Thanks for the softball. Here's what Clinton did regarding terrorism during his term. Remember this is before 9/11. This is what former Reagan ambassador Roger Oakly told the Washington Post about Clinton's battle with terrorism Paul Bremmer who was Oakley's successor with Ronald Reagan and then W's main man in Iraq told the Washington Post that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on Bin Laden". Clinton also found those responsible for the '93 bombing of the WTC tried, convicted them and imprisoned them. Clinton also helped thwart: - A plot to kill the pope - A plan to blow up 12 U.S. Airliners at once - Attacks against the UN building - Attacks against the FBI building - Attacks against the Israeli embasy in Washington - Attacks against the LA and Boston Airport - Attacks against the Lincoln and Holland tunnels as well as the George Washington Bridge - A Truck bomb attack against the U.S. Embasy in Tirana Albania. Clinton trippled the budget for the FBI, and doubled the overall counterterrorism budget. Clinton ended AL QAEDA CELLS in more than 20 countries. Clinton created a top level security post to coordinate all federal counterterrorism activity. Clinton's 1st and 2nd crime bills contained anti-terrorism legislation. Now let's look at how the Republican support for all of Clinton's anti-terrorism activities was at the time. Orin Hatch was against more anti-terrorism funding saying that Clinton should work with money already appropriated. Gingrich didn't want to give the FBI additional wire tapping powers that Clinton asked for by referencing the 'File gate' investigation which turned up no wrong doing. The part that most directly answer's the question about Clinton doing something about OBL is this. Immediately after the '98 embassy bombings Clinton issued a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. After the Cole bombing Clinton decided to take the fight to Al-Qaeda. That was when he directed Richard Clarke to come up with ways to do this, and Bush ignored Richard Clarke's suggestions until after 9/11 and then implemented almost all of them. Too bad Bush didn't act sooner. But I guess STAR WARS was more important.
so if the anthrax people wasn't Al-Q (don't really trust the FBI on that one) and you claim it wasn't right wing zealots. Then who was it? Does it count as post 9/11 terrorism on US soil or not?
I think some others have addressed those inconvenient facts that debunk this statement. I will add that there were also the DC Sniper attacks which appear to have been inspired by Al Qaeda in addition to the anthrax attacks that should be counted as terrorist attacks. Under Clinton there were two major terrorists attacks on US soil but only one of those was carried out by Al Qaeda or their sympathizers. Under the Clinton admin. further attacks in after the first WTC bombing were stopped when that cell was arrested while a potential 2000 attack was stopped. On the non-Al Qaeda front McVeigh was quickly caught.
Hey I enjoy coming here and debating issues but I'm not about to believe that this forum is representative of even all voters who are Rocket fans.
But Clinton's idiotic policies left us vulnerable to the events of 9/11. It's the effects of what he failed to do that is important. The sniper attacks were not the fault of Bush or his policies, nor was the few anthrax envelopes sent to a few places. I'm talking about large-scale terrorist attacks that kill more than a mere handful. During Clinton's watch, the embassies in Africa were bombed as was Khobar Towers and the U.S.S. Cole. All Clinton did was treat it as a LE matter and lob a few cruise missiles. So don't give me this notion that "under Clinton Americans were safe from terrorism," because it is simply not true.
Well if you did not like what Clinton did, I expect that you hate what GWB did by ignoring the whole thing until it blew back into his face.
Bammaslammer; Its been well documented and debated in regards to whether the current admin did anything to shore up or improve Clinton's "idiotic" policies that left us vulnerable to 9/11 in their first 8 months of office. An objective observer would clearly have to say no since 9/11 occured under the Bush Admin and not the Clinton Admin. As for all the other attacks there have been a well docummented series of terrorist attacks directed at Americans and allies under the GW Bush Admin. since 9/11. These are all facts. I don't want to get into a grotesque contest regarding which Admin. had the higher body count of victims of terrorism (IMO both have failed at times and both have succeeded at times) but that seems to be your goal.
Don't fall for the misdirection. Why the talk of Clinton? This is a thread about the "accomplishments" of Bush. Strategery.
God, you people are singleminded, simple creatures. Bush did not ignore terrorism any more than Clinton made it a priority (legacy building spin fostered by those of your ideological stripe).
Two lies in one sentence. You might want to read the 911 commission report. Then your opinion might be based on fact. I eagarly await your name-calling reply.
you always fault Clinton for doing nothing about the USS Cole but he was a lame duck less than a month after that attack. Should he really have started a major combat initiative with 2 months left in power? why didn't Bush retaliate? Why didn't he attack Yemen as soon as he was inaugurated?
Actually Clinton did do something after the Cole. I think I already posted in this very thread. That was when Clinton instructed Richard Clarke to come up with a plan to take the battle to Al-Qaeda. That was the plan that Bush wouldn't even meet with Clarke about the first few months of his administration, and instead concentrated on Star Wars. Bamma, I posted a long list of efforts and achievements that Clinton had in regards to terrorism. It's quite alot, considering it was all pre-9/11. I don't understand a style of debate that ignores all facts.
1) Yell something filled with invective and hyperbole. 2) When real evidence comes up, question the source, calling names if necessary. 3) Ignore the points of the opposition and instead call them names. 4) Shout down anyone with the temerity to challenge you. 5) Start over with number 1.
No, the 9/11 commission report never said that Bush ignored terrorism. Clinton on the other hand, did. And this "oh, he was a lame duck" excuse is nonsense. If the enemy strikes you, you must fulfill your oath of office to protect and defend our nation, regardless of whether you have 3 yrs. left on your term or 3 weeks. Clinton never took his oath very seriously.
