to keep dangerous people out of the US.

Unfortunately, Republicans sabotaged Clinton's efforts to keep us safe. If in force before April 19, 1995 federal officials might have detected and prevented the Murrah Building plot. 9/11/01. If the Republicans had passed Clinton's proposals before September 11, 2001 we might have blocked the al Qaeda terrorist plot that killed 3000 Americans. We all know what happened eight months into the illegitimate Bush/Cheney reign of error.

Republican Congressional leaders shot down Clinton's proposals, tried to impeach him on trumped up grounds, and dragged their feet when it came to national security. They did this even after the Murrah Building bombing. Clinton's "Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995" would have:

"[P]rovided clear Federal criminal jurisdiction for any international terrorist attack that might occur in the United States [including] Federal criminal jurisdiction over terrorists who use the United States as the place from which to plan terrorist attacks overseas." Allowed deportation of "alien terrorists without risking the disclosure of national security information or techniques."

It would have "prevent[ed] fundraising in the United States that supports international terrorist activities overseas," implemented "an international treaty requiring the insertion of a chemical agent into plastic explosives when manufactured to make them detectable," and granted "more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism."

These proposed "tools" would have included: Providing for "disclosures by consumer reporting agencies to the FBI for counterintelligence and counterterrorism purposes." Also "relaxed standard[s] for obtaining 'pen registers' and 'trap and trace' device orders which already exists in routine criminal cases, to national security cases."

Note: a "'pen register' is a device which records the number dialed on a telephone" and a "'trap and trace' device is similar to 'Caller ID,' providing law enforcement with the telephone number from which a call originates. [This] would not permit law enforcement to monitor actual conversations being conducted."



President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996
Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or WAV sound)

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.


Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

2007-12-31 15:36:03 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 3 0

Why Hillary is responsible for all the faults of the republicans?
Another page from the republican play book.

Obviously, you are a typical republican or a obama/edwards supporter, who spreads rumours and play dirty.

Shame to you. Why dont you go back to the rock you came out of.

2007-12-31 13:13:29 · answer #3 · answered by T E 7 · 3 0

I do not know how you got in yahoo asking questions? You need to educate yourself on world events to understand what happened in 9/11 and why. Not because of Monica Monica Monica... and Bill Bill Bill no one died because of that! The big bara Boom!!!! 3,000 people died because of Bush Bush Bush!! Bring back not Bill but Hillary Clinton!

2007-12-31 13:01:08 · answer #4 · answered by Capt. Rex 2 · 2 1

To get thought to you people. Bush did not cause 9/11. It was the Alquaida (don't think I spelled that right) who had way to much time on their hands and wanted to make the best nation in the world have an altering situation. Do you think that ZERO Terrorist attacks for SIX Entire years is pure luck?? Though the Attacks were a major drawback. They have made our country stronger. God Bless our Troops and America. My Sympathy goes out to the people who had lost their loved ones on September 11th, 2001.

2007-12-31 12:35:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

Very uninformed post.

Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism chief for both Clinton and Bush, has said repeatedly that Clinton was intensively focused on combatting terrorism, while Bush was asleep at the switch. Clarke tried time and again to get Bush's attention prior to 9/11, but was rebuffed.

Republicans in 1998: "Clinton is just going after Bin Laden to distract attention from Monica".

Republicans in 2007: "Clinton was too distracted by Monica to go after Bin Laden".

Which is it, dolts?

The responsibility for 9/11 and the 3000 people who died, rests with BUSH and the morons who voted for him. Period.

2007-12-31 12:29:21 · answer #6 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 5 3

How do you qualify this "question" it doesn't even make sense and to the other answerer what does pro-life have to do with 9/11? Idiots like you mark the downfall of society.

2007-12-31 12:23:11 · answer #7 · answered by alana_kurtis99 2 · 4 1

What is causing the distraction you are having from reality?

2007-12-31 12:22:15 · answer #8 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 6 1

It was Bush & Co. that caused 9/11...


Bush was taking multiple vacations per week and in august Bush said he wanted the CIA white house briefings to be cut back.... The August one read "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike within the United States by hijacking airplanes"...

Instead...
Bush decided to go on vacation instead of keeping America safe... And then he waits until America gets attacked before he pushes out all of the army and stuff to guard Airports...

America should have learned after Bush Sr. was in office... After his huge recession why the hell would America want to go through another Bush led recession again.

If you don't believe me go read Condi's testimony to the 9-11 commission....

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/08/edi04058.html

THE CNN transcript
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

2007-12-31 12:21:44 · answer #9 · answered by vybes_souljah 4 · 7 2

I don't think Clintons caused 9/11 but I sure don't want that lady in the White House again...

2007-12-31 12:20:00 · answer #10 · answered by Beotch4Life 4 · 2 1

Well said!! If Billy-boy had been chasing terrorists instead of skirts Osama Bin-Laden would be dead, the WTC would still be standing, No. Korea would not be a nuclear power and China would still be lagging far behind us. Let's not forget the WTC got hit during his term! Oh yeah, and to get his surplus his gutted our military. And people really want to go back to that?? He's an a** and so is his wife!

2007-12-31 12:19:40 · answer #11 · answered by Is it Friday yet?? 4 · 3 5

fedest.com, questions and answers