Terrorism: Are we safer today than we were with Clinton?
July 25th, 2007“You, senator, I know, were the only person that I know of who suggested declaring war. In retrospect, you were probably right.” Source.
Those were the exact words of former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, during the 9/11 commission hearings, after being questioned by commissioner and former Sen. Bob Kerrey about the Clinton administration’s lackadaisical response to the terrorism against the U.S. that occurred from 1993 to 2000.
You see, back then if I remember correctly, Albright was talking tough like she was actually going to handle business and take on terrorism head on. So was her heroic boss, Clinton. However, if I remember right, it actually took Clinton some time to master the tough guy approach to terrorism. In the beginning, he was pretty soft, well…very soft. And, of course, he never really dealt with the problem.
For example, after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 Clinton urged us not to overreact, and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.” That’s not exactly tough talk. Source.
Terrorism continued.
Then he got bold. After the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, he said “The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished.” Source.
Terrorism continued.
He then got his rhetoric right (no pun intended) the time of the embassy attacks. “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes,” he said. “We are determined to get answers and justice.” Source.
Terrorism continued.
By October 2000, when al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, Clinton had the routine down perfectly. “We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable,” he said. Source.
Terrorism continued.
The fact of the matter is that Clinton is responsible for doing too little about terrorism during his eight years in office, in which there were several attacks against the U.S. Here is a quick recap of the terrorist attacks during his reign:
- 1993 World Trade Center bombing - killed six and injured 1,000.
- 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia - killed five soldiers.
- 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia - killed 19 and injured 200 soldiers.
- 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa - killed 257 and injured 5,000.
- 2000 bombing of the USS Cole - killed 17 and injured 3 sailors.
And the Bush Administration…
- 2001 World Trade Center bombing (all planned during the Clinton Administration) – killed 3,000 + innocent people.
And, what did Bush do? He is dealing with terrorism despite being scrutinized by the main stream media; and if that means occupying Iraq than so be it. While I am no Bush apologist and am very critical of some of his policies (immigration, border security), I can truly say with confidence that we are safer today than we were with Clinton.
And I still don’t understand why uninformed liberals actually believe that Bush caused 9/11 to happen; that his foreign policy while in office for 8 months caused this cowardly act.
Technorati Tags: liberal, liberalism, conservative, iraq, war on terror, clinton, clinton administration, bush, bush administration, world trade center, terrorism
Share this post
July 25th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Urban - this is so damn true. Why can't people see this?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
But the economy boomed under Clinton!!!!
July 26th, 2007 at 5:08 am
THIS is absolutely beautiful. THANK YOU for stating the TRUTH in such an unavoidably, clear way. Unfortunately the liberals have NO COMMON SENSE so they will never understand or accept what you've written. It doesn't matter how true your words are, they will spin it however they can to make Bush look bad.
The bottom line is: WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE SINGLE ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL SINCE 9/11. Why do you think that IS people??? It is because Bush is STEADFAST and UNWAVERING. He flat out told us after 9/11 (when almost everyone supported him) that this was NOT going to be a quick process, and he KNEW that the majority would support him in the beginning, but after time he would have less and less support. But he KNEW what needed to be done to protect our country and HE'S BEEN DOING IT... regardless of how many ignorant and easily swayed supporters have turned on him or how low his approval ratings go. THAT is a strong President. To hold steady and not be swayed by those who become soft and whose vision becomes clouded. I can guarantee you that had he been pursuaded and backed out of Iraq prematurely because of the pressure, we most definitely would have experienced another attack of some sort, if not multiple attacks! And THEN what!? Then it would be "That freakin' Bush, he backed out to soon! NOW look what's happened!" He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. But even with all the disrespectful comments he receives about his supposed lack of intelligence, in my opinion he's smarter and stronger than the vast majority. He made a vow to stick to the mission for as long as it would take, and he's sticking to his word. The problem is that we were all supposed to "NEVER FORGET", but sadly, it's clear that all has been forgotten for most Americans. When the going gets tough, most Americans want to tuck their tails and run which is pretty sad.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Lolly..i second that girl!
July 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am
To che hater.
I don'y know if you were serious but the economy did NOT boom under clinton. the lowest unemployment was about 5+% while it's highest was 15%.
And (if you were serious) you should remember that we were in a full blown Recession when President bush took the helm. Oh yeah, Unemployment is like 4.2% right now BTW. DEV
July 26th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Che Hater (love the name btw!), where have you been? The economy has been booming under Bush v2 as well.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:53 am
kidding guys...i was being sarcastic.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
You are living in a land of delusion Bush is destroying the country and you are helping him. We are much less safe. We are running up a vast deficit (not very conservative). We are losing civil liberties and basically bush is pissing on the constitution.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
how are we much less safe? Are the above statements false?
July 30th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Your list of terrorist attacks during the "reign" of each President is disingenous to say the least. Surely you cannot believe that the 11th sep attacks were the sole terrorist attack on US interests during Bush's term as President so far? Doesnt Bush repeatedly mention the terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan in his addresses to the media? Infact I suspect the reason for neglecting the terrorist attacks since the 11th of sep attacks is because there have been so many that any list would have to be an openended one.
Indeed anyone (whether liberal, conservative or with a belief in another political philosophy) who believes Bush's 8 months in office gave reason to attack is being simplistic. Presumably they are democrats who cannot understand why a dim view of THEIR foreign policy could be taken by others around the world.
I'd like to point out that Clinton had been in office for little over 1 month when the WTC bombing of 26th of Feb 1993 occured. Perhaps anti-bush people should focus on his dads foreign policy as a factor in that bombing. Not that is WAS but that it logically COULD BE.
"I can truly say with confidence that we are safer today than we were with Clinton." ---- You say such a thing yet lend no facts, changed circumstance or anything substantial to your arguement. Possibly u believe the occupation of Iraq is a factor in your being "safer" since it is included in the same paragraph. Iraq was never a threat to the US under Saddam as he stood prior to the invasion. A threat to US interests, yes, in the same way a number of countrys can be as that is their SOVEREIGN RIGHT. It is only when that threat is realised that action should occur..... sorry, Im getting off topic. Iraq and Iraqi citizens had nothing to do with any of the terrorist attacks committed prior to the US led invasion, all of which u cast aside in your analysis of terrorists attacks committed under each president. How does occupying Iraq deal with terrorism?
Oh and Lolly....... he may be " smarter and stronger than the vast majority" in the US but I wouldnt spread that around too much as the majority may feel rather insulted!
July 30th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Sean – when I said terrorist attacks during the Bush reign, I am referring to and against the US and/or US interests (embassies, etc.). Good point about the 1993 attacks but the point of the post is that he never dealt with the issue at hand.
"I can truly say with confidence that we are safer today than we were with Clinton...” – I am telling you how I FEEL; and the FACT is that the US has not been hit with a terrorist attack since 01. And, I do believe that the “occupation” or whatever you want to call it is one of the main reasons we are safer. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are spending their time/money/resources in Iraq and not in planning to kill innocent people here in the states. There is definitely a correlation.
Am I being selfish? Hell yeah. I really don’t want to live like Israelis, where they have to worry about suicide bombers killing off the population. Do you?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Very excellant post! I wrote a simular one a while back, here it is:
http://www.techystuff.info/?p=25
Although...I do believe that yours is better. Thanks for opening the eyes for some people, those that believe what you say instead of calling it propoganda!
August 7th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Matt - thanks buddy. I appreciate the love.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I wouldn't say we are more or less safe now. We are in the same boat. There was only one attack on American soil while Clinton was in office too. I see 5 attacks total listed above. 5. Now think about how many suicide bombers, roadside bombs, RPGs, etc. have attacked our troops in Iraq.
Maybe you feel safer because you're not in the military.
We did the right thing going into Afghanistan; we did not when we entered Iraq. Now our resources are stretched too thin to handle either.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Oh, and Matt, it isn't propoganda... It has to be believable before it can be called that
August 8th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Gravee - American soil also includes embassies and US ships. I know, I served 8 years in the USMC and spent a year of that in Mogadishu Somalia in 1993. And, you can't compare terrorist activity to a time of war. Of course, the end result is the same – Americans being killed – but in war, they are soldiers who knew the risk when signing up; with terrorism – they are killing our children.
Now, I am no war monger. I hate war. I hate seeing innocent lives being taken. But in order for there to be peace, there has to be war. History will tell you that. And, I would rather not live like our friends in Israel who have to worry daily about suicide bombers; so let’s take the war to them. Selfish? Hell yeah it is. But it’s impossible to negotiate with terrorism of any kind and extreme Islam will not rest until the world is converted or decapitated.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Like I said. Afghanistan is where the majority of our focus should be. We invaded Iraq and overthrew their leader who kept his people under control (even if it was through unconventional means). But, I don't think we needed war in Iraq for peace here. Radical islam wasn't really a factor in Iraq until we went went there.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Gravee - you see that's where you and I findamentally disagree. Radical Islam has been terrorizing others for centuries, dating back to a time when all religions were doing it. They have not yet made that next leap as Christianity, Judaism, etc. has.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Oh, and Bin Laden declared war against the US when Clinton was in office.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Fuck bin-laden. I say we shove a nulear warhead so far up his as he'll be shitting uranium for a month.
And what I meant was simply that radical islam was not the suicide bomb/RPG/IED machine in Iraq until we gave it the freedom to be such.