President Clinton's "Great Job"

@lisan22 (191)
United States
September 30, 2006 10:45am CST
I've read some political posts about Clinton and Bush. I am becoming increasingly annoyed with the fact that supporters of Clinton say that he didn't start wars. The problem is he didn't do ANYTHING. Do a google search on "USS Cole" and see what comes up. That's right! While President Clinton was in office the US was attacked. Just outside of Yemen a small fishing boat exploded near the USS Cole and killed 17 sailors. This happened less than a year before September 11th, and Osama bin Laden made it clear that it was Al-Queda that did this. I followed this even closely. Clinton did absolutely nothing. This president was so self absorbed with all the issues of his personal life that he failed to protect the country that he should have been running. Maybe if Clinton would've shown bin Laden at that time that as a country we don't take this kind of thing sitting down 9/11 would've never happened. Consider that. Educate yourself. It makes me sick to think that people think Clinton is cool for cheating on his wife. It just shows what kind of morals this country has when people think it's cool to cheat on your spouse.
1 response
@Snooze (610)
• United States
3 Oct 06
Followed this even closely, have you? From page 193 of the 9/11 Commission Report: [Begin quote] President Clinton told us that before he could launch further attacks on al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or deliver an ultimatum to the Taliban threatening strikes if they did not immediately expel Bin Ladin, the CIA or the FBI had to be sure enough that they would "be willing to stand up in public and say, we believe that he [Bin Ladin] did this." He said he was very frustrated that he could not get a definitive enough answer to do something about the Cole attack. Similarly, Berger recalled that to go to war, a president needs to be able to say that his senior intelligence and law enforcement officers have concluded who is responsible. He recalled that the intelligence agencies had strong suspicions, but had reached "no conclusion by the time we left office that it was al Qaeda." [end quote] There are 2 points to make here, along with a question. Point #1: President Clinton could have gone after bin Ladin, based on the Intelligence he was presented with, which was just a hunch. He needed to be sure, without a doubt, it was al Qaeda. Point #2: Looking at things in hindsight is easy. But had Clinton attacked al Qaeda without proof, but just on suspicion, imagine if he'd been wrong. Imagine if he'd relied on faulty intelligence. Imagine if he'd knowingly selected intelligence that was skewed to fit his agenda. Imagine if he'd ignored the advice of his military, and sent insufficient troops to make it work. Imagine if his administration had declared "mission accomplished" as soon as the troops were sent in. Well, you don't have to imagine of it, because that's the reality of the Bush legacy. I'd rather have a President who feels he must get it right, than a President who wants to get it no matter what. Here's the question, and I trust you'll be honest: Had Clinton started a war with al Qaeda, would the republican congress (A) have supported the war, and (B) accused Clinton of staging the war to deflect attention from the impeachment proceedings? Lastly, your "Clinton is cool" line got me laughing. You're a card. I don't think the number of people in this country that feel Clinton was cool for cheating on his wife would fill up the stands at a High School football game. Please don't think I give Clinton a free pass - I am ashamed of Clinton's instances of moral misbehavior, and I don't support him blindly. But I'm much more ashamed of Bush's actions, especially since I gave him my trust when he took office and even more so immediately after 9/11. You say Clinton didn't do anything about al Qaeda. Until 9/11/2001, Bush actually did LESS.