Is it true that "the Sept. 11 attacks were, according to bin Laden, a direct response to ... Bill Clinton, ... when he launched the missile attacks into Afghanistan and Sudan and killed thousands of innocent Africans and Afghanistan people - Afghanis - that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or anything?" Jay Bennish's lecture transcript, http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004689.htm
2006-03-14T17:32:00Z
And, if you say Bush, how is that possible? Did he order the missile strike's from the governor's mansion in TX?
gemlover2006-03-14T18:09:40Z
Favorite Answer
Neither is at fault!
Jihadists use 9/11, the Sudan, the plight of the Palestinian people, American bases on Saudi soil, etc... as excuses to, in their own words, "... convert or kill ... the infidels."
It's not about Jay Benish, or Michele Malkin, or any other American for that matter. Check out Al Jazeera if you want to hear it from the horse's mouth. Rabid terrorists, ravenous for power, have hijacked a religion, and it's gullible followers to do their bidding!
Remember that middle-eastern terrorism, targeted against the U.S., began in the 1970s, long before Clinton or Bush.
In the history of man, a war has NEVER been fought for any reason other than the acquisition of resources; be it land, water, minerals, etc... Religion has often been an excuse, or rather the scape-goat for greed. This current jihad is no exception.
Fifty years from now, when we are hopefully fully engaged in the use of more efficient energy sources, where will the middle east obtain the resources to sustain their people? When oil is no longer a commodity, where will their collateral and resulting buying power come from?
Let's look this beast squarely in the face, and call it what it really is ... some far-thinking survivalists, who will spare no one, and nothing from their wrath.
First off, blame Al Queda, they were responsible. As to Clinton vs. Bush, I lay more blame on Bill Clintons administration. He had opportunities to capture Bin Laden and did not take them. Of course, he , nor anyone else, could have forseen what was comming, and Bin Ladens capture may not have prevented 9/11.
As to GW Bush inheriting a robust economy, that's just plain bull. The economy was well into decline before Bush took office and all anyone has to do is look at the stock market history to prove it. Bush may not be my favorite President, and there are many points on which I disagree with him, but a good leader sometimes must make unpopular choices when he truely believes it is the right thing to do. I am from Massachusetts, and I shudder to think how this country would fare under Al Gore, or worse, John Kerry. I would like to see a MaCain ticket with a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman run, they would get my vote, no matter who was running for President and who was running for VP.
Totally Bush! the man is a world renowned illiterate buffoon with all the decision making powers of a pickled wall nut. But you'd have to wonder just how far does he have to go and how stupid can he get before the people get rid of this man. You know the eyes of the world look on in a mix of disbelief and horror. I mean after the atrocity of 9/11 he commented something like " these folk are bad folk". Really George ya don't say. What else is bad George the Bogey man and spelling tests! The man's a dumb **** and so are his voters!
There was an show on discovery an few months back all about 9/11 and it was discovered that an person in the defense department had documents about 9/11 and that it was going to happen and he ignored them and put them to the side so no not Bush or Clinton