Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Snopes2)   Clinton not responsible for attacks due to not doing anything about other attacks   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3516 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Oct 2001 at 1:54 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

96 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-10-28 01:57:20 PM  
The story the Democrats do not want to surface.
2001-10-28 02:01:02 PM  
What story?
2001-10-28 02:05:04 PM  
Let's see..., help the free world or get a Hummer....
2001-10-28 02:05:10 PM  
After reading the story, it looks like the Clinton administration took action after every incident.
2001-10-28 02:06:38 PM  
HappyFunBall: no they didn't! Clinton planned the attacks to kill Barbara Olson! Democrat presidents have never done anything good for America! [/Crazy Conservative rant off]
2001-10-28 02:07:00 PM  
You know, I used to respect Snopes, but this is the third one where their pronunciation is questionable. In this case, we got the underlings who actually did the deed, but never got those who organized it and set it up. Those cruise missiles were highly ineffective (and took out the source of medicine for the Sudan, it's was more important than making baby asprin). Could we have done more? That's arguable, so the proper answer is indeterminable.
2001-10-28 02:07:05 PM  
Whoa! Looks like someone no likey Clinton! As I recall, he did take action. We can't hold it against him because not everything worked out perfect.
2001-10-28 02:07:06 PM  
Clinton sat on his hands while Monica was on her knees.
Clinton had several opportunities of the non-lethal kind to have stopped the events of the past few weeks
2001-10-28 02:09:02 PM  
addendum: or so we were told that he took action
2001-10-28 02:09:47 PM  
You can't blame anyone for the Sept. 11 activities but Bin laden himself. How many of the SS or CIA could have thought "I wonder if anyone will run two goddamn planes into the WTC buildings"

Leave Clinton alone. I'm not a democrat but I do think that that those who want to blame are those who can't realize that the buildings are collapsed and that somehow blaming Clinton will make it all better. If you want something to do with your mistargeted anger, go boil an egg
2001-10-28 02:13:59 PM  
He did a half-assed job. It's of course not his fault, but we should have started fighting this war years ago when we knew what was festering.

Before 5000 of our brothers and sisters were murdered.
2001-10-28 02:15:48 PM  
Clinton is the worst president EVAR! F*cking scumbag.
2001-10-28 02:21:02 PM  
Hulka: yeah.. that good economy and long period of peace were nothing.
2001-10-28 02:26:09 PM  
Clinton did not create that period of peace and growth in the economy Reagan did. Idiots.
2001-10-28 02:26:21 PM  
Sgt_hulka is a farking scumbag.

I don't know anything about Sgt_hulka, but I guess I can say that because he said the same think about Clinton without providing any supporting thoughts or observations either.
2001-10-28 02:30:15 PM  
So is Clinton GOD? Is he a one man ARMY?..He done his time as president and weather he did good or bad is irrellevent now.
2001-10-28 02:31:30 PM  
Bmr: and who was responsible for those recessions in 1987 and 1991?

2001-10-28 02:32:34 PM  

Loyalists to the pathetic weasel can be given stat and fact one after another but fail to see any weakness or problems with the man who sold national secrets to China.

In my opinion, Clinton is a f*cking Scumbag. I don't have time to detail why I think so. From your profile is looks as if you're lucky enough to live in the Socialist state of Kalifornia, Gun nazi heaven and home to Gary Condit, another prime example of all that is good with the human race.
2001-10-28 02:33:25 PM  
Hulka: yeah.. that good economy and long period of peace were nothing.

Can you name one thing Clinton personally did to cause that? I can name one thing he got onboard for (NAFTA) but that wasn't his own idea. And he only got onboard for welfare reform after multiple vetos, but it was re-election time...
2001-10-28 02:34:32 PM  
What's funny is, if you read the text, he says that this email is "False", but then he begins to recount everything that's stated in the email. I don't see how this is false. There were terrorist incidents, Clinton promised they wouldn't go unpunished, and nothing happened but missles flying into Aspirin factories and hummers under the Oval Office desk.

So, it looks like this email is TRUE, and this site even proves it.

Sounds like the guy who writes for Snopes is a Clinton supporter and labelled this FALSE even though he proves it's TRUE.
2001-10-28 02:34:57 PM  
You know, it's really pathetic how the Clinton haters think that it's all his (Clinton's) fault. After all, it wasn't Clinton that ignored a reporters article about how Bin Laden threatend America 3 weeks before the attack happend. It wasn't Clinton that flew around in a Jet all day while his Cabinet did all the work. We should have elected Cheny. Much better than Bush or Gore.

I'm not a Demo or Repub. I am politically aligned to people, not parties working for their own advancement. Anyone who thinks all the vast right/left wing conspiracies are true need to have their head checked for demons. To sum it up, Clinton's BJ has nothing to do with the Terrorist attacks. Infact, from what I understand most Europeon countries don't hold a grudge against Clinton for having sex. And that is what this is about, because if it were Perjery that everyone was pissed about, Bush did it twice.

Grow up and think for yourself. I could just as easily say that Bush's vomiting hurt our relations with China to this very day. See how stupid it sounds? Thats what you extremist types sound like. So shut the fark up.
2001-10-28 02:35:12 PM  
Repairs to economy take time. Every thing that led to the huge growth in the nineties was and will always be attributed to Reagan. Clinton also raped the military for eight years. It is a mere shadows of itself just ten years removed from '91.
2001-10-28 02:38:07 PM  
Bmr: so.. when will Clinton's economic ideas take effect? much sooner than 10 friggin years?

Reagan also brought us our glorious National Debt!
2001-10-28 02:40:06 PM  
The e-mail said 'Hunted down and punished', the people who are setting up these bombs were found out and are being punished. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the US Justice system, I'm sure Clinton didn't have the power to get terrorists put on trial quicker.
2001-10-28 02:42:21 PM  
This one is still under investigation, but it gives you an idea of how CLinton funds running for office.

In a year when Arkansas scandals dating back to his governorship have returned to haunt Clinton, this one nearly toppled the government -- of Canada. Arkansas' prison-blood business created a health crisis in Canada that nearly brought down the Liberal Party government last spring. At least 42,000 Canadians have been infected with hepatitis C, and thousands more with the HIV virus, thanks to poorly screened plasma. Some of it has been traced back to the Cummins prison in Arkansas. More than 7,000 Canadians are expected to die as a result of the blood scandal.

Full Story at Salon
2001-10-28 02:45:13 PM  

What did Clinton do? Please just name one. NAFTA was not his, so that one is dead.
2001-10-28 02:48:14 PM  
Hulka: yeah.. that good economy and long period of peace were nothing.

I am not an economist so I cannot attack your good economy statement yet many believe it started with regan or bush 1 and ended a year before clinton left office. Its pretty much a political party cheerleading stance. Clinton was in office when it happened and he gets the credit. Right or Wrong.

However your dead wrong about peace. This has not been a very peaceful decade infact it is quite the opposite. In africa local struggels have been getting worse. Their governments have pretty much ignored the problem as long as its in the countryside and the news media ignores it with slaverly of women and children at an all time high.

In Indo-Asia governments have toppled and ethnic violence with whole villages and large towns being attacked by groups with hundreds of thousands dead is the worst its ever been. With many fleeing to other southern pacific nations.

In europe the violence between christians and muslems have been just as bad and getting worse now that we have started pulling out our troops. We have been protecting muslem rebel groups like the KLA even while they attack other towns.

South American communist groups like F.A.R.C. have been massing arms and killing local democratic leaders with the columbian army being sent equipment from the united states and europe and soon the area is going to explode with the economy getting worse.

In the middle east well I guess I don't have to tell you about the pakistiani terrorist groups bombing pizza palors and shooting kids in their school buses. Yet small local rebels against many of the governments with wealthy people paying them off millions of dollars to leave their shops alone in almost every nation except for Turkey and Iran is common.

We have never had a lasting peace in many parts of the world and while the IRA and problems of South Africa might be comeing to an end its just plane stupid to say something like we have had a long peace period with clinton or anyone for that matter. Just because someone does not shoot a grenade threw your school window does not mean its also not going on in the world someplace.
2001-10-28 02:53:44 PM  
2001-10-28 02:55:03 PM  
I mean peace as in 'Peace in the US', meaning that we aren't going off into any actual wars (Kosovo doesn't count).

Americans could care less about Hutus and Tutsis
2001-10-28 02:55:30 PM  
Snopes is starting to remind me of CNN (Clinton News Network). One thing to note is that the initial letter IS TRUE. These events DID happen in attack of America. Clinton DID vow to do something about it. Yet his efforts were nothing if not impotent. It's too bad that it took something as horrific as these attacks to give our nation the balls to actually do something about these American-hating terrorists. We need to stop being pussies and protect our great country - bleeding heart-liberals be damned. </rant>
2001-10-28 03:01:26 PM  
Yeah.. Snopes should be like that unbiased Fox News Network and condemn Clinton for everything, no matter what the evidence is!

'What did Clinton do? Please just name one. NAFTA was not his, so that one is dead.'

Supply-side wasn't the idea of Reagan either, so can I kill that one?

Did Reaganomics bring anything in the 80s? if so, then it doesn't just reappear in the 90s. Pick a timeframe for your Reverse Robin Hood idea to occur.

As for something Clinton has done. He has signed a balanced Budget. Of course, he could have decided to not let it thru but he did.

I guess I can ask what Reagan did for the economy that was HIS idea (Supply-side wasn't his idea, tax cuts were not his original idea).

Come on... don't duck the question. And tell me why Big Reaganomics allowed the recession in 1991.
2001-10-28 03:01:44 PM  
The cool thing about the US is that we agree that we disagrre on many levels. I would still buy you a beer and in the end we would laugh and a friend would have been made. That is what I do not want to lose I really love this country. You cannot fault me for that.
2001-10-28 03:02:52 PM  
Some of y'all seem like a bunch of armchair politicians.
Like the person who posted the article with a negative slant, failing to read that the article was pro-clinton.

You only read the part you need to read [anti-clinton], failing to read the fine line.

So Regan did someting good? Thats why during his reign the rich got richer and the poor got poorer? His tax cuts to the upper economic sector really helped the US. His Star Wars program created jobs, until we had no "evil enemy".

He put all of the Govt. money in programs and businesses that helped only the rich folk. How do you think he stayed in the White House for 8 years?
Clinton on the other hand, had the support of rich folks AND a majority of lower/middle economic support. Why? Because his programs did not just benefit those in power with the money. Just like everything is not all black or all white, that same goes for politics.
2001-10-28 03:06:12 PM  
The rich get richer because they work for it, if someone is lazy and wants to sit on their ass.. fark them, they can live in the streets.............
2001-10-28 03:10:09 PM  
although, in the whole scheme of things, Presidents have as much direct control on how the economy goes as Bookies have in how football games end.

Saying that Reagan put in the controls to boost the economy is fine, although expect alot of dispute.

Alan Greenspan did it all. Hail Greenspan!
2001-10-28 03:19:36 PM  
What short memories people have. I'm not an R or a D but, does anyone remember a certain "arms for hostages" deal that Reagan administered with the help of his buddy Bush Sr.? Does anyone question whether Clinton did a generally good job at keeping the US friends with most of the world - leading to Russia and China supporting our current work? I remember the Rs not giving Clinton his props for his work in China, well now we need them bad and it's a good thing we didn't take away their trade status. Of course that's what all the liberals wanted so it turns out that neither side has a monopoly on foreign affairs idiocy.

Last March Bush Jr. GAVE the Taliban $43 Million dollars in return for their promise not to grow poppies. The Rs have much more than the Ds to answer for in this current situation.
2001-10-28 03:25:48 PM  
Some of y'all seem like a bunch of armchair politicians.

In all honesty, I don't think there could be a better phrase to describe me. I'm neither R or D, yet I am possibly more conservative than most R's. Regardless, I am not a Clinton hater. I don't approve of him, but well, I don't really care about him either. I was too young to remember Reagan, and I certainly won't rely on what 'information' I can find about him on the net and whatnot to have an opinion. I did vote for Bush, and I still feel good about that vote. The thing is, Clinton haters, well, the C haters without any real reasons or evidence, give all conservatives a bad name. It's such a crime nowdays to be conservative. R's, D's, whatever, we all want the best for our country(well, not all of us, most of us I assume), and we just disagree on how to get there.

R's and D's are like a husband and a wife who are planning to take a trip to Colorado by car, but keep biatching about which route to take.

2001-10-28 03:32:25 PM  
Bottom line is something should have been done sooner. I realize that hindsight is 20-20, but we had more than enough warning and more than enough reason to act far earlier. We hit the damn snooze button too many times. Too bad it took 9/11 to wake us up.
2001-10-28 03:33:49 PM  
I hate tree-huggin-liberals.

Snopes is usually pretty cool, but the debunking of this story is farking tree-hugger yellow. The simple fact is that Clinton ran through the motions but he didn't go far enough. Yeah they convicted someone here and there, but thats about as far as they went. Clinton and his assmunching wife are an embarassment. I'm still pissed at fellow New Yorkers for voting her ass into office.
2001-10-28 03:34:19 PM  
"The rich get richer because they work for it"

What a load. The rich get richer because they just hire someone to invest mommy and daddy's money for them. If they get in trouble, one of their family friends will bail them out, and perhaps appoint them president or something.
2001-10-28 03:37:24 PM  
Cranky: What would you suggest? Should he have invaded Saudi Arabia? You're just upset (cranky?) that you can't say he did NOTHING any more. You have to come up with the old "he didn't go far enough" arguement. Kinda like how Bush Sr. "didn't go far enough" to get rid of Saddam?
2001-10-28 03:51:16 PM  
Henchman: It is a common fact..





2001-10-28 03:54:44 PM  
Sheesh...looks like somebody needs a nap.
2001-10-28 04:06:28 PM  



how can we ignore stellar advice like that?

i'm educated. i work my ass off. i'm not rich.
that's a fakring fact.
2001-10-28 04:09:00 PM  
Althought, may I point out your spelling??
2001-10-28 04:09:38 PM  
Or can I Axe you somthing???
2001-10-28 04:10:20 PM  
I work hard, and Hey, I have quite a bit to show for it!
2001-10-28 04:18:39 PM  
So if this is Clinton's fault and he should have taken Bush's "stance", then why did Mr. Bush give millions of dollars to the Taleban this past March?
2001-10-28 04:29:22 PM  
Walken: Its posts like that which show just how little of your argument is left standing.

I love how ad hominem arguments are so transparent.
2001-10-28 04:53:33 PM  
#1. Read 'em.
#2. Got my diploma.
#3. Walken needs to realize that not everything in this world is going to conform to his rantings.

Anyone want to restate the "clue-by-four" one-liner? I liked that one!
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.