Clinton's Job Approval Rate is Up Again

Bill Clinton was a good president for our economy. However it was during his terms that Bin Laden and his group became a national security threat. In fact several terrorists attacks on the US and US interests during his terms that can now be traced back to Bin Laden (etc). If Clinton had taken stronger measures against them then it is "possible" that 9/11 would not have happened and that we would not be were we are now. Of course Clinton did not have the pleasure of a time machine so I guess there was no way he could have known that.

In reality though the presidency should not be a popularity contest. Sometimes doing the right thing will make a president very unpopular and sometimes doing the wrong thing will make them popular. A president should not worry about the polls. Another thing is, simply put, I don't trust the majority of these polls. Polls can lie. What do I mean? Well you can ask 100 people the same question in two different ways and get two different sets of results. I am not saying that I think Bush is popular, he is not. Nor am I saying that Bush has done the right thing in Iraq, he has not. Nor am I saying that Bush has done the right thing for the economy, he has not. I am just making some general points.

 

Is Clinton running for president again?

 

Gal

a little googlin' might help you a little, but moving . . .!

Clinton had at least 3 verified opportunities to remove bin laden. at least one occasion was after what you would know as 'black hawk down', but politicians have always placed a lower price upon our 'boy' than we should.

Had the Clinton administration done what they could have done, bin laden would be ancient history.

one of many quotes on the intelligence failure.

The worst failure was of course TARGETING BIN LADEN AND MISSING. Because we didn't want to 'pay terrorist sympathizers' we fired at the wrong target using the cheap american sympathizers intelligence (lies for money).


http://www.google.com/search?q=bin+laden+bombing+embassy+sudanese+offer+bin+laden&hl=en&lr=

 

==The Clinton administration knew of Bin Laden and viewed him as a threat. I remember, very well, reading/hearing stories about the threat Bin Laden presented. The Clinton administration even launched a missle attack against a camp and missed several chances to kill Bin Laden. The Clinton administration could have taken Bin Laden out, but they did not. I am sure had they known what was going to happen they would have but history is history.

==Then why did the Clinton administration not launch a full scale effort to kill Bin Laden and break up his group sooner? Why just hit a location why not go all the way?

Btw let's not try to pin 9/11 on Bush. When 9/11 occured Bush had only been president for about 9 months. Clinton had been president for 8 years (96 Months). I am not pinning 9/11 on Clinton but I am saying that his administration failed to do what should have been done. Clinton is not alone on that either. Neither Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, or GW Bush did all they could have done to stop terrorism of this sort. The blame includes both political parties.

==I believe, if I recall correctly, they started planning 9/11 several years before (was it '98). I also seem to recall several terrorist attacks on the United States (WTC, USS Cole, etc) during Clinton's presidency. So whatever actions Clinton may have taken was not enough. In fact, looking back now, it was woefully far from enough.

==The popular president did not win in '00. If you recall Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush only became president because of the electoral college and the supreme court.

 

Teflon Bill! I wonder if, like teflon, he caused cancer - the cancer that is destroying our country?

 

I would vote for him again. I lost more money under Bush than any President. My mother told me to stay out of the bushes.

 

Im sorry but just how long was bush in office for when 911 hit?

 

The Clinton administration closely monitored the activity of Bin Laden, and successfully foiled his first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center. It also arrested and successfully prosecuted the terrorists who perpetrated the plot. They are still in prison. On several occasions, terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were bombed by American missiles, and while that didn't cough up the remains of Osama, it did continually set back his ability to strike and kept Al Qaida on the run. I will always believe that's why 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch rather than Clinton's. OBL knew Bush's election gave him a golden opportunity he wouldn't have had otherwise.

 

On the other hand, if investigatory agencies had not had their hands tied by the Clinton Administration with an invisible "wall" built by Reno's Justice Dept., the 911 hijackers may well have been apprehended during the Clinton Administration. Or the Bush Administration, for that matter.

It's entirely possible, no "wall", no 911.

 

I'd rather loose $$ than have a president in office that won't take a stand for the unborn. Pres. Clinton did nothing to support the unborn and much to make sure that as many could be killed as possible.

I wouldn't vote for a dog catcher if he was pro-abortion.

 

You are misinformed.

 

It appears that you have a different "wall" in mind.

I am speaking of the legal "wall" erected by the Clinton Administration and authored by Jaimie Gorelick.

It remained in place until the Patriot Act tore it down, and quite possibly led directly to 911.

Why was it erected in the first place? Very likely to protect Clinton from prosecution on another matter.

 

You are obsessed with Bush.

However, different wall, so you change the subject and throw in some red herrings to try to confuse things. If you don't know anything about the subject, just pass or say so. No debate here.

If you'd like to provide sources for your allegations about your "wall", I'll be glad to look into them and see if we agree.

At least I'll meet it head on instead of using your favorite liberal tactic of duck, dodge, weave, and change the subject.