Clinton Faults COMPLAINS of Bush Team Efforts to Get bin Laden Before Sept. 11:
Posted on 09/25/2006 8:35:10 AM PDT by presidio9
Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration in an interview to be broadcast Sunday of doing far less to stop Mr. bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In the interview for “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Clinton defended the steps he took after the bombing of the destroyer Cole in 2000 and faulted “right-wingers” for their criticism of his efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden, the Qaeda leader.
“But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now,” Mr. Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to anticipate the full threat from Mr. bin Laden. “They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”
The Sept. 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in January 2001.
“I authorized the C.I.A. to get groups together to try to kill him,” Mr. Clinton said.
“Now if you want to criticize me for one thing,” he continued, “you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.” But he said he was not able to follow through with his plans, adding, “We needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11.”
Mr. Clinton complained at the time that the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had refused to certify that Mr. bin Laden was responsible for the Cole attack.
Earlier this month, Mr. Clinton dismissed as “indisputably wrong” a television movie that suggested he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Bubba claimed that the Bush Administration "dropped the ball" but Laura Ingraham closed her show today playing an audiotape from an "open mike" comment from Richard Clarke (Bubba's "go to guy" referenced in his Sunday interview) that there was no plan regarding Al Qaeda passed to the Bush administration.
The WTC bombing was treated like a bank job but Waco was a battleground on America soil. The military was called into service.
I think Clinton's claim re the first WTC bombing is that "that wasn't Al Qaeda. Nobody had ever heard of Al Qaeda then." Or something like that.
Of course, it's a distinction without a difference. Kind of like what the meaning of is, is.
Clinton Faults COMPLAINS of Bush Team Efforts to Get bin Laden Before Sept. 11:
The fact will always remain that Bill Clinton deployed troops on the phone while receiving oral sex from an unpaid college intern. THAT was his focus. National security and the course of this country came second to his lusts.
To God (or someone who thinks he is God) a day is like a thousand years.
The Clinton thieves were looking for an opportunity to return and take everything else that wasn't nailed down.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that little episode.
Clinton, as everyone already knows had eight years to go after bin-Laden. Clinton and his administration knew about bin-Laden for most of the administration's eight years. They also knew that bin-Laden was responsible for the terror attacks that occurred during the Clinton administration.
And then, he's got the cojones to blame Bush for not going after bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda?
Clinton claims that he had plans to go after bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda for the Cole attacks, but he didn't put then into operation. Clinton faults Bush for not acting on the intelligence and plans that he, Clinton, had left for the next administration. So, Clinton fails to take action against Al-Qaeda and passes the blame on to Bush because Bush didn't go after bin-Laden in the 8 months before 9/11.
Now imagine, if Bush had actually acted on the intelligence left for him by the Clinton administration...
If Bush had actually gone after Al-Qaeda and bin-Laden almost immediately after taking office, the outcry from the democrats and the whole America-hating world would've been deafening. He would've been condemned as a warmongering, neo-con, ultra-rightwing, gunslinging Texas cowboy who couldn't wait to start a war. Never mind that Clinton now says that the intelligence, before he left office and after he left office, justified going after bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda. The attacks from the left would've been unending. But, since 20/20 is always 100% correct, the left would've pointed out that even though Clinton knew about who perpetrated the Cole attack, Clinton didn't feel it was worth bombing Afghanistan or other terror supporting countries. So, the left would've pointed out that, if Clinton didn't feel strongly enough on the Cole issue to go after the terrorists, why did the warmongering cowboy Bush feel he needed to take action? The demonization of a recently elected Bush would've gone on endlessly and Clinton would've been seen as a peace-loving hero.
I REMEMBER that!
Always remember what El Rushbo said so long ago;The Clinton Presidency Is About One Thing,Clinton"!!!!!!!!!!!
I think it was a U2 spyplane that landed in China.
Exactly.
Note that this article wasn't written by a NYT staffer, but is from Reuters.
The New York Times assumes responsibility by printing it. But I wonder if using a wire service report may not suggest that the prefer not to risk embarrassment for themselves by putting their weight (such as it is) behind clinton's obviously lying remarks.
When it comes to getting their message across, I don't think either the New York Times or Reuters is particularly concerned with credibility.
No matter how hard Clinton tries, no matter how big the tantrum, Clinton simply can't get by the fact that he had eight years and Bush had eight months. Years, months. And this guy expects us to believe that he did everything he could?
What Clinton's tantrum really confirmed is that Clinton set up the 9/11 commission to try and blame Bush and exonerate himself. Sorry Billy Boy, it failed. You failed.
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.