If Clinton had a "do over" with the 1993 WTC attack &USS Cole Bombing and various embassy's?

Question

If the muslim terrorists were successfull in their attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993..do you think Clinton would have waged war??? I sure hope so! So why is everyone holding it against Bush. This is not about WMD or Saddam or even Osama...this is about all radical muslim terrorists (who in their own right ARE WMD) that will not stop their cause until all of us infidels are DEAD!

Correction....I didn't mean to say we are infidels, I meant anyone from any country is subject to being labled an infidel by radical muslims.

shmorgen:

You are clearly not very bright. Yes there have been a few attacks by our own people by disturbed individuals, but your really not compairing apples, to apples are you? McVay is DEAD because of his actions.

Answer 1

His sex life, and playboy lifestyle, left precious little time for those trivial matters, such as the security of our country.

Answer 2

So which are radical and where are they and what do you do with them if you do find them!
People don't wear a sign that says I am a radical Muslim.

Saddam wasn't even a stoutly religious man. He was just a crazy, ruthless, brutal, tyrant who committed human atrocities against his own citizens.
Do you know what the interesting thing is in my opinion.....If Mr. Bush had just used that argument alone as his justification to rid Iraq of Saddam I would have supported that. Probably most Americans would have also.
But by confusing the war on terror against The US with a tyrant who didn't directly threaten The US Mr. Bush did his cause a disservice. By including active training grounds for Al Qaeda {which we now know to be untrue} and WMD's {which we now know to be untrue}.....when did the president know this to be untrue? And why when asked on television about the fact this information was untrue Mr. Bush's reply was ..."So what!"
Did he know this intell was untrue even before approaching the Congress and the American people asking for support of the War in Iraq? Isn't that treason?

So to go back to your original question.....how do we know which Muslims are radical and which are moderate? Is there such a thing as a moderate Muslim? Or do they all believe that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel and must convert and die?
Kind of a scary thought to me to know that so many Muslims are living in the US!!
What is the actual truth?
Is there reasoning with a group of people who wish us death?
So what do we do completely blow up the Middle East? We can't effectively arrest about 1 billion people!!
To answer to Clinton...YES He should have gone after Al Qaeda then!! To undo the organization 15 years ago would have resulted in a very different political world today!
Interestingly, I am a Democrat or more prone to democratic thinking but there are many things I disagreed with Clinton on...like NAFTA and Whitewater.
I could give a damn about the whole Monica thing! That should have been something dealt with between he and his wife!
But those who opposed him were on a mission!

Hindsight is always easier than foresight!
God Bless America!
Peace!

Answer 3

what about Oklahoma City? That was a terrorist attack, too. Should we have gone to war with ourselves?

Funny you mention 1993 WTC. Do you know where those perpetrators are today? I'll give you a hint- jail. WE PUNISHED THE GUILTY, NOT EVERYONE WHO IS BROWN.

How about the WTC bombing? Where are Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols today? Should we start rendering white males?

If every Muslim disappeared tomorrow, they would not take terrorism with them. Look at ETA in Spain, the IRA, the weather underground and skinhead groups here in the USA. Anytime there are a few people who want to ake a statement by causing death, there will be terrorism. All we can do is punish the murderers as murderers.

Answer 4

Thank you. The war in Iraq is really with Iran and Syria. Iraq is simply the battlefield.If the Iraqi people eventually see the oil revenues promised to each of the then the peoples of Iran and Syria will eventually want theirs too. This will cause the extremist regimes Iran and Syria (the 2 largest funders of terrorists) to fall from within.
The plan will work . It is a natural consequence of a free Iraq.

Thus Hezbollah will lose it's support in Lebanon and securing Israels future. An economic boom will create an secure environment for peace in the Middle East. The Palestinians will finally gain their statehood also.

Yet the far lefts thirst for power knows no bounds even if it is at the cost of hundreds of thousands lives. Shame on them.

Answer 5

Clinton was adverse to war because it was politically risky and could undermine the slavish adoration of him by the liberals and the media.

This is the lesson he got from reading the polls after his disastrous "Black Hawk Down" misadventure. [Anybody else notice that Clinton never accepted any responsibility for this or for burning the people at Waco? Why did the media let him off and blame Aspin and Reno?]

The attempted assassination of George HW Bush by Iraq was also an act of war. Instead of doing something meaningful, he launched some cruise missiles at Baghdad some months later. This was a pitiful response.

If Clinton had actually acted to protect American interests and retaliate against the growing menace of terrorist Muslims, then we might not have had 9/11. If Clinton's response to terrorist attacks was NOT to cut funding of intelligence and the military, but to have increase funding on anti-terrorism and homeland security, we might not have had 9/11.

He fiddled and diddled while the flames of radical Islam grew.

Answer 6

According to Bush "you don't get do overs" Get your facts straight. The whole world knows the CIA/FBI would not sign off for Clinton on Bin Laden. Turn off FOX news and Rush and read some. BTW, have you read the 9/11 commissions report to Congress, you should read that, I did. In the book Bush was told by a PDB that was called "terrorist determined to attack the USA" by the FBI/CIA, Bush ignored that warning. In that PDB Bush was told they would use commercial aircraft to blow up buildings and that they were already in this country. Who would you blame for Bush's actions? Clinton? Also according to Bush Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. and according to the CIA Bin Laden is in Afghanistan not Iraq.

Answer 7

Clintoon did a heck of plenty below he must have, and his supporters understand it. He blew a cruise missle once and overlooked...."oh, properly Slick Willie reported, i am going to easily enable that turd lay for the subsequent guy to guard.......oh Mooooooonica?!?" It cracks me as a lot as see the reaction that folk like Alec have.....good day, no massive deal if terrorists attack our military, whats the project? human beings clone of him are the real difficulty in u . s . of america.

Answer 8

No he would not have waged war. He was so bogged down by problems of his own making he was almost rendered incapable of fulfilling his job duties. For a president to be brought up on rape charges, numerous affairs, business scandals, shady business dealings, the travel office, white water. The list goes on and on. Clinton wanted to go into Iraq but didn't have the courage to do so because war is unpopular. That is the truth.

Answer 9

Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attacks or the Cole bombing.

I would hope that he would have formed a coalition and attacked Afghanistan, as Bush did, and I would have supported him in that (as I did Bush). However, Iraq is an unrelated issue, and I would have opposed him had he decided to atack it, just as I oppose Bush.

Answer 10

If Bush was truly serious about stopping radical Muslim terrorist, he would have attacked Saudi Arabia.