pBills Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That's because Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorists as they attacked the WTC and the Cole and built up strength under him, resulting in the 9-11 attacks which Bush had to deal with. I love when folks try to compare the 8 years of Clinton to Bush as apples to apples. Yes. That infamous blind eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 17, 2008 Author Share Posted September 17, 2008 That's because Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorists as they attacked the WTC and the Cole and built up strength under him, resulting in the 9-11 attacks which Bush had to deal with. I love when folks try to compare the 8 years of Clinton to Bush as apples to apples. Talk about conspiracy theories. The first time I have heard Clinton blamed for 911. That is rich. Pretty soon he will blamed for us George Bush lying about wmd and going into Iraq. Pleeease..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Talk about conspiracy theories. The first time I have heard Clinton blamed for 911. That is rich. Pretty soon he will blamed for us George Bush lying about wmd and going into Iraq. Pleeease..... Really? I blame Clinton for 9/11 all the time. And I stand by it. His Southwest Asia policy was formulated not by the State Department, but alternately by Unocol and Jay Leno's wife. If he'd had anything even vaguely resembling a coherent foreign policy that had us engaged in the region, al Qaeda never gets a base and 9/11 doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Talk about conspiracy theories. The first time I have heard Clinton blamed for 911. That is rich. Pretty soon he will blamed for us George Bush lying about wmd and going into Iraq. Pleeease..... While I'm not a Wild Bill fan, at least he owned up to his mistakes regarding Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That's because Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorists as they attacked the WTC and the Cole and built up strength under him, resulting in the 9-11 attacks which Bush had to deal with. I love when folks try to compare the 8 years of Clinton to Bush as apples to apples. Funny, I thought Bush took office in January 2001 and was in charge of defending the country. What radical departure from Clinton's policies regarding terrrorism did he take before 9/11, other than Cheney dismissing Clinton administration officials terrorist briefings and wanting to concentrate on Iraq? The Repubs got what they wanted; president and control of Congress, lower taxes, deregulation, and a war in Iraq to spread democracy in the Middle East. How's that all worked out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Really? I blame Clinton for 9/11 all the time. And I stand by it. His Southwest Asia policy was formulated not by the State Department, but alternately by Unocol and Jay Leno's wife. If he'd had anything even vaguely resembling a coherent foreign policy that had us engaged in the region, al Qaeda never gets a base and 9/11 doesn't happen. Southwest Asia? If it hadn't been for Clinton, there is a very real chance that the '99 Kargil war between Pakistan and India would have gone nuclear. The details are still shrouded in secrecy, but the consensus is that at the critical point where both sides were preparing for a full war and readying their nukes defensively, Clinton effectively dressed down Sharif at the White House. The rest is history - Sharif pulled back from the LOC, tried to blame the military for starting the war in the public upheaval which followed, then tried to prevent Army chief of staff Musharaff (his appointee) from landing his plane in Pakistan, and the military coup followed (and with it, a period of relatively good relations between Pakistan and India). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That's because Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorists as they attacked the WTC and the Cole and built up strength under him, resulting in the 9-11 attacks which Bush had to deal with. I love when folks try to compare the 8 years of Clinton to Bush as apples to apples. Why did Bush have to handle it the way he did? Pride? Well that indignant pride has cost us dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Southwest Asia? If it hadn't been for Clinton, there is a very real chance that the '99 Kargil war between Pakistan and India would have gone nuclear. The details are still shrouded in secrecy, but the consensus is that at the critical point where both sides were preparing for a full war and readying their nukes defensively, Clinton effectively dressed down Sharif at the White House. The rest is history - Sharif pulled back from the LOC, tried to blame the military for starting the war in the public upheaval which followed, then tried to prevent Army chief of staff Musharaff (his appointee) from landing his plane in Pakistan, and the military coup followed (and with it, a period of relatively good relations between Pakistan and India). Shoulda, woulda, coulda... Never ASS U ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts