It is well known that Clinton had a lot of info about Bin Laden including strategy and suggestions for how to deal with him and presented a report on it in a turnover briefing. But I find it odd that people would suggest Bush impliment a plan from Clinton IMMEDIATELY to solve a problem that Clinton did little more than study for 7 years.
And lets please not forget - before 9/11 we were not at war with Afghanistan. It *IS* an overt act of war to start firing missiles in other countries. Thats not an action to be taken lightly. A year or so of settling in to his job as president and conducting his own study would not have been unreasonable. Considering Kennedy's mistake with the Bay of Pigs, it would be quite prudent.
Bush was too busy on vacation, remember? It is a fact that he spent less time in teh White house, and less time working while in the White house, than any other recent president, pre-9-11
russ, what a surprise to see you answer here.
You are forgetting however that Clinton took a couple of shots at Bin Laden with Cruise missiles. Unfortunately he missed. It would seem that Clinton had bad aim in more than one way. Oh god I'm cracking myself up again.
Yup, and then they were quibbling about whether the Pentagon or CIA should run the show; right up to 9/11.
Clinton took some shots, but AFAIK, they were shots at nothing in particular designed to look like he was taking action without actually taking action. I have never heard that he actually tried to take out Osama.
And why are you surprised? Its a pretty important topic and a reasonable discussion - I actually prefer high level discussion to the other kind. Its not as entertaining, but its much more intellectually stimulating.
Hmmmm. I remember hearing this long before Osama was a household name, but I can't be sure exactly what I heard or from whom. I may do a little homework out of curiosity.
Actually I intended this as humorous sarcasm. I would have been shocked not to see your name pop up.
Let's not forget that Clinton blew up a medicinal factory in Sudan while conducting his own war on terrorism. Idiotic bombing of civilisn isn't only a Republican hobby.
Didn't bush ignore the intelligence gathered during the 8 years of Clinton's pres'n'sy? If so, does it matter? Obviously it does not matter NOW, but Osama's still out there, bombing our allies. Anybody care about that?
"Do both the Clinton and the Bush administrations share the blame for not taking earlier action against al Qaeda? [Quoted from another web page].
and some more stuff I was reading:
I only read the USA Today link, but judging from that link, would you suggest no? I find it very telling (not about you, about the media in general) that that timeline doesn't list the Al Qaeda attacks that occurred during Clinton's term. I think a blown up embasssy (or two...) and a car bomb in the WTC qualifies as a "sign of possible terrorism." Then there were the foiled attacks such as the Y2K party planned for Seattle...
What a terrible timeline.
edit: read a couple more and now I'm not sure of your position. But that first one is still pretty awful.
Honestly I was taking no position with this post; other than to open up the possibility that both administrations could have done much better. I had intended to post links for both sides of the argument.
I don't think Bush intends to fight terrorism in any case, but use it to dictate the deconstruction of the New Deal and the formerly progressive economy.
Separate names with a comma.