Bill clinton and Bill Gates

[dinoman]

An email I received..(one that was meant for me)..down with spam!

95 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224
and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured
39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people in
New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be Alive today.

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting
stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy.
One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars
to charity.
The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why is it that the
Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the
past eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to
recall anything about past events while under oath!
Incredible!

[smirc]

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people in
New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be Alive today.

Or maybe thousands more people would be dead after Clinton's "hunting and punishing" sparked a major military event? That's the thing about wars - they tend to get people killed.

[hot_ice]

Or maybe thousands more people would be dead after Clinton's "hunting and punishing" sparked a major military event?

Yes, could have, but something had to be done. They couldn't simply live with the fact that every now and then they were gonna get attacked by terrorists. The people who were behind this had to be punished - this sort of thing cannot be left alone. Bush has done something about it and hopefully it will reduce the amount of terrorism - I think it will.

Greg

[smirc]

I never said do nothing. I simply said that Clinton's hesitancy to go in guns blazing could have been a good thing =).

[hot_ice]

I simply said that Clinton's hesitancy to go in guns blazing could have been a good thing

But surely due to recent events in September you could come to a conclusion that Clinton could have done more. What Bush done now may have prevented what happened. Well, that's just my opinion.

Greg

[Pooh-Bear]

Something should´ve been done a long time before that. You can´t build a x*1000 man terrorist army in 5 or 6 years.

[8*B@LL]

bush wouldnt have done anything back then either...no president would. at the time, the country as a whole only cared about the terrorist attacks for, what? a few weeks each? a month at most?

the problem here is of scale. the country forgets quickly when "some crazy guy blew up something nowhere near the continental US", but when it came home and killed not 7 thousand, but somewhere closer to 2, the people would not forget because it directly effected how safe they felt just doing their normal things. blowing up a building halfway arround the world just does not scare people that much, blowing up a few on our "home terf" does.

anyway, a few years ago the politics would not have suported any kind of long-term search/military action.