He in no way demonstrated lack of action. He demonstrated lack of enough action has hindsight as taught us. But it is true that it was hindsight that was 20/20. There were very few people at the time bemoaning his lack of action against terrorism, since he had done more than any President up until that point in fighting terrorism. There were a number of critics among the Republicans who complained that Clinton was doing too much to fight terrorism, and that his actions amounted to wag the dog. It is also clear that prior to 9/11 Bush did almost nothing regarding terrorism despite being set up and warned about the problem.
I disagree, Clinton's inaction was telling...He was indifferent to the tactics we have now. Where was the post '93 mindset that was needed?
I already mentioned Reagon's top man on terrorism calling Clinton good on terrorism, but too obssessed with Bin Laden. We had GOP Orin Hatch, Newt Gingrich and others campaigning against Clinton's proposal to EXPAND WIRE TAP AUTHORITY for the FBI in order to fight against terrorism, speaking out against CLINTON'S PROPOSALS FOR INCREASED SPENDING TO FIGHT TERRORISM, the GOP calling Clinton's attacks on Bin Laden as Wag the Dog. Here is another that I haven't brought up specifically before... Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state." Take a look at this video clip. http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/clinton.terror.wav of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war? Here are some cold hard facts about Clinton's record on terrorism, and the GOP efforts to stop it. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/216[/quote]
Because I had posted the specifics in other threads before, in response to this same accusation by you. I also posted a long list of very specific information in this thread. It lists exact figures.
I still didn't see anything that says Clinton is "doing too much" to fight terrorism? Of course you have the coles, the embassys, the other embassys, the embassy after that...ask the families of those direct U.S. interests if Clinton did too much?... Why no DHS after the '93 attack...? What no need for better communication between intelligence and law enforcement...And why Clinton didn't look to scrutinize the VISA requirements/regulations in the aftermath of the dangers discovered shortly thereafter the first major attack on American soil...?
There was a standing order to capture or kill Bin Laden at that time. The report makes no mention of whether or not the people watching the live feed had determined it was Bin Laden at the time, if the Administration had even been alerted that they had him on camera, and so on and so forth.
Sorry it wasn't the full link. Here is the full link. http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/clinton.terror.wav
You are joking right? This is the acknowledged fictional account from the movie that is loaded with fictional made up accounts. But I did watch it none-the-less.
Somehow, I don't think this article would have been written had Gore been President... Lots of interesting stuff here, including how Bush has asked to "flood the zone" just before election time and how Rummy is more concerned with bureau`cratic turf than catching al-Q and how the withdrawal of folks from Afghanistan to go to Iraq hampered the effort. Hmmmm. I'm glad we have a post 9-11 mentality in the WH though.
The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.
This is garbage. The Cole attack was less than 1 month before the elections. If Clinton had done anything between then and the SC decision, Repubs would have screamed "wag the dog" from the rooftops. Instead, he did the perfectly logical thing... drew up a plan (mostly by Clarke) to be executed by the next Pres... many of the points in this response ended up being part of the Bush's response to 9-11... but between the inauguration and 9-10, the Bushies did not much, even after extensive meetings with and warnings by outgoing Clinton officials. An excerpt... Clinton wasn't President past January, 2001.