What would Clinton have done if the WTC attacks happened while in office?

Question

Would he have curled up into the fetal position when the WTC was attacked, and given in to whatever demands the terrorists wanted, to include giving up our freedoms, or would we be in the same war we are in now?

I have only had a couple REAL answers to this question. This is a hypothetical situation, for you retards that are taking the opportunity to attack me.

Answer 1

Gone after Osama and not Saddam

Answer 2

I am a registered Democrat but have No admiration for Clinton as a leader! He may have been a good student in college but that does not get my respect! He first got elected in 1991 sworn in 1992 & 1993 there was an attack on the WTC while he was in office!

Answer 3

We already gave up our freedoms, voluntarily. What "demands" to give up our freedoms did the terrorists make? Cite one incident in which they have asked us to give up our freedoms. They just want us out of their lives, which is reasonable even if they told us so in an unreasonable way. I think he would have gone after bin Laden, and possibly his funding in Saudi Arabia, although I wouldn't bet on it because he wasn't that great of a leader either, but at least his intentions were better.

We would not be in the same war we are now, because Iraq had nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure the WTC would even have been attacked in this way... I mean Bush had a report telling him what they were going to do and failed to act. And as for the terrorists: those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent change inevitable. I think what they did was wrong, and for god's sake we should have at least tried to catch the guy, but we also should have seen this coming.

Answer 4

i imagine the conspiracy theorists are deliberately spreading those pretend theories to conceal up the very shown reality that they are honestly brokers of a secret society that dedicated those and many different so referred to as terrorists acts. they're those who spread those rumors to discredit every person else's conspiracy theory because some individuals are on to them. Do you imagine it really is in consumer-friendly words a twist of destiny that no longer one conspiracy theorist has ever been got here upon close to the position the position the attacks take position? it really is because they comprehend even as and the position they are going to be happening. Do you imagine it really is by danger that each conspiracy theorist has an iron clad alibi for there whereabouts because the 9/11 attacks happened? it really is because they knew beforehand they could pick them in the experience that they are got here upon. this actual society is so fiendish that they reveal screen us by way of a particular microchip implanted in Xboxes and different video games. Why do you imagine the launch of Xboxes become behind agenda at Christmas time? because they first had to be outfitted with the particular chip. I honestly could flow. i won't be able to stay to inform the tale line too lengthy or they are going to locate me. *

Answer 5

Feel free to read the asker's profile and you will see that he is clearly a kid with too much time on his hands, way to young to remember the Clinton era, or any other president that isn't George W. Bush. I'm sure his anger comes from him being mad that school starts back up this week.

Answer 6

In case you don't know, or you're biased opinion doesn't allow you to remember, Clinton went after and brought the perpitrators of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks to justice and there now in prison. Funny, why can't you the same about Bush? Oh wait, I get it, you think Sadaam was behind 9/11 right?

Osama who?

Answer 7

Nothing.

He had his chance when the WTC was attacked in the 90's and he decided to do nothing thus allowing the terrorists the opportunity to think they could continue those attacks.

Answer 8

Clinton wouldn't have stopped diddling monica long enough to realize we were under attack. Or would he just have used the flames to light a slightly moist cigar.

Answer 9

USArmorSoldier has given you exactly what he did when the TT's were attacked the first time by OBL.

Answer 10

I guess you never heard of Operation Desert Fox! Try looking it up as you know nothing about Clinton!

Bush is TAKING our freedoms!

Do your homework and quit making stupid accusations. It is you Republicans that did squat!

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.


Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT) CNN
A day of drama at the 9/11 Commission
Clarke: 'No sense of urgency'
Tenet admits 9/11 intelligence failings
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.
"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Answer 11

Probably the same thing. Humans easily cave in to the mob mentality, no matter how wrong it is. Besides there is no difference between democrats and republicans. It's a one-party system in this country.