A topic about the culpability of President Clinton and President Bush with regards to terrorism caught my eye. But it was locked out so I came up with a different take on this subject. Danya claimed that she was so safe when CLinton was in office. She claimed that times were great under CLinton. World Trade Center Bombing I, Oklahoma City Bombing, U.S. embassies attacked in Liberia and Kenya, USS Cole attack, Air Force barracks bombed in Saudi ARabia. What do all these terrorist acts have in common, they all happened while Bill CLinton was president. How dare anyone claim that life was so great when these americans all died, as if nothing ever happened before September 11. How dare the wars in Bosnia, Angola, Zaire be dismissed as if they never happened. The world was just as dangerous, if not more so when Bill CLinton was president. I want to know what exactly Bill Clinton was paid for while he was president, because the man did absolutely nothing exept drop his pants for an intern. I had the distaste to be in the military during his presidency, and even though he was my commander in chief, I never considered him my boss. I disparaged him even though it was not allowed. His legacy is one of incompetent foreign policy, sordid affairs, and no accomplishment

Running out of support for war on Iraq, Korean War II, and having a moron for a CIC?

What does this have to do with the topic?

Darcaine

Past history diverting attention from current events. The argument that times have always been tough. Denial of the fact that 9/11 happened on GWB's watch. Transferring of blame.

Do you want more?

It does not further discussion to use terms like 'moron' - in my opinion.

I was always taught that swearing and name calling indicates either a lack of facts or a lack of articulation. While I am not saying that either is the case here - applying the epithet such as 'moron' is not discussing the issues at hand.

Just trying to do a flame for flame. Yep, guilty--Jamie!

I would hardly call any of this flaming. You'll know it when you see it. It's way more than poor word choice. It's downright mean.

On topic, I don't know how much we can blame on any Commander in Chief - Clinton or Bush. I only look forward to 20 years from now when all the "secret files" get released and we find out who really knew what when. Right now it's not much more than speculation.

I just want to get my Clinton bashing straight? Was he tossing bombs at South Asia and North Africa in order to divert attention from his tawdry sex scandal or was he ignoring the boiling cauldron of world terrorism?

Or can it be both?

World Trade Center Bombing I, Oklahoma City Bombing, U.S. embassies attacked in Liberia and Kenya, USS Cole attack, Air Force barracks bombed in Saudi ARabia. What do all these terrorist acts have in common, they all happened while Bill CLinton was president. How dare anyone claim that life was so great when these americans all died, as if nothing ever happened before September 11. How dare the wars in Bosnia, Angola, Zaire be dismissed as if they never happened. The world was just as dangerous, if not more so when Bill CLinton was president.

Well, I feel the need to respond since I've obviously been the inspiration for this thread.

I suppose it's all a matter of perception. I did not feel the deep anti-American sentiment from the rest of the world then that that I feel now. I was shielded from it a little better I guess but it also has increased under Bush and his agressive policies. I was also less interested in world events at the time. But, as the saying goes 9/11 changed all that. Now I am aware and I don't like what I see.

The perception I had about Bosnia is that there was ethnic cleansing going on. I felt that we had a moral reason that allowed us to intervene and help. Since Miloshevec (sp?) and his group are going through the world court for war crimes I don't have any reason to feel ashamed of that decision. I also am not that well versed...the above was just my vague understanding of the deal. You can enlighten me to what we did wrong if you feel the need.

The OKC bombing was done by our own right-wing-home bred terrorist. You know the 'Soldier of Fortune' zealot gun type people? They are just as disgusting to me as an Al Queada terrorist. I have no reason to blame that on Clinton. I think it was handled well. The crime was supposedly solved and there were no over reactions to get to justice. What was your point again?

The other attacks were blips on my radar. The Cole being the worst. Having our military targeted in far flung places that we choose to be is really nothing new. Our embassy bombings in other countries should always serve as a message to be heeded. It means 'pay attention'.

Clintons job was to go after the terrorists and make sure the FBI and CIA were doing their jobs at the time. Not to go and start wars and over-react.

Bin Laden and his ilk were born of the Reagan administration and with Bush Sr.'s help. I do not blame Clinton at all.

Considering Clinton instead of just chucking a few cruise missiles into afghanistan & sudan, he could have sent in a force to take out Bin Laden

He could have rid the World of Osama right after the Embassy attacks...but he didn't want to

The taking out of Al-Queda could have increased his then desimated approval ratings

Didn't Bush say he was against nation building in 2000? No he critizes Clinton for not doing enough nation building. Bill Clinton is no more responsible for the september eleventh attacks then Reagan or Bush Sr. or Nixon or Carter. Bush didn't have any foreign policy until september eleventh.


His approval ratings higher then Bush's are now after impeachement. When he tried to kill Osama in 98' didn't the republicans say he was trying to divert attention from his personal life (what is wrong with the people thinking about terrorism instead of Bill Clinton's personal life?).

That rereads history in the light of 9/11. Clinton was criticized for his attacks as a diversion from his scandal. Who is too say that Clinton wasn't closer to killing bin Laden with his strikes (I have seen reports that say we missed bin Laden by hours in Afghanstan) than Bush has been so far. Are we expecting to find our public enemy #1 in Iraq? No. Then why isn't our focus on rooting out the rest of Al Qaeda instead of inspiring a new generation of recruits with a We'll Huff and We'll Puff foreign policy.

All he hit in those cruise missile attacks was a Drug Factory in Sudan & a couple buildings in Afghanistan

Sure and if Saddam Hussein calls something a drug factory it couldn't possibly really be a chemical or biological weapons plant could it?

Actually, Congress was so intent on impeaching Clinton that terrorism was ignored.

That is undeniable. Subconsciously, I think that the Republican leadership of that time feels very guilty about 9/11--also the propaganda machines that pushed and pushed and pushed to get rid of Clinton.

What about the FBI and CIA leadership? What about the military leadership? Did they not perform up to par due to feelings about Clinton? Missing bin laden by hours--fate, accident, or intent to not make Clinton look good?

I sense some folks wake in the middle of the night in cold sweats.