Could Bill Clinton have prevented 9/11?

Question

Yes -- a very controversial question. We all know republicans spew propaganda today about how Bill Clinton was so passive against Saddam Husein. Democrats, in the same tone, defend him, saying Saddam was never much of a threat.

I was thinking about this the other day. If good old Bill would have been a little more proactive with Saddam, perhaps there would have been a chain reaction. Perhaps Al Queda would have reconsidered their tact. Perhaps September 11th would have never happened.

What do you all think? I know this is a sensitive subject, and I'm open to your bashing.

EDIT ONE: I know Saddam didn't cause 9/11. I'm simply wondering if Saddam was "scared off" or "defeated" or what have you during Clinton's administration, would Al Queda and Bin Laden's plans have been altered?

EDIT TWO: I know this isn't really an answerable question. I'm just posing this as speculation. Thanks for all your answers!

Answer 1

Yes, because Clinton actually READ his briefings.

For all we know, he could have broken up several 9/11's, but he didn't need to politicize everything he did, he had a HIGH approval rating.

Answer 2

what a question yes bill could have prevented 911 however having said that the policies of the us has not been conducive to the easing of the Arabic community's fears of the US plus you throw in the general history of the region and it might have happened anyway. The intelligence infighting was probably more to blame than any single factor bin laden could have been killed several times before 911 by the US (CIA,SpecOPs,etc) We as a culture do not understand the Muslim world hell we have trouble understanding ourselves and we are just being introduced to the "clan" fighting the rest of the world is keeping alive ie Serbia, the Gulf, Africa, Cambodia and then you throw in the extremist groups The only good that came from 911 is that the intelligence community has gotten its act more together still ain't there yet but it is a work in process

Answer 3

Bill Clinton bombed the bugeebies out of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. Clinton was very proactive against Saddam and even sent several cruise missles into Afghanistan in an attempt to get Bin Laden. He was hampered quite a bit by an unwilling Pentagon, that was leary of taking preemptive action, especially in cases where there might be collateral damage. There was no defendable reason to take action before 9/11.

Answer 4

Not only could he have prevented it,I think he may have had an actual hand in planning it and carrying it out.The first WTC attack in 1993 happened while he was president.Plus he swore (back then) that Saddam for sure had WMD's and that we must invade Iraq.I don't know.It seems like the Democrats colluded with terrorists and dictators around the world and they all set Bush up bigtime.Something about all of this just doesn't pass the smell test.

And let's not forget the OKC bombing and how possible Iraqi involvement in that may have been covered up. Or how Terry Nichols traveled to the Phillipines to meet with Al Quaeda.

And let's not forget that Clinton had the FBI and CIA spying on eachother or that he kept a personal list of enemies and had the FBI working as his secret police investigating people on his personal enemies list or how he had the IRS auditing people from his personal enemies list.

And don't forget all of the terrorist hugging Hollywood actors who did sleepovers at the whitehouse or how this was during the big Heidi Fleiss scandal.

It goes on and on...

Answer 5

Al queda's first attack on America was the first WTC bombing in 1993. That was during the first few months of his presidency. Over the 8 years he was president we were attacked a dozen times by Osama and Clinton never answered. Clinton was offed Bin Laden several times and refused to take him. Clinton was given the chance to kill him several times and refused to take the opportunity. He also reduced the intelligence budget which may have led to gaps in our intel.

Can we blame Clinton for 9/11?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!


EDIT: You say this is not an answerable question. If you would like I can provide you with links to reliable sources, just ask! Then tell me this is not answerable!

Answer 6

I have to disagree with ya there.

Bill clinton DID NOT invade iraq the same reason as Bush Senior did not invade after the gulf war - "You break it, You buy it". And I wouldnt call it passive by dropping tomahawk missiles in baghad when he did not comply the UN mandate - expelling the UN inspectors etc. His policy was a policy of containment like what we having to Iraq and N.Korea and it works.

Beside, Saddam HAS NO CONNECTION to Al-Qaeda, even though hes Sunni, he prosecuted them and you can say he could be more useful as an ally against Al-Qaeda like president Musharaf of Pakistan.

Look what happened on the present day Iraq after we removed Saddam from power. What you are seeing is vacuum of power after many years of his rule, most opponets/insurgents are now jockying for power. We know, they know Americans will not stay in Iraq forever so whoever can grab hold onto as much power, key positions in military/police, as possible will be the next ruler of Iraq. It is safe to call it a civil war, and we are policing it to make sure they play nice.

Now on sept 11, they question you should ask is
1)why President bush took 9 months straight vacation after he took office?
2) Why did he not take action with all the intels pointing to an imminent attack in the Us?

Answer 7

the Terror attacks in the 90's under Clinton BY Osama, Facts are Facts, but the left will blame Bush and Cheany for evrything and give Bill Clinton a pass on everything, what a double standard.

93 WTC
96 Khobar Towers 19 Airman Killed 300 wounded
98 2 U.S. Embassy Bombings 5, 000 wounded
98 Turned down offer to apprehend Bin Laaden
98 BOMBED SADDAM inOperation Desert Fox, with same intell we had to go to war with
99 Again turned down offer to apprehend Bin Laden
2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing
2001 9-11 took 6 years to plan

Osama's slogan is a good American is a dead American if he and his terror network had the means they would try to wipe all of us out and that's real,

Answer 8

That Clinton missed the boat on Bin Ladin is symptomatic of a problem much larger than Clinton himself.

The inability of the pertinent agencies to coordinate and process critical information was to blame.
That the system was never changed to deal with this new asymmetrical threat was a classic case of underestimating the enemy.
Had it changed under Clinton I don't think it would have mattered.
Clinton has brains but, he did not then and does not now have the correct ratio of brains to genitalia to handle a complex situation like that.
He would have folded up like a cheap lawn chair.

Answer 9

I am not going to bash, but I think we both know that it is not a question really answerable. It would be like asking whether President Bush could have prevented it. Had Bush not let the Mideast Peace process drift, had Bush listened to Tenet, etc. etc.

I tend to put the blame where blame is due: on those who actually carried out the attack. It is ultimately a pointless pursuit, and only generates enmity.

I think a much better question to ask is how can we assess the response to 9/11. Has it been effective in combatting terrorism? And of course it leads to the much more useful question of what SHOULD be done?

Cheers.

Answer 10

Clinton could have done a great deal more for this country if he hadn't been involved with Monica. This episode concentrated American politics on name calling and blame rather than to follow the working of the terrorists who existed even then. Clinton did not do enough. He let us down and I wouldn't vote for his wife were she the only name on the ballot.

Answer 11

Well maybe..... since he was selling secrets to China maybe they could have done the job before Al Quaeda got their chance. Thank God that traitor, who conveniently went off to school at Oxford so he could talk about how he "loathes the military," is gone. And thank God his socialist wife won't ever be president, no matter how much she sucks up to the dailykos or moveon.org.