Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lookout123
the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.
|
That's not accurately expressed. Clinton viewed terrorism as a major threat. bin Laden had not been clearly identified as a threat until the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton would not put feet on the ground (to invade) because we did not have the smoking gun. But he did everything else he could to attack those who threatened Americans. That included driving bin Laden out of Sudan AND responding to every 'real' threat. 'Real' as in the threat truly exists as opposed to any silly little rumor that causes another orange alert (that was until Tom Ridge finally stopped issuing orange alerts and Ashcroft got mad).
Clinton had no authority to make war. That authority only existed when a smoking gun existed - 11 September. So who does George Jr attack? Saddam. George Jr lets bin Laden go free. What kind of war is that? One fought for reason of ideology rather than reasons operational. Not one single American battalion was ever sent to get bin Laden. We should be talking about impeachment here for dereliction of duty. Or do we excuse him only because they did not tell him to attack the right nation?
Remember what George Jr said to Richard Clarke. He wanted Saddam blamed for the WTC attack. Ideology is more important that reality. He let bin Laden go free. He did not even attack the real American enemy. At least Clinton took every effort to attack when he could. But then we are talking about a president who could make decisions.