Bill Clinton interview on Fox News (video)

[UberNeuman]

ProfJohn - why didn't Bush start dealing with this major problem when he came into office? As it has been pointed out - there were troubles about... and even with these issues, he put them aside....

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
ProfJohn - why didn't Bush start dealing with this major problem when he came into office? As it has been pointed out - there were troubles about... and even with these issues, he put them aside....

Well he DID cut anti-terrorist funding on 9/10... : )

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: getbush
Well it is truth that he could not get the required certification from the CIA and FBI to finger Afghanistan as a target to get boots on the ground. That was back when republicans did everything they could to take power away from the presidency. They've had a change of heart on that delicate balance since then.

Clinton was the fricken President he could take a piece of paper write a note and say here is my ****** certification, now get your asses in gear and do something.

That is the lamest excuse of all time. "Well the CIA and FBI said I couldn't do it" The CIA and FBI work for you!!!! You tell them what they can and can't do, not the other way around. Now if congress passed a law saying that he couldn't kill Osama then it would be a problem, otherwise...

You can't do that legally here in the good ole USA.. he needed the sign off to act... independent legal opinion will agree.
You can't simply invade another nation with out having some reason to do it even if catching OBL is in the pudding..
There are some rules that have been enacted to thwart the unilateral use of force by the President... Congress gets to know and they also need his resolution for the War Powers Act..

I am trying hard to reconcile your words with what Clinton said in the interview.
So Clinton is saying himself that he can authorize the CIA to kill him.
Clearly, if Clinton can launch a full scale attack on Bosnia without the consent of congress he can launch an attack on Osama.
Osama was MUCH more of a threat to the US and Bosnia was.

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.
and
CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Clinton's own words on why he never fired Freeh
Time Magazine 2004 interview

If I had known that when we tripled the counterterrorism funds none of it was put into improving the data processing and interconnecting with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, if I had known that the Executive Order I signed fairly early in my Administration ordering the CIA and the FBI to exchange high-level people and cooperate more hadn't been done, I might have done so.

But since the FBI chief gets a presumptive 10-year term, I didn't feel what I thought was outrageous treatment of us, particularly by him personally, was worth replacing him, because all of you [in the media] would have said, Well, he's doing it because he's got something to hide, and I didn't have anything to hide. I knew there was nothing to Whitewater, I knew there was nothing to the Paula Jones case--Ken Starr could have as many FBI agents as he wanted doing whatever they wanted to do.

Yet more proof that had Clinton not been in so much trouble for his personal problems 9-11 could have been averted. hmmmmm no wonder he is so defensive.

Good lord. That's about the greatest leap of logic ever attempted up here.

What's sad is you don't realize you just made Clinton's words truer than true.

That wasn't my leap, that was Joe Klein?s leap.
Klein suggested ?we might have had a better shot at rolling up those al-Qaeda cells if Bill Clinton had been free to fire Freeh.?
We know from Clinton himself that he would not fire Freeh because of Monica and Whitewater and the fear of fallout for firing him.

Therefore, had Clinton not had a problem with Monica and Whitewater he could have fired Freeh, says so himself, and as Klein suggests "we might have had a better shot at rolling up those al-Qaeda cells" without Freeh around. Therefore, no Clinton problem + no Freeh= less al-Qaeda.
Maybe saying there would have been no 9-11 is a stretch, but saying that Clinton's own personal problems affected the war on terror is not.

Bolding fixed. Those *are* your words, aren't they? Or at least what you've been told to post up here?

Rest of your apologistic tripe dismissed.

 

[UberNeuman]

ProfJohn - if the threat was clear and present - then why didn't Bush attack it head on?

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Clinton's own words on why he never fired Freeh
Time Magazine 2004 interview

If I had known that when we tripled the counterterrorism funds none of it was put into improving the data processing and interconnecting with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, if I had known that the Executive Order I signed fairly early in my Administration ordering the CIA and the FBI to exchange high-level people and cooperate more hadn't been done, I might have done so.

But since the FBI chief gets a presumptive 10-year term, I didn't feel what I thought was outrageous treatment of us, particularly by him personally, was worth replacing him, because all of you [in the media] would have said, Well, he's doing it because he's got something to hide, and I didn't have anything to hide. I knew there was nothing to Whitewater, I knew there was nothing to the Paula Jones case--Ken Starr could have as many FBI agents as he wanted doing whatever they wanted to do.

Yet more proof that had Clinton not been in so much trouble for his personal problems 9-11 could have been averted. hmmmmm no wonder he is so defensive.

Good lord. That's about the greatest leap of logic ever attempted up here.

What's sad is you don't realize you just made Clinton's words truer than true.

That wasn't my leap, that was Joe Klein?s leap.
Klein suggested ?we might have had a better shot at rolling up those al-Qaeda cells if Bill Clinton had been free to fire Freeh.?
We know from Clinton himself that he would not fire Freeh because of Monica and Whitewater and the fear of fallout for firing him.

Therefore, had Clinton not had a problem with Monica and Whitewater he could have fired Freeh, says so himself, and as Klein suggests "we might have had a better shot at rolling up those al-Qaeda cells" without Freeh around. Therefore, no Clinton problem + no Freeh= less al-Qaeda.
Maybe saying there would have been no 9-11 is a stretch, but saying that Clinton's own personal problems affected the war on terror is not.

You are blaming Clinton's failure to fire Freeh on his personal misgivings when the Republicans were using an any-means-necessary usurption campaign and were blocking any and almost all legislation no matter what it was?

Bitch, Please.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
ProfJohn - if the threat was clear and present - then why didn't Bush attack it head on?

Because he wanted Iraq.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/18/sm.03.html

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: getbush
Well it is truth that he could not get the required certification from the CIA and FBI to finger Afghanistan as a target to get boots on the ground. That was back when republicans did everything they could to take power away from the presidency. They've had a change of heart on that delicate balance since then.

Clinton was the fricken President he could take a piece of paper wrote a note and said here is my ****** certification, now get your asses in gear and do something.

That is the lamest excuse of all time. "Well the CIA and FBI said I couldn't do it" The CIA and FBI work for you!!!! You tell them what they can and can't do, not the other way around. Now if congress passed a law saying that he couldn't kill Osama then it would be a problem, otherwise...

So Clinton should have told CIA and FBI what the intelligence was, and then send US soldiers to die based on that, like Bush did with Iraq?
It's the other way around. CIA and FBI provide intelligence to the president.

 

[getbush]

I think profjohn is paid piece work, that is, the quality of his posts don't matter to his employers as much as quantity. They just bank on morons that can't think for themselves and love to be lied to.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Bolding fixed. Those *are* your words, aren't they? Or at least what you've been told to post up here?

Rest of your apologistic tripe dismissed.

Hold on, I am waiting for my marching orders to come through... :roll:

BTW:This is a clasic line

Originally posted by: conjur
Good lord. That's about the greatest leap of logic ever attempted up here.

You of all people accusing someone of making a leap in logic.
On Osama being dead:

Originally posted by: conjur
A little early for the Rovian October Surprise.

and this one

Originally posted by: conjur
Might even be worse.

Corporations are protected more and wield more influence than the citizens that comprise this country and the corporations themselves.

Why do you think the US engages in perennial war? It's not to take out dictators or stop WMD proliferation. It's to spread the new colonialism: capitalism.

The vast majority just refuse to accept it. They fear the reality.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

ProfJohn, why can't you stay on topic?

Answer us this or STFU and leave P&N!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
ProfJohn - why didn't Bush start dealing with this major problem when he came into office? As it has been pointed out - there were troubles about... and even with these issues, he put them aside....

Not true,
Bush was doing everything Clinton had done while at the same time working on his own ideas and solutions.
Listen what Richard Clarke said in 2002 before he started writing books attacking both sides:

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 (later Clarke says) 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.

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,

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect.

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.

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.

condensed for clarity.
Problem is that all of this took to long and 9-11 happened before anything new had been done. We can blame ALL of government for this and the fact that it moves way to slow.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Sorry, Bill Clinton is an incredibly intelligent man with an incredible command of language. The only person who can make Clinton look like an idiot is Bill Clinton. Certainly not Chris Wallace...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker
ProfJohn, why can't you stay on topic?

Answer us this or STFU and leave P&N!

Answer what?

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
ProfJohn - if the threat was clear and present - then why didn't Bush attack it head on?

Uber, see my post above on what Bush was doing.
We will never know if Bush's plan would have made a difference because 9-11 sort of changed the whole dynamic.

BTW: where is my check for all these posts?
And nice job with the personal attacks again people.
Oh the Republicans are so bad because all the did was attack attack attack Bill Clinton. Meanwhile all the Clinton people seem to be able to do nothing but attack attack attack me... nice. :roll:

 

[dahunan]

HMMMM>>>> http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml << HMMMMM

 

[HamSupLo]

that was beautiful the way Clinton tore apart Wallance when he tried to warp the withdraw from somalia with bin ladin.

 

[UberNeuman]

ProfJohn - why and, in your own words - didn't the Bush administration pick up from Clinton's administration when OBL was labeled a threat? To keep proclaiming Clinton could have done more, then ignore the info that had been passed to the Bush team and that they did nothing in that time - it's a false viewpoint.....

 

[ProfJohn]

Ok, had enough fun with this thread for tonight.
One last comment.

If any of you watched O'Reilly tonight (doubt that with this crowd) you would have heard him say that he thinks that Clinton really wanted to get Osama, at least after 98. And I TOTALY agree. There is no doubt that Clinton and Bush both wanted Osama caught or killed.

My problem is Clinton and all his rambling about all this action he was taking when it does not fit the historic record. Where is the proof for all that Clinton speaks about?

We know of ONE military action for certain, the cruise missile attack that most likely failed because the Pakistani's tipped him off. Otherwise there is no evidence at all for what Clinton says.
One example Clinton says:
"Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden."
Show us some proof to back up this statement. Where are the plans? Where are the quotes of people in the military saying "we had plans to invade and other throw the Taliban" etc.
Just show us some proof to back up all these statements. Otherwise I choose not to believe him and will instead mark this up as another example of Clinton not being totally truthful. (we can do a whole thread on Clinton fibs if you want)

 

[UberNeuman]

ProfJohn - cowards run away yet to bicker another day....

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, had enough fun with this thread for tonight.
One last comment.

If any of you watched O'Reilly tonight (doubt that with this crowd) you would have heard him say that he thinks that Clinton really wanted to get Osama, at least after 98. And I TOTALY agree. There is no doubt that Clinton and Bush both wanted Osama caught or killed.

My problem is Clinton and all his rambling about all this action he was taking when it does not fit the historic record. Where is the proof for all that Clinton speaks about?

We know of ONE military action for certain, the cruise missile attack that most likely failed because the Pakistani's tipped him off. Otherwise there is no evidence at all for what Clinton says.
One example Clinton says:
"Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden."
Show us some proof to back up this statement. Where are the plans? Where are the quotes of people in the military saying "we had plans to invade and other throw the Taliban" etc.
Just show us some proof to back up all these statements. Otherwise I choose not to believe him and will instead mark this up as another example of Clinton not being totally truthful. (we can do a whole thread on Clinton fibs if you want)

See, if reporters were to focus on the claims Clinton made during the interview, as opposed to talking about his reaction to the question being asked, we might know the answer to that.

Unfortunately, the media has little interest in anything other than ratings.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: getbush
Well it is truth that he could not get the required certification from the CIA and FBI to finger Afghanistan as a target to get boots on the ground. That was back when republicans did everything they could to take power away from the presidency. They've had a change of heart on that delicate balance since then.

Clinton was the fricken President he could take a piece of paper write a note and say here is my ****** certification, now get your asses in gear and do something.

That is the lamest excuse of all time. "Well the CIA and FBI said I couldn't do it" The CIA and FBI work for you!!!! You tell them what they can and can't do, not the other way around. Now if congress passed a law saying that he couldn't kill Osama then it would be a problem, otherwise...

You can't do that legally here in the good ole USA.. he needed the sign off to act... independent legal opinion will agree.
You can't simply invade another nation with out having some reason to do it even if catching OBL is in the pudding..
There are some rules that have been enacted to thwart the unilateral use of force by the President... Congress gets to know and they also need his resolution for the War Powers Act..

I am trying hard to reconcile your words with what Clinton said in the interview.
So Clinton is saying himself that he can authorize the CIA to kill him.
Clearly, if Clinton can launch a full scale attack on Bosnia without the consent of congress he can launch an attack on Osama.
Osama was MUCH more of a threat to the US and Bosnia was.

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.
and
CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

What I am saying is that the President cannot just up and do what ever he wants. He needs a finding!... IOW the CIA and or FBI had to 'sign off' that OBL was etc. etc.. and they did not or would not.
Like Nixon firing folks left and right.... Clinton could not fire folks until someone finally agreed with him... He could accept their resignation or fire them of course but politically that is insane..

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dahunan
HMMMM>>>> http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml << HMMMMM

I still want to know why Cheney has been allowed to get away with this ******

 

[MrK6]

Man, I could go on and on in this thread, what a great topic; however, it's 1AM and I have class tomorrow. That said, consider this: rather than go on quotations, hearsay, slanted political rants, etc. etc., look at action. While Clinton was president, we had an extremely successful decade, the economy was up and the defecit down, international relations (as a whole) were great, Kosovo was handled very well, things were going smoothly (except for that idiotic crap about Clinton getting a BJ, who the hell cares, grow up you bible thumpers). Bush came into a PRIME state of this nation. The economy was still up due to the tech boom, the nation was going well, and he had many experienced people in his cabinet (Colin Powell for one). After 9/11, his true incompetence showed through. The operations in Afghanistan weren't that bad, but Iraq was/is a disaster, the deficit is a disaster, almost the entire world despises the U.S., the handling of Katrina was disgusting (the disgrace couldn't even get off his ass from vacation to do his damn job), the list goes on and on. I'm not partial to either party, but to men and their actions. Actions show a real person, the part the words cannot convey nor hide. There was a list posted of Clinton's accomplishments, where's one of Bush's?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
ProfJohn - why and, in your own words - didn't the Bush administration pick up from Clinton's administration when OBL was labeled a threat? To keep proclaiming Clinton could have done more, then ignore the info that had been passed to the Bush team and that they did nothing in that time - it's a false viewpoint.....

In my own words:
1. Bush was in the process of changing the way in which they approached the war in terror. The record is there for anyone to see. The problem is that the time table did not give them enough time before 9-11 to make a significant enough of a change in policy to actually do something. Bush takes office around January 20, his appointees start taking office in March and April during the summer they developed a new plan for the war on terror, in late August they got together and agreed on said plan the plan did not hit Bush's desk till September 10. (This timeline is based on what Richard Clarke said)
That is what Bush was in the process of doing before 9-11, he was going to change how we went after al-Qaida.

I don't think any of that really matters because that plan would most likely not have stopped 9-11 anyway, it was to far along in planning by then to stop it. We could have killed bin Laden in the spring of 2001 and still not stopped 9-11. The only way to stop 9-11 would have been for us to either "get lucky" as happened in the millennium attacks or for the FBI, CIA etc to connect all the dots and realize what the plan was and came up with measures to stop it. (see my thoughts on stopping 9-11 below)

2. on Clinton: My problem with Clinton is not that he could have done more or should have done more, which he could have tried, but we don't know if that would have made a difference.
My problem is his excuses, well I couldn't take Osama because I had no legal reasons. I couldn't order the CIA to kill him without a "finding stating I can do so" etc etc. President Ford wrote a Presidential order outlawing assassination, Clinton could have written a new one re-allowing it, no one could have stopped him.
In August 1996 Osama declared war on the US "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." At that point Clinton could have signed an order for Osama to be killed or captured and justified it using his "war powers" as commander and chief.
Clinton sent thousands of troops in to Bosnia using the "war powers resolution."
Clinton launched an extended air war in Kosovo because of humanitarian issues.
Clinton sent troops to Haiti in order to return President Aristide to power.
Clinton sent troops into Somalia in order to protect humanitarian relief from armed gangs.

All this use of the military around the world, and yet Clinton was afraid of taking action against Osama because he lacked ?findings? or lacked the legal right to do so?

We bombed Kosovo for 78 days, according to Nato 720 aircraft flew almost 36,000 sorties - an average of 455 every 24 hours dropping over 20,000 bombs.
And against Osama and al-Qaida AFTER the embassy bombings we launch all of 75 missiles?????!!!!!

Do you at least understand why those of us on the right don?t believe him when he said he did everything he could??

(BTW: on stopping 9-11, one of the planes on the morning of 9-11 was given a warning about attempted hijackings, it did no good that plane was still hijacked. Now if we can tell the pilots to be alert and on the look out for a hijacking after 2 planes had already been hijacked and still have the warning do no good I do not think some generic warning would have done any good. Once they are on the plane it was too late, now they could have started searching everyone?s luggage and banning knifes etc before hand, but who knows if anyone had the political will to give that a try pre-9-11. Just look at the out cry over the ban on liquids on airplanes after we learn of a plot to blow up planes with liquid explosives, imagine what these people would have said pre 9-11. Heck, we can't even search Arab men now after 9-11, London and Madrid, the civil rights people would flip out if we did that, imagine if we even TRIED it before 9-11.)

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

1. Bush was in the process of changing the way in which they approached the war in terror.

What plan was that?