Can anyone say that bill clinton was a little too soft against terrorism in his term?

Answer 1

Sure I can say that bill clinton was a little too soft against terrorism. But I really believe he was a lot too soft.

Answer 2

I think that Bill Clinton was a reasonable man, trying to pursue the possibilities of peace instead of war. He tried with Rabin and Arafat in Camp David and almost succeeded.
He came on good terms with Jeltsin as much as possible.
It seemed the whole world could relax for a brief moment. Look at him now, joining the fight against aids in Canada while Powell is attending a forum on how to strengthen Israels position in the Middle East, at all cost...Bush administration vs Clinton administration, the choice is easy to make. Clinton saw the signs of terrorism in a solid and balanced perspective but thought twice before landing The United States in different wars.
Then Bush came back to undo all actions and to worsen every possible scenario: the ties with Europe, Russia, the Middle East and so on.

Answer 3

I don't think so. In this time Clinton was a president, everybody loved him, because he was different than Bush. In the meantime there was any terror attacks everywhere. After the Bush came than everything started and now is worse. I like Clinton he is nice and very intelligent. I guess there was an attack some how somewhere in the US Clinton was not soft against terrorism.

Answer 4

That is a fact. The first wtc attack and the uss cole happened under Clinton. What did he do, he lobbed a few missles at so called terrorist training camps the same day as his sex scandal hit the papers. Interesting way to get Monica 'off' the front page. Let us not forget that at the end of the Clinton years is when the recession really started. And don't forget that Clinton along with the entire Democratic party believed and are quoted as saying 'Iraq has WMD's'.

Answer 5

I can say he was soft on terrorism, as the current administration has defined the term. I believed he responded to "terrorism" a tactic in the proper way by paying attention to not just plots or the acts themselves, but the very real economic and social, political situation that makes "terrorist" act OK in the attackers mind.

Answer 6

If you mean he didn't take an active part in orchestrating the 9/11 events like bush did.(more and more evidence points to this white house) then yes,Clinton was soft on terrorism

Answer 7

No,

in fact he was very good about fighting a new threat.

the milliniem plot is a great achievement in fighting.

if you give an example of something i can talk about it......

********************************************************
fun reading.
Debunking the Sudan offered Clinton bin landen myth.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

********************************************************
more fun reading.......

The Clinton-Gore Plan to Stop Al-Qaeda: Would 9-11 have happened?
Would things be any different had Gore been President? Wouldn’t 9-11 have still happened?

Perhaps not, according to mainstream media source Time Magazine. In their article, They Had A Plan [requires paid subscription], they explain why: After the bombing of the USS Cole the Clinton Administration had drawn up a comprehensive plan for fighting Al-Qaeda. But they didn’t want to execute it with a new President taking office in a few months, so they briefed Bush’s team at the highest levels and told them how important it was that they carry it out. And then Bush did nothing.

Here are the relevant quotes:

[Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy] Berger says he told [his successor, Bush’s Condoleezza Rice], “I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”
The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, [] who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen [] to become the White House’s point man on terrorism. [He was] chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG)[…]. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole […] he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. […] Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. “We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20,” says a former senior Clinton aide. “That wasn’t going to happen.” Now it was up to Rice’s team to consider what Clarke had put together.
Clarke’s proposals called for the “breakup” of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble — Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen — would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to “eliminate the sanctuary” where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. […] In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

[…]

An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide — to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended — just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. Perhaps some of those who had to approve the operation might have been killed, or the money trail to Florida disrupted. We will never know, because we never tried. This is the secret history of that failure.

This isn’t some low-level employee talking after-the-fact. This is a comprehensive plan at the highest levels of government, with the greatest stress, simply not carried out.

So what was Bush doing instead of cracking down on terrorism? Well, we now know he was busy planning to invade Iraq.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001120

Answer 8

in all probability via fact in 1998 - Clinton ordered missle strikes on the mountains of Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Ladin.. however the partisan factors that have been attempting to defeat him pushed aside the tried surgical strike as some form of ruse to cover up for the Monica Lewinsky affair... Even in easy of the intel under Clinton's admin - the incoming Bush admin thoroughly omitted the warnings. omitted till 9-11 it is.

Answer 9

Well I'm not a big Clinton guy but he put Ramsey Yusef is in jail for blowing up World Trade in 93. How come we have not caught Bin Laden

Answer 10

Bill Clinton may have been sleeping with his interns but the U.S. was in a much better place. People had jobs, we didn't go to war, generally people were happy all around. The trouble didn't start until Bush was in presidency. But then again it wasn't all his idea to go to war..he is just the guy who gets all the blame.