Former Head of CIA bin Laden Unit Says Clinton Had 10 Chances to Get Terror Mastermind

[dmcowen674]

I love all these threads going back and forth that Clinton didn't get him, well neither has Bush and he is the current President.

Clinton was a failure and Bush is a much bigger failure and he has cost this Country Billions, troops lives, our reputation and still not any closer to getting Binny.

I'll take Blow Jobs over Bush Disaster anyday.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: tvarad
If you had told me before 9/11 that terrorists would bring down the WTC, my response would have been "Yeah, right".

They didn't.

As someone who believes that our current government benefitted enormously from 9/11, that is completely saved the Bush administration from powerlessness as the public wanted no part of its 'real agenda' and its ratings were plummeting from the day they entered office, that they not only needed a 'Pearl Harbor-like event' for their agenda but the knew they did - they said so in the 'Project for a New American Century' in that very phrase - and that they're the sort of scumbags who would do ruthless things for power:

I do not agree with any of the conspiracy theories that it was anyone but Osama bin Laden's people who did 9/11.

Just as, while there were huge motives for the CIA, the mafia, and other war types to assassinate JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter.

Whether he was encouraged by others, from his CIA handler to the Cubans, is arguable, but it's clear he decided to do what he did.

And you can argue about the negligence of the Bush administration contributing to 9/11, just as Bush 41's negligence in telling Saddam the US would not care if he took action against Kuwait led to the first gulf war - but it doesn't change the fact that it was not missiles, or explosives planted by the US, that were involved in 9/11. It was what it was, a conspiracy by Al Queda.

As far as any 'secret agreements' - unlike the 1968 election, where there's evidence the Nixon campaign traitorously won by secretly undermining the LBJ peace negotiations with North Viet Nam, or even the 1980 election where there are some questions about George Bush Sr. and the Iranian hostages - there is no credible case, in my view, that the Bush administration had any cooperation with bin Laden to do 9/11. Their situation is best explained by incompetence, not conspiracy.

 

[Todd33]

UBL was not a main target until the Cole, by the time the investigation was done and plans were drawn up Clinton was passing the torch. Having "chances" may be technically true, but have the backing to carry out the action did not materialize until 2000. So IMO Bush had the only real chance, but he was interested in missile defense. Scheur knows his business which is not politics, but he is not a public figure with a hostile congress attacking every move he makes. Unless he can give some details on those 10 "chances" I think he is speaking in generalities.

 

[DealMonkey]

Okay, I watched the video. He claims 8-10 opportunities to kill OBL during Clinton's terms in office. What were those opportunities? What were the circumstances? This is a fairly new revelation and frankly the interview just brings up more questions than it answers.

 

[Pens1566]

Why is everyone arguing with someone who thinks the Shah was from Iraq???

 

[imported_Aelius]

Don't play into the polarized political landscape. This isn't a fight between the Left and the Right. It's a fight between us vs them.

This case of who to blame more (Dems or Reps) is just a case of political polarization that pits people at each other while they miss the whole point of the exercise.

Us being normal every day people (regardless of your every day opinions i.e. abortion, nationalism, socialism).

Them being Corporatism i.e. owners of big business (such as owners of Central Banks like the Federal Reserve)

If you don't know what Corporatism is I suggest you look it up and take a look at the structure of most Western governments. It's an exact match. It's just as true for the US as it is for the UK or Canada. Wherever Central Banks exist the power structure exists behind them by whomever owns them since they control all money in those nations. Money = Power

If you do not understand this concept do not read on as it will be of no intrest to you and you won't understand.


Technically we do not live in Democracy. Hardly shocking if you know what the next term means. Technically we live under Corporatism, which is a more accurate term for Fascism. The term Fascism is simply used incorrectly by far too many naive people. Fascism is not Nazism. Nazism is Fascism. This is a very critical point to understand. I admit even I was one of these naive people a few years ago.

What will you people do for the next set of elections? You are going to vote more of the same kind of people into office and you will do it again and again and again and again. Every major party is stock full of the same kinds of people. Not every single person, but the vast majority.

The only way to stop the whole bloody mess is to vote for a 3rd Party and annihilate the central banking system. Once you do that you may have a chance to reclaim your country and truly have true Democracy.

Personally I have no hope of it ever happening for three major reasons.

1. Political polarization is far too effective in keeping people at each other's throats and gives the illusion of control to the people. i.e. If you don't like them vote them out.
2. Control over the vast majority of media in Western nations ensures that point 1 continues and further gives the illusion of control and Democracy (free press).
3. Stiffling 3rd Parties at every opertunity and constantly setting the bar an inch higher for them ensures to keep them largely insignificant, which allows point 1 to continue.

 

[Lemon law]

Why is no one questioning the right of a government to just poof decide they are so morally superior that they have the right to just go into any foreign country and execute
a given person?---get really weird when we have a religious leader like Pat Robertson advocate the murder of a democratically elected leader of a country; specifically Hugo Chavez.

Do any remember our reaction when there was a fatwah out against Salmon Rushdie for penning the Satanic Verses---and how we reacted at the nerve of those Islamic fundamentalists.---so thin skinned that they could not accept the right of a writer to have free speech.

And that was GWB's opening salvo for gulf war two---a attempted bombing of a building we thought Saddam Hussein was in.---we did not get him---but we sure asserted our right to kill without warning and in advance of hostilities.---and now only the US has the moral right to go into any country and kill or kidnap foreign nationals---and send them to secret prisons.---even when its based on a mistake as at least two recent cases were.

Or alternately how would the USA react if some foreign country just assinated our President or some other US political leader---just because they felt this person was a madman and they had that moral right to decide who lives and who dies.

 

[Craig234]

Aelius, you need to stay constructive. *I* will vote for anti-corporatist policies and officials, and others can be persuaded to, too. We should keep making that effort.

Every once in a while, it helps elect a Teddy Roosevelt or a John Kennedy. My own Congressman has been named 'the most liberal member in Congress', despite his background of having founded a large bank. He's a great guy who tells kids not to join the military. In fact, I'm headed out for one of his town meetings right now.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Look, it comes down to this.

In the years that Clinton had to deal with UBL, there were attacks. He attacked them back with limited success, but nothing much was ventured.

In the years that Bush had to deal with UBL we have wasted 1 TRILLION dollars and have had limited success. We have wasted thousands of lives and squandered the good-will of the world.

Bush is a failure. His domestic and international policies are failures. Anybody who denies that at this point has their head in the sand. It matters little what Clinton did or did not do, it's not Clinton *STILL* wasting billions *AND* killing soliders *AND* creating more terrorists, it's Bush.

It's up to $1 trillion now huh?

Your man has said it a hundred times; he's in it for the long haul. In fact if he had his way we'd be in Iraq until we figured out how to topple the theocracy of Iran. I'd say $1 Trillion is vastly optimistic if you and your ilk had your way.

 

[Lemon law]

Its way over a trillion dollars if you count intangable costs---like the care of wounded veterans---lost productivity---and where would we be if we invested this wasted money into capital goods that produced things----but do to the wonders of modern US budgeting---you can bury those costs so deep that even God can't find or account for it.

So we just deal with things like it costs two billion per week as the Iraq war keeps going and going and going------------and no one seems to notice that this money just buys us less security---not more security---as the recently released national intelligence estimate reveals.

 

[Polish3d]

You guys seem to slot everything into two partisan categories. Information and opinions either comes from a pro-left or pro-right direction for many of you people. I really recommend checking out that study posted here from time to time showing the physical inability of committed partisans to analyze and evaluate information regarding political issues with the reasoning areas of their brains.

 

[Narmer]

Why are people so obsessed with Clinton? Is it envy? People do tend to hate what they admire.

As for Bush, his main aim before and after 9/11 was being the primary cheerleader for the military industrial complex. Before 9/11 it was all about missile defense. After 9/11 it was all about new fighter planes, missile defense, tanks, and a whole bunch of other crap that are worthless in fighting international terrorism.

Sometimes I feel like America is going through a nightmare and we'll wake up from it. It's up to individual Americans to not let our politicians scare us into this reactionary mode. In the end, if we learn to respect other cultures and peoples, then these problems wouldn't be happening now. But our stupid leaders are carrying us to the lowest reaches of human indignity and utter fear. This is truly a race to the bottom.

God bless America and the world.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Frackal
You guys seem to slot everything into two partisan categories. Information and opinions either comes from a pro-left or pro-right direction for many of you people. I really recommend checking out that study posted here from time to time showing the physical inability of committed partisans to analyze and evaluate information regarding political issues with the reasoning areas of their brains.

Is it partisan to hold to account people who are CURRENTLY destroying our way of life? Besides, it's only partisan to cons when they have NO POSSIBLE WAY to defend their position. Amusingly, it innarguably does not extend to guys like Clinton or Clarke when they are the ONLY ONES to OPENLY admit their failure and this despite the fact that it didn't even happen on their watch.

EDIT: I'll be voting for McCain if runs, how's that for partisan?

 

[ntdz]

Did Clinton screw up by not getting Bin Laden? Yeah.

However, I can't really blame him, nobody could've predicted something like 9/11 happening and two wars basically resulting from it. I think had Clinton known what would've happened, he would've tried harder. Hindsight is 20/20...and Clinton had his reasons, however trifle they seem now, but in the pre-9/11 world they held more weight.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Aelius, you need to stay constructive. *I* will vote for anti-corporatist policies and officials, and others can be persuaded to, too. We should keep making that effort.

Every once in a while, it helps elect a Teddy Roosevelt or a John Kennedy. My own Congressman has been named 'the most liberal member in Congress', despite his background of having founded a large bank. He's a great guy who tells kids not to join the military. In fact, I'm headed out for one of his town meetings right now.

Just because he is a banker doesn't mean he is part of Corporatism. He is indirectly, just as much as you and I are also part of that system indirectly. We fund it through taxes and so does he. That doesn't make you, me or him a Fascist. It sounds like he has his head in the right place and I wish him much luck.

I never suggested that every politician is actively working against us. Not at all. I'm sure the vast majority of them are just opertunists, but when the time comes to make choices they often make the wrong one. I'm also not saying they are victims either. They are just closer to the flame and some of them get burned in the process.

I do have hope and perhaps people will open their eyes at the breaking point. A revolution is a healthy thing from time to time. At least according to Thomas Jefferson.

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.
The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet
under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its
liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The
remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, see Jefferson On Democracy, 20 (S. Padover ed. 1939).

 

[Red Dawn]

Clinton didn't do enough and Bush did the wrong thing. Clinton was hamstrung by the Lewinsky scandal and the Dub was given horrible advice fronm his advisors.

In the end the American people have been let down horribly by our leaders.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Frackal
You guys seem to slot everything into two partisan categories. Information and opinions either comes from a pro-left or pro-right direction for many of you people. I really recommend checking out that study posted here from time to time showing the physical inability of committed partisans to analyze and evaluate information regarding political issues with the reasoning areas of their brains.

Is it partisan to hold to account people who are CURRENTLY destroying our way of life? ?

Do you expect me to answer a question phrased in that way?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clinton didn't do enough and Bush did the wrong thing. Clinton was hamstrung by the Lewinsky scandal and the Dub was given horrible advice fronm his advisors.

In the end the American people have been let down horribly by our leaders.

Bingo

 

[Craig234]

Most democrats would agree we were let down by Clinton's mistake - but, we were far, far worse served by the obstructionist republicans who attacked him and kept him from doing more for the country in their jihad impeachment and other measures.

People forget their extreme measures, such as that the republicans were threatening to filibuster every single appointment he made unless he gave them written advance notice in a blackmail to get powers the constitution does not grant them, or their claims he could not be trusted to certify other nations' compliance with laws, etc.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

If he attacked it was "WAG THE DOG!" if he didn't he was weak on defense.....Fvck the Republicans. Bush should have stayed on Bin Ladin and not let him go LIKE HE DID. THIS administration lost the chance to get him, the finger pointing at Clinton is just more deflection from the Bush camp....

 

[Lemon law]

I think Narmer has made some valid points----and yipee---the good old USA is winning the race to the bottom.

Likewise this looking back and blaming Clinton is just a political deflection by Republicans---in yet another attempt to write revisionist history. But the fact is---we can't change the past.
And moaning and groaning about the past gets us nowhere---we can only change the future.

But we are now---according to GWB&co.---engaged in a decades long fight against intenational terrorism---with forays into Afganistan and Iraq being the opening Salvo's of this fight.
And now---based on experience---we now know that both Iraq and Afganistan are failures---and that the terrorists are winning in both places by any objective measure except the gut reaction of GWB---who does not directly disagree with any parts of the national intelligence estimate---but rejects its conclusions in its entirety.

So the first order of business is to find tactics we can adopt that will yield better results---and also to conclude that GWB&co. seems berift of these ideas---as the entire history of these occupations demonstrate---while the coalition of the billing can obtain a temporary military victory---it cannot sustain anything or build on earlier sucesses.

It is likewise fruitless to moan and groan and ask what would have happened if GWB had not occupied Iraq like his daddy refused to do after gulf war 1--the fact is that GWB did attempt the difficult and failed to get it right---so we must then ask the question about what happens if we just withdraw like we did in VietNam.---in MHO---thats a very risky strategy that could well totally destablise the mid-east by triggering a likely Iraqi civil war that ends up spilling far past the borders of Iraq---but if we stay GWB's course--the same set of events are equally likely also because we don't have the tactics to win---nor is that set of tactics likely to ever come from GWB&co.---that much is clear.

So the ineveitable and inescapeable conclusion is---to make progress we must get rid of GWB.---and then getting the international community aboard will become possible.

All else is political spin to confuse the issue by bringing up the past---when this is about the future.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Did Clinton screw up by not getting Bin Laden? Yeah.

However, I can't really blame him, nobody could've predicted something like 9/11 happening and two wars basically resulting from it. I think had Clinton known what would've happened, he would've tried harder. Hindsight is 20/20...and Clinton had his reasons, however trifle they seem now, but in the pre-9/11 world they held more weight.

I could've sworn that Rice was given a report titled something along the lines of "AL Qaeida using planes to smash into buildings." Anyone (conjur) have a link for the lazy?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You know what I find Hilarious? Those same people who were blaming Clinton for 9/11, as soon as Bush turned out to be to blame are saying, "hey, it's neither, it's the terrorists."

What is also funny is that this administration officials had 8 months and a rather lengthy report on Bin Laden sitting on their desks and instead they decided to spy on and pick a fight with China during those 8 months.

You can sit there and say that Clinton failed to act on his chances to get Bin Laden but then you must admit that Bush and company ignored Clinton's warnings and his report of the potential threat Bin Laden posed.

 

[fitzov]

Prof John once again stoops to lowest level of debate.

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm convinced Clinton had not 10 but 11 chances to get Bin Laden.