Posted on 09/24/2006 5:23:16 AM PDT by Howlin
Oh it's worth it! Big Time!
FUN! FUN! FUN!
Don't miss it!
Friday, Sept. 21, 2001
President Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky may have interfered with his administration's failed attempts to eliminate Mideast terrorist Osama bin Laden, the Boston Globe reported Friday.
The liberal sister paper of the New York Times also raised questions about whether the ex-president's reckless personal behavior ultimately contributed to the deaths of 6,700 Americans in last week's terrorist attacks on the U.S.
"He authorized the attack (on bin Laden) on the same August weekend in 1998 he confessed his affair with Lewinsky to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton," the Globe said.
The paper called the confession of adultery an "added strain" for the president, noting that, "Some wonder whether he wasn't distracted by the legal and political quagmire of the Monica S. Lewinsky case" at the time he launched 75 cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan.
"He met with national security and military advisers to plan the attacks between sessions with lawyers to prepare for his [Lewinsky] grand jury testimony," the Globe said.
"I think it is entirely possible that was a distraction," said Massachusett's Senator John Kerry, referring to Clinton's attempts to juggle his Lewinsky cover-up with military efforts to take out the terrorist who would later prove so deadly to U.S. civilians.
Others disagreed. Former Clinton national security official Nancy Soderberg insisted to the Globe that her ex-boss was able to "compartmentalize" the Lewinsky sex scandal while mapping out a strategy to get bin Laden.
She did not cite the best known example of Clinton's ability to compartmentalize sex and national security: a 1995 Oval Office phone call where he discussed troop deployment to Bosnia with Rep. Sonny Callahan.
The conversation was carried out while Ms. Lewinsky performed a sex act on the president.
As Clinton desperately tried to cover-up his affair with the young intern, the legal fight to preserve his presidency took up more and more of his time, staffers admitted. Meanwhile other issues like the war on terrorism were relegated to the back burner.
"Clearly, not enough was done," said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this."
Even Soderberg, who declined to blame the Lewinsky scandal for the failure to get bin Laden, confessed that Clinton's war on terrorism was never the priority it should have been.
"In hindsight, it wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that," she told the Globe.
Kerry is quoted! Which publication is this?
You gotta be kidding. I can't believe the posts on this board. If nothing, BJ is a master politician and he's coming on FoxNews for his 1st interview and you don't think he knows his going to be asked the question about his actions (or lack thereof) in the run-up to 9/11?
He had to know that he was going to get asked questions similar to what he was asked (particularly on FN) and he was prepared to react exactly as he did -IMHO..
That he didn't get our vote of approval was a going-in given, but to his fans he did not come off as cracy or out of control and they will love him for it and Hillary will be the beneficiary...
May 18, 1996: Sudan Expels bin Laden; US Fails to Stop His Flight to Afghanistan
After pressure from the US (see March-May 1996), the Sudanese government asks bin Laden to leave the country. He decides to go to Afghanistan. He departs along with many other al-Qaeda members, plus much money and resources. Bin Laden flies to Afghanistan in a C-130 transport plane with an entourage of about 150 men, women, and children, stopping in Doha, Qatar, to refuel, where governmental officials greet him warmly. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002; Coll, 2004, pp. 325] The US knows in advance that bin Laden is going to Afghanistan, but does nothing to stop him. Sudan’s defense minister Elfatih Erwa later says in an interview, “We warned [the US]. In Sudan, bin Laden and his money were under our control. But we knew that if he went to Afghanistan no one could control him. The US didn’t care; they just didn’t want him in Somalia. It’s crazy.” [Village Voice, 10/31/2001; Washington Post, 10/3/2001] US-al-Qaeda double agent Ali Mohamed handles security during the move. [Raleigh News and Observer, 10/21/2001]
Did you watch the interview?
I noitced that too.
Can you imagine him in a full rage WHEN CAMERAS ARE NOT WATCHING???
I believe he is a very violent person when challeneged or pushed.
Is this interview worth watching in repeat at 6:00???YES!
It's clear to see that Bubba has a sore spot where Fox News is concerned. More than once he comments about 'right wingers' and 'Fox News' and that Wallace was 'put up' to this by others!
BY ALL MEANS - WATCH!
A Democrat!... And then they propose we talk them out of hating and wanting to murder US.
These frauds were destructive to this Republic.
He had to know that he was going to get asked questions similar to what he was asked (particularly on FN) and he was prepared to react exactly as he did -IMHO..I GUESS that includes invasion of the personal space of the interviewer?
Mr. Berger's "hand-written notes on the meeting paper," the report says, showed that Mr. Berger was worried about injuring or killing civilians located near the camp.
Additionally, "If [bin Laden] responds" to the attack, "we're blamed," Mr. Berger wrote.
The report also says that Richard Clarke, Mr. Berger's expert on counterterrorism, presented that plan to get bin Laden because he was worried about the al Qaeda leader's "ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
These revelations come as Mr. Berger is under investigation by the Justice Department for smuggling several copies of classified documents that dealt with the Clinton administration's anti-terror policies out of the National Archives.
According to the report, the first plan of action against bin Laden presented to Mr. Berger was a briefing by CIA Director George J. Tenet on May 1, 1998. Mr. Berger took no action, the report says, because he was "focused most" on legal questions.
Chris Wallace is talking about the interview on Fox now.
Thanks!
Sho-nuff. We get all the U.S. MSM channels and most of the cables up here.
I was not surprised at Chris's questions and was even less surprised at Clinton's response.
I thought it was vintage Clinton.
starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.
Miniter: The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full extent of the bin Laden menace because the president's decision to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its information with the CIA — without also having to share the same data with the accused terrorists. Woolsey told me about his frustration that he had less access to evidence from the World Trade Center bombing — the then-largest ever foreign terrorist attack on U.S soil — than any junior agent in the FBI's New York office.
Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all — even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad.
More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he tried.
Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?
The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.
After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."
http://tinyurl.com/p64c8
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.