Why did Clinton ignore terrorism during his 8 years?

Question

Why did Clinton basically do nothing about terrorism during his 8 years in office, even after events like the first bombing of the WTC?

Answer 1

he kept it quiet and left the terrorism mess to the next administration. had he dealt with the issue like a leader should we might have adverted the second attack on the wtc.

Answer 2

Stop letting O'Reilly and Hannity tell you what to think!

Just look at the FACTS, and try to be logical about this -

* Republicans blame Clinton for 9/11, when Bush had been in office for 8 months when it happened.

* Republicans try to blame Clinton for the first WTC attack, which happened 36 days into Clinton's first year in office. If Bush isn't to blame after 8 MONTHS - why is Clinton to blame after 5 WEEKS?

* Republicans are proud of the fact that we've had no more terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 - but who was in office when 9/11 happened?

* Republicans are proud of the fact that we've had no more terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, but how many terrorist attacks did we have in the U.S. through the remainder of the Clinton administration? NONE - until the Republicans came back into power.

Bush even resisted appointing a commission to look into what happened on 9/11, and - after MORE than a YEAR - finally appointed a commission. If you bother to read the commission's report, which has been out since 2004, you'll be stunned at how many warnings there were that 9/11 was coming and at how little was done.

PLEASE, for all our sakes, resist the urge to let sound bites tell you what has happened and what is going on now! Invest some of your time into finding out what really happened - from unbiased sources (not O'Reilly, etc.).

Yes, Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped. Get over it. We didn't elect him "husband" - we elected him "President." There is a big difference in the requirements!

Clinton kept the country safe! If I had my choice between Bush and Clinton, Clinton would be my choice, without hesitation.

Bush is - hands down - the worst president in history. He's taken a bad situation and made it exponentially worse! No question!

And, sad to say, the Republican party has let us down big time. Born and raised a Republican, I'll have a hard time ever voting for another one. I'm independent now, but certainly much happier with the Democrats than the Republicans.

God bless America!

Answer 3

It had not yet become popular for governments to consider terrorism as a major issue.

Clinton was quite aware who was causing the terrorism,(the CIA) and didn't need to do anything about it.
It was only when Bush's oil hungry daddy needed an excuse to attack the middle east that terrorism came to the front line, primarily when the American government attacked itself and killed over 3000 of its own citizens on 9/11.
This was seen as an excellent scam, as almost everyone believed the Hoax. Once they had seen how easy it was to con the American public, and the public of other countries, they realised what a winner this could be. So they invented the war on terrorism, gave it all the publicity they could to get America's citizens frightened, and demanding more security through loss of freedom, and set about creating plans for regular terrorist stories, such as 7/7 - London Underground; Madrid train bombing, more recently the Mumbai train bombing, and currently planning the mother and father of all terrorist attacks.

The objective is to get sufficient people sufficiently frightened to be prepared to give up; their freedom without complaint.
Then Bush, who has no intention of giving up his dictatorship, will create a massive terrorist event before the next election, and declare martial law. This suspends the constitution, so the election becomes a non-event, and he remains president until after martial law is lifted, which will be decades away.

Basically. Clinton wasn't quite as dishonest as Bush.

Answer 4

the guy didnt have a chance from the beginning. the rep. party succeeded in beating him down at every turn. he had good ideas, i think alot of them would have worked, but there was bob dole. i dont think he ignored terrorism, he just put our country first. he wasnt an oilman and didnt have a grudge against bin laden. our country hasnt been attacked since pearl harbor and we nuked them. i claim no political party, but its interesting that harry truman was a dem. when the cuban missle crisis came about and was squelched, it was jfk, also a dem. most dont even know how close we were to war then. the only reason for vietnam was because lyndon johnson wanted re-elected and had big business behind him along with the military. kennedy wanted to pull out. then comes the bush bunch. weve been at war ever since. oh yeah, i forgot reagan. i never believed this before, but im seeing it now. dems. are for the people, reps. are for the rich. this country will go nowhere as long as the reps. have control.

Answer 5

He didn't do nothing. He shot a missle at where he thought Osama Bin Laden was. I'm sure he did other things. In my opinion he could have been tougher on Terrorism, but if he were president after 9/11 I think he, as well as any president would have invaded Afghanistan, and then when Saddam Hussein was acting up, he might have done something, probably not invade.
I think these things get blown out of proportion. I think Bush is doing pretty much what any President would do, and in fact Congress approved his invasion of Iraq. Clinton was very happy to send troops to Bosnia, and send troops to Haiti. The same thing happened with Nixon. Everyone hated Nixon, but he was not the first guy to send troops to Vietnam, Democrats did that, and Nixon wanted to get the war over with, so he increased the bombings, and escalated the war, but it was too late, and Watergate happened, so Nixon goes down in history as a crook, and responsible for the Vietnam war.

Answer 6

Clinton bombed Afghanistan after the first WTC bombing. Why did the Bush administration IGNORE a memo stating that Al Qaeda planned to use airplanes as missles in a terrorist attack merely a month before 9/11? And why do Republicans still blame everything on Clinton when Bush has been in the White House for the last 6 years?

Answer 7

#1. He watched the polls!
#2. He asked his wife!
#3 He asked his advisers!
# 4 He was busy elsewhere!
It has been six years since he was president and I believe as the years go by the harsh comments against him , will get worse not better. A dead horse, 6 whole years, just a moment in time, when it comes to judging the qualities of a president!
Remember the terrorists are still mad at us for things that happened to them that happened 100's of years ago!. .

Answer 8

He, like most Democrats apparently, do not like to engage in warfare. In order to avoid war and risk losing his popularity, and not wanting to mess with wasting time talking peace, he ignored it. At least, I think that is why. No one really knows except Clinton himself. That, and he was too busy with ah, other, activities.

Answer 9

didn't have to worry about them then.
it is the republicans that piss them off going over there and starting crap.
besides I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the present administration didn't have that happen on purpose so they could drive the gas prices out of sight and make billions from kick backs and to trash the economy.
Don't believe me? check this out and make a decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2VoUN-7RVU

Answer 10

because clinton certainly wasn't the wisest pick for president....plus he was probably too worried about screwin monica lewinsky to care what was going on with the country he was supposed to be in charge of....