War on Terror, Bill Clinton era vs. George W. Bush?

Question

Do people know that more terrorism attacks were made and created bigger problems if combined overall when Clinton was president than Bush's 8 years in office? The Clinton campaign just chose not to act upon it and it eventually led to 9/11? And that the terrorist said that they will end all the terrorism if everyone accept Allah and convert to become Muslims? Why is it that political candidates are quite enthusiastic when they're explaining their plan about ending the war when they should be educating Americans about what's really going on giving us enough evidence and reason to create real opinions? I don't want subjective responses, so don't go off on what you think about Bush.

In Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age[61] political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrated “how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror”. In each comparison, Kuypers “detected massive bias on the part of the press.” This researcher called the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” in his conclusion. “What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”

Answer 1

I agree with you this whole thing has become so politicized and so much information is not getting out to all of us. That is why there are so many of these crazy questions and answers being posted.

Answer 2

First of all, more terrorist attacks have been planned and more people have died due to terrorism under Bush, then under Clinton.

Back when Clinton were president, Republicans were watering down his anti-terrorism bills because they didn't want "a police state."

When Clinton tried to kill Osama, they played the wag the dog game. Instead of standing behind him, they said he was just trying to change the subject away from the BJ.

When blackhawk went down, Republicans voted along with Democrats to take the troops out. The War Powers Act gave congress the power to do that.

Repubs can't do that and then criticize Democrats for not doing enough.

Bush, on the other hand, ignored terrorism for months when maybe he could have done something. That is according to Richard Clark, govt' anti-terrorism expert since Reagan.

Answer 3

The 'War on Terror,' like the War on Drugs, is an absurdity, it'd be like FDR declaring a War on Bombs after Pearl Harbor.

Now, the ongoing campaign of terrorism against the US that started in the Carter years (with the hostage crisis in Iran, among other things), if not earlier, and the conflict between Islam an the rest of the world that it represents, is another matter. Yes, under Clinton, the US largely ignored increasingly successful attacks by terrorists, most notably, in retrospect, Al Qaeda, while, under Bush, it used one major attack as a pretext to re-establish a strong military presence in the middle east.

If either president had done anything to deter future attacks, or to treat the ongoing conflict with the Muslim World as an actual war, thing may have been different.

Answer 4

Billl Clinton wasn't president in 1990, but in 1992 they passed some goofy poor neighborhoods revitalization act that dictated to banks that they had to loan to unqualified applicants (inner cities)some type of financial affirmative action garbage to stay in business. Then the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 did away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated. So now depository banks (the ones that seek long term low risk investments) and investment banks (high risk, high profit, low security) were under one CEO with the profit and golden parachute incentive in place more than ever. P.S .George Soros paid for those weapons your talking about. And don't get me going about Bush we would need more band width.

Answer 5

I keep referencing Osama Bin Laden who in an interview nearly 9 yrs ago stated that the hasty withdrawal from Somalia and lack of response to the numerous attacks of the 1990s proved to him that he could attack America at will and could defeat America because he said it showed him that Americans lacked the will to fight. Liberals keep getting mad at me but it wont change the fact that OSAMA said those things. I prefer to deal in realities than in what reinforces my own opinions. Did Clinton mean to embolden Osama? No he didnt but that is the result of his inaction. Clinton is actually the victim of the American people though because he learned first ahdn that if he went to war or made serious attacks, the people turned against him in the polls. So whose fault is it really? It is our fault the same as it is now.

Answer 6

True. I like the people who blame Bush as the reason for 9/11. He wasn't in office that long before the attack. Surely a plan like that would take years to plan. Happened on Clinton's watch.

Answer 7

Spot on, and you didn't even have to bring up all of the questionable dealings with China (and other Communists) that the Clinton's have. They don't care about keeping America safe, they just want power and a new world order.

Answer 8

Yes.
Some in Clinton's Adminstration told Bill that he should try to stop bin Laden from killing more Americans.

Bill said: "Aw shucks. bin don't mean no harm. He'll stop killing Americans for long.
Bin's ma buddie. We go to family reunions in Little Rock together. We both pick up chicks".

Answer 9

Billclinton wasn't waging a war over terror.

He was just trying to get at terrorists.

Answer 10

I believe he wanted to do more but his hands were tied by his polical base.