[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

KG, that article isn't going to help Mavdog out. That article is born of as much partisan smack and politics as Clinton himself (may or may not have) brought forth in the interview. The author got around to some decent points, but he showed his colors beforehand and in doing so tainted the response any reasonable person would have to his article.

I hesitated to post this entire article at first because I knew I'd get that sort of response. Sure, the author dislikes Clinton. I think it's a given that someone who would defend Clinton isn't going to take the time to go out and prove that he was lying in the Wallace interview. But you can set aside all of the opinions in the article and just read the facts, because that's what is important.

It's a nice opinion piece, but it's not the kind of thing I would be comfortable regarding as carefully-considered factual argument.

Why, exactly? Do you have some sort of dispute with the facts he raises?

The bottom line is that Clinton was lying right through his teeth when he said that people criticized him for being obsessed with bin Laden. That NEVER happened. In fact, a number of the quotes this author dug up confirm what Cass said in the prior article I posted -- that is, that a number of people criticized Clinton for not doing more.

As the article Kiki posted points out, Clinton also lied about having some sort of plan to invade Afghanistan after the Cole bombing.

Beyond that, Clinton's general implication was that he was doing everything in his power to try and kill bin Laden, and that simply isn't true.

All the politics of appearances and such aside, Clinton has a viable point when he says that the Republicans had some time to address the issue themselves. If they had indeed seen the formidable threat beforehand, does it not stand to reason that eight months was enough time for them to launch an offensive? And don't say that Clinton had eight years. This (very partisan) piece itself admits that no one in America was seriously considering Bin Laden before 1998.

When evidence surfaces that Bush had an opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11 and didn't take it, I will be more than happy to lambast him for that.

We know for a fact that Clinton had a number of opportunities to get him -- after he began to be "seriously considered."

What everyone seems to agree upon is that Dick Clarke had a strong grasp of what was going on. And in the article you posted, Clarke said that Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden and ordered him and his lieutenants assassinated. It didn't happen, but it also hasn't happened in five-plus years under Bush, five of those being AFTER 9/11!

Oh yes, Dick Clarke. Clinton mentioned Richard Clarke and his book repeatedly in the Wallace interview in the course of defending himself. Of course, as Byron York points out here, even Clarke's book doesn't exactly support Clinton's version of events:

But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

York's entire column is worth reading. He cites several specific examples from Clarke's book which provide a great deal of insight into what really happened re: UBL.

As for your comment about not getting UBL post 9/11, you're right. Bush has failed in that regard. But our best chances to get him undoubtedly came before 9/11, not after.

On the merits, it does strike me as bulldogging and issue-mongering by the Republicans. If there was a Republican before 1998 who was asking for Bin Laden's head, let him raise his hand.

I think Wallace asked a fairly straightforward question, and he didn't do so in an inflammatory manner. Clinton flew off the handle for no apparent reason, and I think you'd have to agree that there were a number of different ways Clinton could have defused the question quite easily, but they would have required a bit of humility on Clinton's part, and that simply isn't his strong suit. Personally, I think Clinton's eruption was a calculated political move -- and a pretty good one at that.

It's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, and shifting of blame. Of course it is fun to watch, politics being our favorite national sport. But it's nowhere near, as the Republicans would like to tell you, cut and dried.

I agree with that. I think that, in the end analysis, the real problem was that prior to 9/11, terrorism was viewed as a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem.

When it comes to Clinton's behaviour and body language, I think this is a lesson the Republicans would do well to learn from. Americans distrust politicians who give politician's answers. They distrust it so markedly that when someone actually breaks the mold, they are wont to give that person their support. Emotion, they can relate to. Passion, they can relate to. Canned answers, and they continue to doubt.

In some respects, I agree. That's why I said above that I think it was a pretty good (and calculated) political move by Clinton to have such a reaction.

I'd be careful in thinking that Clinton did himself more harm than good here. He may well have laid down the gauntlet. Do remember that this is an issue that the Republicans can't claim any wins on, even five years after.

Really? I think that as long as the Democrats fail to lay out any better plans to deal with terrorism (which they haven't), the Republicans can fall back on "no attacks since 9/11" as their battle cry.

The Democrats have a long way to go to become a party that Americans trust on issues of national security and terrorism. Americans may be upset at Republicans for a lot of other reasons, but above all I think people want to feel that they are safe, and I don't think Democrats provide that.