Better Presidential Policy for War On Terrorism- Clinton or Bush 43?
After reading please reply with an objective answer, along with sources. I'd like to have a serious discussion about this. I provide sources for everything said, and don't want this to devolve into a bunch of name calling or talking point based feedback. Lets all try and learn something we didn't know.
After the WTC attack in 1993, a month into his first term Bill Clinton didn't declare war. Several of the men who planned or took part in the bombing were members of what in the future would be known as Al Qaeda, but at the time of the attacks Bin Laden was still known as an anti-soviet hero in the west, and Al Qaeda was virtually an unknown in the international intelligence community. It wasn't until 1997 that they were blamed for the first WTC attack. In between that time and the eight years Clinton was in office there were no attacks on U.S. soil, and the only other terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens or soldiers were overseas at 2 African embassy's in 1998 (In these attacks 223 people were killed, and an estimated 4085 injured), and the USS Cole bombing (where 17 sailors were killed.) It should be noted that after the embassy and Cole bombings Clinton attempted to put forces together to overthrown the Taliban, but could not gain confirmation from the CIA or FBI that Al Qaeda was officially behind the attacks despite his insistence he wanted to retaliate. He also missed Bin Laden by "hours" when a strategic missile strike was launched when it was believed they knew his whereabouts. These were dismissed at the time as trying to distract attention from the Lewinsky sex scandal.
8 years later and 8 months into President Bush's first term, the 9-11 attacks occurred. After the successful invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban; instead of securing a stable Afghanistan President Bush and the administration made claims about Iraq's WMD's, their intent to threaten us or our neighbors, linked Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda, and used a State of the Union address to say he didn't want evidence of Saddam's threat to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. All of these accusations have now been proven false, and several top officials in the CIA have accused the administration of "cherry picking" the intelligence to support there cause for war. As currently stands, Iraq is now a haven for terrorist activity, and Afghanistan is now falling back into the hands of the Taliban, with entire areas of the country now unsafe for coalition forces to even travel. Democratically elected terrorist groups now head the governments of Palestine and Lebanon. 4700 U.S. soldiers are dead and over 32,500 are wounded. Just the REPORTED Iraqi death tolls are between 87 and 95,000.(When adjusted for population to compare if it was happening in the U.S, that would be equal to just under 1 million reported American civilian casualties) The monetary cost? 600Billion to 4 trillion.
The Bush administration and Neo-con's aggressive policy's after the original fall of the Taliban have resulted in 4,700 U.S. deaths and 32,500 wounded and 87-95,000 reported Iraqi casualties, 600,000,000,000 to 4 trillion in debt, the rise of the terrorist breeding conditions known as poverty, hatred, and religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world; democratically elected terrorist organizations in two major and strategic regions of the Middle East, stretched our military thin in case another catastrophe or conflict arose, and after alllll of that the organization responsible for the 9-11 attacks is just as strong and connected as they were before 9-11.
Clintons cautious, measured, intelligence based approach saw 240 killed (U.S. soldier and international-U.S civilian combined) and 4085 wounded. In that same 7 year time span as Bush had from 2001 till today, we were never attacked.
When Bush supporters search for something to salvage from these past 8 years they often tend to fall back on the fact we haven't had a U.S. attack since 9-11. It's not because of his policies, but because of the time frame. Major attacks take major coordination. Bin Laden waited 8 years between such attacks. With the heightened security since the collapse of the Twin Towers and the loss of 3000 Americans it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they are laying low until another strike on the U.S. His policy's have only weakened the U.S. military, economy, constitution, and the freedoms our enemies are hoping to abolish with their actions. Clinton did what Neo-cons like to call "nothing." a.k.a.not shooting first and asking questions later. His "nothing" was a lot safer, smarter, cheaper, and by neo-cons OWN STANDARD-just as effective at keeping us safe.
Note: Ignore the "Osama Been missing" source link, it was an undeleted and un-used link I had disregarded when putting this question together. I didnt take any of this from bias or slanted sources, and also made sure to not use anything from liberal or conservative think tanks. As soon as those come into play i feel the question and statement itself lose all credibility before you even address what I asked
Roll the Dice-
I never asked about or stated McCain OR Obama would prevent another attack..now THAT would be naive. Please just answer the question did ask with reputable sources to why you believe I am incorrect.
There you go, the factcheck.orf link wasn't working cause yahoo cut it in half, which put that "Osama bin missing" lookin link as a source in my original post, making me think it was from some slanted blog site.
- 1 decade agoFavourite answer
its 12:52am, and i am studying for one of my classes, so I have not read your entire thesis just skimmed it.
but yes its correct Clinton took a savvy and methodical approach to fighting terrorism, bush used the attacks on 9/11 for an excuse to invade other countries that he personally doesnt like, lets not kid ourselves saddam was a bad guy but there are dozens like him leading nations across the world and we cant and should not be the ones to liberate them- look at castro, sudanese president, iran, etc
bottom line the war on terror cannot be fought militarily and we cant continue having such an incredible amount of collateral damage, because this creates terrorists exponentially in numbers. imagine your family and baby was blown up by another nation, i am sure you would become a terrorist to avenge your family.
clinton fought the war on terror more effectively by primarily using the CIA and other intelligence agencies, this bush took the opposite approach and it using the military for intelligence operations.
the approach bush and the repubs are taking just embolden them and increase there recruitment. The only way to win a terrorist movement is by having the moral highground and start reconciliation with the moderates and bring them into our fold similar to what we are doing in iraq right now with some Shiite militias being integrated in government
very complicated issue with not enough space in y answers. its late. but i want to make my point clear, instead of using the military and risking thousands of lives its better to let the intelligence agencies do their jobs and kill the terrorists covertly with minimal loss of life to American soldiers
a lot of it has to do with america's reputation abroad, if people abroad hate america they are more likely to support and harbor terrorists like they are doing under the bush admin, while clinton was in office we are loved overseas and the international community was working with us instead of working against us and impeding progress which is what we are seeing today under bush. best thing you can do to change this is vote obama- he is the lesser of two evils and will make this country safer and increase our image abroad
EDIT: forgot to had thats how we won the Cold War- by using our intelligence agencies- we didnt launch hundreds of thousands of troops we used the a few thousand staff in the CIA to win the war. if the cia is too small the the gov can recruit more similar to the Cold war when they had the OSS then went on to form the CIA
- SandraLv 45 years ago
Clinton paid down the national debt by more than half. He also provided a surplus for the federal government for the first time since the Nixon Administration. He balanced the budget consistently throughout his Presidency. He had the dollar strong and the stock markets buzzing. He also kept consumer confidence high, interest rates low while at the same time keeping inflation in check, and the unemployment rate was low. Bush immediately spent every dime of the surplus by creating a tax break. Then he spent wildly on defense and two wars that he still has not budgeted for. He refuse to balance the budget. His overspending has created a weak dollar and a volatile market with international markets having a great deal more control over the US markets. He has also authorized some the largest trade deficit in history. Quite frankly, Bush has never had to live off of a budget because mommy and daddy always handed him everything. His economic idea was build and economy built solely on consumer confidence and spending without doing anything to maintain that confidence. It was a false bottom which the American people are going to have to pay for in the next 10 years.
- 1 decade ago
I Could not disagree with you more. I site your own facts as details. Bin Laden could care less about waiting 8 years between attacks. If McCain's elected, there will definitely be no terrorist attack of any size here in the states in '09. Clinton's policies of working with the UN to send strongly worded letters to countries who financed the Taliban/ Al-Qaeda surprisingly did not work. They sent us back a much stronger message on 9/11. Do you actually believe they won't hit us, or will think of us in a better light if the Democrats are in the White House? Very naive on your part.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The GOP stopped Clinton from conducting further cruise missile attacks on Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.
Republicans claimed the attacks were a smoke screen for Bill and Monica's LAWFUL relations.
The fault of 9/11 falls squarely on the GOP.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- wyldfyrLv 71 decade ago
Clinton was the most proactive President as far as anti terrorist actions are concerned. He proposed strict anti terrorism legislation that, among other things, would tighten security at airports. Republicans defeated it as too costly. When Clinton proposed attacking AlQuaeda Republicans stated he was "wagging the dog" trying to divert attention from the weighty issue of a stained dress. Clinton provided Bush plenty of intelligence on AlQuaeda. Bush ignored it and went on vacation. Even when Bush was provided with intelligence from his own sources that Al Quaeda was planning an attack on our soil he ignored it. All Bush's actions were reactions after his failure.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
your question is too long.. But I have to say that Clinton didnt lie about Weapons of Mass Destructions which led to our troops' death.
- 1 decade ago
nice info =D