BUMP, but as Bob Dylan said, “10,000 talking and nobody listening” (or something like that)
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
by Rich Miniter
Clinton's Bin Laden-gate - Mother of all Scandals
Posted on 10/17/2003 6:35:47 PM PDT by FairOpinion
If only President Bush had listened to Bill Clinton. The former president, who is now the Second-Guesser in Chief, told an audience the other day that he had warned President Bush about Osama bin Laden in an "exit interview" as he left office in early 2001. "In his campaign, Bush said that he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."
Oh, the Delphic wisdom of the Arkansas bubba! He's a Metternich with an eye for the interns. Clinton was right, of course. Bin Laden was a big security threat, who became steadily bigger during Clinton's years in office. What else could Bush have learned from Clinton during that exit interview? He could have learned how to retreat, how to apologize, how to slap wrists and how to temporize. He could have learned, in short, everything that would need to be reversed in U.S. terror policy within months of his taking office.
Al-Qaida-trained Somali fighters downed American helicopters in the Black Hawk Down battle in 1993. Eighteen Americans died, which was enough for a jumpy Clinton to order a hasty retreat. Bin Laden took notes. "The youth realized," he later explained, "that the American soldier was a paper tiger." By way of explaining the bug-out, a former top Clinton official told me in my new book, "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years," "We didn't know we were at war with those guys at the time." Oh, well.
The next attack against U.S. interests came in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen. In the midst of the investigation that focused on Iran, which was clearly implicated, Clinton made a quasi-apology to Tehran. "Iran," he said, "has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western nations." The poor mullahs. Both the Saudis and the FBI became convinced that the administration didn't want to pursue the Khobar investigation because hard evidence of Iranian involvement might force a military response -- and who would want to subject Iran to more "abuse"?
After al-Qaida nearly leveled two American embassies in Africa in 1998, Clinton responded militarily, but with two inconsequential cruise-missile attacks. One was against a probably mistaken target in Sudan. The other was against a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. "We used kid gloves after the embassy bombings," retired Gen. Wayne Downing, former commander of U.S. Special Forces, told me. "Cruise missiles -- that's the coward's way out."
And why attack just one Afghan training camp? Mike Rolince, former chief of the international terrorism division of the FBI, explained to me: "We never went back to the camps and dismantled the neighborhood where these people were allowed to train, test chemicals, recruit, plan operations. On a regular basis, we saw intelligence that documented what they were, where they were, how big they were, how many people were going through there, and the administration lacked the political will to go in there and do something about it."
Amazingly, the Clinton administration didn't even designate Afghanistan a state sponsor of terror. That would have been too bellicose. By 2000, various government reports had recommended what were consensus measures to address the terror threat, from squeezing state sponsors of terror, to cutting off funding, to tightening visa policy, to loosening restrictions on the CIA and FBI. Clinton did none of it.
He was, fundamentally, the do-nothing president about terrorism, although he knew -- as he tells us now -- the grave nature of the threat. It was Bush who could have told Clinton a few things about how to respond to terror in their exit interview, since his instincts were so much sounder. After the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, Bush as a candidate said that "there must be a consequence." Common sense, right? Not for Clinton. He let the attack go unanswered.
===
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group, and author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was the worst POTUS of the 20th Century, and he's poised to join his wife back in the White House in January 2009 if America fails to hold him accountable for his manifold failures. Ignoring Slick Willie's crimes, decadence, incompetence, and treason is not a viable option, IMHO.
FReegards...MUD
And may the American citizens' minds be open to said Truth...MUD
As did Clinton's actions...let us never forget the 80 innocent lives Clinton's raid on Waco slaughtered. Nor should we forget the 7500 Kosovars--both Serbs and ethnic Albanians--slaughtered in Bill Clinton's unjustified WagTheDog War on Yugoslavia!!
FReegards...MUD
1. CLOSE THE BORDERS; 2.GUT THE FBI, STATE DEPARTMENT, and CIA OF "THE ENEMY WITHIN" (easier than you think); 3. END ALL ASOCIATIONS WITH MUSLIM "RIIIIIIIGHTS" GROUPS; END STUDENT VISAS FROM TERRORIST COUNTRIES, INCLUDING CHINA; 4. ENACT A FIVE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON ALL IMMIGRATION; 5. STOP CALLING ISLAM A "PEACEFUL RELIGION"; 6. GET TOUGH WITH THE MEDIA; 7. STOP PC, MUSLIM-APPEASING HIRING POLICIES IMMEDIATELY. Feel free to add your input...
I vaguely remember some request for anti-terrorist money in the late 90s that was tied to some other obnoxious legislation. The Republicans blocked it but all I find in various searches is Clintonian lies and inaction. Would someone on FR give me guidance so I can tell the story with foot notes to this aflicted nincompoop Bro-in-law.
BUMP, but as Bob Dylan said, “10,000 talking and nobody listening” (or something like that)
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
by Rich Miniter
Clinton's Bin Laden-gate - Mother of all Scandals
Wasn't it nice back in the days of Camealot, a President didn't need to find WMD to launch hostilities against an enemy. It was enough to get caught with a little trollop, then you could blow up aspirin factories in Africa, start a little war here or there and the press quietly supressed the girly stories and made you out to be a brave leader.
The camealot President could launch unsuccessful and ill-advised military campaigns in FIVE COUNTRIES (All of which turned into fiascos). But just let his Republican successor have successes in two, and the press will label the Republican "The War President".
I agree that this story by Lowry needs to be told -- "so people will understand that Clinton and Democrats don't care about the security of the American people." No matter what the Dem candidates say, their base would never allow the US to wage an effective fight against terrorism at home or abroad. Dollars would again be siphoned off from the military and homeland defense to buy the votes of constituent blocks.
However, too much is being made by Lowry and the rest of the press of Bush's "instincts." More accurately, IMHO, Bush's decisions reflect strong core principles, a talent for attracting the most competent advisers (a huge contrast with Clinton--Cheney v. Gore, Powell v. Christopher/Albright, Rumsfeld v. Aspin/Perry/Cohen), an ability to listen to diverse points of view, a persistence in managing that process, and a self-confidence in the correctness of the decisions he makes.
The whole story needs to be told, though I realize that should be the subject of a separate article.
Have you read it yet?! Seems like something an unbiased media would find newsworthy...guess that's why this is the first I've heard of it!!
FReegards...MUD
BTW...you going to the UVA-FSU game this evening?
Headed for the game in less than an hour. Will be on The Corner by 3:45.
BTW, guess who else is a 'Hoo that tried to give Bin Laden to the 'Toons?
Hoo's rule FOX!
Tonight, kickoff 7:45, GO HOO's!
Another lie for Clinton. One can look at his last State of the Union address where he barely mentions terrorism, but dwells on the need to fight global warming. And other speeches Clinton gave his last year in office similarly lack the warning that he now claims he gave Bush.
Clinton's self-serving statement is about as believable as one of the whoppers that Clinton tells repeatedly to Dem audiences and reproduced below from an account of a 2002 Clinton campaign speech in Hawaii:
Clinton has used that lie about Newt at numerous campaign rallies.
Clinton henchmen Sid Blumenthal uses the same tactic (falsly reporting a private conversation with a political adversary with the adversary admitting that he is morally wrong).
Sid Vicious tells audiences in his book tour that Republican House impeachment manager Rogan privately told Blumenthal something like: "we know that we're on the wrong side of history in impeaching Clinton, but we have to do it."
Amen, my friend!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
