How was it in Americas best interest that our President ignored terrorism for the first 8 months in office?

Question

Will our next president be as derelict in their duty?

Bobby-the FBI agents in Minneapolis were by asking for FISA warrants from their HQ in Washington!

They were actually on the job! Why were the warrants denied by HQ???

gee m------I guess that ignoring daddys former counter terrorism expert who worked for Clinton through his administration wasn't enough?

AK-----when he took his oath of office he became the most powerful man in the world!However I noticed you ignored all the other points I brought up to Bobby!

M---Clinton did catch the ones who did the first WTC bombing!He lobbed a few missiles at al queda camps for the embassy bombings!The final report on the Cole bombing didn't get to his desk until days before he left office!He informed Bush he felt it was only appropriate for the new president to decide how to respond for it!

Bobby your points are just becoming political rant going off point!

m-------You are missing the entire point of my question.Not why didn't Clinton get him!Why didn't the administration do anything about our national securitiees most serious threat in the first 8 months?

OK Bobby heres my answer.........where Bush should have started NATIONAL SECURITY!

Respectfully AC..............why didn't you answer the question?

Carpe-----Although I agree about what you said about Clinton.And the state of terrorism today.....I don't agree with you about Bush or his taking out Saddam because we had no need to!

AK---at least they're in prison!Where is Osama?

Remember "dead or alive"?

Bobby---you asked me what I want our next president to be focused on! I want their focus to be on our national security!

After all isn't that the main responsiblity of the president?

Wider scope that is a complete crock.Bushs girl Condi admitted Bush was briefed by Clarke on 8/6/2001!

Tom that is your opinion.........yet you've provided no facts to back these claims up!

gustooch-----you didn't even try to answer the question I asked! Instead you ranted on about the war in Iraq! Well I hate to break it to you but if not for the political capital Bush had from 911...he would have never gotten approval for the invasion of Iraq!

Sithlord your "answer" is nothing more then political rant defending the indefensible!

yacommie...........if my original question is based on a lie why aren't you Bush defenders giving me a bunch of links to prove how Bush tried to protect America before 911?

Answer 1

He did not ignore anything!!!!! People in his adminstration were in on the planning of 911!!!! Come on people do you really believe a few people in caves can outsmart the best intel and military in the world!!!!

Answer 2

It would have been in the interests of seditious America, because then this would have given them even more ammo against this President. The fact of the matter is this President can't and never will win with these people, and Clinton hasn't and never will lose with these people. It is called blind obedience and obsession. If this weren't America, these people would have put this country in serious danger of despotism. This is the way despots are made and how they keep power: people blindly follow them. These people will always defend Clinton and attack Bush. They feign objectivity, intelligence and logic, but they seriously lack all three qualities. Thankfully we have a President that doesn't crave adoration like our previous President, and so he was able to do what had to be done, though it cost him dearly. President Bush is a hero. The people in question hate him for it. Unfortunately for them, their hatred cannot change the fact that this President stepped up to the plate when he needed to, and took the heat and has stood strong in the face of rabid criticism. History will remember this as history is not written by brainwashed sycophants.

Answer 3

I rest my case.

The Democrats are clueless.

The same thing happened at Pearl Harbor.

We knew the Japanese were planning something, but just didn't know what it was.

Until they attacked.

when the WTC was bombed the first time that should have sent up a red flag that we needed to do something then to secure our borders, but did we? Hell no we didn't because we wanted to look the other way as if nothing happened.

What is unfortunate is it cost more than 2,000 American lives in the WTC on 9/11. And the bleeding hearts forget about them. They are the reason we are fighting in Iraq.

God save us all if Hillary actually gets elected. Even though she ran the white house while Bill was chasing skirts.

Answer 4

Bush never knew where bin Laden was during all that time, as opposed to Clinton who was offered Laden several times, most recently July 2000. Clinton, Berger and Clarke knew without doubt that bin Laden had been involved in numerous strikes against US facilities.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

If Clinton and Gore had followed the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Commission in 1996 instead of accepting what amounted to campaign bribes from the airline industry, the 9/!! hijackers very likely would not have been able to board the plane.

If Clinton hadn't forced base closures in the NYC area during his terms, fighter jets would have been on hand and able to intercept these flights before they had a chance to plow into the towers.

Clarke, who was never a cabinet level member of Bush's administration, never offered the info you are talking about until after 9/11 when he was trying to sell his book and as he could be viewed as a disgruntled employee with an ax to grind, his info is questionable at best. There are reasons why Bush didn't see fit to leave him in place as Top Terrorist Adviser.

Berger is another of Clinton's buddies who has absolutely nothing to gain by accepting responsibility for his or, Clinton's own dereliction of duty. There is reason why he is back in the Clinton camp at this time.

According to the Louis Freesh, Clinton even thwarted attempts to investigate the Khobar Tower bombing in 1996, afraid investigators would turn the Saudi Royals off to contributing to his library. There was not a full investigation done until Former President Bush intervened on behalf of the FBI.

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/defense/khobar-towers.html

Do you know anything about Freesh's recommendations to Janet Reno and Reno's subsequent handling of those complaints? These are complaints that were lodged years before 9/11 and tell of Clinton's PURPOSEFUL refusal to handle the problem of terrorist activities, opting instead to serve his own self interest.

You obviously need to do a bit more research using unbiased sources before you start spouting off about Bush's oversights. Everything you've written is just part of the Clinton guise to refuse and diffuse his own failures in protecting our country from terrorists, while simultaneously weakening our armed services.

Answer 5

I really have to wonder about some of you who are answering this question... Yes, Clinton could have done more. But the fact is, he was doing what he could in the way he thought best. He was using his skills in diplomacy and foreign policy dealing/making to work with each nation to end terrorism. What, exactly has bush done? Has he ended terrorism? No. Has he lessened terrorist attacks? No... In fact, they have increased rather than decreased since 9/11. Not in America, but in the rest of the world. Bush has done very little in fact. He has imprisoned a few real terrorists and a massive amount of innocent people, he has sent the U.S. military to attack 2 countries... WTF? Was 9/11 carried out on Iraqi soil? No... Does this, if nothing else, not prove that these terrorists work in EXACTLY THE MANNER THE ENTIRE WORLD ALREADY KNOWS THEY WORK??? They work in cells in many countries, constantly changing and evolving, rotating leadership, moving around, in small groups, all over the world... And while there are many in Iraq, there are many more in the rest of the world! This war will stop nothing. It will not end terrorism. If bin laden was caught today, the attacks would not end!

In bush's defense... Not that I feel he deserves it because, in truth, I feel that he has caused most of this... But the fact is, a major military action is going to take time to prepare. One must ensure that they have all the possible facts, as much intel as possible, they must know how to strike, where to strike and when to strike. Then they must mobilize all of their forces and get them moved... This is not something that happens over night. It does take time.

Taking out Saddam is the ONLY thing this president has done right... And even then, he was just cleaning up his father's mess.

Edit: Just in case Aaron C's comments were directed at me, and just in case any others decide to direct some others like that at me: You people really should be careful who you tell such things to. I did serve my country. 10 years, Combat Engineer with Airborne and Air Assault and I was medically retired after a jump accident went wrong and I broke my back in 3 places.

Answer 6

It wasn't a matter of ignoring it, but more to do with setting a plan on how to approach the problem that was inherited during the Clinton years. Bush did what others was afraid to do....plain and simple!

Answer 7

Sorry, but Bush did not ignore ism for his first eight months in office. The democrats held up his actions on ism for political gains.

You need to learn more about who isn't taking ism seriously.

Answer 8

Oh, like you were waving the red flag before 9/11.
Hey, they have been attacking us ever since we pulled out of Afgan. We trained the Al Quida to fight the russians. This wasn't the first time they bombed the twin tower. They even bombed one of our Embassies. The people of United States ignored the warnings. Hind sight is always 20/20. If you are smart, tell us what our next president should focus on? Terroist, economy, bird flu, China, North Korea, Iraq, Mexico, Corporate laws, Tobacco, Home grown terrroists, Britney Spears, Russian's hard line policies, Kashmir, Saudi's oil domination, Isreal, Palestine, Genocide in Africa, Where?

Answer 9

How was it in America's (APPOSTROPHY) best interest that our President ignored terrorism for his entire administration? Thank you Clinton.

Add: Someone prove me wrong? When did Bill go after them? The Embassies? The Cole? WTC?

Add: Honest1, you're right, he WAS the most powerful man, and probably up there as one of the most popular. Bill could have gone after al Queda before it was even a threat, and become even more popular. Bill had more chances to destroy OBL than Bush. He didn't take a single one. Remember though, 8 months is awhile when talking about administration changes. We've had the Democratics in charge of the legislative branch for over a year, we've seen one of the original proposals passed.

Answer 10

Armchair quarterback,

Since 911 when was the last time you heard of a successful terrorist attack on our home soil? If you feel so strongly about fighting terrorism why don't you put your money where your mouth is and serve your country in some respect? There are a plethora of organizations you can do this in(USMC, USArmy, USAF, USN, CIA, NSA, TSA, Coast Guard, and Red Cross to name a few). But I suppose its easier to take pot shots at others instead. Continue to exercise and enjoy your constitutional right to complain.

Respectfully,

A.C.

Answer 11

its called a false flag operation and bush cheney rove bin laden and the p n a c were behind it...they got the idea from hitler who bombed his own building and blamed it on the jews....and pearl harbor which could have been prevented also since they knew in advance