Who's tougher on terror?

[sMiLeYz]

This piece from the book sets the record straight about Clinton and his anti-terrorism record.

More lies from the right exposed

The Clinton critics like to dismiss his administration's efforts to stop bin Laden as a couple of missiles fired at an empty tent. Yet there was no lack of zeal in Clinton's hunt for the Saudi terrorist. In 1998 Clinton signed a secret National Security Decision Directive that authorized an intensive, ongoing campaign to destroy al-Qaida and seize or assassinate bin Laden. Several attempts were made on bin Laden's life, aside from the famous cruise missile launches that summer, which conservatives falsely denounced as an attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

In 1999, the CIA organized a Pakistani commando unit to enter Afghanistan on a mission to capture or kill bin Laden. That operation was aborted when General Pervez Musharraf seized the Pakistani government from Nawaz Sharif, the more cooperative civilian Prime Minister. A year later, bin Laden was reportedly almost killed in a rocket-grenade attack on his convoy. Unfortunately, the missiles hit the wrong truck.

Simultaneously, the White House tried to persuade or coerce the Taliban regime into expelling bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton signed an executive order freezing $254 million in Taliban assets in the United States, while the State Department kept the Taliban internationally isolated. But there was nothing the United States could have done, short of full-scale military action, to separate al-Qaida from the Taliban. And there was also no guarantee that such action would lead to the apprehension of bin Laden, as the Bush administration discovered when American forces helped to overthrow the Taliban after September 11.

On Clinton's watch, the CIA and the National Security Council instituted a special al-Qaida unit that thwarted several deadly conspiracies, including a scheme to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on Millennium Eve, and plots to bomb the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels in New York City as well as the United Nations building. Timely American intelligence also prevented a deadly assault on the Israeli embassy in Washington. Meanwhile, the State Department and the CIA neutralized dozens of terrorist cells overseas through quiet prosecutions, extraditions, and executions undertaken by allies from Albania to the Philippines.

A month before Clinton left office -- and nine months before the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- the nation's most experienced diplomats in counterterrorism praised those efforts. "Overall, I give them very high marks," said Robert Oakley, former Ambassador for Counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger." Paul Bremer, who had served in the same post under Reagan and later was chosen by congressional leaders to chair the National Commission on Terrorism, disagreed slightly with his colleague. Bremer told the Washington Post he believed that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden." (He has since been chosen to lead the Bush administration team in Iraq.)

Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the new president sent stringent antiterrorism legislation to Congress as part of his first crime bill. The passage of that legislation many months later was the last time he would enjoy real cooperation against terrorism from congressional conservatives. When he sought to expand those protections in 1995 after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, he was frustrated by a coalition of civil libertarians and antigovernment conservatives, who argued that his "overreaction" posed a threat to constitutional rights. Among that bill's most controversial provisions were new powers to turn away suspect immigrants, swifter deportation procedures, and a new deportation court that could view secret evidence. (During his 2000 campaign, George W. Bush won support from American Muslims by denouncing that provision.)

Thanks to an increasingly obstreperous Republican majority on both sides of the Capitol, law enforcement officials were denied new authority for roving wiretaps and new powers to monitor money laundering. All that would have to wait until after September 11, when the Republicans suddenly reversed position with a vengeance.

Indiana Representative David McIntosh, a leading conservative ideologue in Congress, enunciated the typical partisan reaction to Clinton's counterterror proposals. McIntosh insisted on steering the debate back to a phony White House scandal. "We find it very troubling that you're asking us for additional authority to wiretap innocent Americans," he declared, "when you have failed to explain to the American people why you abuse their civil liberties by having FBI files brought into the White House."

But the campaign undertaken by Hannity, Sullivan, Horowitz, and other conservatives to arraign Clinton for September 11 has a more sinister, explicitly political aim. Their rhetoric is redolent of the old stab-in-the-back theories once used to discredit FDR and JFK. And of course they are attempting to deflect blame from Bush (whose vow to get bin Laden, "dead or alive," has been consigned to the same White House memory hole as the balanced budget).

Does George W. Bush deserve responsibility for the failures that led to September 11? The independent commission that the President so reluctantly approved in late 2002 is likely to provide complex and nuanced answers to that question. Perhaps the commission will explain why members of the bin Laden family were spirited out of the United States on orders from the White House before they could be questioned by the FBI. Perhaps the commission will explore why FBI terror expert John O'Neill, who died in the World Trade Center conflagration, believed that the Bush administration was soft on Saudi cooperation with al-Qaida.

What is clear already from the public record is that the Bush administration received ample warning from Clinton's national security officials -- and from CIA Director George Tenet, a Clinton holdover -- that al-Qaida posed the most significant, immediate threat to American security.

Departing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the National Security Council's counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, who was held over by Bush, gave Condoleezza Rice a series of urgent briefings on terrorism during the presidential transition in January 2001. "You're going to spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and al-Qaida specifically than any issue," Berger told his successor. Clarke delivered similar emphatic briefings to Vice President Cheney and to Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy. But the supposedly competent national security managers in the new administration, including Rice, Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were too preoccupied with other matters (such as national missile defense) to pay heed to the most serious threat since the end of the Cold War.

The failure of Bush's national security team to recognize the threat of al-Qaida, even after they were clearly warned, will rank among the most serious mistakes ever made by U.S. government officials. They had billed themselves as "the grown-ups," condescending to the Democrats they replaced and asserting that their experience would return steady guidance to American policy. Instead, these veterans of previous Republican administrations fumbled and fooled around with ancillary issues while an elusive new enemy prepared to strike. They weren't prepared. They had no plan. They hadn't seen what was coming. They had ignored the warnings. Their judgment was as deluded as their self-image.

]

 

[Dari]

a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

 

[TheBDB]

Nice read. I think it is hard to judge anyone's attitudes about terrorism before Sept. 11, because before that day most in America had no idea what terrorism was.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Dari
a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

Yeah, as if Bin Laden is deterred by Bush's agressiveness.

Bush needs to leave that stupid ranch here in Texas and go see how his policies have screwed up America.

 

[etech]

Really?

Oh my, even more.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Dari
a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

Yeah, as if Bin Laden is deterred by Bush's agressiveness.

Bush needs to leave that stupid ranch here in Texas and go see how his policies have screwed up America.

Since 9/11, has there been any major attacks on US interests directly by bin Laden's Al Qaeda (on the scale of WTC, Kenya/Tanzania, USS Cole)?

Well, has there?

 

[DukeFan21]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

 

[povertystruck]

Has there been powerful attacks on U.S. interests since 9/11? Well heres one: the Riyadh bombing May 13, 2003.

Check it out on a google. 91 dead some were americans.

 

[DukeFan21]

Originally posted by: povertystruck
Has there been powerful attacks on U.S. interests since 9/11? Well heres one: the Riyadh bombing May 13, 2003.

Check it out on a google. 91 dead some were americans.

23 innocents were killed, 9 of them Americans. 12 others who died were the bombers.

 

[burnedout]

I think Snopes offers a good summary for many of the maniacal rants on this forum:

"Some folks play fast and loose with the facts when they've an axe to grind"

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Dari
a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

Yeah, as if Bin Laden is deterred by Bush's agressiveness.

Bush needs to leave that stupid ranch here in Texas and go see how his policies have screwed up America.

Since 9/11, has there been any major attacks on US interests directly by bin Laden's Al Qaeda (on the scale of WTC, Kenya/Tanzania, USS Cole)?

Well, has there?

Al Queda has traditionally spaced their attacks, aka they don't constantly atack, once every few years they carry out a well coordinated attack on a major target. IOW, the lack of a major attack since 9/11 means nothing.

 

[Bigdude]

Bush is doing what had to be done! He has made it very clear to all the World, that there will be Hell to Pay, if you support terror attacks on the USA!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Bigdude
Bush is doing what had to be done! He has made it very clear to all the World, that there will be Hell to Pay, if you support terror attacks on the USA!

So, when exactly are we invading Saudi Arabia?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bigdude
Bush is doing what had to be done! He has made it very clear to all the World, that there will be Hell to Pay, if you support terror attacks on the USA!

Yeah, what we want to do is preemptively attack people so everybody in the world wants us dead.

 

[LunarRay]

These terrorist folks expect to die and go to paradise while doing Alah's work... threaten them with bombs or whatever... it is Allah's will that they die when they die... if the mission they are embarked on does not succeed it too is Alah's will... the terrorist is immune to the poison of threat. This is how they think... we must find another way to eliminate the threat... because it is real, seems to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
These terrorist folks expect to die and go to paradise while doing Alah's work... threaten them with bombs or whatever... it is Allah's will that they die when they die... if the mission they are embarked on does not succeed it too is Alah's will... the terrorist is immune to the poison of threat. This is how they think... we must find another way to eliminate the threat... because it is real, seems to me.

Maybe we could get Caddy to damn them to hell.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
These terrorist folks expect to die and go to paradise while doing Alah's work... threaten them with bombs or whatever... it is Allah's will that they die when they die... if the mission they are embarked on does not succeed it too is Alah's will... the terrorist is immune to the poison of threat. This is how they think... we must find another way to eliminate the threat... because it is real, seems to me.

It certainly seems like the status quo for the past 10 years didn't work.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: LunarRay
These terrorist folks expect to die and go to paradise while doing Alah's work... threaten them with bombs or whatever... it is Allah's will that they die when they die... if the mission they are embarked on does not succeed it too is Alah's will... the terrorist is immune to the poison of threat. This is how they think... we must find another way to eliminate the threat... because it is real, seems to me.

It certainly seems like the status quo for the past 10 years didn't work.

I suspect you refer to the need to cause all nations harboring terrorists to purge them into the sea, cast them adrift... so to speak.. and failing this action the US will do what it deems necessary to protect itself including invasion. Since the terrorist operates under the will of Allah... maybe if enough folks can persuade them that Allah abhors their actions they will stop. There is no central Islamic Voice that controls all the various sects let alone the folks who entice otherwise decent Muslim folks into their agendized web of deceit. Don't seem to be an easy and proper answer to this..

 

[Insane3D]

Don't seem to be an easy and proper answer to this..

Unfortunately, there rarely is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Don't seem to be an easy and proper answer to this..

Unfortunately, there rarely is.

It'd be nice to use the old "one ounce of prevention...." saying to solve this but that doesn't seem to apply to this situation. We're sort of damned if we do, damned if we don't...a catch-22.

CkG

 

[JellyBaby]

I suspect you refer to the need to cause all nations harboring terrorists to purge them into the sea, cast them adrift... so to speak.. and failing this action the US will do what it deems necessary to protect itself including invasion. Since the terrorist operates under the will of Allah... maybe if enough folks can persuade them that Allah abhors their actions they will stop. There is no central Islamic Voice that controls all the various sects let alone the folks who entice otherwise decent Muslim folks into their agendized web of deceit. Don't seem to be an easy and proper answer to this..

An Islamic Pope ya think? Beamer do you sense that might be your calling in life? I would worship you if it saved lives.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

I suspect you refer to the need to cause all nations harboring terrorists to purge them into the sea, cast them adrift... so to speak.. and failing this action the US will do what it deems necessary to protect itself including invasion. Since the terrorist operates under the will of Allah... maybe if enough folks can persuade them that Allah abhors their actions they will stop. There is no central Islamic Voice that controls all the various sects let alone the folks who entice otherwise decent Muslim folks into their agendized web of deceit. Don't seem to be an easy and proper answer to this..

An Islamic Pope ya think? Beamer do you sense that might be your calling in life? I would worship you if it saved lives.

Ya know you might be on to something.. A central figure with the power to excommunicate... and to perform exorcisms. Dr. Moonbeam could threaten them with excommunication and if they persisted in their terrorist ways he could blast the hell out of them.... an exorcism of sorts..

 

[JellyBaby]

Possibly but we saw what the pope did as the leader of the catholic church when he and his uber fellow clergy held enormous power during the Dark Ages. I'm not certain the power wouldn't corrupt the Beameister. Dare we even risk it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Naturally I wouldn't do any blasting myself, I'd have Caddy as my right hand for that.

Islam is not structured like the Christian Church, there are no authoritative priests. I think they consider them a joke, some fool between you and God. I am basically ignorant on the subject, but my suggestion would be that Mohamed, peace and blessings to him, is sort of closest to a pope. If I were running things I would fund an Islamic institute in the middle east or maybe even here. I would fund it and provide the security, and give it a voice like the Voice of America, and I would invite Islamic scholars and religious folk from other faiths and thinkers from all over the world to debate religious truth. I would try to spread the side of Islam I think is real, the side that's animated by love. I would publicly challenge Islamic states when the repress their people and channel the hate that generates toward us. I would fund Islamic thinkers to make plans for how to revolutionize their societies. I would try to become the will of Allah through the pursuit of justice.

 

[povertystruck]

Don't you mean the catholic church? I'm a christian (specifically prodestant), but I'm not a pope worshipper.