Was Reagan response to bomb Libya in 1986 strong compare to Clinton reaction to terrrorst bombing?

Rock and Rollin: Was Reagan response to bomb Libya in 1986 strong compare to Clinton reaction to terrrorst bombing?
Reagn retaliated to the 1986 West Berlin bombing by ordereing a bombing campaign against Libya.

Clinton did not react to retaliated to the 1993 WTC bombing, 1996 Saudi bombing, and the USS cole bombing.

Though Clinton did retaliated by launching cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan

So what you agree what Reaga retalition are compare to Clinton reaction? If so why?
Your answer doesn’t make any sense.

Answers and Views:

Answer by Publicus Moneyus Forus
The way I heard it he said something like “Those people are crazy” and then cut and run faster than a beagle hound chasing a rabbit through a sage field on a cold winter morning.

EDIT: Whoops! I was thinking about Lebanon.

Answer by tony
Reagan retaliated. Libya stopped
Clinton did nothing.9/11 occurred
I think you can figure this one out
p.s.Clinton launched cruise missiles on Somalia at an aspirin factory killing the janitor

Answer by Nicholas
Libya was more than just West Berlin. That went on for most of the 80s, with Libya claiming a huge chunk of international waters, drew the ‘line of death’, and started sending aircraft against our carriers and warships passing through international waters.

The 1986 bombing was more or less a form of retaliation against us for shooting down two of their aircraft they dispatched to shoot down some of our aircraft protecting the fleet in the med….Libya foolishly thought it would make us stay away from their ‘new territory’.

Answer by Gerald Cline
Clinton was a neo-isolationist. His policy was to stick his head up his rear-end and ignore any and ALL provocations in the stupid belief the attacks would go away. The ONLY reason he launched Cruise missiles against al-Qaeda camps was to distract the American people from the Lewinsky scandal (he wagged the dog). His policies got what isolationist policies have always gotten America…attacked (specifically 9/11).

Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy was, if anything, worse than Carter’s. He and the neo-isolationst left-wing Democrats stood by for the better part of a decade and let the Russians stomp all over the Third World killing millions of victims in their attempt to destabilize as much of the Third World as possible in the hope Communist cells would be able to seize power in the chaos.

Ronald Reagan was elected by the American people in response to the neo-isolationists controlling Congress and the White House in 1980. His job was to reengage the United Sates in the Cold War, and he did exactly what he was elected to do. That meant a very proactive foreign policy which did not tolerate terrorists killing Americans, and he attempted to re-stabilized Central America, the Horn of Africa, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and confront the Soviet with Pershing II missiles to counter the SS-20 missiles Carter had let them deploy in Eastern Europe to neutralize NATO. A lot of what Reagan did seems kind of petty today, but after the ten years proceeding it he was a bold resourceful president and scared the Russians into backing off in their quest for world conquest.

In comparison to the Democratic presidents who proceeded and followed him Ronald Reagan paragon of strength and resolve in his foreign policy.