does anyone think clinton is partially to blame for 9/11?

kobayashi · 11-30-2001, 03:40 PM

How Clinton set the scene for 9/11

Dick Morris
New York Post
When terrorists controlled by Osama bin Laden exploded a bomb in the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and injuring 650 others, Bill Clinton, then U.S. president, did not visit the site of the attack. In a radio address the next day, he expressed his grief and outrage and four days later visited New Jersey, where he sent a message to New Yorkers saluting our courage. Other than that, he remained aloof and uninvolved.

The attack occurred in the second month of Mr. Clinton's presidency. Issues such as gays in the military, the recession and withdrawing U.S. troops from Somalia loomed larger. Mr. Clinton deliberately remained removed from the attack, perhaps in the hope he would not be blamed so early in his presidency.

Where George W. Bush insisted, from the outset, that the Trade Center attack that took place on his watch was a declaration of war by foreign terrorists against the United States, Mr. Clinton treated the attack as a criminal justice situation not unlike the subsequent bombing of the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. But while he connected emotionally with victims in Oklahoma, he had nothing to do with them in 1993.

His failure to mobilize the United States to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack had dire consequences and led directly to the 2001 disaster. Two years after the 1993 attack, Sudan, sick of sheltering bin Laden, offered to turn him over to the United States for prosecution. But, without the president breathing down their neck, investigators had not yet discovered bin Laden was behind the 1993 attack. The United States, claiming it lacked evidence to proceed, refused Sudan's offer and suggested he be turned over to the Saudis instead. This was disingenuous. Americans knew full well the Saudi Arabian kingdom could not afford politically to prosecute its homegrown terrorist.

Mr. Clinton was distant where the war on terror was concerned. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, has revealed he never had a private personal meeting with Mr. Clinton during the first two years of his tenure as head of the CIA -- exactly the key period in investigating the 1993 attack.

I had a good illustration of Mr. Clinton's remoteness from terrorist issues in 1996, when Dick Holbrooke, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, called me, several months after the terrorist attack on U.S. barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Holbrooke, who told me he had never spoken with Mr. Clinton directly during the months he was negotiating the Dayton peace accords in Bosnia, asked that I get hold of the president to pass along a message. He said he had information the terrorists were planning another attack in Riyadh and that U.S. troops were highly vulnerable.

"They are stuck in the same buildings the terrorists attacked last time," Mr. Holbrook told me. "All that has changed is that there are more formidable concrete barriers against car bombs. But a bigger bomb would be just as lethal. They need to be dispersed and camped in the desert in tents with a secured perimeter," he warned.

I passed along Mr. Holbrooke's message. Mr. Clinton had no idea the troops were still in the barracks, and said he had ordered them dispersed to the desert six weeks before. "I've got a meeting with the Joint Chiefs in the morning," the president said, "I'll raise Hell with them."

Shockingly, he was so little involved in protecting his troops -- already the object of a terrorist attack -- that he had no idea his order had not been executed until I happened to call.

Mr. Clinton was a one-thing-at-a-time president. Capable of intense focus on the issue du jour, he neglected all back-burner concerns. And terror was always on the back burner.

Throughout the first part of his second term, Mr. Clinton was battling to save his presidency and had neither the time nor the mental energy to immerse himself in a war against terror. Blame him for the perjury that caused impeachment. Blame the GOP for pursuing him. Blame whoever you want, but the United States was without a president from January, 1998, until April, 1999.

Thereafter, his administration was devoted to electing Hillary to the Senate and, to a lesser extent, to making Al Gore president. Again, terrorism was not the priority. It never was. Now it is.

Dick Morris was Bill Clinton's chief political strategist and is president of vote.com.
---------------------------------------------
this was an article which appeared in the november 30th national post(1 of 2 canadian national dailies) though it appears to have original been from the ny post.
i find the article quite interesting though i don't know much of clinton's apparent detached approach to the '93 wtc attack.
one intriguing point which is not mentioned in the note at the end is that dick morris' www.vote.com recently entered into an agreement with the national post to hold twice weekly polls via www.nationalpost.com , no doubt leading to his appearance in the post.

------------------
bottom line: U2 rules.

Zoo Schabow · 11-30-2001, 04:04 PM

I don't think you can put the blame on anyone except the people that carried out the act. I believe Clinton had the best intentions for our country and to put such a label on him is ignorant.(not saying you're ignorant kobayashi)

------------------
"And I can feel the cold steel. And I can make a wound that won't heal."- Bono

rougerum · 11-30-2001, 04:24 PM

Dick Morris is definately one of the few men in politics I trust. When he talks about anything, he never favors one side, he talks about both sides and what each side should do to better themselves, thus he is basically in between it all. And this is no exception, he was an advisor to Clinton and generally responded favorly to what he did his first term in office but he just didn't like what he did with his second term.

~rougerum

[This message has been edited by rougerum (edited 11-30-2001).]

sulawesigirl4 · 11-30-2001, 04:29 PM

Fascinating article. But the thought had already occurred to me. Not so much to "blame" Clinton, but I do think that his handling of situations during his presidency have contributed to the current crisis. Interesting...thanks for posting it.

bonofnattic · 11-30-2001, 07:06 PM

Of course Clinton was not directly responsible for what happened. Hindsight is always 20/20. From what I've heard, there were amazing lapses in national security during his Presidency, though. I've not been a Clinton fan since he pushed for partial-birth abortions so my opinion is tainted, but I'm not gonna offend anyone here by expressing my pro-life views. Anyway, I'm just glad that my former governor is now the former President.

theSoulfulMofo · 11-30-2001, 11:43 PM

Actually, I'd throw my vote in for Bush, Sr.

It's ironic-- Bush, Sr. was the one who moved troops into Muslim holy land during the Gulf War, wasn't he?.. which got the religious fanatic Bin Laden angry, that he struck back in the 1993 WTC bombing, and then 9/11... after Bush, Jr. became the President...

--SoufulMofo, the Devil's Advocate

[This message has been edited by theSoulfulMofo (edited 11-30-2001).]

Matthew_Page2000 · 12-01-2001, 01:05 AM

Ah, yes. Dick Morris wrote this. The same Dick Morris who was hired and fired several times by Clinton over the years and has expressed his personal enmity for Clinton on numerous occasions. The same Dick Morris who caused a scandal when it was revealed that he told a prostitute he was having sex with about the inner workings at the White House. The same Dick Morris who worked for Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas, was fired by Clinton and then decided he was a conservative and started working for Republicans, which was just before he decided he was a liberal again. The same Dick Morris that Clinton loved and Arkansas Republicans called the anti-christ before he started working for them. The same Dick Morris that Arkansas Republicans loved and revered and Clinton hated after Clinton fired him the first time. The same Dick Morris whose skirt chasing made Clinton look like an amateur. The same Dick Morris who is legendary for his sleaziness and moral "flexibility." The same Dick Morris who encouraged Clinton to take a public opinion poll before taking any action on any issue while he was president.
I'm not and never have been an admirer of Bill Clinton's. I've always thought that he was a Republican disguised as a Democrat but this is too much. To seriously consider the word of a sleazeball with a grudge like Dick Morris is unacceptable. It is particularly telling that this editorial was printed in a tabloid, heck, a gossip rag like the NY Post. U2 fans might recall the Post as the tabloid that pilloried U2 for not being patriotic and for skipping out on the NY benefit show last month. Remember the "shut up and sing Bono" review that was all over Interference a month ago?

Geez.
MAP

p.s.- for what it is worth the CIA and FBI blame what happened on a decline in intelligence spending and research that began under Carter and continued under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Neither George W, nor Al Gore made terrorism or intelligence spending an issue in their campaign. Everyone deserves a share of the blame for what happened and it's more than a little appalling that Dick Morris is using 9/11 as an opportunity to take cheap political shots at old enemies.

rougerum · 12-01-2001, 08:17 AM

Matt,

You know how it is weird that instead of talking about what was said you instead attacked the man personally. Only in the PS did you directly talk about the issue but you still don't say what Dick Morris said was wrong in any way. Even though I agree there was others to blame for this as well I still think for what Morris spoke about is indeed true.

~rougerum

Lilly · 12-01-2001, 01:13 PM

blame is a big word to be using here.
just because bill didn't respond didn't mean he didn't care. i guess the most important idea here is that hindsight is 20/20. nothing is to blame for what happened on Sept. 11th.

------------------
Go lightly down your darkened way.

madonna's child · 12-02-2001, 10:21 AM

no, i don't blame clinton for 9/11. i think it would have been a mistake had he responded to the first WTC bombing and the embassy bombings they way we responded to 9/11. not as many people died (though i do admit any death is a tragedy) but had we shown too much force we might have alienated the muslim community. i think clinton took as much action as he had a right to take without offending anyone. remember, it's all politics.

had clinton still been president during 9/11, i think he would have done what bush has done. and i agree with theSoulfulMofo if you want to place blame george bush sr. deserves it just as much as clinton, bin laden was very much in power during his presidency, too.

it's too late to place blame, but if i wanted to, i'd point my finger at the FBI and CIA.

------------------
"Revolution starts at home, in your heart, in your refusal to compromise your beliefs and your values." - Bono

"And I wear gray underwear." -Bono

Love,
Emily

Visit my webpage for U2 wallpapers:
www.geocities.com/springtime5348/index.html

You hurt yourself, you hurt your lover, then you discover what you thought was freedom is just greed...

Anthony · 12-03-2001, 07:58 PM

No, I don't blame Clinton for the 9/11 horrors. In fact, I miss President Clinton, I had plenty of respect for him, and, as much as I dislike Al Gore, I still wanted the Democrats to win, mainly because I don't much like the Republicans.

Ant.

Lemonite · 12-03-2001, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoo Schabow:
I don't think you can put the blame on anyone except the people that carried out the act. I believe Clinton had the best intentions for our country and to put such a label on him is ignorant.(not saying you're ignorant kobayashi)

I'm not so sure it's an ignorant label because .. and I don't have the exact articles to reference it, but just on opinion, and not only mine, In his final days.. as he was searching for some sort of legacy he could 'leave behind' after the impeachment.. He really pushed this 'peace process' in the middle east.. where he really had no, or very little business pushing with the force he did... Arafat played him for a fool.. a little bit back, Arafat could have had practically all of Israel, yet he turned it down.. Clinton was out of his league and he did inflame more hatred towards America by his excessive meddling...

Lemonite · 12-03-2001, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madonna's child:

had clinton still been president during 9/11, i think he would have done what bush has done. and i agree with theSoulfulMofo

I'm not so sure I completely agree with this.. Remember, this war is being run by Chaney.. RUmsfeld.. and Powell, Quite possibly the three smartest men in the world on war and strategy... Honestly.. Can you imagine Madeline Albright giving the speeches that powell is giving, with the force, with the respect, and with the power.. I mean.. she was booed at Ohio State for god's sake.. Clinton's advisors were very good, but in the frame of war, I don't think there's anyone else that could/would be able to handle this as well as the current people in charge...

wolfwill23 · 12-05-2001, 09:28 PM

An e-mail I received.

If a promise had been kept, 6,000 would be alive.

I'm sure this will be galling to some ... But it proves the old Army assumption that it's always best to do something, rather than nothing, even if it's the wrong decision.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 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 3 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 would be alive today.

Pretty interesting stuff.

U2Bama · 12-05-2001, 11:01 PM

At this point in the process, there is nothing conducive about us pointing fingers internally. As much as I dislike Clinton, I know how important it is for the current Administration and Congress to be able to work together. Focusing on mistakes of the 2 (or 3, or 4) previous Administrations will strain that ability.

~U2Alabama

11-30-2001, 03:40 PM	#1
kobayashi Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: the ether Posts: 5,142 Local Time: 08:28 PM	does anyone think clinton is partially to blame for 9/11? How Clinton set the scene for 9/11 Dick Morris New York Post When terrorists controlled by Osama bin Laden exploded a bomb in the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and injuring 650 others, Bill Clinton, then U.S. president, did not visit the site of the attack. In a radio address the next day, he expressed his grief and outrage and four days later visited New Jersey, where he sent a message to New Yorkers saluting our courage. Other than that, he remained aloof and uninvolved. The attack occurred in the second month of Mr. Clinton's presidency. Issues such as gays in the military, the recession and withdrawing U.S. troops from Somalia loomed larger. Mr. Clinton deliberately remained removed from the attack, perhaps in the hope he would not be blamed so early in his presidency. Where George W. Bush insisted, from the outset, that the Trade Center attack that took place on his watch was a declaration of war by foreign terrorists against the United States, Mr. Clinton treated the attack as a criminal justice situation not unlike the subsequent bombing of the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. But while he connected emotionally with victims in Oklahoma, he had nothing to do with them in 1993. His failure to mobilize the United States to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack had dire consequences and led directly to the 2001 disaster. Two years after the 1993 attack, Sudan, sick of sheltering bin Laden, offered to turn him over to the United States for prosecution. But, without the president breathing down their neck, investigators had not yet discovered bin Laden was behind the 1993 attack. The United States, claiming it lacked evidence to proceed, refused Sudan's offer and suggested he be turned over to the Saudis instead. This was disingenuous. Americans knew full well the Saudi Arabian kingdom could not afford politically to prosecute its homegrown terrorist. Mr. Clinton was distant where the war on terror was concerned. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, has revealed he never had a private personal meeting with Mr. Clinton during the first two years of his tenure as head of the CIA -- exactly the key period in investigating the 1993 attack. I had a good illustration of Mr. Clinton's remoteness from terrorist issues in 1996, when Dick Holbrooke, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, called me, several months after the terrorist attack on U.S. barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Holbrooke, who told me he had never spoken with Mr. Clinton directly during the months he was negotiating the Dayton peace accords in Bosnia, asked that I get hold of the president to pass along a message. He said he had information the terrorists were planning another attack in Riyadh and that U.S. troops were highly vulnerable. "They are stuck in the same buildings the terrorists attacked last time," Mr. Holbrook told me. "All that has changed is that there are more formidable concrete barriers against car bombs. But a bigger bomb would be just as lethal. They need to be dispersed and camped in the desert in tents with a secured perimeter," he warned. I passed along Mr. Holbrooke's message. Mr. Clinton had no idea the troops were still in the barracks, and said he had ordered them dispersed to the desert six weeks before. "I've got a meeting with the Joint Chiefs in the morning," the president said, "I'll raise Hell with them." Shockingly, he was so little involved in protecting his troops -- already the object of a terrorist attack -- that he had no idea his order had not been executed until I happened to call. Mr. Clinton was a one-thing-at-a-time president. Capable of intense focus on the issue du jour, he neglected all back-burner concerns. And terror was always on the back burner. Throughout the first part of his second term, Mr. Clinton was battling to save his presidency and had neither the time nor the mental energy to immerse himself in a war against terror. Blame him for the perjury that caused impeachment. Blame the GOP for pursuing him. Blame whoever you want, but the United States was without a president from January, 1998, until April, 1999. Thereafter, his administration was devoted to electing Hillary to the Senate and, to a lesser extent, to making Al Gore president. Again, terrorism was not the priority. It never was. Now it is. Dick Morris was Bill Clinton's chief political strategist and is president of vote.com. --------------------------------------------- this was an article which appeared in the november 30th national post(1 of 2 canadian national dailies) though it appears to have original been from the ny post. i find the article quite interesting though i don't know much of clinton's apparent detached approach to the '93 wtc attack. one intriguing point which is not mentioned in the note at the end is that dick morris' www.vote.com recently entered into an agreement with the national post to hold twice weekly polls via www.nationalpost.com , no doubt leading to his appearance in the post. ------------------ bottom line: U2 rules. __________________

11-30-2001, 04:04 PM	#2
Zoo Schabow Acrobat Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: AFLAC Headquarters Posts: 494 Local Time: 12:28 AM	I don't think you can put the blame on anyone except the people that carried out the act. I believe Clinton had the best intentions for our country and to put such a label on him is ignorant.(not saying you're ignorant kobayashi) ------------------ "And I can feel the cold steel. And I can make a wound that won't heal."- Bono __________________

12-05-2001, 11:01 PM	#15
U2Bama Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine Posts: 3,405 Local Time: 07:28 PM	At this point in the process, there is nothing conducive about us pointing fingers internally. As much as I dislike Clinton, I know how important it is for the current Administration and Congress to be able to work together. Focusing on mistakes of the 2 (or 3, or 4) previous Administrations will strain that ability. ~U2Alabama __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-30-2001, 04:24 PM	#3
rougerum Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: atlantis Posts: 171 Local Time: 12:28 AM	Dick Morris is definately one of the few men in politics I trust. When he talks about anything, he never favors one side, he talks about both sides and what each side should do to better themselves, thus he is basically in between it all. And this is no exception, he was an advisor to Clinton and generally responded favorly to what he did his first term in office but he just didn't like what he did with his second term. ~rougerum [This message has been edited by rougerum (edited 11-30-2001).]

11-30-2001, 04:29 PM	#4
sulawesigirl4 Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Virginia Posts: 7,415 Local Time: 07:28 PM	Fascinating article. But the thought had already occurred to me. Not so much to "blame" Clinton, but I do think that his handling of situations during his presidency have contributed to the current crisis. Interesting...thanks for posting it.

11-30-2001, 07:06 PM	#5
bonofnattic The Fly Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Memphis, TN, 38104 Posts: 226 Local Time: 12:28 AM	Of course Clinton was not directly responsible for what happened. Hindsight is always 20/20. From what I've heard, there were amazing lapses in national security during his Presidency, though. I've not been a Clinton fan since he pushed for partial-birth abortions so my opinion is tainted, but I'm not gonna offend anyone here by expressing my pro-life views. Anyway, I'm just glad that my former governor is now the former President.

11-30-2001, 11:43 PM	#6
theSoulfulMofo Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 4,490 Local Time: 05:28 PM	Actually, I'd throw my vote in for Bush, Sr. It's ironic-- Bush, Sr. was the one who moved troops into Muslim holy land during the Gulf War, wasn't he?.. which got the religious fanatic Bin Laden angry, that he struck back in the 1993 WTC bombing, and then 9/11... after Bush, Jr. became the President... --SoufulMofo, the Devil's Advocate [This message has been edited by theSoulfulMofo (edited 11-30-2001).]

12-01-2001, 01:05 AM	#7
Matthew_Page2000 War Child Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Seattle Posts: 873 Local Time: 05:28 PM	Ah, yes. Dick Morris wrote this. The same Dick Morris who was hired and fired several times by Clinton over the years and has expressed his personal enmity for Clinton on numerous occasions. The same Dick Morris who caused a scandal when it was revealed that he told a prostitute he was having sex with about the inner workings at the White House. The same Dick Morris who worked for Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas, was fired by Clinton and then decided he was a conservative and started working for Republicans, which was just before he decided he was a liberal again. The same Dick Morris that Clinton loved and Arkansas Republicans called the anti-christ before he started working for them. The same Dick Morris that Arkansas Republicans loved and revered and Clinton hated after Clinton fired him the first time. The same Dick Morris whose skirt chasing made Clinton look like an amateur. The same Dick Morris who is legendary for his sleaziness and moral "flexibility." The same Dick Morris who encouraged Clinton to take a public opinion poll before taking any action on any issue while he was president. I'm not and never have been an admirer of Bill Clinton's. I've always thought that he was a Republican disguised as a Democrat but this is too much. To seriously consider the word of a sleazeball with a grudge like Dick Morris is unacceptable. It is particularly telling that this editorial was printed in a tabloid, heck, a gossip rag like the NY Post. U2 fans might recall the Post as the tabloid that pilloried U2 for not being patriotic and for skipping out on the NY benefit show last month. Remember the "shut up and sing Bono" review that was all over Interference a month ago? Geez. MAP p.s.- for what it is worth the CIA and FBI blame what happened on a decline in intelligence spending and research that began under Carter and continued under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Neither George W, nor Al Gore made terrorism or intelligence spending an issue in their campaign. Everyone deserves a share of the blame for what happened and it's more than a little appalling that Dick Morris is using 9/11 as an opportunity to take cheap political shots at old enemies.

12-01-2001, 08:17 AM	#8
rougerum Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: atlantis Posts: 171 Local Time: 12:28 AM	Matt, You know how it is weird that instead of talking about what was said you instead attacked the man personally. Only in the PS did you directly talk about the issue but you still don't say what Dick Morris said was wrong in any way. Even though I agree there was others to blame for this as well I still think for what Morris spoke about is indeed true. ~rougerum

12-01-2001, 01:13 PM	#9
Lilly Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: back and to the left Posts: 8,523 Local Time: 06:28 PM	blame is a big word to be using here. just because bill didn't respond didn't mean he didn't care. i guess the most important idea here is that hindsight is 20/20. nothing is to blame for what happened on Sept. 11th. ------------------ Go lightly down your darkened way.

12-02-2001, 10:21 AM	#10
madonna's child Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: May 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 5,567 Local Time: 08:28 PM	no, i don't blame clinton for 9/11. i think it would have been a mistake had he responded to the first WTC bombing and the embassy bombings they way we responded to 9/11. not as many people died (though i do admit any death is a tragedy) but had we shown too much force we might have alienated the muslim community. i think clinton took as much action as he had a right to take without offending anyone. remember, it's all politics. had clinton still been president during 9/11, i think he would have done what bush has done. and i agree with theSoulfulMofo if you want to place blame george bush sr. deserves it just as much as clinton, bin laden was very much in power during his presidency, too. it's too late to place blame, but if i wanted to, i'd point my finger at the FBI and CIA. ------------------ "Revolution starts at home, in your heart, in your refusal to compromise your beliefs and your values." - Bono "And I wear gray underwear." -Bono Love, Emily Visit my webpage for U2 wallpapers: www.geocities.com/springtime5348/index.html You hurt yourself, you hurt your lover, then you discover what you thought was freedom is just greed...

12-03-2001, 07:58 PM	#11
Anthony Refugee Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,538 Local Time: 12:28 AM	No, I don't blame Clinton for the 9/11 horrors. In fact, I miss President Clinton, I had plenty of respect for him, and, as much as I dislike Al Gore, I still wanted the Democrats to win, mainly because I don't much like the Republicans. Ant.

12-05-2001, 09:28 PM	#14
wolfwill23 War Child Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: New York, NY Posts: 647 Local Time: 12:28 AM	An e-mail I received. If a promise had been kept, 6,000 would be alive. I'm sure this will be galling to some ... But it proves the old Army assumption that it's always best to do something, rather than nothing, even if it's the wrong decision. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1995 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 3 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 would be alive today. Pretty interesting stuff.