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 ...
Thanks! I really needed a good laugh before retiring for the evening.
bill shoulda said "This whole thing stinks.I should know...I have a nose like a vacumn cleaner!"
Weasle word, "responsibly". Why no follow up question, "What specifically did you do to qualify as "tried"?
If the foiled airline bomb plot sounded familiar, it should. In 1995, al-Qaida planned the same thing as the Clinton administration slept. Democrats hope to press the snooze button again in November.
The 1995 plot was uncovered when Ramzi Yousef, subsequently convicted for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, hastily fled a burning Manila apartment, leaving behind bomb materials and a laptop with disks containing plans for something called Project Bojinka — the Arabic word for "loud explosion."
The plot was to blow up 11 American jetliners over the Pacific Ocean, then crash a plane into CIA headquarters — a mission to be carried out by a Pakistani pilot who had trained at flight schools in North Carolina, Texas and New York. Sound familiar?
One would have thought that after al-Qaida had tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 and was discovered to be plotting to blow up airliners and fly them into buildings, the Clinton administration would have connected the dots and taken action. But it didn't.
A disgusted Philippine Gen. Avelino Razon was so shocked at 9-11 that he called a hasty press conference in Manila. "We told the Americans about the plans to turn planes into flying bombs as far back as 1995," he complained. "Why didn't they pay attention?"
snip
Democrats who whined after 9-11 about what President Bush knew and when he knew it forget about the 1995 plot. They also forget it was Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, who erected the famous "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement, making "connecting the dots" before 9-11 a virtual impossibility.
She wrote the 1995 memo that helped establish what former Attorney General John Ashcroft testified was the "single greatest structural cause" of Sept. 11 — "the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents," Ashcroft said. "Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before Sept. 11, government was blinded by this wall."
http://tinyurl.com/joffe
Our thoughts exactly...
The MSM protected Clinton all these years by editing out his many episodes of classless anger. I've seen a couple times when President Bush didn't live up to his own high standards, but nothing compared to what Clinton would display regularly, and now is finally made public.
The answer to the question about what the Bush administration during the first 8 months is of course
"not much". Clinton had eight years of avoidance and denial prior to Bush. And Bush made a big mistake by keeping ANY relations with ANY of Clinton's holdovers.
A great deal fell on Bush's head on 9-11, and our entire political system and 99% of our "representatives" were revealed to have been unable or unwilling to protect us, which is their FIRST responsibility. There has been an enormous and relentless game of catch-up ever since, and it may go on for many years more. I can't see it cooling down, or simplifying itself anytime soon.
Aspin's decision on tanks was political ; Report says he gave in to U.N.
Bill Gertz; THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Defense Secretary Les Aspin and his deputies rejected sending needed tanks and armored vehicles to Somalia because they feared a political backlash would undermine their pro-United Nations policy, says a Senate Armed Services Committee report.
The armor, as well as AC-130 gunships that also were withheld, was sought by commanders to protect U.S. troops, the report stated.
The weapons "could have been used decisively in the rescue operation of Oct. 3-4, [1993] and if available," could have been used by Army Rangers in a raid to capture Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid, Sen. John Warner, Virginia Republican and report co-author, said in an introduction.
"Only compelling military - not diplomatic policy - reasons should ever be used to deny an on-scene commander such a request," he said. "Those officials who advocated and approved this policy must bear the ultimate responsibility for the events that followed."
http://tinyurl.com/h2xoc
I believe the report that was to lead to the proper change of policy was placed on Bush's desk on 9/10/2001. You heard the phrase along the lines of stop treating it like swatting flys, right?
Maybe if Billy had been a little more combative when he was Prez, we wouldn't be in this boat.
Some people may have already responded that Bush was okaying arming the UAV's so they could kill bin Laden on sight, something the Clinton administration had forbidden doing.
All those reports you heard after 9/11 that "Bush knew" were based on his developing plans to taken out bin Laden and the Taliban if necessary to rid Afghanistan of bin Laden. On one hand (a couple years ago) they cited these plans to claim that Bush was planning to invade Afghanistan all along (to build an oil pipeline for his buddies in the oil business) and staged 9/11 to get us to go to war, and on the other hand they say Bush knew nothing and made no plans.
Libs are Marxists or dupes.
Clinton is always brave when opposing the "vast, right wing conspiracy", was brave enough to attach Serbian Christians, and brave enough to pressure Israel, but going after Muslim terrorists was not his thing.
Yep. Willie was too busy playing "hide the cigar" to worry about national security.
What a joke. "Right-wingers" critical of "BJ" Clinton for trying to get bin Laden?
Attack after attach after attack, and he finally gets the idea that it's time to kill a few stray camels and level an aspirin factory. A brilliant move, Bill. I'm sure it made UBL shake in his little space boots.
And no response by Bush? How 'bout.....uhhhh....2 wars?
Little Rock, AR: What is your relationship with Mandy Grunwald?
Michael Grunwald: I call her on the phone, and she says opaque things that don't get my stories onto the front page. (We're not related.)
First, as I recall Clinton's former running mate decided to throw the ballot process out of kilter and with all the wrangling George Bush had no transition time.
Second, since Bin Laden was nowhere near the top of Billy boy's need to do list, his administration did not bother to mention that this was top priority.
Third, Bill Clinton's leftovers, I mean holdovers and policies (remember Jamie Gore-lick's Wall of CIA/FBI separation), did everything they could to disrupt George Bush's new administration.
It was months before George Bush could even get his people approved by Congress. This problem continues even this day.
Bill Clinton had eight years since the first attempt on the World Trade Center to do something -- anything. He let Bin Laden attack us again and again with no response but some pitiful missiles into a tent after warning people sympathetic with Bin Laden that he would be attacked. The only reason he launched the attack in the first place was to divert attention from the problems caused by his real number one pursuit.
Now as fqr as a defense of George Bush -- the only time during his administration that he was tested, he responded with force. If Bill Clinton had done a fraction of what George Bush did when the towers were first attacked, instead of shouting from the mountain tops about a peace dividend and gutting the military as he did, we would not be in the situation we are in now.
LOL -- you are so busy tonight.
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.