Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Huck
I agree that it is not breaking news. You'll notice that the referenced story, from Rueters, does not mention the Clinton administration. Surely you don't think that Rueters news service is trying to deflect any blame that they could be leveling at Bush.

And yes, it was not quite eight month's into Bush's watch, which does not deflect accountability from Clinton, who allowed this evil to fester for eight years.

We weren't attacked because Bush was president. We were attacked because we had such a long history of reacting weakly to previous attacks.

102 posted on 03/10/2006 6:23:19 AM PST by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Washi
We weren't attacked because Bush was president. We were attacked because we had such a long history of reacting weakly to previous attacks.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't think the Clinton Admin did an effective job fighting terrorism. But then again, I don't recall the GOP led congress making a big issue of it, either. I think it was a total gubmint failure. But sometimes that's how it goes. You don't take a threat seriously until it kicks you in the teeth. We all should have known better. Now we do. I just think it's retarded the way a lot of GOP cheerleaders constantly go back to Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

103 posted on 03/10/2006 7:02:01 AM PST by Huck (space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson