Bill Clinton interview on Fox News (video)

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11. "

Gee what Richard Clarke said in 2002 is a lot different than what you are posting. Now since Clinton seems to view Clarke as such a great source maybe we should read what he said. :scroll up:

 

[senseamp]

I have no doubt that Bush's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bill Clinton: ?All I?m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn?t do enough, you read Richard Clarke?s book,?
?All you have to do is read Richard Clarke?s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,?
?All you have to do is read Richard Clarke?s findings and you know it?s not true,?
In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke?s name 11 times during the Fox interview.

Now let?s look at what the book says:
On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council ?principals? ? among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda?s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, ?What?s it going to take, Dick? Who the ****** do they think attacked the Cole, ******? Martians? The Pentagon brass won?t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won?t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention??

On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA?s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. ?I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,? Clarke writes. ?I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.?

On page 210, on the issue of the CIA?s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. ?The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],? Clarke writes. ?Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.?

On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. ?That ****** is going to get some Americans killed,? Clarke reports Cressey saying. ?He just sits there like a bump on a log.? Clarke adds: ?I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.?

From page 225: ?Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ?Wag the Dog? tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.?

In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton ?put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.?

But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.

Take from a story by Byron York.

As far as the Cole bombings go.. The investigation did not complete until after Bush was President. So what was Bush's response to the result of the investigation into the Cole bombing?

Oh wait I know this one.. he went on vacation.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no doubt that Bush's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

I have no doubt that Clinton's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

Wow we are making progress now :roll:

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11. "

Gee what Richard Clarke said in 2002 is a lot different than what you are posting. Now since Clinton seems to view Clarke as such a great source maybe we should read what he said. :scroll up:

Here's the source of that cut & paste info I posted:

http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml


Let's add a few quotes from Repukes regarding Bosnia:

Quotes from prominent Repukes when President Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)



Seems like the same crap as they spewed about Clinton's attempts to control AlQueda...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And now Clarke on Bush?
Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies ? and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
Clarke told reporters different story in 2002 background briefing
and
Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

AH HA HA HA HA HA!!

You're dredging up that old talking point?

Puh-leeze.


Educate yourself:

Richard Clarke clears the air over the FOX News transcript. NO contradictions...only forced spin by the Bush Admin
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1277194&enterthread=y&arctab=y

 

[Linux23]

Well, i'd hate to be locked in a room with Clinton and mistakenly bring up Bin Laden.:Q

 

[getbush]

Those quotes boomer posted are kinda funny but mostly sickening. Politicians are utterly worthless, and it goes both ways.

 

[steppinthrax]

Yeah I watched both of them. I liked it. This is the first time I saw Clinton really really debate. The sad thing is that if this was bush he would studder like a ****** school girl. Clinton broke down Rick's argument into smaller componets and argued on each and every point. He didn't studder not once and the logical method by which he did this indicates he's smarts and debating ability.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no doubt that Bush's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

I have no doubt that Clinton's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

Wow we are making progress now :roll:

Someone needs to can this ProfJohn guy he is pissing me off....

 

[KoolHonda]

Originally posted by: Linux23
Well, i'd hate to be locked in a room with Clinton and mistakenly bring up Bin Laden.:Q

Yeah, really. I kept waiting for it to turn into an Everett vs Rome style interview.

 

[judasmachine]

I do believe they called it a Clintonian Missile Distraction.

 

[Red Dawn]

LOL Republicans are just glad they don't have to face Clinton in another Presidential Election. He'd beat any person they could put up against him, especially the idiot they have in the Whitehouse now, by a landslide...even if Falwell was able to rally hio sheep to get out and vote.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Pabster
Clinton was owned by Chris Wallace.

Nothing but typical lies from Slick. Excuse after excuse for the incompetence of himself and his administration. "But Bush had 8 months!" (Nevermind that I had 8 years!)

My favorite was the viewer who wrote in "Is Bill Clinton lying? Well, are his lips moving?"

Clinton handing him his ass, may have even screwed it before he handed it back to him. Might have been a cigar involved, too. Don't hate the player just because he has seen a naked woman before.

EDIT: In PERSON, not on a computer screen.

Unlike Pabster. haha.

 

[astrosfan90]

I thought it was interesting. Props to Fox for having the testicular fortitude to take on Bill Clinton.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no doubt that Bush's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

I have no doubt that Clinton's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

Wow we are making progress now :roll:

it's good to see that in the face of overwhelming evidence you still won't let go.


But kudos to you for removing the blatntly false anti-Clinton remark from your sig, good job buddy!

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no doubt that Bush's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

I have no doubt that Clinton's incompetence is mainly responsible for the failures of 9/11.

Wow we are making progress now :roll:

it's good to see that in the face of overwhelming evidence you still won't let go.


But kudos to you for removing the blatntly false anti-Clinton remark from your sig, good job buddy!

Don't get too excited--he's just waiting for this weeks GOP talking point(s) to replace it with.

 

[GTKeeper]

Once thing you cannot refute, is how damn good Clinton is at debates. It shows that he has critical thinking skills that are so important to being a president.

 

[Thump553]

This was a very unique situation, and it is now giving us a case study in how Fox"News" is recasting and respinning the story. I rarely watch Fox, but caught the interview in full last night. My reaction-thank God someone has finally stood up to Faux and showed them up-with solid facts-for the pundits and tools that they are. Clinton was energetic, possibly you could say animated-but he was nowhere near the raving maniac Faux is recasting him as.

Fox immediately came on with psuedo panel discussions, gravely discussing Clinton's "meltdown." This morning I caught Faux very briefly-they were continuing the same reconstruction scenario, most telling over a bold line that stated "BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC." Shame on those psuedo patriots-such disrespect to an ex-President. They might as well burn a flag.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Once thing you cannot refute, is how damn good Clinton is at debates. It shows that he has critical thinking skills that are so important to being a president.

That is one thing that really gets me and most people don't talk about. The President of the United States by itself is one of the most powerful position. It is well assumed if you obtain such a position you have don't everything correct educationally, politically and from the people (voting) to obtain such. Meaning you are expected to be the best at everything. However, Bush can't debate, he studders. He also is not smart a all. He seems to have the ability of a hick. Everything that comes out of his mouth was made up by someone else. Those group of people that tell him what to say have to really cover for everything because they know he dosen't have enough brain cells to come up with something impromptu. They know he will essentially embaris this country and everything it stands for if he is left alone to make ALL of his decisions. Unfortunatley they can't make ALL of his decisions.

If FOX puts bush under the spotlight like they did with clinton. Bush would just studder and couldn't hold a sentence. I don't understand how in this world we could have someone so incompetent as this be the Presient of the free world. News reporters have better speaking skills/grammar/spelling/intellegence then our current president. When Clinton spoke and debated he did with with power and very logically. He blew that dickhead fox news guy away for even asking the question. The only thing that FOX news has got to say about the whole thing is the fact that he got angry or "lost it". We saw friday the logical mind of a REAL president not the mindless figurehead that we have in office now.....

 

[randym431]

Three words... Wag The Dog

THATS ALL you heard from the right, back then. Exactly like Bill said, the right could have cared less about Bin Laden?PERIOD.

The right only cared about ONE thing, getting Clinton. from alpha to beta of his admin.

Now I can not imagine the right wingers, reading these posts, can actually claim they have "forgotten" wag the dog? They used it to pull the rug out from under Clintons attempts to fight terror over and over.

No, Clinton was not obsessed with Monica back then, truth is the right was obsessed with wag the dog.

THATS what allowed Bin Laden to get away.

And the Bush admin, being as arrogant as anyone on earth can be, simply refused to pick up ANY issues left on the burner when the Clinton admin changed to Bush.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Starting to question whether the Republican leadership in this country is good for anything...

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Starting to question whether the Republican leadership in this country is good for anything...

Sure they are--lining their own pockets!

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Starting to question whether the Republican leadership in this country is good for anything...

Sure they are--lining their own pockets (at the general population's expense)!

This is so completely horrible, yet so true.

 

[getbush]

Vote for change.