Why do libs think we were safer when we were attacked a record number of times during the Clinton regime?

Question

But think we are less safe when President Bush takes the fight to the enemy and we've have no new attacks since the 9/11 attack, which was planned on Clintons watch. Maybe GW should reconsider stem cell research if it can help find a cure for liberalism.

Answer 1

Terroism under Clinton

93 WTC
96 Khobar Towers 19 dead 300 wounded
98 2 U.S. Embassy Bombings 5,000 wounded
98 Clinton refuses to take Bin Laden into custody
98 Bombs Saddam with same intel Bush and Congress had to go to war
99 Again Clinton refuses to take Bin Laden into custody
2000 U.S.S. Cole
2001 9-11 took 6 years to plan and train for

Answer 2

Bin Laden stated it clearly for all the world to hear in one of his early video's. He wanted to draw the US into a protracted struggle in the Mid East for the purpose of weakening us financially. He no longer needs to provoke us towards that goal because Bush took the bait hook, line and sinker. Bin Laden also knows that he doesn't want to provoke the American people into becoming united over this war because, united there will be no stopping us.
This goes beyond Clinton or Bush. The powerful and the rich belong to the same club and that includes the BinLaden family and the Saudi's. American's have been played for fools by our so called leaders for a long time, at least as far back as WWII maybe even to the Great Depression.

Wake up and quit crying about "BJ's" and impeachments and keeping today's score.Take a hard look at where our world is heading and who's driving it. This globalization effort that is wracking our country started to become reality under Reagan. Bush Sr. got the ball rolling on NAFTA, Clinton signed it, W has rapidly expanded it. They are all playing for the same team and it is not "We the People".

While you split hairs over who's one micron left or right of the other, you fail to see that all of the serious candidates for president are conservative, authoratarian types that only represent money and the status quo.. They cloud our eyes with emotional trigger issues while they go about the business of wealth and power. Pointing fingers back and forth at today's noise is exactly what they want us to be distracted with. It's alll about the money.

Answer 3

You did not provide a list of attacks. If you had you would realize that there are no facts to back up your theory.

As to the list posted by Dez: I am only seeing one attack in the U.S. in that list -- the 1993 WTC bombing. And if you blame Clinton for the WTC incident in the first year of Bush 2 Administration then you have to blame Bush 1 for the WTC incident in the first year of the Clinton Administration. In either case, that is only one incident of terrorism in the U.S. to be attributed to Clinton, with over eight years without an attack.

If you are counting attacks on interests abroad, then you need to include the Madrid and London attacks under Bush 2.

Discussions of attacks by the U.S. on Iraq and chances to take out Bin Laden are not relevant to your question. If you want to discuss them, the bombings occurred when Iraq failed to comply with the requirements for inspections and are certainly a much more measured and proportionate response than the invasion for similar violations under the current administration. However, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, though the occupation has certainly aided the other side. If you want to talk about blown opportunities to capture Bin Laden, this administration certainly has its share of failures on this score.

Bottom line, we went 8 years between the first WTC attack and the second WTC attack. Until we go beyond 8 years, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that we are safer.

Answer 4

Your math needs some work. The US was attacked once on US soil under Clinton, the 93 WTC bombing. The ship bombing and the embassy bombings happened overseas. Now under Bush we were attacked once on US soil, the WTC airplane attacks. But attacks on US citizens overseas during Bush reach into the thousands. Remember US soldiers are US citizens. The Bush invasion of Iraq has done more to aid and spread terrorism than any single event. The Bush invasion created a huge volunteer force for terrorists, it opened up new financial resources for the terrorists, it opened up new countries willing to harbor and support terrorists. A US invasion was exactly what Bin Laden wanted since he knew he couldn't fight the US on our home soil, he had to coerce us into invading, and Bush fell for it.

Answer 5

There were no attacks on American soil during the Clinton administration, and there were only three attacks on American facilities or equipment. The two embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden. Three times is hardly a "record" number and all of them were barely even strong enough to raise interest. No right wing group urged Clinton to attack Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan after the Cole attack the way Bush did after 9-11, and in fact, most Republicans criticised Clinton for launching the few missiles that he did into Afghanistan, largely saying it was a waste of money.

Also, Clinton never took away America's civil liberties. Bush's strongest "power" against terrorism has been the USAPatriot Act, which at the moment only targets terrorists, but it has also allowed for the creation of a system of internal spying, without a warrent, on anyone the government suspects of having ties to Al Qaeda. While this may win the battle in the short term, the long term damage is potentially more dangerous. The USAPatriot Act will not go away, even if every terrorist is caught and arrested and punished by whatever means. It will remain as a tool of the government to deal with anyone it percieves as an enemy of state. Which means that the USAPatriot Act, is in the long term the first step that will be necessary to turn the US into a totalitarian dictatorship as it tremendously increases government power without substantial checks on that power, and power corrupts even the noblest of intentions.

As for "taking the fight to the enemy", I see very little of that. Al Qaeda saw that the US woke up preatty quick after 9-11, and it wouldn't surprise me if Osama expected the US to wake up quickly. Since then, Al Qaeda has largely been attacking America's allies in Europe with the intention of causing chaos there while America reacts in the middle east. The only place where we are "taking it to the enemy" is in Iraq, and even there, they've reversed the principle that Bush said he was doing when he went in. They will prefer to fight in their own backyard while forcing us to fight far from home and using the innocents as human shields, and as they are killed, we are blamed, thus more locals join Al Qaeda to get vengence. Thus, our own war fuels Al Qaeda and provides them with the propoganda and manpower they need to regain the strength they lost in the months immediately after 9-11. It has worked so well for Al Qaeda, that in recient years, if it hadn't been for the alertness of the British, there would have been two major series of terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda on American soil which would have possibly been as big as 9-11 itself.

If we weren't safe under Clinton, Bush has only made it worse. Both politically in the US and in the War on Terrorism by the way he has handled it.

Answer 6

I KNOW we were safer during the Clinton years. You said, "No new attacks since 9/11", but I hear every day about more dead and wounded Americans in Iraq. Why don't you consider those "attacks"? Just because they are not on US soil? They are just as hurt and just as dead, and more of them, than 9/11. Also, your insensitive remark about stem cell research is uncalled for! This bashing is just plain hateful!

Answer 7

The total number of Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil during the Clinton administration (1) were far outweighed by what happened on Bush's watch on 9/11/01.

How safe do you REALLY feel here in the US knowing that most of our troops are tens of thousands of miles away fighting a rag tag bunch of wannabes who had nothing to do with 9/11? How many hardcore Al Qaida terrorists do you think they can sneak over the border up your Texas @$$ while our troops are fighting Bush's "War on Terror" in Iraq?

Answer 8

Liberals are actually educated and some even know it was people in our own government that staged the 9/11 attacks but I know that brain washed right wingers will not believe me, but instead bash me for speaking my mind, like they always do. Atleast on the internet I can actually finish a statement with out being interrupted by an angry republican.

Answer 9

Right. Every bad thing that has ever happened was all the fault of Bill Clinton.

Bush sat on his fat butt for the first nine months of his Presidency, while the planning of 9/11 was in its final stages...

But that was Clinton's fault too.

Answer 10

Too bad politics blocks your view points, my friend. US is in more danger now than it was before the war. This dumb cowboy president we elected has created more chaos in Iraq than when S. Hussein was the ruler and , of course many thousands have died as a consequence of war on both side. The media makes sures you don't hear specific numbers but I estimate that more than 10,000 American soldiers have been maimed and another 3,000 plus killed. Now the great SOB who really hurt America (Bin Laden) is LOL somewhere out there and the world celebrates that our dear president has overspent billions in a war that has not and will not be won. Is that politics? I don't think so. Those are facts. Too bad you are defending a blind, uneducated leader.

Answer 11

So TD, you got a lot of really great, informative, factual answers. I'm wondering if you will read all of them and, if you do, you might change your opinion. Remember: minds are like parachutes--they only function when open.