|
"Clinton, had the opportunity to get Bin Laden, he did nothing.
Bush acted, he tried the route of the UN, a resolution was passed, when it came down to it, the UN, did nothing. We did not randomly invade Iraq, we went though the diplomatic channels and they failed. The president is bound by the Constitution to act upon any threat to the US. It was not just Bush’s administration that identified Iraq as a threat, it was Clinton’s as well. But Clinton, did…nothing"
I love this line of thinking - that Bush is the big protector of America, and that he's the only one that can provide adequate protection. Puh-lease. The only difference between Bush and Clinton regarding terrorism is 9/11. Before 9/11, we knew where the terrorists were, identified them as a threat, and could do little more than watch them because the political doctrine of the time didn't allow us to go kill terrorists in a foreign land. After 9/11, the policy changed to open season on terrorists. If you can find 'em , you can shoot 'em or at the very least you can lock them up and toture them. That is the ONLY difference. It's not the man - it's the policy.
Now, the 180 billion dollar "war" that accomplished nothing is a whole differe.t animal.
|
Threaded Mode