What did Bush do ****PRE 911***PRE 911*** that Clinton did not do to protect us from terrorism?

Question

Don't give me any responses POST-911, I am asking what did Bush do PRE911 to protect us from terrorism that Clinton did not do (as this is the only even playing field to judge both since we have no idea how Clinton would have reacted to the 911 attacks since that never happened and any argument for it would be hypothetical)...

To "what": your response did not detail anything in specific that was done to prevent terrorism, you said he "beefed up the military" (first of all I don't even know if that is true and second of all that does not prevent terrorism) and you said he allowed the FBI and CIA to share information (I just researched this and found out that you basically lied to me and that Bush did not impliment anything pre-911 to help the FBI and CIA "talk to one another") You can disagree with me but please do not just make stuff up because you really don't have much credibility dude...

To Daniel G: They had complete reports about what Bin Ladens intentions were pre-911 and they did nothing about it. That much is a documented fact. In addition, Clinton gave all his information to Bush before he left the white house. So you are just lying (what a surprise, it seems like that is the only way you guys can win arguments)

To Footballer: I did not ask how much time they had, I asked what they did. Bush had almost one year, that is more than enough time to take measures or not take measures and take responsibility for those actions.

To RKO: Tell that to the people who blame Clinton and say he "didn't do anything pre-911 to prevent a terror attack"

To Freddy_Mon: There was no attack on American soil from Islamic extremists (you are just basically lying about that) there was a boat and embassy attack overseas. And yes, Clinton did respond with missile attacks but the republicans denounced this as a way of shaking off the Monica Lewinski scandal (wag the dog). In addition, you seem to have forgot that under the Bush administration we lost the world trade centers in the worst terror attacks in American history. As for what would have Bush done during the Clinton years? Probably used anything as a pretext to invade Iraq, like he did during this presidency.

To Chris: I remember those retaliations...These are the same retaliations that the republicans criticized him for as "wag the dog" to take attention off the moica lewinski scandal...Yeah I remember those retaliations.

to smiling is cute: are you talking about when he called Iran, iraq and N.Korea "the axis of evil"...Yeah that was a really smart idea. Now both countries have had a warning years in advance of a possible attack and have plenty of time to prep for an invasion...Great strategy. And another thing: you say they were going to do something about Al Qaeda but then 9-11 happened...Gee, that doesn't really matter does it? Because they didn't do anything did they? As for your question about Al Qaeda. I think the best strategy would be to find Bin Laden and have a public hanging and then completely dismantle Al Qaeda. I don't understand why you are bringing Iraq up because it has nothing to do with this topic. In fact, I have no idea why we are in Iraq right now and don't see how it pertains to terrorism against Americans.

to yupchagee: Actually at this point Bush still failed to do in 6 years what Clinton failed to do in 8 years: Stop Al Qaeda and capture Osama. At best Bush just temporarily dismantled their strongholds in Afghanistan with the Taliban. The difference is that Bush had the support of the entire world to go into Afghanistan and a full term and a half to plan a war against Al Qaeda and Clinton had very little support even in this country and was accused of trying to take attention off the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Answer 1

He couldn't do much since Bill Clinton didnt' bother to TELL HIM about it.

Answer 2

well he had 9 months after inaugration.
What he did is launch a foreign policy review that reworked how refocus Strategy against Problems avoided by Clinton N.Korea, Pakistan,

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_04-06/conf_intro/conf_intro.html#text5

"By late summer of 2001, senior foreign policy figures, including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George Tenet, had concluded that international terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda posed the greatest national security5 threat to the United States.14 Rice had even drawn-up an initiative which called for military action against Al Qaeda in August and the proposal was forwarded to the President during the second week of September. However, before action was taken, Al Qaeda launched the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil on 11 Septembero tackle"

A question to you.
The great American Beauocracy failed to coherentally address al qaeda. Instaed of the party potilical ....... why don't we just agree a strategy. Let the Generals provide tactical options and get on with it? Constant rabble rousing from the sideline after each play is exactly what makes media hungry terrorists carry out the next better atrocity. They can't win but they can sure confuse us.

Elections change of party in control. Have Democrats got a better plan.
No we've all got to wait and see what happens. Are the shiites going to kill enough Sunnies so they stop, are the sunnies going to Kill enough Shiites. Are they going to kill enough of each other to make us leave.

Answer 3

There isn't much difference except that during the Clinton years there were multiple attacks on America and American interests around the world, and Clinton didn't really do much in response. I don't know if Bush would have done more or not.

I think the better question is, What did Clinton not do, that Bush would have done had he been president at the time instead of Clinton? There's so much poltics surrounding this whole war and terrorism issue, it's tough to know what the truth is anymore.

Answer 4

To properly answer this question, 2 things must be considered:

1. Bush was in office 8 months.
2. Clinton downsized the military and ignored the threat of Al Qaida.

This can be debated ad nauseum. In my opinion, any serious 9-11 investigation targeting Bush will implicate Clinton as well.

Answer 5

All government administrations, all government bureaucratic agencies, and the U.S. Congress is REactive.
They don't do ANYTHING until something happens that forces them into some inane "action" such as establishing the most expensive practical joke ever played on American taxpayers:
the Department of Homeland Security!!
Bush didn't do anything to protect us from terrorism before 9-11 - and we wouldn't have done anything AFTER 9-11 if there wasn't a need for trying to calm the fears or irrational American citizens. We live in a world of 'terror' today because WE helped create it by driving $60,000 gas-guzzling SUVs and demanding that we Americans (representing less than 5% of the total world population) squander 55% of the Earth's natural resources. Until we agree to start sharing the wealth, and taking care of the world's environment, there will always be 'terrorists' knocking at our door. -RKO-

Answer 6

Bush failed to do in 8 months what Clinton failed to do in 8 years, even after numerous attacks from Al Qaida.

Answer 7

equipped our militia back up as much as he had time for, after 8 years of invoice Clinton our militia became having to push their automobiles backward and forward. And the reason they had to flow into attempt against without armor and up armored automobiles is with the help of the fact Clinton decrease the militia funds so he could desire to purchase extra cigars. alongside with this he became attempting to get the CIA and FBI back on there ft so as that they could function efficiently.He additionally overturned the administrative order that Clinton positioned into place which prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing counsel. That order on my own stopped somewhat some preventive measures that could have probably stopped 9/11 if Clinton alongside with Gorelick had no longer handicapped our intelligence companies.

Answer 8

Well, he spent half of his tenure up to that point on vacation... and in the June of 2001, he allowed Cheney and Rumsfeld to change the rules of engagement for the USAF and Air National Guard to seek authorisation to shoot down a civilian airliner.

Prior to the June, a General could give the OK to shoot an aircraft out of the sky, and that would have been enough to save the Pentagon at least, After June, only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had the authority to order a shoot-down, DESPITE long standing rules that had been called upon many times in the past. (Payne Stewart's Jet is but one example.)

On 911, Bush was reading to kids about a pet Goat, so what was Cheney and Rumsfeld doing that meant that they could not be disturbed to issue a shoot-down order to save the Pentagon???

Um.. Cheney set up and was running military exercises that had the USAF off over north west Canada chasing imaginary Russian Bombers, and then NORAD were running drills simulating the attacks that happened for real, complete with fake bogies on the FAA air traffic controllers screens. (hence the discrepency in timelines in the official timelines from the FAA and from NORAD handed to the official 9/11 inquiry)

Rumsfeld was in a meeting with Pakistani Intelligence. the same People who wired money to Mohammad Atta I believe.

The combination of these events allowed the attacks to succeed, SO I guess Bush didn't do anything to make America safer PRE-911.

His whole attitude to global terrorism since 911 has done nothing to make Americans safer either.

Bush is NOT tough on terrorism, he is not SOFT on terrorism either.

Far worse, Bush is completely stupid on terrorism. He is ignorant to the causes, effects, deepeners, encouragers, history and the real limitations of terrorism. He treats it as an enemy in the same way a nation's military could be classed as an enemy, but it is not. It can NEVER be defeated militarily through force. This is like trying to pull your fingers out of a chinese finger trap!

Only a complete ignorant fool would think otherwise, it is self evident that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a country whose culture is based on retribution and whose population is heavily armed, will lead ONLY to disaster.

Bush and Blair are foolish on terror, ignorant on terror, incompetent on terror, arrogant on terror and totally stupid on terror.

Bush - Dumb on terror! print it out and put it on your bumpers!

Answer 9

That does not give us an even playing field. There were multiple terrorist attacks under Clinton in which he only made a token retaliation.

Answer 10

He sat on his butt, picking his nose, and said "I don't care about the American people - I just wanna war!! What's that? There's gonna be a terrorist attack on the American mainland? Cool! Then I can have my war!! Can't I?! Waddaya MEAN 'no'? I'm Mr President to you sucker, if I say I wanna war then I'm gonna HAVE a war!! Maybe I'll even get to kill millions of foreigners with my NYUKYULAR weapon...! Come-on Mr Terrorist!! I'm waiting for my cue to start another WAR!!!"

Answer 11

Bush protects America, Clinton ignored the threat!!!!!! No matter how many times you ask the same question, that is the truth!!!!!!