Clinton v. Fox--Who won?

[u2sarajevo]

The good guys ALWAYS win......

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

The good guys ALWAYS win......

So it was Dubya then. Sweet.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog, here's another article to help you out...


Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions
September 25th, 2006
link

Last week, former president Bill Clinton took some time out of his busy dating schedule to have a not so friendly chat with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Given his rabidity, Mr. Clinton might consider taking a few milligrams of Valium the next time he allows himself to face “fair and balanced” questions, assuming once wasn’t enough that is.

This wasn’t Mr. Clinton’s finest hour. In fact, it could be by far the worst performance of his career, which is saying a lot given that his acting skills were typically much more apparent than his policy-making acumen when he was in office.
From the onset, Mr. Clinton seemed ill at ease. This is understandable, as he didn’t see the normally comforting initials of the “Clinton News Network” proudly displayed on the video cameras in front of him. But, this doesn’t absolve him of appearing before the American people as if he were Norman Bates just questioned about his mother.

On the other hand, maybe asking the former president anything of consequence these days will elicit such volatility, as the fireworks started as soon as Wallace brought up historically factual statements made in a new book, The Looming Tower. In it, author Lawrence Wright addressed how Osama bin Laden had indicated that when American troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993, he and his al Qaeda buddies saw this as an indication of American weakness.

Although this certainly couldn’t have been the first time he had heard this, it didn’t sit very well with Mr. Clinton, who lashed out in a fury akin to a president that had just been accused of having sexual relations with an intern:

I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much.

Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader?

Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives – the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears…oh my – and how it’s all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps.

Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.
Regardless, this tool – with the assistance of search engines and services such as LexisNexis – allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word “is” means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.

Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden

With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard.

As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president – or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter – began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.

At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.

Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:

Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added]

Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:

With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added]

Crowley continued:

“The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added]

It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.
The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:

“Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,” said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.” [emphasis added]

Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:

I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue. [emphasis added]

Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:

I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:

“Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,” said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.

In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:

Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added]
That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.

Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?
Regardless, in the end, sanity prevailed, and both Specter and Coats got on board the operation:

After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, Specter said: “I think the president acted properly.” [emphasis added]

As for “neocons,” one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:

For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.
Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.

So Thursday’s bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it. [emphasis added]

Does that sound like a “Bush neocon” claiming that Clinton was “obsessed with bin Laden” to you?

In reality, the only person that appears to have said that Clinton was fixated with the al Qaeda leader was Richard Clarke, who stated the following on CNN on March 24, 2004:

Bill Clinton was obsessed with getting bin Laden. Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden assassinated. He ordered not only bin Laden assassinated but all of his lieutenants.

Well, at least somebody felt Clinton was obsessed with Osama. But Clinton referred to Clarke quite favorably during his tirade.

Moving forward, conservative support for Clinton’s Afghanistan attacks didn’t end in the weeks that followed. On October 25, 1998, high-ranking Republican senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said the following on CNN:

You’ve seen the great work of the FBI and the CIA in particular with regard to the Osama bin Laden matters.

Yet, maybe more curious than the delusion by Mr. Clinton that Republicans were claiming he was obsessed with bin Laden is the fact that he believes he was. After all, if Clinton had been so focused on this terrorist leader that Republicans would have thought it was over-kill, wouldn’t there be indications of this obsession in the record?

Quite the contrary, much as there is no evidence of any Republican expressing such an opinion, there is no evidence that anti-terrorism efforts were a huge focus of the Clinton administration. For instance, just five months after the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, President Clinton gave a State of the Union address.

Think terrorism or the capture of bin Laden was a central focus to the supposedly obsessed former president? Hardly. In a one-hour, seventeen minute speech to the nation on January 19, 1999, this is all President Clinton had to say about such issues:

As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation’s security, including increased danger from outlaw nations and terrorism. CLINTON: We will defend our security wherever we are threatened—as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden’s network of terror.

The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world. So let’s give them the support they need, the safest possible workplaces, and the resources they must have so America can continue to lead.

We must work to keep terrorists from disrupting computer networks. We must work to prepare local communities for biological and chemical emergencies, to support research into vaccines and treatments.

Furthermore, twelve months later, even though he spoke for almost an hour and a half during his final State of the Union address on January 27, 2000, according to a LexisNexis search, the name Osama bin Laden was never mentioned. This appears almost impossible to believe given revelations that very morning about a connection between the individual apprehended trying to cross the Canadian border with explosives in December and bin Laden.

So much for obsession.

Sadly, this entire incident speaks volumes about how the press have given Clinton a pass for his transgressions, and, maybe more important, the danger of such negligence. When one watches this interview, it is easy to see a man that is unused to challenging questions from the media. After all, this is the first time that Clinton agreed to be on Fox News Sunday, and, as a result, he’s become so accustomed to the softballs fed to him by folks like Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos that he feels it’s his right to not be challenged.

Just look at some of the disdain Clinton showed for his interviewer all because he was asked a question he didn’t want to answer:

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

Or, how about this wonderful statement by a former president:

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

Or this one:

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.

Just imagine President Bush speaking this way to a member of the media when he is being grilled either during a press conference, or in the middle of any of his interviews since he became president. Or getting in the face of his interviewer and tapping on the host’s notepad that’s sitting on his lap.

Would this be acceptable? Not a chance. However, such was the behavior of America’s 42nd president. And, as much as he and his troops appear to be aggressively defending his actions to preserve his legacy, they have failed to recognize that such displays in front of a well-regarded member of the press will defeat their purposes no matter how much they try to rationalize them.

In the end, it’s not clear which is more surprising: Mr. Clinton once again lying to the American people and disgracing himself so, or that he didn’t realize that in his self-absorbed desire to revise history for the benefit of posterity, he was actually doing himself more harm than good.

Noel Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. He is also contributing editor to the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org, and a contributing writer to its Business & Media Institute. He weclomes feedback.

[Drbio]

In the end, it’s not clear which is more surprising: Mr. Clinton once again lying to the American people and disgracing himself so, or that he didn’t realize that in his self-absorbed desire to revise history for the benefit of posterity, he was actually doing himself more harm than good.

Ba-Zing!

[dude1394]

Bill Clinton will go down as one of the most inconsequential presidents in history. And one of it not the most immoral.

His legacy is one of excesses and mendacity.

[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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MavKikiNYC]

Three former Clinton 'administration' officials expose Clinton's foxy lies.

New York Daily News - Bill's bull?
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Tuesday, September 26th, 2006

WASHINGTON - Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.

1) "The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks," said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton. "What I was involved in could in no way be called a full-fledged plan to attack and overthrow the Taliban," he said.


In his fiery interview on "Fox News Sunday," Clinton claimed he did more than President Bush to get Bin Laden before 9/11, disclosing that he had a secret plan to invade Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.


Clinton insisted he never ordered that invasion because the CIA and FBI could not "certify" that Bin Laden was involved in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the Cole in a Yemeni harbor.
Scheuer, who wrote the book "Imperial Hubris," said he met every 10 days with top members of Clinton's anti-terror team and plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed.


He (Scheuer) also lashed out at Clinton for blaming subordinates for the failure to get Bin Laden, saying they had 10 chances to kill or capture the terror kingpin before 9/11.


"I was responsible for sending men and women into harm's way to get information he didn't use," Scheuer added.


2) Fran Townsend, a former top intelligence adviser in Clinton's Justice Department and now Bush's anti-terror czar, rolled her eyes when asked about Clinton's invasion plan. "There were lots of things that seemed new" in Clinton's recollections on Fox, Townsend said.


Still, Team Clinton stood by its story. "A plan existed, but the ability to act on it was not corroborated by intelligence until after President Clinton left office," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.


3) P.J. Crowley, spokesman for Clinton's National Security Council and a retired Air Force officer with a security clearance, said many contingency plans existed at the Pentagon.
"It wasn't that there was a lack of plans, it's that there was a lack of actionable intelligence," Crowley said.


Scheuer and a retired senior FBI official agreed that they knew almost immediately that Al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing. "We all said this was definitely Bin Laden," the ex-FBI official said. "But we couldn't take it to court and get an indictment."


Two sources that Clinton repeatedly cited in the Fox interview - the 9/11 commission report and Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" - never mention plans to invade Afghanistan.

[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.

[Rhylan]

Hey Bill, you had 100 days left in office when the Cole was bombed. Not saying Bush shouldn't have come in and laid the wood on somebody for it, but Clinton speaks of it like it didn't happen on his watch.

[kg_veteran]

Another article which illustrates Clinton's mendacity...


Did Clinton Really Give Bush A “Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy?”
The former president says he did. The record says he didn’t.

By Byron York
link

“The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News on Sunday. “I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy.”

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a new interview with the New York Post. “The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t [fight al Qaeda] is just flatly false.”

Well, which is it? The argument over whether, in January 2001, the Clinton administration left the incoming Bush administration a blueprint to destroy Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda has been going on for years now. Long before the Clinton Fox interview, it came to a boil in the late summer of 2002, on the eve of the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, when Time magazine published a 10,400-word story, “They Had A Plan,” blaming the Bush administration for not following the Clinton newly developed administration’s strategy.

The Clinton plan, Time reported, was drawn up after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. In the wake of that bombing, Time said, White House anti-terror chief Richard Clarke put together “an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda.” Clarke reportedly wanted to break up al Qaeda cells, cut off their funding, destroy their sanctuaries, and give major support to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. In addition, Time reported, “the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan.” It was, in the words of a senior Bush administration official quoted by Time, “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

Time said Clarke presented the “strategy paper” to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. “We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office,” Time quoted an unnamed former Clinton aide saying. “That wasn’t going to happen.” Instead, Berger — who is portrayed as a tough-talking hardliner on terrorism — urged Rice, the incoming national-security adviser, to take action. But the new administration didn’t follow that good advice. The Clinton proposals, Time reported, “became a victim of the transition process, turf wars and time spent on the pet policies of new top officials.”

The Time account was explosive. Or at least it seemed to be explosive — until we heard more of the story.

After the article appeared, National Review talked to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chambliss was perplexed. “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times,” Chambliss told NR, “and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.” If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?

Sources at the White House were just as baffled. At the time, they were carefully avoiding picking public fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they told NR that the Time report was way off base. “There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda,” one source said flatly. “No new plan.” When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the Time story, the source said simply, “No.”

Finally, Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”

A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”

“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”

“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

“There was no new plan.”

“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “

“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”

“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”

Amid all the controversy, some former Clinton-administration officials began to pull back on their story. One of them — who asked not to be named — told NR that Time didn’t have it quite right. “There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism,” the official said. “It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn’t have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration’s ongoing efforts and threat assessments.” That, of course, was pretty much what the Bush White House said had had happened all along.

But now, the story is back in the news. “At least I tried [to destroy al Qaeda],” Clinton told Fox. “That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy…” Perhaps the former president hoped to put an end to the questions about his record on terrorism. Instead, he just brought the issue back to public scrutiny.

[MavKikiNYC]

Never a shortage of material when it comes to Clinton's lies.

Another gift that keeps on giving.

[Mavdog]

I thought the entire article didn't need to take up space, so annotation...

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog, here's another article to help you out...

kg, why doesn't the article address the question of somalia and bin laden? clinton made the point that no one believed of ANY connection of mogadishu and bin laden, in fact al queda wasn't even labeled or identified when somalia happended. rather than focus on the point made by clinton in regard to the interjection of "The Looming Tower" the author makes the claim that the book has "historically factual statements" when in fact it doesn't. it is fair to say that the author lied to the reader with that very point.

here's clinton's quote in question:

I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much

the one name that comes to mind which supports clinton's assertion (and inexplicably missed by this author) is our own phil gramm, who would not support the bill on tighter controls on international money transfers thru the us banking system that the clinton administration proposed, saying it was "totalitarian". guess what, the almost identical bill was approved post 9/11 and is seen as an effective tool.

were there some (such as the author pointed out) who weren't overly critical? absolutely. it may come as a surprise to some in the current administration but there have been times of cooperation between the two sides of the aisle

is it fair to say that clinton exxagerated when he said that "all" the republicans? absolutely.

imho to criticize clinton for his aggressive position with wallace by saying that bush wouldn't do the same is 1) conjecture, 2) not relevant to the discussion of if clinton was honest in his assertions, and 3) impossible to determine as bush has been protected against such a thing happening. heck, his people have removed anyone opposed to bush's policies from any event at which he attends!

[George Gervin]

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News on Sunday. “I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy.”

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a new interview with the New York Post. “The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t [fight al Qaeda] is just flatly false.”


Rice said they did not have a strategy 'to fight al-qaeda'..quite different than Rice saying we were not left with any comprehensive anti-terror strategy. Seems to me Bill did have a comprehensive overall anti-terror operation but Rice responded by adding Al-Qaeda to the response..

Funny since I have hear the Iraq war whores bring up saddam's conncetion with Palestinian suicide bombers' families and justification and proof he aided terrorists.. Is Rice now saying that the war on terror is relegated to AL-Qaeda? well saddam didn't help al-qaeda ?

So Rice would like to have it both ways..on one hand she defines anti-terror strategy as being al-qaeda specific... yet justifies Iraq invasion based on non al-qaeda reasons.. so it's possible that Clinton may have indeed left a strategy but not specific to al-qaeda.. So cons should applaud that!

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I thought the entire article didn't need to take up space, so annotation...

kg, why doesn't the article address the question of somalia and bin laden? clinton made the point that no one believed of ANY connection of mogadishu and bin laden, in fact al queda wasn't even labeled or identified when somalia happended. rather than focus on the point made by clinton in regard to the interjection of "The Looming Tower" the author makes the claim that the book has "historically factual statements" when in fact it doesn't. it is fair to say that the author lied to the reader with that very point.

Do you ALWAYS try to change the subject?

Clinton said, "And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden."

From the article: "As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president – or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter – began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later."

The article clearly refutes Clinton's claim that "the conservative Republicans" thought he was too obsessed with bin Laden.

the one name that comes to mind which supports clinton's assertion (and inexplicably missed by this author) is our own phil gramm, who would not support the bill on tighter controls on international money transfers thru the us banking system that the clinton administration proposed, saying it was "totalitarian". guess what, the almost identical bill was approved post 9/11 and is seen as an effective tool.

How does that support anything?

were there some (such as the author pointed out) who weren't overly critical? absolutely. it may come as a surprise to some in the current administration but there have been times of cooperation between the two sides of the aisle

The issue is, who are these "conservative Republicans" who supposedly claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? Where are the quotes from "all of President Bush's neo-cons" claiming that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? Answer: They don't exist. They are a wholesale fabrication by Clinton.

is it fair to say that clinton exxagerated when he said that "all" the republicans? absolutely.

Is that what you call it these days? Exaggerating? The difference between ALL and NONE isn't exaggerating, Mavdog. It's LYING.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Do you ALWAYS try to change the subject?

kg, the issue of somalia was in BOTH the wallace interview (he brought it up) and in the article YOU posted. how is addressing the inaccuracies of the book a "change" in subject?

the book is what provoked the reaction from clinton. surely it is in the subject matter...

Clinton said, "And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden."

From the article: "As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president – or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter – began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later."

The article clearly refutes Clinton's claim that "the conservative Republicans" thought he was too obsessed with bin Laden.

no, the quotes in your article show that SOME conservative republicans supported clinton's actions.

How does that [gramm's stopping the treasury bill] support anything?

here is an example of a "conservative republican" who stood in the way of a clinton anti-terrorism initiative, believing that clinton was "obsessed" over something that wasn't needed.

gramm was wrong.

The issue is, who are these "conservative Republicans" who supposedly claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? Where are the quotes from "all of President Bush's neo-cons" claiming that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? Answer: They don't exist. They are a wholesale fabrication by Clinton.

that is a fair question of who are the people clinton mentions, at the same time the fact that some republicans gave support to clinton does not prove clinton's remark is a lie.

Is that what you call it these days? Exaggerating? The difference between ALL and NONE isn't exaggerating, Mavdog. It's LYING.

bs. it is your contention that coming up with one republican who supported clinton proves clinton is lying? not in the least.

I believe that rhetoric, especially political sort we are discussing, includes quite a bit of exaggeration and hyperbole.....just as we saw from clinton on sunday.

if your position is truly that every word counts, just how many "lies" do you expect we could pin on dubya? the list would be pretty long. yes, bush engages in exaggeration and hyperbole too.

no, let's not try and hold that standard you propose to apply to either of them.

[George Gervin]

Bush will release 'part' of the NIE.. Didn't he just complain that since only a portion was leaked the information was not put into the proper context... so he agress to release part of it... I am gojng to go on a limb and say he will release information only beneficial to him to refute critics. Why not just release it all Bush? Why only a portion? let the people decide for themselves.. For all of his defenders here who portrayed the NY Times as only releasing a portion of the information because they are biased.. now Bush is going to do the same thing.. and it will OK for the Bushies..

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Bush will release 'part' of the NIE.. Didn't he just complain that since only a portion was leaked the information was not put into the proper context... so he agress to release part of it... I am gojng to go on a limb and say he will release information only beneficial to him to refute critics. Why not just release it all Bush? Why only a portion? let the people decide for themselves.. For all of his defenders here who portrayed the NY Times as only releasing a portion of the information because they are biased.. now Bush is going to do the same thing.. and it will OK for the Bushies..

Or the part that needs to stay classified knucklehead. Why not just release all of the foiled plots the governement has done, then we would all know how much work has been going on behind the scenes.

Because he is RESPONSIBLE, others are not.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Or the part that needs to stay classified knucklehead. Why not just release all of the foiled plots the governement has done, then we would all know how much work has been going on behind the scenes.

Because he is RESPONSIBLE, others are not.

Hey I agree with you on this one. All or none. To those who don't trust him this makes him look more dishonest rather than trying to set the record straight.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Hey I agree with you on this one. All or none. To those who don't trust him this makes him look more dishonest rather than trying to set the record straight.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...QxOTcyMjRlOTU=
Winning, however, is something Democrats rarely talk about. The NIE leak was an occasion for even more defeatism from the party that, insofar as it offers any distinct policy prescriptions for Iraq, advocates a premature withdrawal that would only ensure defeat. That would be the ultimate jihadi recruiting tool. Terrorists would be emboldened by their victory — since they are always more aggressive when we appear to be the “weak horse,” in bin Laden’s phrase — and would perhaps control some or most of Iraq as a base of operations.

Properly understood, the NIE leak confirms President Bush’s argument that Iraq is an important front in the War on Terror, and that achieving victory there is essential.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

kg, the issue of somalia was in BOTH the wallace interview (he brought it up) and in the article YOU posted. how is addressing the inaccuracies of the book a "change" in subject?

the book is what provoked the reaction from clinton. surely it is in the subject matter...

The only thing that Wallace said about the book was:

"There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called 'The Looming Tower.' And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

The article I cited referred to Wallace's statement as "historically factual." Isn't that true? And what the heck does that have to do with our discussion of whether Clinton lied when he said that "conservative Republicans" and "all of Bush's neo-cons" claimed he was obsessed with bin Laden?

It doesn't. Stay on topic, please.

no, the quotes in your article show that SOME conservative republicans supported clinton's actions.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

Clinton said: "And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden."

In response to that claim, the writer of the article states: " . . . a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard."

The writer did the research and could not find ONE instance where someone was criticizing Clinton for being too obsessed with bin Laden. That indicates that he was LYING when he said that such statements were made.

Unless, of course, you can point us to such statements, in which case I will be happy to concede the point.

here is an example of a "conservative republican" who stood in the way of a clinton anti-terrorism initiative, believing that clinton was "obsessed" over something that wasn't needed.

gramm was wrong.

Show me a quote where Gramm said that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden.

that is a fair question of who are the people clinton mentions, at the same time the fact that some republicans gave support to clinton does not prove clinton's remark is a lie.

Of course it's a fair question. It's THE question. The fact that some Republicans gave support to Clinton doesn't prove that his remark is a lie, but the fact that not a single instance can be found of someone criticizing Clinton like he claimed DOES prove it.

bs. it is your contention that coming up with one republican who supported clinton proves clinton is lying? not in the least.

I believe that rhetoric, especially political sort we are discussing, includes quite a bit of exaggeration and hyperbole.....just as we saw from clinton on sunday.

if your position is truly that every word counts, just how many "lies" do you expect we could pin on dubya? the list would be pretty long. yes, bush engages in exaggeration and hyperbole too.

no, let's not try and hold that standard you propose to apply to either of them.

Again, you're trying to change the subject. If you want to talk about George Bush, do it in another thread. Let's talk about Bill Clinton.

If Clinton said "all" and the reality was "some", that might be an exaggeration. But when you can't point me to ANY, that's more than exaggeration. It's a lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Point me to one statement made by a "conservative Republican" or a "neo-con" where they said that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden or doing too much to try and get him.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The only thing that Wallace said about the book was:

"There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called 'The Looming Tower.' And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

The article I cited referred to Wallace's statement as "historically factual." Isn't that true? And what the heck does that have to do with our discussion of whether Clinton lied when he said that "conservative Republicans" and "all of Bush's neo-cons" claimed he was obsessed with bin Laden?

It doesn't. Stay on topic, please.

no kg, the article referred to statments made in the book as "historically factual". the way that the above sentence was written shows the inaccuracies intertwined.

look at this: "when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

that's just flat out wrong. bin laden didn't say that in 1993.

look at correct words: "bin laden said after 9/11 that when you pulled troops out of somalia in 1993 he saw the frailty..."

recall this was the question that, in a way, was the match that set the clinton fireworks off.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

Clinton said: "And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden."

In response to that claim, the writer of the article states: " . . . a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard."

The writer did the research and could not find ONE instance where someone was criticizing Clinton for being too obsessed with bin Laden. That indicates that he was LYING when he said that such statements were made.

Unless, of course, you can point us to such statements, in which case I will be happy to concede the point.

I do recall that the cole attack saw a unanamity typically seen in congress when the us is attacked. the same common purpose as after 9/11.

I also don't see how I could possibly research the quotes from the specified people over the remainder of clinton's 8 years either.

from my view, this is just symtomatic of the preoccupation of so many with clinton, and proving he "lies".

Show me a quote where Gramm said that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden.

gee, does he have to use the word "obsessed"? gramm said the bill was unnecessary.

Of course it's a fair question. It's THE question. The fact that some Republicans gave support to Clinton doesn't prove that his remark is a lie, but the fact that not a single instance can be found of someone criticizing Clinton like he claimed DOES prove it.

from the article, i'd agree that it looks like it's not accurate. otoh, the recollection may be an accurate portrait of his dealings with them.

a lie? from my perspective he's puffing.

Again, you're trying to change the subject. If you want to talk about George Bush, do it in another thread. Let's talk about Bill Clinton.

If Clinton said "all" and the reality was "some", that might be an exaggeration. But when you can't point me to ANY, that's more than exaggeration. It's a lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Point me to one statement made by a "conservative Republican" or a "neo-con" where they said that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden or doing too much to try and get him.

it is fair to compare these two, they both occupied the same office. my point is their position produces a great deal of rhetoric and hyperbole in their speaking. if you wish to hold clinton to every single word used, the same should be done with bush.

let's see what quotes from the mid 90's come out. the place where I expect to see them is when the "wag the dog" remarks were made, tht's what 1998?

it seems that you won't be satisfied until a republican is found who said the word "obsessed" and "bin laden" in the same sentence.

by focusing on if he "lied" about "conservatives" and "neo-cons" saying he was "obsessed over bin laden", the issue of what failings did clinton's administration have in the conflict with terrorism isn't even addressed.

that was clinton's point, not the criticism by the republicans he says he received, but the question of what did he do, or not do, to defeat the terrorists and perhaps stop 9/11.

likewise, he wants the same question asked of the current administration. that is a very fair request.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Hey I agree with you on this one. All or none. To those who don't trust him this makes him look more dishonest rather than trying to set the record straight.

You are such a knucklehead. If dubya was willing to declassify information to get re-elected he'd smoke 'em all.

All he'd have to do is every day list the amount of intel he gets on proposed terrorist plots. Then every day list the ones that are foiled. He could do it right up to the election.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no kg, the article referred to statments made in the book as "historically factual". the way that the above sentence was written shows the inaccuracies intertwined.

look at this: "when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

that's just flat out wrong. bin laden didn't say that in 1993.

look at correct words: "bin laden said after 9/11 that when you pulled troops out of somalia in 1993 he saw the frailty..."

recall this was the question that, in a way, was the match that set the clinton fireworks off.

Wallace's question was poorly worded and misleading to the extent that it implied that bin Laden said that in 1993, but you're conflating two different arguments here.

I don't pretend to be able to read minds, so I don't know what the author of the article meant when he said "historically accurate." I haven't read the book "Looming Tower", so I can't say whether it misrepresents the facts or if Wallace just got it wrong. Either way, that still has NOTHING to do with whether Clinton's response was a lie or not!

I do recall that the cole attack saw a unanamity typically seen in congress when the us is attacked. the same common purpose as after 9/11.

I also don't see how I could possibly research the quotes from the specified people over the remainder of clinton's 8 years either.

from my view, this is just symtomatic of the preoccupation of so many with clinton, and proving he "lies".

In other words, you can't point me to a single instance.

Thanks for the concession. It's a rarity.

gee, does he have to use the word "obsessed"? gramm said the bill was unnecessary.

He could have used any phrase that suggested that Clinton was doing too much to try and pursue bin Laden. BTW, you're putting words in Gramm's mouth and misrepresenting the reason for his opposition to Clinton's proposed bill.

At the time, Gramm said, ""The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them." That doesn't sound to me like someone who thinks that Clinton was doing too much to try and hunt down bin Laden. Also, I think it's only fair to point out that the real reason Gramm opposed the bill was that he was aligned with the banking industry on the issue, which opposed the measure. It had nothing to do with Gramm's opinion of Clinton's hunt for bin Laden and everything to do with a special interest group that he was trying to help out.

from the article, i'd agree that it looks like it's not accurate. otoh, the recollection may be an accurate portrait of his dealings with them.

a lie? from my perspective he's puffing.

Puffing is what a used car dealer does when he says, "Oh yeah, this baby runs great!" This wasn't puffing.

But hey, whatever. Let's just give him a pass. Sure, there are no comments in the public record AT ALL to support his rather incredible claim. But all of those right wing neo-cons might have been pulling Bill aside privately and giving him hell for being obsessed with bin Laden.

Yeah, right.

it is fair to compare these two, they both occupied the same office. my point is their position produces a great deal of rhetoric and hyperbole in their speaking. if you wish to hold clinton to every single word used, the same should be done with bush.

It IS done. There have been a myriad of books written about the purported lies Bush has told, and that's while he's still in office!

Bringing it up in this context just appears to me to be an effort to rationalize Clinton's lies.

that was clinton's point, not the criticism by the republicans he says he received, but the question of what did he do, or not do, to defeat the terrorists and perhaps stop 9/11.

likewise, he wants the same question asked of the current administration. that is a very fair request.

It has been asked, ad nauseum in fact, by everyone from the media to the 9/11 Commission.

FWIW, I don't think Clinton is responsible for 9/11. That's unfair to try and pin it on him. For all we know, 9/11 might have happened even if bin Laden had been killed. It is, however, fair, to criticize Clinton for not lacking the backbone/willpower/resolve (pick your term) to demand that the CIA, FBI, and/or military take action to kill bin Laden. Even Clarke's sympathetic account of events reveals that Clinton simply couldn't get those agencies to do what he told them to do. That's Clinton's fault. Period.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Never a shortage of material when it comes to Clinton's lies.

Another gift that keeps on giving.

It's great isn't it?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Do you ALWAYS try to change the subject?

Of course he does. It's all he has in his weak ass bag.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Stay on topic, please.

*sigh* If we only had a dollar for every time we had to tell that to mavdoogie.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

It wouldn't matter. Mavdoogie will ignore the simple just likes he fails to understand the complex.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That indicates that he was LYING when he said that such statements were made.

There you go again with those pesky facts.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Unless, of course, you can point us to such statements, in which case I will be happy to concede the point.

Prepare to wait or read some yuck yuck yuck type comment.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Again, you're trying to change the subject. If you want to talk about George Bush, do it in another thread.

OOPS...there goes another dollar.


*sigh*

[dude1394]

Washington Post decides to help KG out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics

Some of Clinton's statements on Fox have drawn scrutiny. He said that after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, "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." The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, just more limited options such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles or Special Forces. And nothing in the panel's report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.

Clinton also asserted that the Bush administration "didn't have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office." In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the deputies committee and one on Sept. 4, 2001, through the principals committee composed of Cabinet officers. What Clinton may have been referring to was counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's frustration that the principals disregarded his urgent calls to meet sooner because of a months-long policy review.

Rice came under fire for her assertion that "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaeda" by Clinton's team. In fact, Clarke sent Rice an al-Qaeda memo on Jan. 25, 2001, along with a strategy to "roll back" the terrorist network, but the Bush team decided to conduct the policy review.

[dude1394]

And others...When the MSM thinks you are lying and you are a democrat....brooooothaaaaa...you are lying.

http://newsbusters.org/node/7871

On Monday's "Early Show", co-host Harry Smith talked with Scheuer about the war in Iraq and the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Smith was shocked when Scheuer laid the blame at the feet of the Clinton administration, and attempted to put the focus back on failures of the Bush Administration. Smith highlighted president Clinton's defense of his administration:

"Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"

Scheuer refuted Smith’s portrayal of Clinton:

"No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

[kg_veteran]

Scheuer refuted Smith’s portrayal of Clinton:

"No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

Scoreboard.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Wallace's question was poorly worded and misleading to the extent that it implied that bin Laden said that in 1993, but you're conflating two different arguments here.

I don't pretend to be able to read minds, so I don't know what the author of the article meant when he said "historically accurate." I haven't read the book "Looming Tower", so I can't say whether it misrepresents the facts or if Wallace just got it wrong. Either way, that still has NOTHING to do with whether Clinton's response was a lie or not!

it was wallace who spoke the statement, not the author.

yes, the inaccuracies of the wallace question- in fact, inaccuracy is mild, the question was a set up- do not have any bearing on if "all" or "some" of the conservative republicans thought clinton was "obsessed" with bin laden. it does however go far in explaining why clinton was so animated and aggressive.

In other words, you can't point me to a single instance.

not yet, but there's ton of quotes to go through, and I'm comfortable trhat someone wll spend the time to find one.

He could have used any phrase that suggested that Clinton was doing too much to try and pursue bin Laden. BTW, you're putting words in Gramm's mouth and misrepresenting the reason for his opposition to Clinton's proposed bill.

At the time, Gramm said, ""The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them." That doesn't sound to me like someone who thinks that Clinton was doing too much to try and hunt down bin Laden. Also, I think it's only fair to point out that the real reason Gramm opposed the bill was that he was aligned with the banking industry on the issue, which opposed the measure. It had nothing to do with Gramm's opinion of Clinton's hunt for bin Laden and everything to do with a special interest group that he was trying to help out.

you can attempt to minimize the gramm position as merely carrying water for the banks, yet it is a FACT that 1) the kyc banking regs were proposed by the clinton administration as a needed tool against al queda finances, and 2) gramm stopped the bill and took the position that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation. that has EVERYTHING to do with clinton's focus on al queda and a clear example of a conservative republican opposing the clinton administration's efforts.

But hey, whatever. Let's just give him a pass.

what I am saying is don't focus on a minutia comment like "every conservative republican and neo-con" but focus on what he is saying....that the attempts by the conservatives to blame clinton and not apply the same criteria to bush is wrong.

It IS done. There have been a myriad of books written about the purported lies Bush has told, and that's while he's still in office!

Bringing it up in this context just appears to me to be an effort to rationalize Clinton's lies.

so do you agree that bush has "lied" just like you accuse clinton of doing?

I'm not sure it is fair to say "rationalize" as much as to understand the playing field he is on.

apply the same citeria to clinton and bush. apply it to their public statements and apply it to their administrations. apply it consistently.

unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case...

It has been asked, ad nauseum in fact, by everyone from the media to the 9/11 Commission.

FWIW, I don't think Clinton is responsible for 9/11. That's unfair to try and pin it on him. For all we know, 9/11 might have happened even if bin Laden had been killed. It is, however, fair, to criticize Clinton for not lacking the backbone/willpower/resolve (pick your term) to demand that the CIA, FBI, and/or military take action to kill bin Laden. Even Clarke's sympathetic account of events reveals that Clinton simply couldn't get those agencies to do what he told them to do. That's Clinton's fault. Period.

you and I agree that clinton, just like bush, should not have 9/11 laid at their feet. could the event have been stopped? sure, but only with a great deal of fortunate events happening. unfortunately luck was not on our side that day.

however, wallace was not embracing that "fair and balanced" view that we agree on. he was attempting to lay the blame on clinton, just as the wording of the lead off question revealed.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it was wallace who spoke the statement, not the author.

yes, the inaccuracies of the wallace question- in fact, inaccuracy is mild, the question was a set up- do not have any bearing on if "all" or "some" of the conservative republicans thought clinton was "obsessed" with bin laden. it does however go far in explaining why clinton was so animated and aggressive.

Sure, assuming that it wasn't all just a calculated act by Clinton in the first place. Clinton's spokesperson indicated after the show that Clinton was ready for whatever Wallace was going to ask and came ready to fight back, or words to that effect. In other words, Clinton wasn't ambushed. He knew he was going to be asked about bin Laden and 9/11, and he used the interview as an opportunity to have a "controlled" eruption.

not yet, but there's ton of quotes to go through, and I'm comfortable trhat someone wll spend the time to find one.

Okay, well let me know....

you can attempt to minimize the gramm position as merely carrying water for the banks, yet it is a FACT that 1) the kyc banking regs were proposed by the clinton administration as a needed tool against al queda finances, and 2) gramm stopped the bill and took the position that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation. that has EVERYTHING to do with clinton's focus on al queda and a clear example of a conservative republican opposing the clinton administration's efforts.

I'm not trying to minimize anything. I'm trying to provide accurate context.

Gramm opposing legislation which Clinton said was a needed tool against al Qaeda simply doesn't equate to Gramm thinking Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden. Not even close. Also, it should be noted that Gramm is just one man, not "all" conservative Republicans.

what I am saying is don't focus on a minutia comment like "every conservative republican and neo-con" but focus on what he is saying....that the attempts by the conservatives to blame clinton and not apply the same criteria to bush is wrong.

It's not minutiae; Clinton is trying to rewrite history, as if he were the one that was strong on terrorism but was opposed at every turn by Republicans.

And, FWIW, Wallace's question really was pretty tame. I've seen Russert, for example, ask FAR tougher questions of Bush and Cheney.

so do you agree that bush has "lied" just like you accuse clinton of doing?

That's a pretty broad question, don't you think? Lied about what? No, my point was that you don't need to bring up Bush when discussing Clinton, because Bush gets more than his fair share of criticism.

I'm not sure it is fair to say "rationalize" as much as to understand the playing field he is on.

Sure it is. You're saying it's okay to lie because Bush did it.

apply the same citeria to clinton and bush. apply it to their public statements and apply it to their administrations. apply it consistently.

I'll say it again. Clinton has had a far easier time of it than Bush with respect to his record on terrorism and foreign affairs.

you and I agree that clinton, just like bush, should not have 9/11 laid at their feet. could the event have been stopped? sure, but only with a great deal of fortunate events happening. unfortunately luck was not on our side that day.

however, wallace was not embracing that "fair and balanced" view that we agree on. he was attempting to lay the blame on clinton, just as the wording of the lead off question revealed.

I don't agree with your take on Wallace's motivations or the thrust of his question. Either way, I agree that it's wrong to blame Clinton for 9/11. I think it might have happened even if bin Laden were already dead.

[kg_veteran]

What Clinton Didn't Do . . .
. . . .and when he didn't do it.

BY RICHARD MINITER
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
link

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.

With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.

In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

Mr. Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, is author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror" (Regnery, 2005).

[MavKikiNYC]

Devastating facts.

[George Gervin]

He stopped the millenium attack? He responded by striking facilities in the Sudan?.. devastating for the Clinton haters

Let me guess he should have liberated the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan? your a joke!

[u2sarajevo]

Clinton liberated a cigar...... but imprisoned a blue dress.....


Oh yeah, and he was good at public speaking.

But he lost it during the interview.

[purplefrog]

Did Clinton embellish and/or skew the facts in an attempt to make himself look better for the history books and perhaps energize the Democratic base? It is likely that he did. But Clinton embellishments are hardly a cause for the media to go into a feeding frenzy over what Clinton did or did not accomplish (I mean are Clinton embellishments anything new?). I am guessing that Wallace along with those in the media that want to promote the right wing agenda (this is not to say there are not those in the media that want to promote the left wing agenda, because clearly there are both) are hoping that the Clinton interview will serve as a distraction from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran because the November elections are right around the corner. In this respect, I guess they hit a home run because the interview is getting way more attention than it deserves. Shoddy journalism imo, but then again this is the norm these days. Pretty sad.

[Usually Lurkin]

from RIGHTWINGSPARKLE

Saturday, September 23, 2006
Bill Clinton on Opportunity