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... show more 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.

Point:

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.



Sources:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-

2006/osama_bin_missing_whos_tried_hard...

http://www.nytime
Update: 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... show more 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
Update 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003653990_feith06.html
Update 3: 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.
Update 4: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/osama_bin_missing_whos_tried_hardest_to.html

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.
7 answers 7