Why do people think Clinton was strong against terrorism?

Question

Considering the fact he never really responded to the various attacks against the US, other than implementing policies that didn't seem to do much, why do people claim Clinton was strong against terrorism? Please review this article as a primer.

http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/k_miller/04282007.htm

Answer 1

There were three major terrorist incidents against the US during Clinton's tenure - the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The first was dealt with as a routine police matter - the FBI actually had an informant involved well before the plot went into motion (i.e. they knew about it all along), and were able to arrest many of the responsible parties easily. The second was dealt with similarly, and had no connection to international terrorism anyway.

The 1993 WTC attacks put Islamic terrorism on the map and made the US interested in combatting it. Clinton in fact pursued a number of initiatives in this regard, including moving against Bin Laden in Sudan as early as 1996, when he had not even organized any attacks. So he deserves some credit for that, recognizing the threat and doing something about it. Also in his time was passed the 1996 "anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act", the precursor to the Patriot Act, which greatly increased federal snooping powers. In 1998, in response to the Embassy bombings, Clinton rocket-bombed al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan, but did not invade. However, he DID prepare an invasion plan which he left for his predecessor to implement, which was the plan eventually used, after 9/11. The fact that this plan was already in place was why the US was able to move so quickly against Afghanistan.

Answer 2

Clinton paid down the nationwide debt via better than a million/2. He additionally provided a surplus for the federal government for the 1st time by using fact the Nixon administration. He balanced the funds continuously during his Presidency. He had the greenback stable and the inventory markets humming. He additionally saved client self assurance extreme, expenditures of pastime low on a similar time as on a similar time conserving inflation in verify, and the unemployment value became into low. Bush right this moment spent each dime of the excess via springing up a tax ruin. Then he spent wildly on protection and a pair of wars that he nonetheless has no longer budgeted for. He refuse to stability the funds. His overspending has created a vulnerable greenback and a risky industry with international markets having very much greater administration over the U. S. markets. He has additionally authorized some the biggest commerce deficit in historic previous. particularly frankly, Bush has by no skill had to stay off of a funds by using fact mommy and daddy consistently exceeded him each thing. His financial concept became into build and financial equipment outfitted completely on client self assurance and spending without doing something to maintain that self assurance. It became right into a pretend backside which the yank all of us is going to could desire to pay for interior the subsequent 10 years.

Answer 3

Probably because in 1998 - Clinton ordered missle strikes on the mountains of Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Ladin.. but the partisan elements that were trying to defeat him dismissed the attempted surgical strike as some sort of ruse to cover up for the Monica Lewinsky affair...

Even in light of the intel under Clinton's admin - the incoming Bush admin completely ignored the warnings.

ignored until 9-11 that is.

Answer 4

Hmmm. Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 months.

Astazing, you forgot the USS Cole...that was on Clinton's watch also.

Answer 5

If a conservatives say Clinton was weak on terrorism enough, then libs will become convinced he was strong on terrorism, because they know those whacky conservatives just can't tell the truth.

Answer 6

loaded question.
bush did far less prior to 9-11.
in fact the republicans said Clinton did to much during the time.

go look at what bush did between when he was sworn in and when 9-11 happened. (nothing)

did you hear what G. Tenent said about this ?

Answer 7

Because they are Democrats and in their eyes the Clintons' can do no wrong. Clinton was only strong on what he thought would benefit him.

Answer 8

Just because he did not respond with a war that killed more than the terrorism did, does not mean he did not respond.

He didn't have the need to act like a king cowboy the way the fool in the white house does.

Answer 9

People will defend what they beleive in and in some cases to the death. Look no further than the terrorists themselves.

Answer 10

Wow do I need a shovel or hip boots in here.

Funny part is that the normal LIBERAL response to things is "send in the army and blow the hell out of them"
And the Normal CONSERVATIVE response is to "negotiate a settlement"