Bill Clinton's failure on terrorism

The Washington Times ^ | September 02, 2003 | Richard Miniter

[Gabrielle Reilly]

LOL.

I can see quite clearly how Adam came to eat that apple. Eve just had to say "don't do it"! :)

I am experimenting with links and searches on the web.

"Thanks you" if that was a compliment. "Sorry" if it wasn't a compliment and I have been bugging you placing a link you found hard to ignore. :)

[Pagey]

Some of the principals were concerned that bin Laden might somehow survive the cruise-missile attack and appear in another triumphant press conference.

Like I have said previously, it is going to take years and years of four-part articles to show the nation that Billy Jeff Blythe cared more about what other countries thought of him,rather than removing scum from the earth. Let me also state the Definition of a Liberal/Leftist/Weakling such as Bill Clinton,as it truly fits him: "Being a Liberal is easy because wanting to appear compassionate and likeable is easier than defending moral absolutes and taking a stand."Yes indeed, that defines him to a tee.

[malia]

"--Mr. Clarke had no doubts about whom to punish. The detailed plan was "to level" every bin Laden training camp and compound in Afghanistan as well as key Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. "Let's blow them up," Clarke said. . . . Around the table, Clarke heard only objections — not a mandate for action.

Attorney General Janet Reno insisted that they had no clear idea who had actually carried out the attack.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike — but for diplomatic reasons. "We're desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians," Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, "Bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time."

Secretary of Defense Cohen also did not favor a retaliatory strike, according to Mr. Clarke. The attack "was not sufficient provocation," At the time, Clarke said that he had very reliable and specific information about bin Laden's location. Each objection was countered and answered with a yet another objection.

In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke's retaliation plan by a margin of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.---"

We all know what those reasons were!!!

a variety of reasons = The Clinton's joint legacy!!!!!

[VRWCmember]

It was a compliment. I can never resist one of your links, but I was just making a suggestion as to how you might make them even more irresistable (like you).

[Snidely Whiplash]

Unlike your lack of paragraphs, Clinton's non action against Bin Laden was not a failure or an accident.

It was intentional.

Ehhh...I tend to subscribe to Occam's Razor - it's a far simpler explanation that he was a self-centered, misinformed idiot. Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. I tend to view the Clinton administration as a high-water mark of stupidity.

Snidely

[Gabrielle Reilly]

:)

[Pagey]

FYI "Part one of an exclusive four-part series of excerpts" I knew "Some Journalist" had to eventually bring these facts to the fore.

[Cindy]

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "ATTACK ON AMERICA!" (Updated Daily)
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html

[VRWCmember]

I don't see where Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft were falling all over themselves in January 2001 to correct Clinton's shortcomings in the war on terror.

For the first several months of his presidency, GWB had several items that required priority, e.g. getting his economic agenda going in order to reverse the declining economy he inherited, getting his cabinet appointees confirmed, trying to restore some dignity to the White House and clean up the mess left to him, etc. Making wholesale efforts to correct every foreign policy blunder by the previous WH occupant in the first 8 months of his administration would have been futile and irresponsible. A massive, well coordinated assault like 9/11 demanded immediate AND sustained attention, and GWB has responded appropriately and effectively. Should GWB have placed a higher priority on apprehending OBL immediately after clinton squandered several opportunities to deal with him? In retrospect one might argue in the affirmative, but it is impossible to make that case based on information that was available at the time. Should clinton have taken advantage of the opportunities he had to deal severely with OBL? Absolutely.

[presidio9]

I don't see where Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft were falling all over themselves in January 2001 to correct Clinton's shortcomings in the war on terror. And I really would like to hear what the victims (families) of the USS Cole, African embassies, Khobar towers, WTC '93, Oklahoma City, and Pan Am 103 think of Bush's declaration that 9/11 was the opening of the war on terror.

Welcome to Free Republic. I see you waited until your third post to try to link 911 back to Bush and Reagan. Sorry, only Bill Clinton was offered Osama bin Ladin's head on a platter. And he refused.

[Quilla]

In January of 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were finally given the previously withheld keys to the then vandalized White House. If you recall, they were even denied the official transition offices. One of the President's first acts was to review and revoke some of Clinton's Executive Orders. He had to appoint a cabinet and present his first tax cut plan as the Clinton-grandized 'it's the economy, stupid' had tanked.

I suspect that once briefings started, the President found out just how much damage (down-sizing) Clinton had done to the military. X42's world tour assisted in this depletion. Good war planners don't start fights without the necessary assets in place. I believe that is why the war in Afghanistan didn't start for several months after the attacks of September 11.

By the way, welcome to Free Republic.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Unfortunately, I can't agree.

The infestation that was/is the Clinton crime syndicate is at least as evil as it is stupid.

[presidio9]

Please Tuco, being the armchair quarterback that you are, put yourself in Dr. Rice's shoes. How would you have prevented 911?

[Quilla]

For the record:

"During his command, President Clinton reduced the active duty force by one-third to one-half, eliminating approximately 800,000 personnel. He reduced the Army from eighteen divisions to ten. He cut half of the Air Force combat fighter wings, chopping twelve from the existing twenty-four. He eliminated 232 strategic bombers and 2,000 Air Force and Navy combat aircraft. He reduced the Navy from 567 ships to just over 300. He decommissioned all the Navy's battleships...."

"He gutted military infrastructure and readiness capabilities, causing entire tactical air squadrons to ground half of their flights. He inflicted a dramatic decline in readiness ratings for ships in the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets."

"The president also gutted morale. He immediately froze military pay at a time when it had already fallen behind the private sector by almost 20 percent. The pay freeze was especially egregious when approximately 80 percent of the force was earning less than $30,000 annually and more than twenty thousand enlisted personnel were eligible for food stanps."

Source: Dereliction of Duty by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, USAF (Ret.)

[Quilla]

So now September 11 is Condoleezza Rice's fault. I think you need to ask Vanna for your money back. It seems you wasted it on that "o" in your name.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...put yourself in Dr. Rice's shoes. How would you have prevented 911?...

Hmmm. Maybe she could have done like Algore did with twa800 and demanded a bribe to cover it up. Still would have happened, but could be denied forever.

[presidio9]

Interesting that calling him Tuco seems to have shut him up rather quickly.

[Bon mots]

Agggh. No paragraphs!!

Try this: < P>

Anyway, Clinton was interested in other things.