Posted on 12/18/2001 7:36:57 PM PST by andrew
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Two years ago, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet phoned the White House. The agency had a lead, he said, on Osama bin Laden.
Reports linked the al Qaeda leader to a temporary encampment in southern Afghanistan. Overhead photographs showed a well-equipped caravan of the sort used by hunters, a commanding figure at its center, and an entourage of escorts bearing arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If what Sabertooth says is true(and I believe him) it makes this story(tale) pure BS.
Im sure parts of this article are true, Clinton and his cohorts went through the motions, but in the end didn't have the guts to follow through.
They must of ran a poll or they didn't want to upset their liberal base.
They chose instead to bide their time and hope nothing else happens on their watch that they would have to respond to more aggressively to
Being an Army wife, Shelton was a poor excuse for a member of the JCS...he was despised by the military as much as Clinton.
---max
The bulk was provided by Clinton "sources close to the National Security Team."
The release of this level of detail of what surely is top secret material must be illegal. What do you think?
A Cohen comment from the same interview, speaking of the current administration's war against terror: "We have been bombing for several months. We have devastated what remains of Afghanistan."Another flat out lie! from the unbiased.
Matthews ended with "Mr Cohen, you are a great guy."
PRINCETON 2001-2002
The Ferris Professors of JournalismEach year eminent journalists teach at Princeton, joining a roster that includes many of America's most distinguished writers.
Barton Gellman '82, former Jerusalem bureau chief for the Washington Post, has also covered the Pentagon. Author of works about George Kennan, Bill Bradley and AIDS, Gellman will teach The Literature of Fact this spring.
Would the attacks of 9/11 have happened, had President Clinton been up to the job with which he was entrusted?
I can't imagine that they would have happened if Clinton had done the job. 9/11 was the culmination of a series of increasingly brazen attacks on our interests, going all the way back to the original WTC bombing. As each attack happened, we were being watched by our enemies. They listened to what we said, but they really paid attention to what we did. And they eventually drew the conclusion that we were too weak and too soft to hit them back.
It's painfully clear now that we didn't do nearly enough. Clinton didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what Bush is doing now. Why? There are probably a lot of reasons: his 60's mentality and its accompanying disdain for the military; his addiction to polls; his preoccupation with crushing his enemies; his pursuit of personal pleasure; or his lack of interest in foreign policy. But I think the biggest reason of all is this: Bill Clinton, at his most basic level, is a weak, soft man, afraid to put his precious self at risk, more given to talk than to action. He was weak and soft at a time when he needed to be strong and resolute, and 9/11 was the result. He deserves nothing but contempt.
Gee, I guess character does matter, after all.
Oh, c'mon, stop pulling punches. Heee heeee...
Naaaahhh, ya see, it just proves we need an incompetent pervert, who sounds and looks good on TV, for a "president"....someone like bill clinton. Cantcha see that???
It's painfully clear now that we didn't do nearly enough. Clinton didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what Bush is doing now. Why? There are probably a lot of reasons: his 60's mentality and its accompanying disdain for the military; his addiction to polls; his preoccupation with crushing his enemies; his pursuit of personal pleasure; or his lack of interest in foreign policy. But I think the biggest reason of all is this: Bill Clinton, at his most basic level, is a weak, soft man, afraid to put his precious self at risk, more given to talk than to action. He was weak and soft at a time when he needed to be strong and resolute, and 9/11 was the result. He deserves nothing but contempt.
Gee, I guess character does matter, after all.
53 posted on 12/19/01 10:23 PM Pacific by Rainbow Rising
Killer post! That's all I can say at this point, you have taken the words right out of my mouth. Good Job!!!
Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission... More than once, advisers recall, Clinton sounded out Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the prospect of using Special Forces to surprise bin Laden's fighters on the ground. But Clinton declined to authorize the large-scale operation that Shelton said would be required, and he chose not to order a less ambitious option to which the general would have objected.
Amid all of the spin there are germs of truth... I've been sitting on some info under the "loose lips" principle, but this article makes that no longer necessary. An Academy buddy of my cousin, himself a former Air Force pilot, is a Delta Force pilot. According to him, we had bin Laden "in our crosshairs" three times during the Clinton years, but couldn't get the kill order from higher up. His conclusion from the field was the reason for this failure was nothing more than a lack of the political will to get the job done. Which leads, yet again, to the obvious question: Would the attacks of 9/11 have happened, had President Clinton been up to the job with which he was entrusted? 7 posted on 12/18/01 10:12 PM Pacific by Sabertooth
I can't imagine that they would have happened if Clinton had done the job. 9/11 was the culmination of a series of increasingly brazen attacks on our interests, going all the way back to the original WTC bombing. As each attack happened, we were being watched by our enemies. They listened to what we said, but they really paid attention to what we did. And they eventually drew the conclusion that we were too weak and too soft to hit them back. It's painfully clear now that we didn't do nearly enough. Clinton didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what Bush is doing now. Why? There are probably a lot of reasons: his 60's mentality and its accompanying disdain for the military; his addiction to polls; his preoccupation with crushing his enemies; his pursuit of personal pleasure; or his lack of interest in foreign policy. But I think the biggest reason of all is this: Bill Clinton, at his most basic level, is a weak, soft man, afraid to put his precious self at risk, more given to talk than to action. He was weak and soft at a time when he needed to be strong and resolute, and 9/11 was the result. He deserves nothing but contempt. Gee, I guess character does matter, after all. 53 posted on 12/19/01 10:23 PM Pacific by Rainbow Rising |
clinton is the quintessential coward. He is especially cowardly about acts physical, notwithstanding (or, more accurately, underscored by) an apparent facility in committing rapes, predations and willful, premeditated, opportunistic killings (e.g., the Sudan bombing, the Ricky Ray Rector execution). . . clinton cowardice knows no geographic bounds. We saw clinton cowardice in the Balkans...
We saw clinton cowardice in Africa...
I suspect clinton cowardice accounted for the cancellation of his trip to Greece with its streets teeming with anti-clinton demonstrators. Greeks were trying clinton in effigy for his wag-the-dog, desperately-seeking-a-legacy mass murders in the Balkans. The world has clinton figured out: He is small, a greasy character, a degenerate, a delusional if opportunistic narcissist, a predatory adolescent, a backwoods buffoon, but most of all, a coward. If he won't go to Greece, with all the protections of the presidency, where will he go when we are finally rid of him? (Will we ever be finally rid of him?) (That the backwoods, backroom duo thought they could spin the world as they did Arkansas is a measure of their stupidity. They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiber-optic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.) Poetic justice in the end: clinton--both clintons, in fact--will be prisoners, both Cartesian and Freudian, of their own depravity, imprisioned in the hermetic confines of an evil, narcissistic life. Their world will finally and fittingly become as small as they, themselves, are. |
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.