Can any Bill Clinton-haters resolve this paradox for me?

Question

He is accused of not doing anything to act against terrorism, yet:

1. He fired missiles at al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and was criticized by Republicans for only trying to distract from Monica

2. He destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that the CIA suspected to be processing VX nerve gas, and although that information is now debatable, how does this attempt at stopping deadly chemical attacks show that Clinton was soft on terror?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

3. The USS Cole bombing, the last al Qaeda attack before 9/11, was not determined to be al Qaeda's doing until AFTER Bush took office yet he did nothing until 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing#Consequences_and_after-effects

If you choose to ignore these facts and talk about how Clinton was "handed bin Laden on a silver platter but turned him down," you must provide the evidence for this ridiculous claim (and no, "Rush told me" doesn't count).

"GREAT ANSWERS,"

The only decent point you make is about the timing of Monica...however it's not necessarily true because the African Embassy bombings also had just happened a couple of weeks before.

So the point is that we'll never know for sure, all we do know is that Clinton did retaliate and Bush did not, even after the further Cole attack.

I wouldn't even be engaging in such a "partisan debate" about "small details" if it wasn't for the EXTREME HYPOCROSY of Bush basing his entire Presidency on his ability to "know the stakes" and take action if there is even the slightest chance of a large-scale attack, while at the same time criticizing the party that actually did take action

Answer 1

if you really want to know what Clinton did to prevent terrorism, please read the article here:

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

Answer 2

1. He fired missiles at al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and was criticized by Republicans for only trying to distract from Monica
Knew about them for years but only started to bomb the very day the Monica scandel came out......
2. He destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that the CIA suspected to be processing VX nerve gas, and although that information is now debatable, how does this attempt at stopping deadly chemical attacks show that Clinton was soft on terror?
that was his job
3. The USS Cole bombing, the last al Qaeda attack before 9/11, was not determined to be al Qaeda's doing until AFTER Bush took office yet he did nothing until 9/11.
that was because Bill didnt want to find out.

If you choose to ignore these facts and talk about how Clinton was "handed bin Laden on a silver platter but turned him down," you must provide the evidence for this ridiculous claim (and no, "Rush told me" doesn't count).
You can allways go ask Bill yourself for the truth

Answer 3

I hate to tell you this but wikipedia is perhaps the worst source in the world to reference.

Answer 4

i prefer to go with known facts....

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
the terrorism is secondary to this so the point of your question to me is moot. my point is here, that if you ignore the obviouis, you clearly deserve what you get.