[Jerrybob]

This is quite long and it is not breaking news, but I wanted it to get the broadest possible exposure.

In light of the 2nd anniversary of 9/11, I can think of nothing more fitting than to 1) never forget what happened on that day, 2) remember which group of human beings brought us this attack and 3) never forget which president slept (and did other things) while international forces aligned themselves to bring us 9/11/01.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

In any other country, the Clintons would've been put on trial.

[soothsayer99]

<> I guess it never occurred to you that the same could be said for the Repubs during the impeachment scandal. Maybe seeing neocons mock the President, call him a murderer and a rapist and put him on a sham trial, helped enbolden them.

[Quilla]

May be long, but certainly well worth the read. If there has ever been any doubt that Clinton is all about Clinton (me, me, me), this should erase it:

However, none of their efforts would have succeeded but for the fears, worries, and phobias that raged inside Bill Clinton's mind: fear that if he led American troops into a battle with casualties, his own draft record would return to bite him politically; worry that he would alienate his Hispanic constituency if he cracked down on illegal aliens; concern that an increase in the price of oil could spell his political doom; hesitation in the face of European intransigence and worry that his own foreign-policy experts would leak that he was incompetent and too political; willingness to believe he had a deal with North Korea when all he had was a vague and misleading statement of intentions; unwillingness to go to war with Saddam Hussein; trepidation that civil libertarian criticism would undermine his domestic support; and, finally, a morally relativist refusal to see Saddam, al Qaeda, or Kim Jong Il as forces of evil. These factors, more than any advice from his advisers, paralyzed Bill Clinton's efforts to stem the forces of terror.

[1066AD]

All our terrorist problems were born during the Clinton years.
Maybe should read "All our major ..". Seems to me it started in late 60s/early 70s with PLO, Fatah(Arafat) etc, airplane hijackings, Munich Olympics etc and escalated thereafter.

[SkyPilot]

bump

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Why didn't Clinton visit the site? The emphasis in his public statements and in the demeanor of New York officials in the aftermath of the attack was to avoid an "overreaction." Worried about public panic, and perhaps concerned that a presidential visit would get in the way of rescue and investigative efforts, New York officials told Clinton to stay away.

Okay, but what about afterward? President Bush let the smoke clear at Ground Zero for a few days after 9/11, but less than a week went by before he went and memorably addressed the rescue workers through a bullhorn, rallying them and reinvigorating America's sagging spirits. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, never visited the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the 1993 bombing.

Clinton didn't go to the WTC in '93, but he did go in 2001. WHY?

[grumple]

This article is about 95% true...Morris writes this from a standpoint that Clinton was mired in his own self inequities which prevented him politically from pursuing Saddam, Bin Laden and that really Ill guy in Korea. What a load of crap. The 95% true part relates to all the issues Morris points out in his article, but he fails miserably on the other 5%.

However, Morris misses some examples like this...Never once does he mention Clinton's pardoning of FALN T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S....

If Bush had pardoned former terrorists in the wake of an election, the media would be having a collective cow-gasm

I, to this day firmly believe, that Bill and Hillary Clinton are complicit in all of this terrorist activity. And there is too much information out there to think otherwise. And these people are still in our midst trying to assume power...

If Bill Clinton was mired in his own inequities as President, he would slink away and go back to Arkansas or Russia or Communist China.

Instead he continues to offer himself up as a center piece to solving America's problems by succesting we blame ourselves. These people know they are not popular.

If someone is not popular at something would they continue to subject themselves to it? No...not unless you had other plans...and those plans needed Osama, Saddam and that really Ill guy in pj's....

[spoiler2]

bttt

[duckln]

Amazing. Dick still has a little spin left. He fails, like all our 'pundits', conservatives included, to mention our getting in bed with terrorist Islamists in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Clinton's worst crime IMO, was the 78 day bombing of Serbia. Now Gen Clark, the mad General he put in charge, wants to be president.

Bush better get some smarts and support Russia in Chechnya, Serbia in the Balkans, and Israel in Palistine. I don't think we can contain the spread of the fanatics by ourselves. The UN is even on their side and NATO has been corrupted by neo atitudes of Germany and France.

[rootntootn]

Dick, I wouldn't plan any hunting trips to Arkansas for a while. Particlarly if you're flying in a light aircraft.

[bray]

Clinton and the rest of the dirtyRats prefer the Vietnam dibacle over Iraq. They love it when the military is humiliated and America is put on it's knees. They need us to be equally humilited in Iraq to defeat their evil military industrial complex.

Pray for GW and Our Troops

[BossLady]

Slick was impotent in all areas except the one that mattered least..... ;)

[sweetliberty]

"the director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey, later said he had not had a single private meeting with President Clinton through all of 1993 and 1994."

How many you reckon he had about Monica, Paula, Gennifer, Kathleen.....?

[sweetliberty]

"none of their efforts would have succeeded but for the fears, worries, and phobias that raged inside Bill Clinton's mind: fear that if he led American troops into a battle with casualties, his own draft record would return to bite him politically; worry that he would alienate his Hispanic constituency if he cracked down on illegal aliens; concern that an increase in the price of oil could spell his political doom; hesitation in the face of European intransigence and worry that his own foreign-policy experts would leak that he was incompetent and too political; willingness to believe he had a deal with North Korea when all he had was a vague and misleading statement of intentions; unwillingness to go to war with Saddam Hussein; trepidation that civil libertarian criticism would undermine his domestic support; and, finally, a morally relativist refusal to see Saddam, al Qaeda, or Kim Jong Il as forces of evil."

Such an altruist. And this is the guy the democRATs hail as such a great president. Unbelievable.

[MamaLucci]

As I first became aware of this situation, I believed Bill Clinton was guilty of negligence and oversight. As I read the evidence, however, the picture darkened significantly. Clinton's attitude probably started as neglect of global terrorism -- a field alien to the Arkansas governor's experience and worldview. But as his administration evolved and entered its second term, its failure to deal with these three looming threats began to seem more and more conscious, even deliberate.

Long, but timely, repost.

[Zack Nguyen]

and, finally, a morally relativist refusal to see Saddam, al Qaeda, or Kim Jong Il as forces of evil.

This is the fundamental tragedy of the leftist mind - an inability to recognize sin and evil when it stares them in the face.

[Enchante]

Just found this article in the archives when I was searching for items on this subject - I posted on another thread that the big wake-up call, our "Pearl Harbor" of terrorism, should have been the FIRST WTC bombing in '93. I thought at the time (and it didn't occur to me that people charged with protecting national security wouldn't think the same thing) that the '93 WTC bombing had to be regarded as vastly more significant than what the 6 fatalities and hundreds of wounded might suggest to lackadaisical liberals..... it was the FACT of such a bombing on our shores, in the middle of our largest city, by Islamic terrorists that indicated we might well be in store for much much worse, especially if WMDs were acquired..... when the federal government did not make any evident public response in '93 I thought (silly me) that meant that all the heavy lifting was being done quietly behind the scenes..... and that we did not want to tip our hand to the terrorists. It did not seem possible then (I know, I was naive) that we were not making the most strenous efforts possible to reform and re-direct the intel agencies to deal vigorously with Islamic terrorism.

Morris:
"In June 1993, when the FBI arrested Sheikh Rahman and nine of his followers, President Clinton must have been told that the terrorist groups in and around New York City were actively plotting massive destruction of high-profile targets. The World Trade Center had already been bombed, the United Nations and bridges and tunnels had been targeted. What else did the president need to grasp the gravity of the situation? Yet he never ordered any major shakeup of the antiterror apparatus. No extra tools were given to the FBI. No massive mobilization was declared. The government simply shrugged its shoulders; the bank robbers had been caught, after all; why make a fuss?

[Mia T]

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

[Enchante]

Now it's almost the 4th anniversary of 9/11 and I am thinking about (1) that we must NEVER FORGET, and (2) how the country sleep-walked through the Clinton "Holiday from History", (3) that we still have much to do to improve our security policies and agencies in the face of constant erosion from the liberals, and (4) that in light of the new "Able Danger" revelations and the failings of the 9/11 Commission-Omission it is crucial that we force the government and media to finally do a full and frank assessment of the national security castrophe of the Clinton years.

[jetson]

What we have here is Weenygate!