President Clinton smacks down Fox on Bush era Bin Laden incompetence

[Matt1970]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Londo_Jowo
Why didn't Clinton pull the trigger? He was offered ObL head on a platter.

*cricket*
__________________

Still hearing crickets

 

[palehorse]

Clinton had more opportunities to kill bin Laden than anyone since; but, he failed, or completely failed to act, in every single case.

Read Michael Scheuer.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Still hearing crickets

It's all fun and games until somebody gets an eye poked out.

 

[piasabird]

Clinton failed to get rid of Bin Ladin also!

 

[kage69]

All you need to know about the essential difference between Bush and Clinton is evident in that interview. Try to imagine Bush - or any other Republican politician, for that matter - attempting to articulate a long series of coherent, cogent, totally-in-command thoughts like Clinton does in that tape.

The right has been so busy playing the propaganda and disinformation game for so long, intelligent thought on their part is just not possible.

You just described one of the main reasons I feel I've been pushed away from mainstream conservative politics. The modern day GOP has no shame, and it's petty hypocrisy knows no bounds.
That clip is reminiscent of when Obama tore up that room full of Republican leaders in Baltimore when they tried to serve him their own dishonest talking points. Really gives you a glimpse into how differently the two parties select their leadership, despite the "two sides of the same coin" aspect.

 

[Craig234]

Clinton had more opportunities to kill bin Laden than anyone since; but, he failed, or completely failed to act, in every single case.

Read Michael Scheuer.

The politics in the country, including the use of the military, were very different under Clinton. Republicans attacked almost his every use.

That included the humanitarian mission in Somalia, and the mission in which not one American was killed in Serbia - in contrast to their war in Iraq.

Let's remember how they talked - here's Bush in 1999 critical of the use of the military:

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

And from a Presidential debate in 2000 implying criticism of Clinton's excessive use:

"I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."

Compare that to his having his position brought up for his war in 2005:

It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.

In fact, Republicans widely attacked him for any use of force, saying he was wrongly doing it to 'hang on to power' against the impeachment they were pursuing:

Sen. Dan Coats
Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."


GOP Activist Paul Weyrich
Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote "is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress."

Wall St. Journal Editorial Board
"It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment"

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP Majority Leader
"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY)
"Never underestimate a desperate president," said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). "What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?"

Rep. Tillie Folwer (R-Fla)
"It is certainly rather suspicious timing," said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). "I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum
First, it is a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the "life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post
"President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing. ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa"

Byron York, National Review
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy.

Wall St. Journal editorial
"Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached"

Republicans used the 'wag the dog' phrase constantly to attack him for use of force.

There was also an issue of proving bin Laden had done these things then; Clinton couldn't get certification from the FBI and CIA; even a liberal source had things like:

Is bin Laden a terrorist mastermind -- or a fall guy?

Clinton and his security staff have now blamed bin Laden for being behind almost every terrorist act in the past decade -- from plotting the assassinations of the pope and the president of Egypt to the planned bombing of six U.S. jumbo jets over the Pacific, with massacres of German tourists at Luxor and the killings of U.S. troops in Somalia, fatal car bombings of U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia and this month's truck bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam thrown in. Not since the '70s heyday of the terrorist Carlos has there been such a Prince of Darkness, if the allegations are to be believed.

But so far, for all of the accusations, no government, not even that of the United States, has established enough credible evidence against bin Laden to conclusively prove his direct participation in, much less leadership of, any of the ugly plots and acts he stands accused of. To date no formal request for his extradition has ever been made, either to the Sudanese government that once housed him or to his current hosts, Afghanistan's Taliban leaders.

There was a 1996 "White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security", one of those called a 'Gore commission' that recommended stronger measures.

Republicans opposed it and it failed to pass on a party line vote (thank you Republican majority) - he's 'obsessed with terrorism', it's 'too expensive'.

Clinton introduced a bill to freeze any funds organizations sent to Al Queda; Republican Phil Gramm killed it.

A couple more examples of the reduction in the priority for terrorism under Bush:

On February 26th, 2001, Paul Bremer (Co-chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq) while speaking at the McCormick Tribune Foundation Conference on Terrorism stated: "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?'

On May 5th, 2001, Bush rejected the Hart-Rudman report, a two and a half year study on the threat of terrorism, considered to be the most in-depth security analysis since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Security Council and the CIA. The fourteen member panel of intelligence and military experts, coming to the conclusion that "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers," recommended many improvements in our defenses (enacted since 9/11), including the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency.

Another:

Near the end of the Clinton administration, unarmed Predator drones spotted bin Laden in Afghanistan at least three times. Clinton proposed arming the drones with Hellfire missiles to kill him. Bad weather and retrofitting required the drones to be taken offline until March 2001. They remained offline throughout that summer. One week before 9/11, the Bush administration rejected using the drones to attack al Qaeda. Days after 9/11, armed Predator drones were put in the skies over Afghanistan.

Another:

FBI Director and counter-terrorism chief John O'Neill resigned in protest of the Bush administration because he believed they were obstructing the prosecution of terrorism. (25) A day after his resignation he started working as head of security for the World Trade Center, where he died two weeks later on September 11th.

To be fair, despite many wag the dog attacks, Republicans were largely supporting of the cruise missile launches, especially Newt Gingrich.

Here's one quote that gets both the Clinton effort on Osama and the Republican view:

Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

Here's a good history of the Republican attack versus the facts:

http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3899

And one more link with a lot of the history:

http://sheanc.blogspot.com/2006/09/here-we-go-again-warning-long-post.html

Save234

 

[kage69]

Clinton had more opportunities to kill bin Laden than anyone since; but, he failed, or completely failed to act, in every single case.

Read Michael Scheuer.

Read Richard C. Clarke. I think your first sentence is lacking in perspective and is a gross oversimplification of events that Clinton didn't have full control over (for instance, corrupt Pakistani intelligence, FBI-CIA rivalry for another). I've always found it amusing that Clinton haters can have the gall to criticize Clinton for not succeeding in getting OBL, while at that time the same crowd was criticizing him for trying to do it! Bush doing nothing irt to AQ for his first 9 months in office is somehow just an inconvenient side note.

Show me an example of Clinton ignoring a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside America" and I'll agree the man was a total counter terrorism failure.

 

[WackyDan]

Bush didn't have Sex with someone other than his Wife. Shit, BEST President evar!!!

no... But he didn't perjure himself either.

 

[JohnnyGage]

2003 called, it wants this thread back.

 

[Steeplerot]

Still hearing crickets

This is all thoroughly explained in detail in op video. You guys are embarresing yourselves.....again.

 

[Steeplerot]

no... But he didn't perjure himself either.

Bush lied his ass off to get into iraq killing up to a million innocent people. But hey! Clinton got a blowjob!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Bush lied his ass off to get into iraq killing up to a million innocent people. But hey! Clinton got a blowjob!

Ignoratio elenchi.

 

[Matt1970]

This is all thoroughly explained in detail in op video. You guys are embarresing yourselves.....again.

I didn't hear shit about the offer from the Sudan Government in 1996.

 

[shira]

Please let us know when you are linking to 5 year old interviews... instead of trying to make it seem as if it's something current. I would not have wasted my time.

We liberals have to keep bringing up the past. The right keeps making dishonest statements, easily refuted by reference to history. But of course the right doesn't want anybody actually looking at the historical record.

 

[Steeplerot]

Righties have a very short term and selective memories
This is just another sign of what is REALLY wrong with media in USA is anyone even pays attention to their crackpot cultism. Until they come back to reality they should be boycotted and laughed at in their face until they grow up and quit the spoiled delusional children bit the corporate media has been enablers for.

 

[JSt0rm]

the conservative brain is similar to that of a lizard. The fear centers are overly exaggerated. A defect if you will. We should push them all into Alabama and wall it off.

 

[Matt1970]

Whatever you have to tell yourselves to sleep at night....

 

[wuliheron]

Righties have a very short term and selective memories
This is just another sign of what is REALLY wrong with media in USA is anyone even pays attention to their crackpot cultism. Until they come back to reality they should be boycotted and laughed at in their face until they grow up and quit the spoiled delusional children bit the corporate media has been enablers for.

The media is just symptomatic of the culture. McCarthyism showed conservatives just how far they could push such things in the media and they've made an art of pushing it as far as possible without taking that final step into total insanity.

 

[Steeplerot]

the conservative brain is similar to that of a lizard. The fear centers are overly exaggerated. A defect if you will. We should push them all into Alabama and wall it off.

I don't know about going down that road but they do sure seem to have a hard.time processing information that goes against their "faith" or they are just cowards afraid of change with little cultural connection to the rest of the USA. I tend more toward the latter, mans scope for intellectual laziness is as unbounded as mankind's ability to do amazing things like Einstein.

It will take generations to deprogram the division fed to generations.now.by righting talk radio/foxnews political televangelists selling their cult hate to the uninformed americans. This is a result of the tee-vee generation growing up believing and being raised by shit from the idiot box instead of using good old fashioned american critical thinking skills.

Being lazy is a whole lot easier then feigning stupidity. You give them too much credit I am afraid.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't know about going down that road but they do sure seem to have a hard.time processing information that goes against their "faith" or they are just cowards afraid of change with little cultural connection to the rest of the USA. I tend more toward the latter, mans scope for intellectual laziness is as unbounded as mankind's ability to do amazing things like Einstein.

It will take generations to deprogram the division fed to generations.now.by righting talk radio/foxnews political televangelists selling their cult hate to the uninformed americans. This is a result of the tee-vee generation growing up believing and being raised by shit from the idiot box instead of using good old fashioned american critical thinking skills.

Being lazy is a whole lot easier then feigning stupidity. You give them too much credit I am afraid.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

Its true. I'm not making it up. Their brains are a form of de-evolution. Not that they believe in evolution

 

[Zebo]

Clinton had more opportunities to kill bin Laden than anyone since; but, he failed, or completely failed to act, in every single case.

Read Michael Scheuer.

This. Can't believe people take Clinton at his word a proven liar and well, a politician where lying is germane to the position.

Clinton and Bush administrations

Scheuer has been critical of the Bush and Clinton administrations for not killing bin Laden, for costly and disastrous policy missteps, and for not taking decisive measures to defend the country. He states that Clinton had eight to ten opportunities to kill bin Laden prior to September 11, and Bush had one opportunity thereafter. Richard A. Clarke and the Clinton administration, according to Scheuer, thwarted the CIA's ambitions to kidnap or kill bin Laden when they had the chance.[26] According to Scheuer,

Clarke's book Against All Enemies is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick [Clarke], Bill [Clinton] and Sandy [Berger] and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.[27]

Of the Bush administration, Scheuer warns against assigning it full responsibility for the nation's troubles since September 11, 2001. Although the "unprovoked attack of Iraq" will forever be remembered as "infamous", as will Dick Cheney's "reptilian contention that Americans who criticize U.S. foreign policy are 'validating the strategy of the terrorists'," according to Scheuer, a "bipartisan governing elite", both Democratic and Republican, is to blame for the nation's woes.[28] (Notwithstanding the bipartisan responsibility, Scheuer comments, "the thought of what history will say about Donald Rumsfeld's tenure at the Department of Defense ought to make his relatives shudder down to their latest generation.")[28]

 

[Muse]

That video is phenomenal. Clinton takes shit from noone. I've never seen a politician or ex politician put anyone in their place in such an intelligent and convincing manner. Amazing!

 

[Muse]

All you need to know about the essential difference between Bush and Clinton is evident in that interview. Try to imagine Bush - or any other Republican politician, for that matter - attempting to articulate a long series of coherent, cogent, totally-in-command thoughts like Clinton does in that tape.

The right has been so busy playing the propaganda and disinformation game for so long, intelligent thought on their part is just not possible.

I agree. Well put.

 

[Muse]

"I did not... have... sexual relations... with that... woman!"

Depends what you call sexual relations doesn't it? Give him a break. He was a married man. Shame on the Republicans for trying to take his legs out over that, the whole lot of them. Well, maybe some of them didn't but I don't remember hearing about them.

If only we were so lucky to have problems like saxaphones surpluses and blowjobs nowadays.

Good point.

 

[Muse]

We liberals have to keep bringing up the past. The right keeps making dishonest statements, easily refuted by reference to history. But of course the right doesn't want anybody actually looking at the historical record.

"Read history or the world's a mystery. Read or bleed people, learn or burn." - Dave Emory

Whatever you have to tell yourselves to sleep at night....

Bullshit. Hypocrites do not sleep well.