What would have Clinton done differently after 9/11?

Question

That is if he was the president then.

Answer 1

We already saw what his reaction would have been. He would have done the same thing he did after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Absolutely nothing. Or the second Terrorist attack on the US Embassies in Africa in 1998. Again almost nothing. He launched a few tomahawk missiles at a couple of tents in Afghanistan, then launched his own missile into another female intern. Or his reaction to the attempted terrorist attack on New Year's Day 2000. Again, absolutely nothing. Or after to third terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Again, absolutely nothing.

Oh, I forgot, no one told him these attacks had anything in common or were related to terrorism in any way even though all of the people involved were connected to mid east terrorist organizations. That is why he didn't do anything. For God's sake he was the President of the United States. HE'S supposed to be the one asking the questions and demanding the answers, or did he forget what fellow Democrat Harry Truman said about the Presidency. "The buck stops here" Meaning at the end of the day the President is ultimately responsible for all actions or, in this case, inactions of his administration.

Will Liberals just wake up. I am tired of Liberals crediting him for the great economy of the late 90s, and excusing his inactions that led to 9/11 happening in the first place.

Does anybody honestly believe if Bill Clinton where NOT President during the late 90s that the same economic pattern what not have occurred?

The scary thing is how willing people are to give him credit for something that he had little or no impact on, and are even quicker to excuse or deny his ineptness in ignoring the terrorist events that led to 9/11.

Give me a break!


Edit:
-------------

davegesprek, you have a few errors in your comments. The first foreign terrorist attack on US soil happened in 1993 and it was the same exact target as in 2001, the World Trade center.

Second of all, Bush 41 was President for only the first 20 days of 1993. Have you even read Black Hawk Down? The events that led to loss of 18 soldiers happen October 3, 1993, 10 months after Bush 41 was out of office.

And if you had read Black Hawk Down you would know that during those 10 months the Rangers repeatedly requested that the Clinton Administration send them heavy armor, and each time the request was denied. If those soldiers had actually had M1 tanks, the events of October 3, 1993 would never have happened. Clinton had 10 months to either withdraw US forces, or adequately equip them, but instead he chose to do nothing, just like he did after each terrorist attack.

Answer 2

I think he would have done the same thing; Going after Al Qaeda with the full military strength, invading Afganistan, most of all, catching Bin Laden (getting rid of the root of the problem)

Many people criticize him for not fighting back hard on the terroritsts during the presidency, but I do not think so.

In the cases like the 9/11, it is a huge event. It happened right here in American soil, and nearly 3000 people were killed.

But the terrorists acts during Clinton's times were all happened abroad. And compared to the 9/11, the number of the victims were very less.

Actually, Clinton tried to bring peace in the Middle East region by promoting the Peace Accord between Arafat and Israel.

A couple of events that happened during Clinton's presidency...

First is the famus Mogadishu Shootout. As you know, in 1993, Bush Sr. was at oval office, serving his lastest days before the new presidential election. Bush sent our troops for the humanitarian aids in Mogadishu, Somalia in East Africa and there, our soldiers were ambushed and lost 18 lives. During the such event, the new election won Clinton as the next president.

When Clinton became the commander-in-chief, the event was already happened, and Clinton decided to just pull out the troops from there, instead of doing something about it.

On the attack of the USS Cole, ironically, happened right before the year 2000 presidential election. So either Clinton nor the future president do not want to make things complicated, because there maybe the policy change as the new president is elected.

It is true that Clinton' way to deal with the terrorism was weak. It maybe has to do with his grown-up experiences. His father abused him when he was little, and Bill constantly got beat up by his father. On his memoir, Clinton states it was the most fearful and depressing moment of his early life.

But I would still give Clinton a good credit for his presidency.

Afterall, every American- Clinton, the public, and CIA agents, the Pentagon, etc.- did not take Bin Laden seriously until 9/11.

Answer 3

He would have been too busy watching a golf game or entertaining females in the Oval Office to be bothered. He would have used it as a great distraction to his infidelity and lack of morals.

Answer 4

He would have gone after Bin Laden with more than one soldier.

It wouldn't matter though, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 if Clinton had been president (or an illegal war in Iraq for that matter).

Answer 5

Secret Oval office meetings with his interns. Cigar anyone? Seriously though I don't think he would have done anything

Answer 6

He would have gone after all the newly widowed women.

Answer 7

Cried and bit his lip more.

Surrendered

Blamed the Republicans for everything

Answer 8

he would have spoken to each individual widow and said "I feel your pain," as he hugged them and comforted them and slowly walked them towards his cigar room

Answer 9

Probably have a "threesome"