<p>But Clinton allowed terrorism to grow and prosper admist many warning signs and attacks. So actually, he did get many Americans killed and sadly probably more in the future. Bush is just cleaning up Clintons mess. What was so great that Clinton did? The <strong>booming</strong> economy? If you study economics, you'll know that Clinton had nothing to do with that.</p>
<p>The Rock. Without a doubt.</p>
<p>obama is not a charismatic speaker. he tries to be like martin luther king, but 3 times as loud.</p>
<p>If you know anything about terrorism, you would know that this problem existed long before clinton ;) . Anyway it doesnt excuse Iraq and you know it. Al Qaeda didnt exist in Iraq before the U.S invaded. Many of the insurgent leaders are syrian. </p>
<p>And please tell me one warning sign that Clinton could have foreseen. Stop avoiding the fact that Bush is completely asinine when it comes to foreign policy. He is a radical reactionist that refuses to think things out. We are stuck in Iraq for years.</p>
<p>Yeah, Al Qaeda did exist before Clinton. When did I say it didn't? But the facts are that terrorism escalated greatly during Clinton and he did nothing but bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan. Warning signs? Do you know how many terrorists attacks happened? The first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, lebanon base bombing, U.S.S. cole, etc. Do you know how many Americans died? Hundreds. Obviously these were warning signs. A lot of Clinton's advisors were telling him he had to do something, but Clinton was too busy worrying about improving his image and acting like everything was okay.</p>
<p>This is a true story. Clinton went out golfing for a day. Nothing wrong with that right? Every president needs to take a few hours off to unwind once in a while. But, while he was golfing, his national security advisor called him. It turns out, we had bin laden in sight. Snipers had him in clear view and were going to assasinate him. But, they needed permission from Clinton first, of course. So his national security advisor calls him and tells him the urgency of the situation and that he needs to take action right away. What does clinton say? He says he's busying playing golf, and he will talk to his advisor when he is finished and hangs up. True story, look up on your facts. There are many other instances when Clinton could have assinated bin laden, but he didn't want to break the "stability" of the middle east (lol... really he didn't want to take a break from his dream world and presidency). I suggest reading "losing bin laden", it's an excellent book on the topic ;).</p>
<p>Bush is not asinine at all. He would never have to take such extreme measures if Clinton had contained the threat when it was still in it's infancy. I think someone's a little bitter that someone won the election... again ;).</p>
<p>shut up, this doesn't have anything to do with charisma</p>
<ol>
<li>My toilet is all clogged up,</li>
<li>The terrible hurricanes in the Atlantic coast,</li>
<li>My grandma pee in her pants, </li>
<li>Shaq left the Lakers,</li>
<li>and Michael Jackson got acquitted.</li>
</ol>
<p>Clinton is a no good sub-human.</p>
<p>haha the rock- i agree.</p>
<p>as for clinton and that fantastical story, try to not be so gullible whenever you read something. you believe that crap book "the truth about hillary?" wonderful, "anonymous" sources</p>
<p>as for bush, can you say there would have been any president who wouldnt have attacked afghanistan after 9/11? that was one of his maybe two good decisions. iraq was entirely unjustified. yeah saddam was a terrible dictator, but not a terrorist. so Clinton let "hundreds" of Americans die (arguably). in iraq, we have 1300 dead and counting for dubious reasons. God save the good American soldiers.</p>
<p>ronald reagan was a great speaker and great pres.</p>
<p>i don't have a high opinion of clinton, he did nothing, but he was a good speaker.</p>
<p>clinton did a great deal. he turned our huge national debt into a surplus, the economy was booming, and the welfare of the poor was substantially improved.</p>
<p>maybe he didnt do enough about terrorism, but did Bush do a whole lot about terrorism before 9/11?</p>
<p>There's not much difference between a "terrible dictator" who hates America and Israel and wishes to destroy them and a "terrorist." Both Saddam and Kim jung il are pretty close to terrorists IMO. And if you read losing bin laden, you will not find "anonymous" sources, but quoted top aids of Clinton who are speaking out. I agree packers, he did nothing at a time when action was definitely needed. Try doing a google of "Clinton and Bin Laden" and you'll see what I'm talking about.</p>
<p>During the start of his presidency, Bush was in the "lame duck" period and had to start off slowly like almost every other president in history. No attacks happened before 911 during his presidency, so there was nothing he could really respond to.</p>
<p>The booming economy? The economy undergoes natural cycles. And if you'll do some research you would see that the economy was already falling (like it naturally should have) by the end of Clinton's presidency and Bush inherited it that way. Also, the senate has just as much say as the president for the economy, and you can see that the economy didn't take off until after 1994, when there was a republican controlled senate (I'm not saying that the republicans were responsible for the boom, just that if Clinton was responsible, they would be equally responsible too).</p>
<p>And the military will continue to send coffins wrapped in American flags back for the next 10 years just because Bush is trying to fix clintons mess... wait a second. Wasnt it the first Bush that orchestrated the gulf war? What does Clinton have to do with Iraq? In fact what is the connection between Hussein and attacks on the U.S or even an embassy for that matter? There really isnt one. Once again you are just rambling without any real coherent sense because you know the Iraq fiasco is strictly a Bush fiasco. Why didnt the original Bush finish the job? If anything he was responsible for any minimal strength that sadam gained. </p>
<p>You know im glad Bush got reelected, its fun to see his approval rating drop on a daily basis.</p>
<p>The Rock says, you can take that terrorism and stick it up your candy ass!</p>
<p>Nice little dodge there, ryan. The Iraq war was jusified and was a good move. I would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq then in New York City, but that's just my personal preference ;). Even Bill Clinton realized we needed to stop Iraq. Who bombed him in 1998? Oh yeah.... that was Clinton! He was enforcing the UN sanctions then just like Bush is now... yet I see no outrage over what Clinton did. Clinton would have eventually went to war as well with Iraq if he stayed in power.</p>
<p>BTW... didn't it go to a senate vote? oh yeah.. it passed... didn't it go to a UN vote? oh yeah.. it passed. So stop trying to find a way to get at Bush when at the time of the invasion everyone had the same view.</p>
<p>
[quote]
During the start of his presidency, Bush was in the "lame duck" period and had to start off slowly like almost every other president in history.
[/quote]
I'd just like to point out that a "lame duck" period is when an official has no plans to become reelected and is therefore considered ineffective due to a lack of public support. In fact, newly elected presidents actually go through a period known as the presidential "honeymoon" when they traditionally have the most public and Congressional support(and subsequent success with their policies).</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if you'll do some research you would see that the economy was already falling (like it naturally should have) by the end of Clinton's presidency and Bush inherited it that way.
[/quote]
actually the economy was falling as a result of the Y2K scare in combination with uncertainty during the 2000 recount.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying that the republicans were responsible for the boom, just that if Clinton was responsible, they would be equally responsible too
[/quote]
this is not a partisan issue for me. i consider myself a moderate republican.</p>
<p>
[quote]
didn't it go to a UN vote? oh yeah
[/quote]
last time i checked, the UN didn't approve of this war.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's not much difference between a "terrible dictator" who hates America and Israel and wishes to destroy them and a "terrorist." Both Saddam and Kim jung il are pretty close to terrorists IMO.
[/quote]
there is a HUGE difference. "wishes" to destroy them is different from acting to destroy them. the word "terrorist" is continually mishandled. "terrorism" is the explicit attempt to incite fear in a civilian population to achieve objectives through undermining popular will. dictators terrorize their own populace, but by no means was saddam terrorizing America. there continues to be no connection between the real war on terror and the war in Iraq that was not manufactured by Bush himself (such as inviting al qaeda into Iraq).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq then in New York City, but that's just my personal preference.
[/quote]
why dont we concentrate on afghanistan, where they were actually being harbored, before Bush tore down the borders of Iraq and let the infestation get in there?</p>
<p>there was no UN vote. We went to war without UN vote.</p>
<p>"BTW... didn't it go to a senate vote? oh yeah.. it passed... didn't it go to a UN vote? oh yeah.. it passed."</p>
<p>Just a small technicality. You and Bush do not need any vote to go to war anywhere. There is no truth in your world, just partisanship. You must also be a diehard Laker/Clipper/Piston/? fan that will always support your team, no matter how bad it sucks. But this is real life, not a sporting event.</p>
<p>haha ive gotta be a laker fan now, cuz someone i went to school with just got drafted by em.</p>
<p>Actually we should be concentrating on Pakistan, considering that is where Al Qaeda is now. There are links between saddam and Al Qaeda. For example a top Al Qaeda terrorist (I forget his name at the moment) was injured and saddam allowed him to enter Iraq and get surgery. He then let him stay. Isn't this basically harboring him? As Bush said, if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Saddam also had ties to terrorists in Israel. There is no doubt that he has ties to terrorists in general. This isn't a war on al qaeda, this is a war on terrorism on a whole. That means the palestinian terrorists are included in that.</p>
<p>And the vote did go to the UN. They agreed that if saddam did not follow them then severe action would be taken against him. Bush was just following the UNs orders! :) There was no need for another vote. And who is the one playing partisan politics? The democrats are the ones who decided to jump sides in a desperate attempt to have some edge against Bush. I support the war in iraq, the general war on terrorism, and my country. The soldiers dying in Iraq do not die in vain, they are defeating al qaeda and terrorists in general (do you want us to fight them in America or Iraq?).</p>
<p>Billy Graham</p>