Was Clinton distracted by the sex scandal?

abernoff, delay, cunningham, katrina, haliburton, missing billions in Iraq, who blew plames cover, torture of the prisoners, wiretaps, secret prisons, missing wmd's, paying off the journalists, did they lie about IRaq, investigations into 9/11......
those are the things that come to mind that have distracted the present administration throughout their terms in office!!
if the little monica thingy distracted clinton to the point of being ineffective....I shudder to think just what the state in the white house is now!!!

9/11 happened because both parties decided it should happen....for some insane reason known only to a few...

[edit on 11-9-2006 by dawnstar]

...Bush's inability to speak coherently, Cheney's shooting spree and much much more.....

www.cnn.com...

July 30, 1996
Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

HRM!

Furthermore -

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

Sounds like the Republicans of the 90s were soft on terrorism...

The Republicans were not soft on terrorism. What they were was soft on stupid and useless laws.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

www.cnn.com...

The taggant issue was the apotheosis of stupidity.

Putting taggants in explosives would have changed the composition of gun powder and therefore the ballistics of firearms, creating a very dangerous situation for sportsmen and ammunition manufacturers. Eventually, the entire landscape would have been covered in taggants and there would be no way to determine if the taggant was deposited yesterday or a year ago. And last but not least, the measure would have done nothing to stop terrorism.

This proposed measure was the perfect example of the likes of Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, et al., doing their best to negate the Second Amendment in the guise of fighting terrorism.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Putting taggants in explosives would have changed the composition of gun powder and therefore the ballistics of firearms, creating a very dangerous situation for sportsmen and ammunition manufacturers. Eventually, the entire landscape would have been covered in taggants and there would be no way to determine if the taggant was deposited yesterday or a year ago. And last but not least, the measure would have done nothing to stop terrorism.

Clinton was calling for a *study* of taggants and how they *may* aid in the fight against terrorism. A study is far different than blindly enacting a law.

How do you think you'd react if the current administration decided to ressurect this item as a new tool against terrorism? I certainly hope it would be the same basic reaction...

In any case, it's clear to me that Clinton was by no means "distracted by the sex scandal" enough to take his focus away from terrorism. He took terrorism seriously and he DID get results - all those invovled with the various terror attacks under Clinton's administration are either dead or behind bars for life (the first wtc attack, OKC).

It is a rare president who hasn't had any extramarital affairs. The only one in my lifetime (51 years) that hasn't is Ronald Reagan. (Although he did in the early years of his marriage to Nancy; but not as president) Heck even Eisenhower had at least one mistress. I ask you in all honesty, if you were a guy who had become U.S. president, wouldn't most of you think it would be a rush to get a BJ in the Oval Office? I mean come on, perqs of the job, etc. I don't agree with it but it doesn't matter what I think, this is his PERSONAL life for crying out loud. And the reality of it is that each president has done some horrible things and most have actually done some good things as well. It's a mixed bag and no human being is perfect. How do we know that Bill and Hillary don't have some kind of agreement?

But the main point is this: What does having an affair have to do with being a good president? Did the whole sex scandal affect his presidency by distrating him? You bet it did. He also admits that in his autobiography "My Life". I have always thought that when he was initially asked he should have said "None of your business, that's personal." He also admits he wished he had done this, also in his autobiography. The point is that no president has ever had 8 years of presidency without a personal problem that is distracting. All of us have some trauma that occurs over the length of our working lives and it affects our performance at work. Is a President not entitled to at times, be human, make mistakes or be distracted by scandals? Granted Clinton was probably a sleazeball, but he kept us out of war, left us with an enormous surplus in the treasury and made a good impression around the globe.

But the bottom line is this: Bush and Rice, at the very least, probably others such as Rumsfeld, had advanced warning more than once about a plane being used to bring down most likely the WTC. They did absolutely nothing to stop it. And that is why the majority of the blame should be laid at Bush's feet. As any military person can tell you, it happened on his watch, that makes him responsible. Yet has Bush ever owned up to a mistake or ever apologized to the U.S. public for letting this happen? No. As Harry Truman said "The buck stops here."

they knew something was coming at them as far back as the oaklahoma city bombing, they just decided to find ways to take advantage of the event instead of preventing it...

where's our border security by the way???? until I see an actual effort to keep potential terrorists from just walking across our borders, they haven't done squat outside of take away citizens rights and liberties and make life a hassle for them.
and of course, spend a small fortune of money they don't have.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Points for you..
But to be completely honest.. When did the ' supposid ' hijackers enter the US..
Whom was in charge?
Whom was in charge when a report was given stating the THREAT of osama using planes as missles?
WHO WAS IN CHARGE in the immediate minutes after the attack.. when our planes sat on the ground.. when our buildings were still vulnerable...

But you are correct.. because these guys banded together in afhgan, and plotted a terror attack... 10years later.... we should of hit them then. Problem was.. the terrorist threat.. in THAT DAY.. was coming from Yousef... and internal home grown menaces..

The actual day that Atta and his crew crossed into the US doesn't matter. Look at al Qaeda's presence in the US in general; they were here early enough to plot and carry out WTC-1993. Here are some of their activities pre 9/11:

Plots linked to al-Qaeda that were disrupted or prevented include: a 2001 attempt by Richard Reid to explode a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight; a 1999 plot to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport; a 1995 plan to blow up 12 transpacific flights of U.S. commercial airliners; a 1995 plan to kill President Bill Clinton on a visit to the Philippines; and a 1994 plot to kill Pope John Paul II during a visit to Manila.

AQ

They didn't all result in attacks on US soil, true, but they were here then, and have been for a long time.

Regardless, to place blame on one prez and not the other is wrong. But under Clinton, terrorism was a law-enforcement issue. And Jamie Gorelick did more damage to our intel orgs than she will ever know or admit.

Several people have pointed to the fact that many other politicians have had extramarital affairs, as if that should justify Clinton's actions. That's wrong on so many levels that I won't even go into it.

As far as his dedication to fighting terrorism, well I tend to believe Lt. Col. Robert Patterson who carried the nuclear football for Clinton. He cites numerous times when Clinton was unreachable to give the order to launch a strike at bin Laden. One such time, he was watching a golf match and didn't return the phone call for over an hour, by which time the window of opportunity had closed.

Yes, but is it a shame Clinton's probably more popular in the US and certainly more popular around the world lately, than you know who.

Dallas