Posted on 08/23/2007 10:02:50 AM PDT by STARWISE
Shocka of the Day: Did Clinton Lie about Targeting Bin Laden?
Rick Moran
If there is one thing that the Inspector General's report on CIA accountability regarding 9/11 has highlighted, it is the utter failure of the Clinton Administration to come up with a strategic plan to deal with Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Despite all the testimony from Richard Clarke and others - including the President himself - that they agressively went after Bin Laden and the terrorists, it turns out that the IG at the CIA didn't think very much of their efforts. In fact, the report seems to make a liar out of President Clinton, who said in the notorious interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News that:
“I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”
This statement is contradicted by the IG who saw it differently:
But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him.
“The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated.
(Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone.")
Clinton's elevated opinion of his own efforts to get Bin Laden and deal with al-Qaeda don't stand up to the facts.
What are the chances that the press will pick up on that fact - or any of the implied criticisms of Clinton in the IG report - and run them?
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky and Ed Morrissey
The other poster got it from Mark Levin!
Rush is talking about it right now!
durn, I’m back at work and not listening. oh well.
"Huge carrot, no stick."
Nothing I've seen has ever disabused me of that analysis.
RUSH just said that the NY Times has a piece on the report and also the fact that none of the Press was quoting the NYT...
Rush brought that up yesterday. Apparently not.
Wherever it came from, I’ll be using it in the future.
I think if a bit more digging got done into what all old Bill Clinton opined about in his 'cry me a river' meltdown, was that those 'neocons' prevented him from getting OBL or stopping these terrorists killers. For some reason the 'FOX' media nor those supposed 'neocons' have NEVER made an issue with old Bill Clinton's media whine.
LOL
Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, 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 we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11.
The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would've had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn't do that. Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I'm asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book.
Geezus! My BS Meter pegged after the first sentence!
WTFO??????
Have, either Clinton ever told the truth?
Huh? Well, not before 9-11. Taken in context, you sound ridiculous. But we knew that already, didn't we Impeached President Clinton?
bttt
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.
