Clinton was in office for two months when the WTC was first bombed.

[ieffinhatecardio]

It's interesting that many people blame Clinton for the World Trade Center bombings on February 26, 1993 which took place after he'd been in office for less than two months. Yet these same people use the excuse that Bush 43 was not to blame for 9/11 because he was only in office for a little more than 8 months when 9/11 happened. I'm not defending Clinton because I believe many of his actions and policies re: the intelligence community and the military are not defensible. I'm simply pointing out the obvious contradiction.

It would be fair to say that Clinton's policies played a role in 9/11 of course but then it would also be fair to say that Bush 41's policies played an even larger role in the WTC bombings of 2/26/93. Of course that point isn't often made. 

[kh300]

clinton was not responsible for the first bombing, anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.. but why afterwards didnt he do anything? after he had bin ladin captured, did he go free?

nobody was responsible for 911 either.. but clinton was responsible for basically making our inteligence and our cia worthless..

today it will be 100x's harder for a group of people to plot out and execute another 911.. why after the second time our country was attacked did we finally do something?

[ieffinhatecardio]

clinton was not responsible for the first bombing, anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.. but why afterwards didnt he do anything? after he had bin ladin captured, did he go free?

nobody was responsible for 911 either.. but clinton was responsible for basically making our inteligence and our cia worthless..

today it will be 100x's harder for a group of people to plot out and execute another 911.. why after the second time our country was attacked did we finally do something?

I'd actually go a little further and say that Clinton played a role in 9/11. I'm not saying he actively contributed to the attack but his desecration of our intelligence and military capabilities played a large role in al Qaeda's ability to pull off such an attack.

I also believe that this war that we're currently in will foster deeper hatred for us and that will eventually lead to more attacks.

[Al Doggity]

There were no procedural obstacles standing in the way of preventing the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were carried out due to human error.

The second part of your statement is true, however.

[ieffinhatecardio]

There were no procedural obstacles standing in the way of preventing the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were carried out due to human error.

The second part of your statement is true, however.

I don't think it was a matter of procedure, rather a matter of manpower. If I'm not mistaken Clinton cut Intelligence personnel and put in place people that weren't qualified to do the job.

[CQ]

I also believe that this war that we're currently in will foster deeper hatred for us and that will eventually lead to more attacks.

I firmly agree, and also think the hatred is not only being fostered in the middle east but in other parts of the world as well due to some aspects of the new foreign polices imposed upon some of the rest of the world. The Caribbean has been impacted greatly, and we had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I firmly agree, and also think the hatred is not only being fostered in the middle east but in other parts of the world as well due to some aspects of the new foreign polices imposed upon some of the rest of the world. The Caribbean has been impacted greatly, and we had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

How has the Caribbean been impacted negatively?

[Al Doggity]

I don't think it was a matter of procedure, rather a matter of manpower. If I'm not mistaken Clinton cut Intelligence personnel and put in place people that weren't qualified to do the job.

You have to keep in mind that Clinton was still dealing with bloat from the Reagan years. I won't go into whether or not it was warranted then, but the military and intelligence cuts that took place during the Clinton years were necessary and were preceded by similar cuts during the first Bush's presidency.

[kh300]

hey lets not forget.. it wasnt bush or clinton that drove the planes into the wtc's.. it was that guy bin ladin and his group of terrorists.. nobody is to blame but them

[headhuntersix]

You have to keep in mind that Clinton was still dealing with bloat from the Reagan years. I won't go into whether or not it was warranted then, but the military and intelligence cuts that took place during the Clinton years were necessary and were preceded by similar cuts during the first Bush's presidency.

Reagan Bloat...what bloat. Bush senior made cuts..Clinton went wayyyyyyyyyyyy to far. Yes we had to make some cutys due to the Cold War ending, however a far sighted foreign policy, instituted by Clinton, should have seen the threats coming. I blame Clinton alot for 911, I blame him for some of the issues in Iraq. Alot of people screwed up badly

[Al Doggity]

Reagan Bloat...what bloat. Bush senior made cuts..Clinton went wayyyyyyyyyyyy to far.

If I had more time, I'd post from something a little more official, but this is good enough for now.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18585

This link (a conservative blog, by the way) says that the defense budget for Bush 1's final year was $273 billion. During Clinton's final year it was $288 billion. During the Clinton years, the lowest budget was $244 b. Even factoring in inflation, when you take into account Reagan-era bloat, that's not really so bad.


Here's something else:

In 1994, troops were sent to Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Clinton asked for a Defense increase of just $2.8 billion but Congress approved a decrease of $17.1 billion. The shrinking budget caused sharp reductions at the Pentagon.

Wasn't a Repub congress swept into office at that time? Didn't the contract with America promise to reign in Gov't spending.

[Hedgehog]

clinton was not responsible for the first bombing, anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.. but why afterwards didnt he do anything? after he had bin ladin captured, did he go free?

nobody was responsible for 911 either.. but clinton was responsible for basically making our inteligence and our cia worthless..

today it will be 100x's harder for a group of people to plot out and execute another 911.. why after the second time our country was attacked did we finally do something?

Sure, the level of security is higher.

But it seems to me that the Bush administration has managed to fuel the anti-Americanism more than anything, giving the terrorists plenty of arguments for their bullshit causes.

Why are the terrorists able to recruit?

Because people are evil?

Obviously not. But because there is distrust between the Western World and the Arabic world.

If the current situation in Iraq results in USA leeching oil from Iraq, it can result in catastrophy.

And it will definitely be a big incitement for poor Iraqi's to become terrorists.

[Decker]

clinton was not responsible for the first bombing, anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.. but why afterwards didnt he do anything? after he had bin ladin captured, did he go free?

nobody was responsible for 911 either.. but clinton was responsible for basically making our inteligence and our cia worthless..

today it will be 100x's harder for a group of people to plot out and execute another 911.. why after the second time our country was attacked did we finally do something?

You no doubt refer to the Sudanese offering OBL up on a platter to Clinton who turned it down inexplicably.

That is a nice Fox News talking point but it didn't happen that way.  The man that's the source of that bullshit is MANSOOR IJAZ--a con man expecting the Clinton administration to lift sanctions against the Sudan so that he could pursue business interests there.  Even the 9/11 Commission came to that conclusion.  http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf