Why didn't Bill Clinton beef up national security after the first WTC attack?

Question

I mean it's bad enough he didn't go after terriosts AFTER that attack, and AFTER the USS Cole attack, and AFTER attacks on our embassies around the world, but he could of at least had some kind of Homeland Security in place that could of prevented 9-11,right?

You know, like the way Bush has protected us SINCE 9-11?

Answer 1

He was busy making a mockery out of the office and that is acceptable to too many people.

Answer 2

So you think Bush has protected us? The ports are open, the Southern border is a sieve, and we have no idea how many terrorist cells have entered our country. Bush has a Homeland Security Department, but Katrina showed us just how political infighting prevails there and renders it useless, except for a silly color code. About the only thing it has accomplished is helping to turn our port security over to the Arabs.

Clinton had to follow the "rule of law," which one wonders if Bush has ever heard about. He couldn't do the things Bush is doing...like wiretapping, secret prisons, etc....because he had to follow the law. To catch bin Laden at that time, there would have had to be a trail of evidence linking him to such atrocities as the sinking of the Cole, etc.

Clinton certainly tried to protect this country, but remember, he didn't have a Patriot Act. Nor would he have gotten one had he asked for it, since the Republicans controlled the Congress and were far more interested in Monica's dress than the safety of our country. Clinton tried several times to get Osama bin Laden and failed. But at least, he tried.

But let's face it. Bush had several notices in his Daily Report that warned of the eminence of a terror attack in our country and, specifically, in New York. He was vacationing and, according to George Tenet, he simply ignored these warnings and went on with his golf games and brushcutting. Had he listened and had he the imagination and the caution a President should have, he could have alerted the airports, had the attack planes on alert, and perhaps that 9/11 atrocity could have been avoided.

But that is past history and the real truths will not be revealed until the scholars start studying the reports and events. However, it is sheer foolishness to try to point a finger at Clinton for terrorist activity, because he did his job. It was the Republicans who were so carried away with their window peeping and MonicaGate that our country's security was the last thing on their minds.

Answer 3

Another propaganda attack that is just not true.

I am so sick of hearing how Clinton gutted the military. It's just not true. Read the 9-11 report and see how much praise the Clinton administration was given for their approach to Bin Laden and how on top of it they were. Lookup the military spending numbers and see that Clinton actually raised the military budget from the budget that was in place when George Bush the first was in office.

And if all that isn't enough, remember that no one in the Clinton administration had a presidential daily brief titled ""Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S." sitting on their desk when the attack happened.

Your question would carry more weight if it weren't covered with neo-con propoganda.

Answer 4

Depends on your situation, personality and the nature of the attack. If it were for work then it's company policy, if it was personal and wrong then swing away. The only advice I can give is don't make it personal in response, if someone attacks you your defending your position and the integrity of that is what counts. Then again if your position is comfortable and you couldn't be bothered, then ignore it.

Answer 5

If what I have heard is true and it's just here say but knowing that Clinton cut the military in half while in office and messed up the intelligence agencies while in office he would not receive a person in military uniform in his office they had to change into a suit before he would see them, should show us what he thought of the military. Remember he was handed Bin Laden at least twice and refused to take him and in fact when the reps from the country who had him in custody came to DC he didn't even talk to them. He was afraid of what people would think about him if he took a stance against him. Another words he didn't have a poll to go by so he could make a choice, the spinless wimp. lol

Answer 6

After being caught publicly with his pants down, literally, he was more worried about his reputation than the security of the country.

Why do you think Berger stole the national security documents from the archives?

Answer 7

You are so full of it!

In 1996 Bush tried to push an anti-terror bill through congress. Guess who was apposed to it? The Republicans

After Bush's election, and he had several warnings that Rice got caught in a lie over, and did NOTHING!

9/11 happened on Bush's watch and he had plenty of warning! If it happened on Clinton's you would still be blaming him! Like you blame him for Somolia, and it was Bush who put the troops in after Clinton was elected, and didn't even tell him!

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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."

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

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 called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

Maybe you Republicans should have been less concerned about a blue dress and more concerned about terrorism!

Answer 8

Actually, he tried to give himself some Patriot Act powers. Congress did not approve.

Answer 9

why the hell should he ? making out with a good looking intern is much more exciting and pleasurable,
you should be blaming Hilary , she is the one who ran the white house , just leave poor Bill alone

Answer 10

He was too busy not having sex with that woman...Monica Lewinski.