What Clinton did to disrupt terrorism....

This is a report i did awhile back and i think it will give some people some knowledge on what Clinton did against terrorists...which was not much, enjoy:

How the Clinton Administration Led to the Rise of Terrorism
The devastating terrorist attacks of September 11th in New York City led to much despair across the nation. Now many people are asking, could the attack on September 11th have been prevented? It could have absolutely been prevented. Could it have been prevented by President Bush? Possibly. Could it have been prevented by President Clinton during his tenure in office? Definitely. This is not just a random pointing of the finger towards a Democratic president, but instead offers facts to back up this theory. During Clinton’s 2 terms in office as president (1992-2000), many terrorist attacks occurred such as the 1st World Trade Center Bombing, U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and USS Cole bombing. Now a logical person would think that going after the perpetrators would be the best solution, but time after time the Clinton administration failed to do so or did not take enough action to prevent such acts of terrorism from happening again.
The first major act of terrorism that occurred during the Clinton administration was the World Trade Center attack that occurred on February 26, 1993. Islamic terrorists built a bomb that cost them about 300 dollars, and set it off in a garage below tower one of the World Trade Center (Wikipedia). Six people died in the attack and 1,040 were wounded. Six people were convicted and given prison time. Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, the man who sold the terrorists explosives was deported to Jordan and was acquitted by the Jordanian court(Wikipedia). Since when did someone even think that a Middle Eastern country, with the exception of Israel and Saudi Arabia, would want to help the United States? So this is really a classic case of not bringing everyone involved to justice. Who really knows what this free man who supplied terrorists has done since the event. But one thing is for sure, he didn’t spend it in prison like he should have.
Somalia was a war torn region in Africa in 1993 during their civil war in that country. Vast numbers of people were starving because the warlords were controlling the food that was in the country. Clinton said as he ordered more troops to Somalia, “We face a choice, do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive (qtd. in Broder)? ” Saving people’s lives is a very important thing to do, especially since it was a war torn nation with many of starving people. Clinton also stated very soon after the first quote that “This past week’s events make it clear that even as we prepare to withdraw from Somalia, we need more strength there (qtd. in Broder).” It seems that Mr. Clinton didn’t answer his own question correctly. Also, does not logic contradict former president Clinton’s statement? It is obvious that withdrawing troops would weaken the United States presence, not add more strength. Perhaps he was just off his game this time, but that is alright because he will have many chances to justify his mistake in Somalia, if it is possible to justify such an action.
Some people might ask, what does the incident in Somalia have to do with terrorism against the US? The answer is quite simple, it had everything to do with terrorism against the United States. Bin Laden once said in an interview with John Miller of ABC News, on May 28, 1998, “We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage cold wars and unprepared to fight ling wars. This is proven in Beirut when Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than twenty-four hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (qtd. In Lewis 162).” So if nothing else it gives terrorists a beacon of hope and allowed them to think that Americans could not or would not destroy them.
Another prime example of Clinton’s failures was how he handled the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. On August 7, 1998 both embassies were bombed and the lead suspect was Osama Bin Laden. The bombings combined killed more than 200 people (Vick). But what made this reaction different from his others? Not much. President Clinton stated “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes (qtd. in PBS). ” Apparently he did not have very many means at his disposal.
The USS Cole bombing of 2000 off the coast of Aden, Yemen killed 17 sailors as they were refueling. Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of the State, said, “the appropriate steps would be taken if the blast turned out to have been the work of the attackers (qtd. in BBC).” The group responsible was the Al Qaeda group which just happened to be run by Osama Bin Laden. If the plan was to not catch Bin Laden and to let the two men, Al-Badawi and al-Quso, who directly setup the attack, escape from a prison in Yemen, then I suppose the Clinton administration took the “appropriate steps.” Perhaps Mr. Clinton himself would like to explain to those deceased sailor’s families that none of the men involved with the attack were punished.
Whether it is an attack on American soil, such as the World Trade Center attack of 1993, or overseas such as Somalia, the result seems to be the same. The Clinton administration failed to do their job to protect the American people and bring terrorists to justice, thus opening the door for other terrorist attacks, and possibly the most notable one, which occurred on September 11th, 2001. Bill Clinton said during a memorial service for the USS Cole to those responsible, “You will not find safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world (qtd. in Morris).” He must have known who the next president of the United States was going to be, because he obviously did not do it.

And don't worry about any grammar or spelling mistakes but really look at what i am trying to tell you.

Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing to fight terrorism. In fact he encouraged them by making them think that the U.S. is a paper tiger by not vigorously going after them after repeated attacks. A missle fired into an empty tent in the desert and hitting a camel butt got us nowhere.

I feel you, and the democrats as well as the rest of the world are crying because we now have a president that has the balls to take action against terrorists.

I feel you, and the democrats as well as the rest of the world are crying because we now have a president that has the balls to take action against terrorists.

Two things - first off, anyone with an avatar of T.O. dancing in the endzone is an immediate ally of mine - go BIRDS!

Second, I think it's great that we "go after terrorists" however i think that we are going about it in th wrong way. We're thinking that the enemy is going to tremble and surrender. These people are not the french. They are willing to die for their cause and will not surrender. If we go in and start a war, which we did, then do it right. Go in and finish it once and for all. This half baked version of a war is getting people killed, while getting the world ticked off at us.

On a side note - E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!

Some people seem to think Terrorism started under Bush for some reason I wish I could find that Al-Qaeda training video where they are shooting at footage of Clinton. Clinton even passed on a chance to kill OBL because he was to busy with other Monica related stuff and never went through with it.

People wanted to hurt the US long before Bush came to power.

Im sorry but how are we fighting terrorism? Do we have intel where these terrorist cells are? Also is going to Iraq fighting terror where there is no hard evidence to support Iraq's involvment with Al queda.

Originally posted by superdude

I feel you, and the democrats as well as the rest of the world are crying because we now have a president that has the balls to take action against terrorists.

Two things - first off, anyone with an avatar of T.O. dancing in the endzone is an immediate ally of mine - go BIRDS!

Second, I think it's great that we "go after terrorists" however i think that we are going about it in th wrong way. We're thinking that the enemy is going to tremble and surrender. These people are not the french. They are willing to die for their cause and will not surrender. If we go in and start a war, which we did, then do it right. Go in and finish it once and for all. This half baked version of a war is getting people killed, while getting the world ticked off at us.

On a side note - E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!

Yeah i thought the Owens Dance Grooves avatar would be pretty cool. I agree that there is a wrong way and a right way to fight. But one must remember that this is a war like no other we have ever fought, so there are bound to be mistakes. But yes if the terrorists are willing to die then let them die. Remember, "The goal of war is not to die for your country, its to make the other bastard die for his." I think Patton said that but i am not quite sure.

Im sorry but how are we fighting terrorism? Do we have intel where these terrorist cells are? Also is going to Iraq fighting terror where there is no hard evidence to support Iraq's involvment with Al queda.

Valid question.
The answer unfortunately is not so simple. When terrorists struck, they had a vague notion that nothing would really happen, as US policy has usually been to turn the other cheek if no real enemy is seen. in this instance, George W, love him or hate him said to the world, this is where you're hiding, and unless your government gives you up, we will systematically take you out bit by bit.
IMHO.

Originally posted by Kriskaos
Im sorry but how are we fighting terrorism? Do we have intel where these terrorist cells are? Also is going to Iraq fighting terror where there is no hard evidence to support Iraq's involvment with Al queda.

maybe no hard evidence for linking Iraq to Al Qaeda despite the number two man, Al Zarqowi, being in Iraq, but there is hard evidence linking Saddam to Hammas.

Excellent post assuming of course that 9/11 was the evil deed of outside forces.

For those who think its an inside job

Please define "terrorism". If Saddam's Iraq paying the families of 16 year old Palistinians a bounty for strapping explosives to themselves and blowing up innocent people doesn't qualify I don't know what does.
People who hate Bush more than they love common decency (Micheal Moore, half the Democrats) should consider the effect of "No link between Al Quida and Saddam" on the moral of the people who hate free speech, democracy and the west. You are thier useful idiots.

Yeah i thought the Owens Dance Grooves avatar would be pretty cool. I agree that t
here is a wrong way and a right way to fight. But one must remember that this is a war like no other we have ever fought, so there are bound to be mistakes. But yes if the terrorists are willing to die then let them die. Remember, "The goal of war is not to die for your country, its to make the other bastard die for his." I think Patton said that but i am not quite sure.

Very well stated. Glad you came aboard, I see that we will agree on alot of posts.
Yes it was Patton - in fact there is a member who has that statement as his signature.

wow, I had no idea i would find people who think like me on this kind of a message board.

wow, I had no idea i would find people who think like me on this kind of a message board.

Oh yeah, you'll find alot of allies here on ATS, some "enemies" too - but it's all good. See ya around.
Stay cool

I don't agree with the bombing in Somalia, and I do agree that it only excerbated the situation, but to say Clinton attempted to do nothing about terrorism is wrong.

Here is the article looking at the two camps which state either that Clinton did nothing, or Bush has done far too much in the fight against terrorism. I think you'll find that Clinton attempted the same as the PATRIOT Act.

www.terroranalysis.com...

Originally posted by Valhall
I don't agree with the bombing in Somalia, and I do agree that it only excerbated the situation, but to say Clinton attempted to do nothing about terrorism is wrong.

Here is the article looking at the two camps which state either that Clinton did nothing, or Bush has done far too much in the fight against terrorism. I think you'll find that Clinton attempted the same as the PATRIOT Act.

www.terroranalysis.com...

Nice article, I haven't heard of the Clinton patriot act before. He refused to go after the terrorists which meant he did basically nothing.

Isnt Hamas an Islamic Resistence movement. Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah and political organization, regarded by some as a militant organization and by others as a terrorist group.Im not defending them Im just saying that in a country primarily made up of Muslims you will have fanatics. Remeber the days after 9-11 when everyone with a turban or that looked like Osama was looked at with scorn. Im not saying what GW is doing is right. But what has he done so far. How are we safer? Terrorists are like Hydra cut off one part and another grows back.

Nice find Valhall.
Good stuff as always.

Originally posted by Kosmo Yagkoto

Originally posted by Valhall


www.terroranalysis.com...

Nice article, I haven't heard of the Clinton patriot act before. He refused to go after the terrorists which meant he did basically nothing.

Sorry Charlie, but

1. You don't come off as a speed reader to me, so
2. you haven't read the article,
3. I don't like Clinton either, but the facts are the facts, and maybe you just should take a minute to LEARN THEM.

shame shame

Originally posted by Kriskaos
Isnt Hamas an Islamic Resistence movement. Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah and political organization, regarded by some as a militant organization and by others as a terrorist group.Im not defending them Im just saying that in a country primarily made up of Muslims you will have fanatics. Remeber the days after 9-11 when everyone with a turban or that looked like Osama was looked at with scorn. Im not saying what GW is doing is right. But what has he done so far. How are we safer? Terrorists are like Hydra cut off one part and another grows back.

GW is not sitting back and letting the terrorists take their shots on US citizens. Have we been attacked since 9/11? If not I would say we are safer.