Why Didn't Clinton Try to Protect Americas? Why Did He Help Bin Laden?
147562
because Bill Clinton doesn't care about black people
507665
Of course! Don't forget than Osama Bin Laden was trained in the USA in the early 80's. The american government needed a motive to declare the so-called "war against terrorism". And to succeed that it sacrificed its own people...
212321
What in the hell did any of that mean? What did the USA do to Osama bin Laden except become the victim of his plots on at least three different occasions? The USA is not a "victim of its past deeds" it's simply the target of all the hate-filled wackos in the world because the USA is the ONLY country of significance economically and militarily left in the world.\n\nWhen the USSR still existed the same fringe groups that hate the USA hated the USSR just the same.\n\nWhat the USA should do is STOP giving money to the United Nations and stop giving money directly to other countries and see how well they all do without the generous assistance given to them by the American people every year.\n\nBy the way, did you notice how much assistance and money the Taliban and Al Quada gave to the Muslim victims of the hurricane in SE Asia last year - ZERO. And yet the USA was the first on the scene trying to help.
281501
Because he is being protected by some country or power.  I personally think Pakistan knows where he is at, but they do not want American forces to go there or to bomb, or even to set foot on their soil.  Other theories suggest he may be living well under protection of Iran or Syria.
899103
I meant what I said before, I would help anyone who was in immediate danger, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't turn them in afterwards... Funny you should mention bush and Osama, both of them were probably responsible for 9-11.
332759
Hell he isn't familiar with the job now. He sucked then and he sucks now. He will go down in history as the worst most corrupt president ever and I wonder why you defend him. \nAnd to answer the question. Yes Clinton was tough on terror. Bush would have and did have a full briefing of all the things that was important to the safety of the US. Repuglicans just have a problem that Clinton was the last president to get elected legally.
1141141
there are sources that say the government had information that there would be an attack...but it was very general.  And it was not Pres. Bush that knew this.....The Clinton administration was in power when threats were received as well....it was lack of communication allowed between FBI and CIA.  It wasn't as though they called up the President and said "on 9/11 we are going to fly planes into the twin towers..."  And then he did nothing...that would make him a monster...and regardless of how you think of him politically...he is not up there with the Husseins and the Polpots...
770397
Man do some more research. It was a U.S. Government failure under Both Clinton and Bush. Or are you too partisan to see failures on Clinton's watch?\n\nIn 1995, the CIA and the FBI learned that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as bombs to attack important targets in the U.S. This scheme was called Project Bojinka. It was discovered in the Philippines, where authorities arrested two of bin Laden's agents, Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad. They were involved in planting a bomb on a Philippine airliner. Project Bojinka, which Philip-pine authorities found outlined on Abdul Murad's laptop, called for planting bombs on eleven U.S. airliners and hijacking others and crashing them into targets like the CIA building.
1047961
look at Rwanda.  it is in a terrible place:  a landlocked country in central Africa and is so small.  it is in no way a tactical place to be.  it has no shore to dock ships and no oil or mineral reserves.  unfortunately, helping them would have been a waste of time and funds (military and tactically speaking).  \n\nso, on to Hitlers genocide.  Hitler was a very clear threat and was more than capable of taking over all of mainland Europe during the beginning of the war.  thats why we stopped Hitler.  \n\nalso, Clinton tried helping an African country back in 1993.  remember Somalia and Black Hawk Down?  Clinton didnt help Rwanda in '94 because he wanted to avoid a similar incident.
6861
Let's see Osama calls someone in America tells him to begin the operation to blank the blanks\n\nYour questin indicates you would have us ignore this call?  Then you ask why people are going against reason?   \n\nHelp me out but I've read the original bill of rights and frankly I can't find a single place in there that talks about the right to private un-monitored phone communications with our enemies.\n\nGet off your high horses and start doing what's right for the country if Bill Clinton had done this you'd be calling him a hero.  Bush scratches his nose and you think it's a triger to the terrorists to begin blowing up oil fields so bush's evil friends can raise our gas prices.
124793
George Bush is crazy with power.  Americans that actually do research and ask questions about this administration come to understand that it is evil and corrupt.  Why wouldn't he do business with his buddies?  After all, he did LET them attack us on 9-11.
577510
It seems that our government has failed us at every level to me... first with Clinton, as you have stated, but his failures is no excuse for the current presidency not taking further action to catch bin Laden now... I'm not even going to talk about pre-911 failures, which I think there were some by both Bush and Clinton\n\nNow that we have seen what he is capable of, we still haven't caught him... which to me is much less excusable than not catching him before we knew what he was capable of... and I think we're open to other attacks now... \n\nwe should not look to the past and pointing fingers anymore, at Bush or Clinton, but talk about what we should be doing now... which if you ask me, is focusing on Bin Laden
1039706
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in about 1987 and began his militia Al Queda about then. It's main purpose was to rid the country of the Russians. Yes he was there and yes he did fight but only toward the end of the conflict.
662102
He basically stopped at the Pakistan border. The reason other countries want nukes is because we won't mess with a country which has them. Not to mention that they have a huge army and nasty terrain and we aren't exactly popular there already. \n\nPakistani leaders who agree with the US tend to turn up dead. About the only serious moderate left is the President who has already avoided several assasination attempts. Some believe the country is one heartbeat away from another Islamic fundamentalist government. If their leadership allowed or assisted in open major US military action in Pakistan to find Bin Laden, it would create incredible civil turmoil in Pakistan. Even their moderates might find it intolerable to have American troops running over their soil at will. Therefore having failed to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Bush could no longer go in serious pursuit of Bin Laden without risking war with Pakistan, a far more difficult proposition indeed than smacking Iraq around. So he let Bin Laden go basically with a lame *cooperative* effort for show with Pakistan. \n\nImagine if say 50 billion of the money wasted on getting our brave soldiers killed in Iraq had been spent on developing covert action to get Bin Laden, quietly, sneakily, with bribery, blackmail, bounty, with every manner of spy, special forces, ninja, planetary alignment, disinformation, disguise, deception, trickery, secret spy weapons, and whatever else it took to dig out the rat. Had Bush kept the target in focus at any cost and demanded the resources to do so, and if he had perhaps applied more intelligent tactics than letting butt-ignorant dirtball local warlords jack us around, Bin Laden would have been long since dead and I bet we would have gotten change back from the 50. But I digress.  \n\nWith Iraq, Bush still got to show America that he was attacking *something* after 9/11 besides killing sheep on a bunch of mountains. At that time post 9/11, public anger over the attack was such that just about any violent response by a leadership willing to exploit a huge collective need to kick the dog was acceptable if it could be connected to 9/11. It was so much easier to just blow the crap out of everything to make people happy than it was to be a real leader and craft a controlled, efficient, focused,and effective response. Now we ultimately will have a trillion dollar albatross around our children's necks instead. \n\nBut I knew long before 9/11 that nobody was going to get that kind of stand up leadership from Bush. And all that noise in Iraq made people forget who really attacked us in the first place. When the country began to come up out of its collective (but understandable) frenzy and look around, face all bloody, Bin Laden had long since skated away.    \n\nM\n\nDon't blame me, I never voted for him. Or his daddy.
1000069
I loved Clinton. Our country was in much better shape when he was President. I mean think about it, if the worst thing Bush had done was lie about getting a #@%$&^#, don't you think America might be a bit better off than we are?
739141
I disagree with knowsigns... that was one mistake clinton made, but what about the mistakes Buh has made? I'm a New Yorker and was deeply affected by the 9/11 tragedy. What did Bush do about that tragedy? Invade the privacy of millions of Americans  right? What should he have done? If you read Time magazine you would've read a punchline about how some director is making a movie about the search for osama bin laden, it's 300 hours long with no ending. That is precisely the kind of search President Bush led. I am oly 12 and you cannot guess how strong the deep contempt for the failed capture of Osama Bin Laden is. During that search he went off into Iraq, called it operation Iraqi Liberation, or: O.I.L. What did he want? the destroyer of America in jail, or oil? He didn't even need oil then. I know what people will say that he didn't do it for oil, but how sure can you be? My theory about why he changed Operation Iraqi Liberation's name was because OPEC told him you can't have our oil. He didn't want to look stupid that's why he changed the name! In my point of view Bush is the worst president we possibly could have at times like this when theres a war being waged in Iraq!! I'm only 12 years old and i feel this way, call me an anger bomb just waiting to explode, but i would say some very "colorful" things about our dear president if i didn't have faith in the Americans that trusted him.
789621
1. Why are you talking about Clinton?\n\n2. Following the USS Cole bombing, Clinton ordered an attack on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was thought to be linked to Bin Laden. \n\n3. Since we are talking about past presidents, why didn't Bush Sr take care of Saddam when he did actually have WMDs and invaded Kuwait?