09-27-2006, 12:21 PM
|
#11
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 16,335
My Mood:
|
Re: Bush Blamed More Than Clinton for Failure to Capture Bin Laden
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BelichickFan
Read the *****ing thread. I have said that I agree Bush has *****ed up since 9/11/01. The issue is Clinton's BS about Clinton doing everything he could and that Bush did nothing BEFORE 9/11/01.
8 months vs. 8 years, Clinton.
Now, in the time since, I have blamed Bush including in this thread.
|
What steps did Bush take to combat Al Qaeda during his first 8 months? That kind of terrorism was not listed among his priorities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
"After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy."
As Clinton acknowledged, he tried and failed to get bin Laden. That of course is no excuse since a President, like it or not, is measured by a lot of things out of his control.
But the real issue is that righties are now saying Clinton did not do enough, but when he did stuff, they accused him of wagging the dog, and meanwhile the righties are not accusing Bush of not doing enough prior to 9/11. If the righties were so prescient, why didn't they demand Bush go after Al Qaeda immediately upon taking office?
|
|
|