Bill: At least I tried

WASHINGTON - Ex-President Bill Clinton exploded yesterday when asked why he didn't get Osama Bin Laden - and revealed that he had invasion plans drawn up to topple the Taliban and get Al Qaeda. Clinton was clearly annoyed when Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace said viewers had sent e-mails urging him to ask, "Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business?"

After a string of related questions, Clinton became red-faced and, in a finger-jabbbing tirade, blamed a conspiracy of media and right-wingers for trying to blame him for Bin Laden's survival.

When Wallace tried to cut in, Clinton cut him off: "You brought up the question, so you get an answer."

Clinton said that after the bombing of the destroyer USS Cole in 2000, "I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we [only] got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible."

He seemed to put the blame on the Bush White House that succeeded him yet didn't heed his warnings about the danger Bin Laden posed.

"All of President Bush's neocons that said I was too obsessed with Bin Laden; they had no meetings on Bin Laden for nine months after I left office," Clinton said, that is, not until after 9/11.

"At least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. [The Bush administration] had eight months to try [and] they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed," Clinton said.

After the segment, Clinton got in Wallace's face and told Wallace he would not get away with his line of questioning.

Clinton granted the interview to get attention for the Clinton Global Initiative, his philanthropic effort.

"CGI is a nonpartisan event, and so we thought it would be fair to do Fox News Sunday... When Wallace hid behind his viewers and attacked President Clinton's record on terror, President Clinton fought back hard, just like any Democrat should when they are attacked with a baseless attack," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.

Wallace responded, "My record and my performance speaks for itself. I ask probing questions of all sides."

"Acting" is probably too gratuitous of a term. " Pretending" is probably generous. Could the exact and proper term be "delusional"? The problem with that term is that is becomes dangerously close to a mental medical term, which most certainly does not apply. He is sociopathic and this is just a manifestation of this pathology. The world, for him, is all about him, even 6 years after he left office. He is despicable and if he keeps this up will be universally recognized as a characature of this pathology. Those who refuse to see this suffer the same delusion.

Clinton, you are correct, was protecting this country only with illusion. Bomb a baby factory. Wagging his finger and saying, "I did not have sex......". Now he does the same thing, same mannerism, same fauned, faux insensibility. He does not think the public is on to him. Still delusional. He was the Fraternity President in all that he did. He thought that would put him at the top of the heap in the history books. That people and American soldiers would die years later because of his self-idolotry was, and is, never to be considered. But that does not dispose of the truth.

"I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for Bin Laden."

I wonder how long it will be before somebody comes forward to refute that little nugget; because, needless to say, it's an out and out lie.

"All of President Bush's neocons that said I was too obsessed with Bin Laden;

I'm still waiting for NAMES, Bill; who were there.

Or is it like technomage posted just a bit ago:

After watching the rant, oops, interview, Clinton slipped up. He showed his cards by uttering three little words: wag the dog. It was like a light bulb going off in my head. Now it made sense. Clinton is once again 'mixing' historical events to conform to what he wants the world to remember. Conservatives did use the wag the dog reference numerous times, not in reference to bin Laden, but in reference to Clinton's massive bombardment of Serbia, which had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden.

Actually, it was Serbia AND Sudan that people were calling "Wag the Dog" because he ONLY used them when he was in political trouble."

they had no meetings on Bin Laden for nine months after I left office," Clinton said, that is, not until after 9/11.

Excerpts from the August 2002 press briefing by Richard A. Clarke:

RICHARD CLARKE: There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration ... In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. [They] decided to ... vigorously pursue the existing policy [and] ... initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years.
In their first meeting [the principles] changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding [for covert action against al Qaeda] five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [They] then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda ... to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against ... the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with [the] terrorism issue ... There was never a plan [in the Clinton administration].
QUESTION: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?
CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. In the spring [of 2001], the Bush administration ... began to change Pakistani policy. We began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis ... [to] join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration ... prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points ... to think about it. And they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
QUESTION: You're saying ... there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it ...The other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the [policy] from one of rollback to one of elimination.

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.