"This is basically an accusation that Clinton's foreign policy objectives were tailored to his pocketbook. As profound a dereliction of duty and outright treason as I have ever seen."
I think a lot of what he did was potentially treasonous. Of course, he and his minions will spin it their way until the cows come home and/or enough people and historians believe their side of the story.
Reposting something I posted yesterday on another thread - lots of info in here about Clinton trying to revise history and save his legacy.
Snips from article here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700479/posts
Former President Clinton’s objections to the ABC miniseries are more varied. One is that the program says he failed to take advantage of opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. Clinton defenders have said this is untrue and that Clinton’s ordering of a cruise missile attack upon a camp in Afghanistan where bin Laden was thought to be residing demonstrated he was willing to pull the trigger on the terror leader. The attack failed, however, and Clinton refrained from trying again. In a NewsMax interview, former-Clinton insider Dick Morris mentions other opportunities that were missed and describes Clinton as gun shy after an air attack in Belgrade during the first days of Clinton’s Balkan intervention accidentally destroyed the Chinese embassy there. He said Clinton wanted to kidnap bin Laden, fearing that killing him might cause Clinton to be accused of using assassination as a policy tool. Morris also offers another, more political motive for Clinton’s reluctance to act, saying Clinton was afraid an attack would be described in the media as an attempt “to ‘wag the dog’ and distract people from the Monica Lewinsky affair.”
Despite the accounts of Morris and others, Clinton now insists he had no real opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden. In 2002, however, in a speech to a Long Island business group, he claimed that, in 1996, the Sudanese government had offered to turn bin Laden, who was in Sudan, over to the United States. Clinton said that he hadn’t taken them up on this offer because he didn’t believe his administration had the evidence to hold bin Laden legally. He further said he had asked the Saudi Arabian government to take bin Laden into custody but that they had refused because the terror leader was a “hot potato.” Osama wound up in Afghanistan where he plotted the 9/11 attacks.
Long, but excellent article by David Horrowitz detailing Bubba's inactions while in office:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1699199/posts Snips from the article:
While the Clinton Administration Slept
After the first World Trade Center attack, President Clinton vowed there would be vengeance. But like so many of his presidential pronouncements, the strong words were not accompanied by deeds. Nor were they followed by measures necessary to defend the country against the next series of attacks.
After their Mogadishu victory and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, unsuccessful attempts were made by al-Qaeda groups to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and other populated targets, including a massive terrorist incident timed to coincide with the millennium celebrations of January 2000. Another scheme to hijack commercial airliners and use them as "bombs" according to plans close to those eventually used on September 11, was thwarted in the Philippines in 1995. The architect of this effort was the Iraqi intelligence agent Ramzi Yousef.
The following year, the terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers, a U.S. military barracks in Saudia Arabia, killed 19 American soldiers. The White House response was limp, and the case (in the words of FBI director Louis B. Freeh) "remains unresolved." Two years later al-Qaeda agents blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 245 people and injuring 5,000. (One CIA official told a reporter, "Two at once is not twice as hard. It is a hundred times as hard.") On October 12, 2000, the warship USS Cole was bombed while re-fueling in Yemen, yet another Islamic country aligned with the terrorist enemy. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and 39 injured.
These were all acts of war, yet the president and his cabinet refused to recognize them as such.
>snip
Opportunities Missed
By Clinton's own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the president, despite the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. "James Woolsey, Clinton's first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, 'that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.'"
In 1996, an American Muslim businessman and Clinton supporter named Mansoor Ijaz opened up an unofficial channel between the government of the Sudan and the Clinton administration. At the same time, "the State Department was describing bin Laden as 'the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world' and was accusing the Sudan of harboring terrorists." According to Mansoor, who met with Clinton and Sandy Berger:
President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among the members of these networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
President Bashir sent key intelligence officials to Washington in February 1996. Again, according to Mansoor, "the Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to 'baby-sit' him-monitoring all his activities and associates." But the Saudis didn't want him. Instead, in May 1996 "the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere. Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the September 11 attacks.."
One month later, the U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia was blown apart by a 5,000 lb. truck bomb. Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity, concludes Mansoor, "represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."
According to a London Sunday Times account, based on a Clinton administration source, responsibility for this decision "went to the very top of the White House." Shortly after the September 11 disaster, "Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let bin Laden go was probably 'the biggest mistake of my presidency.'" But according to the Times report, which was based on interviews with intelligence officials, this was only one of three occasions on which the Clinton administration had the opportunity to seize bin Laden and failed to do so.
When the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky became public in January 1998, and his adamant denials made it a consuming public preoccupation, Clinton's normal inattention to national security matters became subsumed into general executive paralysis. In Dick Morris's judgment, the United States was effectively "without a president between January 1998 until April 1999," when the impeachment proceedings concluded with the failure of the Senate to convict. It was in August 1998 that the al-Qaeda truck bombs blew up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Post from the above thread:
Strikes Show Defense Matters
By John E. Carey
Published in The San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, August 21, 1998
Yesterday, the President ordered air strikes against terrorist sites in Sudan and Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Cohen said the target in Sudan was a chemical weapon facility able to supply terrorists groups hostile to the United States. Post-Cold War foreign policy has taken a new turn.
We are living in a new strategic environment that we do not yet fully understand. Many potential adversaries pose threats to us in new and different ways. Bombings at embassies, barracks, and office buildings show how vulnerable we are to less sophisticated yet determined adversaries. The bombings to date would pale in comparison to the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, the “weapons of mass destruction.”
Some of our adversaries are undeniably at work developing ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This ushers in an entirely new age of threat, terrorism, intelligence and defense.
Our newest threat comes from terrorists like Osama bin Laden, a Saudi by birth that hates the U.S. and is intent upon exporting terrorism.
Republican candidate Matt Fong, running for the U.S. Senate in California, believes we need to abolish the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He says we need to prepare defenses against ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. His concerns deserve a closer examination.
Since April of this year:
*Pakistan tested its new medium-range ballistic missile, Ghauri. Ghauri threatens all of India.
*India responded with not one but two rounds of nuclear tests. India already has proven ballistic missiles, Agni and Prithvi, that can hit all of Pakistan.
*Pakistan, despite pleas from the United States, conducted its own tests.
*North Korea’s Nodong medium-range ballistic missile, which can hit targets in South Korea and Japan, became operational.
*A bi-partisan commission headed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld unanimously concluded that several countries are developing longer range ballistic missiles and that the proliferation of ballistic missiles is accelerating at an alarming rate.
*The commission said that North Korea is developing an even longer range ballistic missile, which will have the capability to reach targets in Alaska and Hawaii. The commission also said it believes that the Iranian Shahab-3, a medium-range ballistic missile, “may be flight-tested at any time.” A week later, Iran tested the Shahab-3 missile.
*Intelligence estimates and a State Department official confirmed that Iran is pursuing Shahab-4, a longer range ballistic missile, and is probably embarked on a nuclear weapon program. Shahab-4 could threaten people as far away from Iran as Central Europe.
*A new CIA report to Congress confirmed that China, Russia and North Korea have been major suppliers of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems to “countries of concern.” Countries such as Iran.
*Last Monday, the New York Times reported that as many as 15,000 people in North Korea could be engaged in nuclear developments.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was made in 1972 with the Soviet Union, a nation that no longer exists. The world has changed. Nations like North Korea and Iran are unencumbered by this treaty. They find ways around our counter-proliferation efforts.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is no defense against ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue nations or terrorist groups.
We need a long-term view of our future security, defense and intelligence needs. No single easy answer is apparent but one thing is certain: intelligence and defense still matter. Some treaties made during the last half century may need to be reviewed. Ballistic missile defense may become a necessity. Increased intelligence resources may be needed.
John E. Carey is a retired Naval Officer and a missile proliferation analyst in Arlington, Virginia.
4 posted on 09/11/2006 2:45:10 AM PDT by John Carey
Also:
DID CLINTON CAUSE 9/11? ASK SANDY BERGER
yahoo news ^ | 9122006 | Maggie Gallagher
Posted on 09/12/2006 6:08:37 PM PDT by BlueJ7
Over the years, historians and dramatists will produce many, many versions of "The Path to 9/11." If Bill Clinton wishes in the future to complain about historical inaccuracies, I suggest he first answer one question:
What handwritten notes, and by whom, were on the three copies of classified documents (out of five) that Sandy Berger chose to steal and cut up with scissors in 2003, smack in the middle of the 9/11 commission's investigation?
When we know the answer to that question, Bill, then and only then will you be entitled to complain about historical inaccuracies in the record.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700369/posts?page=8#8 From the above thread:
Clinton aide says
9/11 film 'correct'
Producer consulted with military attaché
who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898 2 posted on 09/12/2006 6:10:09 PM PDT by IrishMike (Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
Another interesting post from the above thread:
I think it may have something to do with this, since Kerry, Joe Wilson and Sandy Berger's buddy Baer has been trying to spin this one as if it took place in 1989 instead of 98:
MAY 13, 1998 Wednesday : (CLINTON MAKES HIS FOURTH FRANTIC CALL TO PAKISTANI PRESIDENT SHARIF SINCE INDIA'S MAY 11 NUCLEAR TESTS, PLEADING WITH HIM NOT TO CONDUCT A NUCLEAR TEST OF HIS OWN - IN PANIC OVER POSSIBLE IRANIAN MOVES, US OFFICIALS EXPOSE US HUMINT ASSETS TO IRAN) Pres. Bill Clinton made a last-minute plea to Sharif, Wednesday night. According to presidential spokesman Mike McCurry it was a "very intense" 25-minute call in which the president implored the prime minister not to conduct a test. It was the fourth presidential call to Sharif since India's first explosion on May 11. But the test time had been set - 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon of 28 May 1998. -------
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html
Yes, that was during the "mad scramble." 4 Presidential phone calls to the President of Pakistan from President Clinton himself.
The Clinton Administration had been blind-sided by India's nuclear tests, and the entire Administration was looking completely impotent to stop the Pakistan nuclear tests that followed in that same month of May, 1998.
It was during this "mad scramble" that the Clinton Administration ordered all of our agents in Iran, our field ops, our runners, even our sleeper cells, everyone, to immediately report **everything** that they knew or suspected. The Clintonistas were frightened out of their wits that Iran might further embarrass them with yet another surprise nuclear test that the CIA had missed. They missed India. They couldn't stop Pakistan. A third nation setting off yet another surprise nuclear test right then would have impeached President Clinton (or cost the Dems dearly in the November mid-term elections, at least). This data dump caused a massive communications surge...to the **same** foreign address. ...[See :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1651291/posts?page=35#35] [* note- thus exposing all of our assets in Iran]
35 posted on 06/18/2006 12:18:08 AM PDT by Southack | To 34
55 posted on 09/14/2006 9:35:01 AM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
87 posted on 09/23/2006 9:00:57 AM PDT by Seattle Conservative (God Bless and protect our troops and their CIC)