Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't blame Clinton for Sept. 11
Vanguard ^ | Wednesday April 07, 2004 | Kiril Dickinson

Posted on 04/08/2004 9:03:44 AM PDT by presidio9

Some people are saying that the Sept. 11 attacks came about because Clinton didn't pay enough attention to terrorism during his terms in office.

That's just a lie. Before the attacks, Clinton paid far more attention to terrorism than Bush did. This is not to say that the attacks were Bush's fault. I'm just saying they weren't Clinton's.

Fact: Clinton stopped an al-Qaeda terrorist attack in America in 1999. The story of Ahmed Ressam, who was stopped at the Canadian border in December 1999 on his way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport with a car full of explosives is well-known. And Richard Clarke, chief of counter-terrorism under Clinton and Bush, told "60 Minutes" why it wasn't just luck:

On March 30, CBS News reported on the interview, saying that when the CIA heard rumblings of a domestic terrorist attack by al-Qaeda in 1999, "Clarke says [President] Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations, meaning they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

"That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

"Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: 'He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject.'

"Finally, says Clarke, 'The cabinet meeting I asked for [on al-Qaeda] right after the inauguration took place-one week prior to 9/11.'"

The Bush administration has criticized other parts of Clarke's interview, but not the chain of events just described.

This is not to say that the attacks were Bush's fault. I'm just saying they weren't Clinton's.

Fact: Clinton destroyed the rest of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs in 1998. In his report to Congress on Oct. 2 of last year, Bush's chief weapons inspector, David Kay, asserted that the reason his team was unable to find any WMDs was because Iraq's capability to produce such weapons was "reduced-if not entirely destroyed-during operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox [Clinton's 1998 airstrikes], 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." Republicans at the time claimed Clinton was only trying to divert attention from the all-important Lewinsky affair. But we still haven't found any WMDs because Clinton blew them up. If, as Bush claims, preventing Hussein from having weapons of mass destruction is an essential part of the war on terrorism, then Clinton seems to have done the job six years ago without losing a single soldier. Mission accomplished.

Fact: Clinton ordered a missile strike against an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 1998, missing Osama bin Laden by an hour, but killing some of the leaders. And the Washington Post reported on Oct. 3, 2001 that Clinton had also approved CIA training of 60 Pakistani commandos to kill or capture bin Laden, a mission that was scrubbed when Nawaz Sharif, the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan, was deposed in a military coup.

In addition, "Special Forces troops and helicopter gunships were kept on alert in the region, ready to launch a raid if solid intelligence pinpointed bin Laden's whereabouts." That continued until...Bush became president.

There's more. As AP reported on June 24, 2003, "When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al-Qaeda leader.

"But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say...The drones were one component of a broader plan that [Richard] Clarke, a career government employee, had devised in the final days of the Clinton administration to go after al-Qaeda after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Clinton officials decided just before Christmas 2000 to forward the plan to the incoming Bush administration rather than implement it during Clinton's final days, the officials said."

Clinton was aware of the problem and had a plan to deal with it. He told Bush about it and Bush did nothing until after Sept. 11. This is not to say that the attacks were Bush's fault. I'm just saying they weren't Clinton's. See?

I know there are some readers out there who are thinking that somehow I am twisting the evidence, that Clinton was still "soft on terrorism," that all this is just all a bunch of liberal "Bush-bashing." You know who you are.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of Condoleeza Rice, Bush's national security advisor.

As it happens, on Sept. 11, 2001, Rice was scheduled to give a foreign policy speech outlining what the Bush administration thought was the major threat to America: ballistic missiles. The Bush administration thought what we needed was a missile defense "shield." According to last Thursday's Washington Post, the text of her speech (which wasn't delivered, due to the terrorist attacks) was to criticize the Clinton administration for paying too much attention to counter-terrorism, at the expense of missile defense.

That fits. After all, only four days earlier, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he would recommend a presidential veto if the (then) Democratic-controlled Senate pursued efforts to shift $600 million from missile defense to counter-terrorism.

This is in stark contrast to the characterization of the Clinton administration, as reported in a May 27, 2002, Newsweek article that described then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger as "totally preoccupied with fears of a domestic attack."

The article goes on to say that "[w]hen, in January 2001, Berger gave Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: 'You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other.' Rice was alarmed by what she heard, and asked for a strategy review. But the effort was marginalized and scarcely mentioned in ensuing months as the administration committed itself to other priorities, like national missile defense (NMD) and Iraq."

And what was Bush doing all this time? According to the Aug. 7, 2001, Washington Post, "By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his presidency. Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route." The vacation in question ended eight days before Sept. 11.

This is not to say that the attacks were Bush's fault. I'm just saying they weren't Clinton's.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: clintonapologist; clintonista; clintonlegacy; revisionism; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

1 posted on 04/08/2004 9:03:44 AM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
VOTE ARE NEEDED!
2 posted on 04/08/2004 9:04:53 AM PDT by bmwcyle (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Fact: Clinton stopped an al-Qaeda terrorist attack in America in 1999.

Har. Har. Har. That was stopped by an alert Customs agent.

3 posted on 04/08/2004 9:05:15 AM PDT by dirtboy (John Kerry - Hillary without the fat ankles and the FBI files...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
All your vote are belong to us!
4 posted on 04/08/2004 9:05:33 AM PDT by boris (The deadliest weapon of mass destruction in history is a Leftist with a word processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

"NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS" -Bill Clinton, 12/2000


5 posted on 04/08/2004 9:06:03 AM PDT by Howlin ("NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS" -Bill Clinton, 12/2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
VOTES ARE NEEDED!

OK VOTE

6 posted on 04/08/2004 9:06:31 AM PDT by bmwcyle (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Clinton was aware of the problem and had a plan to deal with it. He told Bush about it and Bush did nothing until after Sept. 11. This is not to say that the attacks were Bush's fault. I'm just saying they weren't Clinton's. See?

Which is why he failed to mention it in his final security briefing.
I swear, they're all idiots.
7 posted on 04/08/2004 9:07:42 AM PDT by dyed_in_the_wool ("Like a patient etherised upon a table" -- TSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


8 posted on 04/08/2004 9:08:01 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Hi Mom! Hi Dad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I don't blame Clinton for 9/11 specifically.

I blame Clinton for Al Qaeda becoming sufficiently organized and trained without hindrance to carry out 9/11.

Does that make him responsible for 9/11? You decide.

Qwinn
9 posted on 04/08/2004 9:08:16 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I don't blame Clinton for 9/11 specifically.

I blame Clinton for Al Qaeda becoming sufficiently organized and trained without hindrance to carry out 9/11.

Does that make him responsible for 9/11? You decide.

Qwinn
10 posted on 04/08/2004 9:08:33 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Fact: Clinton ordered a missile strike against an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 1998, missing Osama bin Laden by an hour, but killing some of the leaders.

Yeah, he used a million dollar missile to destroy a ten-dollar tent and hit a camel in the butt.

And the Washington Post reported on Oct. 3, 2001 that Clinton had also approved CIA training of 60 Pakistani commandos to kill or capture bin Laden

Wow. Sixty, count 'em, SIXTY Pakistani commandos. To hunt down and kill a man surrounded by fanatical bodyguards in a good sized, mountainous country filled with tribesmen who don't trust anyone from the next village, let alone Pakistanis. That would have been a fiasco right up there with Bay of Pigs and Carter's hostage rescue attempt.

11 posted on 04/08/2004 9:08:46 AM PDT by dirtboy (John Kerry - Hillary without the fat ankles and the FBI files...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Skeptical, read later, bump!
12 posted on 04/08/2004 9:11:00 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"That's just a lie. Before the attacks, Clinton paid far more attention to terrorism than Bush did."

Clinton paid more attention to Monica than terrorism.
13 posted on 04/08/2004 9:11:10 AM PDT by Reader of news
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Some people are saying that the Sept. 11 attacks came about because Clinton didn't pay enough attention to terrorism during his terms in office. That's just a lie.

The name Clinton comes up and someone mentions lying? Lessee now, who is the well-known liar?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms. Lewinsky -- not once. Never."

14 posted on 04/08/2004 9:12:08 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Fact: Clinton stopped an al-Qaeda terrorist attack in America in 1999. The story of Ahmed Ressam, who was stopped at the Canadian border in December 1999 on his way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport with a car full of explosives is well-known.

No, an alert agent at a border crossing became suspicious of the person being questioned as he tried to enter the US. Clinton had nothing to do with it.

15 posted on 04/08/2004 9:12:24 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Gee, I guess that settles it then.
16 posted on 04/08/2004 9:13:04 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (Gay marriage is for suckers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
BILL KLINTON...CONVICTED LIAR

'nuf said

17 posted on 04/08/2004 9:13:24 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Don't forget the "Black Ninja" plan the Clinton admin had.
18 posted on 04/08/2004 9:13:37 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dyed_in_the_wool
Clinton was aware of the problem and had a plan to deal with it. He told Bush about it and Bush did nothing until after Sept. 11.

That's an out and out lie; Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright BOTH said that there was NO plan handed over to the Bush administration.

19 posted on 04/08/2004 9:14:05 AM PDT by Howlin ("NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS" -Bill Clinton, 12/2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Clinton tried to deal with terrorism as a matter of law enforcement. He failed to react in a substantial manner against numerous terrorist attacks aimed against us. It was certainly in his power to have reacted as Bush did but he chose not to.

This gave terrorists a sense of empowerment and entitlement. Clinton's lack of serious action certainly is responsible in part for 9/11. If the terrorists knew we would have reacted like we did, they would have thought twice.

They prefer to bully around countries that are willing to give them what they want, not tigers with real teeth and claws.
20 posted on 04/08/2004 9:15:17 AM PDT by William Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson