Posted on 05/02/2004 6:45:13 AM PDT by Condor51
How much of a warning did Bill Clinton give incoming President George W. Bush that Osama bin Laden posed a grave danger? It depends on which President you ask. In his interview with the 9/11 commission last week, sources tell Time, Bush testified that Clinton appeared far more passionate about the dangers of North Korea's nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to sources, Bush said Clinton "probably mentioned" terrorism as a national-security threat "but did not make it a point of emphasis." Clinton earlier told the panel that he had ranked bin Laden as the No. 1 problem the new Administration would face; he made the same point in a speech in New York City last October.
The content of the testimony Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney gave in the Oval Office remains confidential. But a source says Bush told the commission he had not been warned of the CIA's and the FBI's concerns about would-be 747 pilot Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
he clintons didn't simply fail to warn President Bush about bin Laden. The clintons didn't simply fail for eight years to go after bin Laden. The clintons didn't simply fail to take bin Laden when offered by Sudan on a silver platter.
|
|
ohn Kerry says the war on terror is less about military might than about law enforcement. Even if we allow for his characteristic flatulence and opportunism, John Kerry's demagogically tortured parsing of President George W. Bush's war-as-the-last-resort pledge and the fact that Kerry's list of the "real issues facing Americans" does not include the one issue, namely terrorism, that renders all other issues moot -- (health care, education and money have very limited utility to the dead)-- reveal a fundamental--and fatal--misunderstanding of America's situation. When terrorists declare war on you and then proceed to kill you you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists or do you surrender? Contrary to clinton/leftist-media spin, this war waged against America by the terrorists did not begin on September 11, 2001. The terrorists--bin Laden--had declared war on America repeatedly, had killed Americans repeatedly, throughout the clinton years. Remarkably, the same terrorists hit the same WTC building in 1993, and clinton, 15 minutes away from the devastation, didn't even bother to visit the site, preferring instead to add his old bromides on the economy to the pollution along the Jersey Turnpike. (Ironically, the legacy clinton would desperately, futilely seek throughout his life was right under his nose on that day in 1993; but he was too self-absorbed--too stupid, some would say--to see it.) And as for the September 11 attacks, they were planned in May 1998, on the clintons' watch, in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan. The terrorists declared war on America on the clintons watch and the clintons surrendered. Democrats, from the clintons to Kerry, reflexively choose "surrender." President Bush chooses '"fight." Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason.
|
bill clinton admits: I DID NOT PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS
(WHY THE CLINTONS, KERRY AND THE LEFT ARE DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA)
CLARKE: Because they were tough issues.
I think this neatly sums up the difference between Clinton and Bush. Bush is not afraid of the tough issues when it comes to security.
Between that, and criticizing Ashcroft for defending himself against the Gorelicker, I really do wonder what if anything Bush is thinking.
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.