Posted on 09/23/2006 8:37:08 PM PDT by STARWISE
Former president Bill Clinton angrily defended his administration's counterterrorism record during a Fox News interview to be aired today, while accusing "President Bush's neocons" and other Republicans of ignoring Osama bin Laden until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Clinton had planned to discuss his climate change initiative during his appearance on "Fox News Sunday," but he turned combative after host Chris Wallace asked why he hadn't "put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business." Clinton shot back that "all the conservative Republicans" who now criticize him for inattention to bin Laden used to criticize him for over-attention to bin Laden.Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base.
By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."
(snip)
Clinton : There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it, or even knew al-Qaeda was a going concern in October '93.
Wallace : I understand.
Clinton : No, no, wait. Don't tell me that -- you asked why didn't I do more to bin Laden, there was not a living soul, all the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer. But you -- secondly
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I was thinking about that too..Sinc ewhen did Klintoon have a plan to do all that ..It's news to me .Why did he keep this a secret all these years ? Unless he made it all up yesterday .
Let's not forget Project Maggidio, which was put together by the Clinton Administration in 1999, which claimed that the biggest threat to American national security was WHITE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS!!!
Or using the FBI to help his pals in Hollywood protect their copyright assets by going after copyright violators.
Yeah, he was sooooo concerned about National security - NOT!
I think you attribute a little backward thinking... i.e., Clintons failure to do anything about the growing Al-Qaeda threat allowed 911 to transpire. Now after 911 George W. Bush acted... unlike Clinton i.e., he responded, took it to them, called them out etc. Had Clinton done this after WTC I in 93 there would not have been a WTC II in 01. That is the bottom line and also don't forget that GW was sworn in in Jan 01 and was heavy in it with the Chinese in May because of the P-3 that clipped the Chinese MIG and went down in Hunana. I was intimately involved in that diplomatic effort and we got everyone of our aircrew back unharmed and repatriated... So in other words GW was on no cake walk from the begining.
The Democommies don't think he is super human that is for sure.
You know, I'm so tired of seeing Bill Clinton's face, Madeleine Albreight's face, and all of these donkeys. These people have the gall to give advice or commentate on anything.
North Korea has nukes thanks to US. US being Madeleine dumbright and Clinton.
Unfortunately, these people are accepted and the msm leaves them unchallenged.
I want a future where my children aren't fighting a war and dealing with an insane enemy...people like Bill Clinton grow enemies with his naive stupidity.
He knows exactly what he is doing.
Great post on a great thread. Thanks very much to all contributors and especially the researchers.
Not that he cares all that much for the thousands murdered or that he truly realizes how he played into Bin Laden's hands with his weakness, but this sort of thing can sully a former president's legacy, eclipsing any redeeming aspects. He cannot face this, so he foolishly compounds his problems and directs attention to what he should better just have let go; his undeniable and documented record of inaction, inattention, ineptitude, and dithering regarding the worst threat the people of this country he will see in his lifetime, if you don't count that from a ever more powerful Chinese military, from all the help he gave them.
It is a bad fix to now attack those who criticize Clinton''s lack of foresight, lack of resolve, lack of wisdom, and slavish obeisance to political correctness regarding terrorism, or really the symbol of terrorism in his and the Democrats minds, Bin Laden. So let Clinton's sycophants rail against Wallace, Fox and even Karl Rove. It is too late, the horse is out of the barn. But it never was in the barn was it?
Clinton continues to insult the intelligence of the American public because he continues to believe that he can simply tell them what to believe. That time is long past, so is his credibility, particularly regarding this issue, and so is any chance that Clinton will ever occupy the White House, again.
Total bullshit. Bin Laden was on tape broadcast on Al Jazeera that very weekend praising "our bombers in Aden". Even without that acknowledgement, the evidence from Yemenese authorities was crystal clear.
During 1993-1995, you were part of that administration as the CIA chief. Wasn't what you called a "feckless and flaccid" policy in place at the time?
It started when President Clinton decided to respond to the attempt to assassinate former President Bush in the spring of 1993 merely by shooting two dozen cruise missiles into an empty building in the middle of the night. I think killing some night watchman and Iraqi cleaning women had the opposite effect on Saddam that one would want.Were you not part of the group of advisors that decided on that action?But surely you cannot put the blame on the Clinton administration and try to keep out the CIA?
I can tell you that they were not instrumental in making any decision between 1993 and early 1995. After that you'll have to ask my successors. No advice of the intelligence agencies was asked at that decision.
Of course the first World Trade Center attack and the following investigation took place under your watch.
As far as the WTC bombing of 1993 was concerned, all the information that was collected by law enforcement was kept under grand jury secrecy. The intelligence agencies were not permitted by law to see it until the trials of conspirators like Ramzi Yousef were completed. That was the way that the Clinton administration chose to approach acts of terrorism. As law enforcement matters and not as acts of security.
You put a lot of blame on the Clinton administration. But doesn't the principal blame for Saddam's survival fall on the first Bush administration, which, instead of toppling him, left Saddam in place out of deference to regimes in the region, like the Saudis, that fear democracy in Iraq?
The first Bush administration made a serious error in judgment in not supporting Iraqi opposition after the war. The Clinton administration made eight years of that.
There is a theory that there are Iraqi fingerprints in the 1993 attack. You have recently suggested that evidence linking the 1993 WTC attack to Iraq was overlooked during the investigation process.
What I've said was that the original investigator for the FBI in 1993 to early 1994, Jim Fox, had those suspicions. After Fox was retired, the U.S. government prosecution veered off to another theory, namely that this was a network of terrorists inspired by the blind sheik [Omar Rahman], more or less abandoning the approach of looking for ties to Iraq. None of this was available to anyone outside the small circle of prosecutors and the FBI till after the trials were finished. That was a rule of law, not a policy decision.
We have a winner. This was a planned, staged event. It worked on Jerry Brown in 1992, and they hope it will work here. Feisty, combative, telling the Big Lie as the Big Truth. It is smart politics from Clinton, and with the lockstep media, it will work on many dupable voters.
Who? Told US we couldn't do WHAT?
Great picture and yes, great post! :-)
Is Clinton about to grope Chris Wallace?
I think he lost it....a long time ago.
I feel like I could recite it now ... hehehe .. I'm sure there's parts I don't know, but what I do know is almost enough .. ya know, O?
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.