In his interview with Chris Wallace, Clinton was visibly upset by the accusations that he did nothing to fight terrorism. He said, "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Condoleeza Rice fought this claim by saying the of the Bush administration: "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years."
What do you think?
2006-09-26 04:58:55 · 19 answers · asked by EvilFairies 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I think the bush administration, is trying to make themselves look better, despite having done next to nothing in the 8 pre-9/11 months.
Clinton, at least, had given the "go-ahead" to kill Osama Bin Laden after the attacks on the USS Cole. He knew Osama was a threat, but could not make the arrangements to have US soldiers based in Afghanistan, to actually follow through with the assassination without invading and toppling the government of Afghanistan.
In closing, both Bush and Clinton could've done more to catch Osama. However, the fact that Bush needs to back peddle 8 years and shift the blame on Clinton shows that he is failing in his job of finding and capturing Osama Bin Laden. Bush let Osama get away by focusing on the Iraq war, and now needs to blame Clinton to take the pressure off of him for failing miserably at the task he was re-elected to do.
2006-09-26 05:28:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
At that point terrorism was not a large force to be reckoned with. We hadn't before been pushed into a war on terrorism. He had no idea that terrorism would turn big time. Osama Bin Laden certainly wasn't big time. Of course Clinton did less. Doesn't mean that it wasn't understood. I'm not a huge Clinton fan but the people who criticize him for not doing enough didn't even know who Osama Bin Laden was in the 90's.
Frankly, it's not like Bush is doing anything great now. We went into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 even though they stated it did and that it had ties with Al Queada (sp) and that they had WMDs.. all of which they didn't.
All of that while we kinda-sorta search for bin laden. You know.... America, the most powerful country on Earth, can't find a single man. We have the man power to do it, we just don't have the will.
2006-09-26 05:03:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton simply lied during his interview/rant. According to Clinton's latest hero, Richard Clarke, Clinton did NOT have an aggressive plan to go after OBL.
Nobody did enough to stop 9/11----if they would have, it wouldn't have happened. However, Clinton did have EIGHT years to do something and didn't. Now he is worried that his legacy is going to be defined as the guy who messed around with interns and let OBL get away.
2006-09-26 05:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by bow_wow 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I assume you mean prior to 9/11. The big hole in Manhattan pretty much proves that neither Clinton or Bush did enough. I can't even understand what the argument is about.
2006-09-26 05:01:26 · answer #4 · answered by MEL T 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
What's less than nothing?
I know for a fact that Bill Clinton was the one behind that 9/11 attack. Prove otherwise.
It was planned on his watch.
He and the Ds put a wall between the FBI and CIA preventing the information needed to pass from one to the other.
He and the Ds gutted the US human intelligence operations during the 90s.
The training of pilots happened on his watch.
He turned down OBL's capture several times during his administration.
He did practically nothing to Al Qaeda during his watch.
He was either incompetent or in bed with OBL as well as Monica.
2006-09-26 05:10:44 · answer #5 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If you listened to the interview, Clinton stated that the FBI and CIA did not and would not "certify" Bin Laden's location in order for him to destroy him.
I think Clinton was more active since the Bush family is friends with the BIn Laden family. Everyone forgets the Bushs' have made their fortune in oil.
2006-09-26 05:02:42 · answer #6 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
America wasn't attacked successfully when Bill Clinton was President, and we all weren't living in any fear for all of the years he was President. I believe Bush ignored Clinton's information over politics myself. Obviously that was a crucial mistake America is really looking at for these new elections.
2006-09-26 05:34:23 · answer #7 · answered by Kemo Sahbe 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh yeah, let's all point fingers and defend Bush.
Let's see: Al Queda and the Taliban are both centered in PAKISTAN right now, but Bush only threatened Pakistan into cooperating. So much for any REAL effort to retaliate for 9-11 or go after the perpetrators.
Bush invades IRAQ, who had NO WMD's, no Saddam-Osama connection, and did NOT perpetrate 9-11. So WHY are we in Iraq again? What's HIS reason this week????
Yes, Condoleeza Rice is absolutely correct using the word "aggressive." The Bush administration aggressively invaded Iraq for some still unknown reason, aggressively and illegally spied on U.S. citizens, agressively changed OUR Constitution to limit citizens rights, diminish our civil protections, and increase Presidential powers and immunity to our citizens will, aggressively campaigned to divide the people specifically along party lines, and aggressively disenfranchised 1/2 of America with hate words like Nazi, unpatriotic, and anti-American to all those who disagreed with his aggressions.
None of this has anything at all to do with Clinton, and is yet another effort in Bush's regime to provide you traitors with excuses to defend and support him. You grasp at any lie to convince yourselves you're right. Whatever. You're leading us all into hell, too busy sucking up the rhetoric, and ignoring what's REALLY happening.
It's no longer about Dem's VS Rep's...that's become a perpetuated fallacy. We are fighting for AMERICA, you fools. There is NO terrorist that can deny us our freedom or liberty; ONLY our own government can do that. With the Patriot Act, it did that very thing. You're the chickens who threw it all away out of fear...misplaced fear. America has ALREADY changed, thanks to you. You're just to busy living in your little righty-bubble to notice or even understand.
2006-09-26 05:54:43 · answer #8 · answered by tat2me1960 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
He did more to STOP the threat. Condi and the rest of the Bushies didn't even think about Al-Qaeda until 9/11 hit. On the contrary, they cut anti-terrorism funding! After 9/11, they went all guns-a-blazin', but it's pretty ludicrous for them to point to that as a reason they're tougher on terror, because they waited around until 3,000 Americans were dead before they did anything about it.
2006-09-26 05:02:06 · answer #9 · answered by el_scorcho6 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i think Clinton did more. I think Bush said it best with the words right out of his own mouth
" I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him."
yup say it was out of context misconstrued or what have you but it was right out of the jack a$$' mouth.
i heard he was cornered in afg and we didnt even get him. i dont have direct proof thats why i say i heard. Hell we funded al qeada to do the dirty work for us. who knows if he will ever be caught.
2006-09-26 05:05:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋