There have been those who would say that Bush has handled terrorism the same way any president would have. Many have proported that Gore would have gone into Afganistan the same way, and that Bush was doing what any intelligent president would have done. If only that were true. Below is a list of terrorist attacks that happened under the beloved President Clinton, and his responses to such attacks. (My list is taken from an article called How 9/11 Happened, by Ann Coulter.)
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds. Clinton did nothing.
In October 1993, eighteen American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The corpse of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered. Clinton responded by ordering our troops home. Osama bin Ladin later told ABC News, "The youth...realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows, ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and thirty wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil. Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq, hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane. Clinton did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On August 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing.
Here's the best part...
On August 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury. Clinton responded by bombing Afganistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory. (And you thought Wag the Dog was a fictional movie.)
On December 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day. Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999--when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Muslim fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship the USS Cole was attacked by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing.
There you have it folks--proof positive that George Bush is a bigger man than the last two presidents (yes, including his father). He even stuck to his guns more than Reagan did in the Middle East. He's a man of his word. If he vowed to the victims of 9/11 that this would never happen again, he made sure of that on the best intelligence he had at the time. Even the Clintons and our dear Kerry were with him on invading Iraq. So, I'm just not sure what all the whining is about. The democrats supported this war. It's war...it's not pretty. And he's the only president in recent history who had the guts to stand up to terrorism, as you can see from the evidence above.
Posted by Portia at October 27, 2004 08:17 AMEm, You gotta remember, with the USS Cole, it wasn't just any Muslim Fanatics, it was Al Qaeda. I saw the video that bin Laden released claiming responsibility for the attack. Even worse, Clinton and Albright's excuse was "We didn't know who was responsible. We didn't know who to hit back." what a load of Bullchit.
And with the '93 attacks on the WTC, Clinton sent over two cruise missiles somewhere into Afghanistan. I remember my friends talking about that a few years ago, right after 9/11.
I'm getting sick and tired of all these "War is not the answer" bumper stickers. Alright Trebek, if war is not the answer, Please, tell us the question.
Posted by: Peter at October 27, 2004 12:46 PM[There have been those who would say that Bush has handled terrorism the same way any president would have.]
I don't know if that's at all referring to what I wrote in Todd's blog, but at any rate, I think the issue is all about what exactly Bush responded to. While all of those events you listed, Emily, were obviously important, none were like 9/11. 9/11 was a whole different ballgame. That's why I don't buy the " he's the only president in recent history who had the guts to stand up to terrorism" line. You can't compare 9/11 to past terrorism acts like those that happened when Clinton was President. I'm by no means saying Clinton acted rightly in every/any of those situations, but comparing all of them to 9/11, and thus comparing Clinton's responses to Bush's response, doesn't work.
[He's a man of his word. If he vowed to the victims of 9/11 that this would never happen again, he made sure of that on the best intelligence he had at the time. Even the Clintons and our dear Kerry were with him on invading Iraq. So, I'm just not sure what all the whining is about. The democrats supported this war. It's war...it's not pretty.]
For this, I hope you read my post on Todd's blog! And comment on it, if you have the time! That would be excellent.
Posted by: Henry at October 27, 2004 03:35 PMShe's not comparing any of them, she's showing how 9/11 happened because of past indifferences. Apparently Kerry isn't the only one who thought of terrorism as a "nuisance". That's exactly what they were to Clinton.
You're right when you say those can't be compared to 9/11, but what this shows is that because we didn't do anything in the past, because we just let them do whatever they wanted to, they were able to commit 9/11. I would have to chide my sister for comparing those to 9/11. That's a rookie mistake, lol.
Posted by: Peter at October 28, 2004 08:43 AMjust found this...had to post it somewhere:
Quote Of The Day
Dennis Miller to John Kerry: “John, while we really appreciate your service to our country in Vietnam, I’ve never seen a boat ride milked this much since Gilligan.â€
