During Bill Clinton's term, we had numerous terrorism attempts and several vows by Bin Laden himself that there would be major attacks on US soil. Clinton, knowing that inciting a war in Afghanistan would cause Americans to burn him at the stake when the first US soldier drops dead, opts to do nothing. Thus he will more or less be looked upon in history as a peaceful and effective President due to little violence and a good economy (thnx Reagonomics). Bush comes in and soon after we have 9/11. Clinton dodges a bullet. Bush faced a similar dilemma with Saddam that Clinton had with Bin Laden. However he opted to take down Saddam's regime, sacrificing his reputation and indeed faced widespread criticism. I'm not crying poor George, as I am on the fence on his actions like everyone else. But I do know one thing. We have not been attacked since 9/11, and if we are again to become victims of terrorism, it definetely won't be by Saddam, the worst terrorist of our time. Your thoughts?
2006-09-11
14:46:41
·
33 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Current Events