2006-09-24 17:39:38 · 22 answers · asked by soulgirl76 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Not going to war was the shrewdest, wisest choice. Clinton tried having Bin Laden tracked and killed several times, which only put a handful of operatives at risk -- not the nearly 3,000 American personnel who've died "fighting terrorism" in Iraq....while Afghanistan largely goes neglected. Clinton had the better priorities, and knows that unseating Saddam does as much to eradicate terrorism as pouring gas on a fire douses it out.
Bush is still trying to learn. Meanwhile, recruitment for terror cells and factions is up, while our military is suffering to even get sufficient body armor and training for its troops. Very sad and wrong.
2006-09-25 18:04:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually Clinton did all that was practical to combat terrorism.
Terrorism is done by very relatively small, isolated groups - not easily located armies. The fact is small groups are the eternal nutcases that will be with us as long as humans have free will.
These groups are what religious texts mean when they say "turn the other cheek" at least on an international scale. Not because it is justice but killing one with great fanfare just incites his replacement and imparts new focus. Of course locally police can and should shoot rabid dogs.
But that is why other nations have scorn for America when we are still whining about 9/11 years later. Such things have happened in the 3rd world on a regular basis for many scores of years. They've learned to cry for a moment then move on. So the US seems to be demanding special treatment. Third world coutnries are saying where was your worldwide commitment when we complained...oh right funding Contras, etc.
Oh yes I know most American think terrorism doesn't count unless it happens in America.
2006-09-25 01:16:38 · answer #2 · answered by mortree 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No He didn't do nearly enough because He has never seen terrorism as an act of War. He and all Liberal-Socialists have always approached terrorists as Common Criminals.
Folks, there is a big difference between a homegrown murderer and these Camel Jockeys who come out of nowhere and take down the World Trade Center, Embassies, a Military Bunker, and the Cole.
I'll bet on Clintons watch these terrorists were looking at each other in amazement saying "What do we have to do to get this guys attention?"
All I'll say in closing is that since the Patriot Act was implemented, have we been hit again. And don't say we've been lucky...you know better!
2006-09-25 00:47:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bill did try to combat terrorism, but it seems back then, the threat seemed little to many Americans in office. Because Bill tried to combat terrorism, he was actually ridiculed because of that. Now, they are criticizing him for not doing enough. Practically, when he was in office he was made fun of for trying to stop the bad guys, now they are making fun of him for not doing enough to stop the bad guys.
2006-09-25 00:44:55 · answer #4 · answered by Jae 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
does none of you kids read the news?
jesus. the poor man just gave an interview on the struggles he had with bin laden (the real reason behind 9/11; NOT iraq) while he was still in office. he wanted to go searching for the guy and have him killed. the trouble was with the fbi and cia certifying that bin laden was the guy between the cole and embassy attack (they didnt want to).
really, it isnt a bush vs clinton thing. its a cia and fbi dropped the ball thing!
2006-09-25 00:52:43 · answer #5 · answered by .jess 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton wanted to treat the terrorist acts that occured during his time in office as a "police issue". It's fairly obvious that it is taking more than that. He did nothing to combat terror while in office. He's just all about blaming others. Wow that sounds familiar....a lib blaming others.
2006-09-25 00:49:11 · answer #6 · answered by Cinner 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This wont be popular but thats too bad Clinton did a pretty poor job .
Lets see 8 years of Clinton brought us
1. Blackhawk down incident
2. Waco (nice job btw )
3. Oklahoma city
4. WTC the 1st time
5. Kohbar towers
6. The 2 embassies in 98
7. Bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade (blame it on the CIA)
8. USS Cole
He also failed to take a stong stand on Iraq after Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 98.
wow he lobbed a few cruise missle at them big whoop
2006-09-25 01:03:32 · answer #7 · answered by Fatwa Freddie 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The fact that he didn't go to war doesn't have anything to do with it..
BUT, the fact that he ignored the 4 prior attacks on our country certainly means that he did nothing to combat terrorism.
We are now fighting the war that Clinton left behind.
We will pay for the ills of Clinton administration for quite some time to come. Fasten your seat belt, we are just getting started.
2006-09-25 00:43:32 · answer #8 · answered by ValleyR 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Who knows...is it all his fault or Bush's fault as some say...no...It was pretty much off both their Radar screens when it shouldn't have been....Clinton was too tied up with the impeachment hearings and trying to protect his legacy....history will probably spread the blame around quite a bit...I'm sure in hindsight both men have many regrets...
2006-09-25 00:44:40 · answer #9 · answered by loofa36 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Gizmo, Zaphod. What the hell have you guys been smoking, and can I have some?
Less than ten terrorist attacks occurred during Clintons eight years in office.
Now with Bush in office, there are terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan every week.
And you're calling CLINTON the failure?!
Unbelievable. But I guess nothing is below you.
2006-09-25 01:19:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋