Bill Clinton Blows a Gasket On Fox

[sharkman]

In this video clip, Clinton claims he did all he could to get Osama but failed. No mention about Yemen's catch and release of bin Laden after asking the U.S. if they wanted him. Plenty of finger pointing and over the top defensiveness, however, and blaming others, like the CIA and FBI.

In another clip I couldn't find, Clinton actually says with a straight face that the Bush administration had eight months to do something about bin Laden but did nothing. Maybe his memory was confused as during the Lewinski affair, but he had EIGHT YEARS to to something. Kind of sad to see him so wild eyed and old.

Edit: For some reason my link to youtube.com says the cllip is unavailable, but when I keyword search clinton smirk on their page it shows up and plays. My apologies.

[newbie]

In this video clip, Clinton claims he did all he could to get Osama but failed. No mention about Yemen's catch and release of bin Laden after asking the U.S. if they wanted him. Plenty of finger pointing and over the top defensiveness, however, and blaming others, like the CIA and FBI.

In another clip I couldn't find, Clinton actually says with a straight face that the Bush administration had eight months to do something about bin Laden but did nothing. Maybe his memory was confused as during the Lewinski affair, but he had EIGHT YEARS to to something. Kind of sad to see him so wild eyed and old.

Try watching the entire clip. He did try, in the midst of the Republicans saying there was no threat. Look back, you'd be surprised at what the neocons said at the time. They were all busy trying to nail Clinton on Lewinsky. And read Richard Clarke's book. It's all in there. Plus, Clinton, IMV, acted completely appropriate considered he was set up on Wallace's show. I applaud him finally getting a chance to set the record straight. And I really like the fact that Bush abanonded Clarke's plan and did absolutely nothing for 8 months. Some partial Clinton ideas:

The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

[Michael Hardner]

Trying to lay blame for intelligence failures is really a waste of energy.

In the regular bureaucracy, trying to trace responsibility for things is a challenge, in the intelligence community it's an impossibility. I'm satisfied that the enemy planned this action with the knowledge that they had the element of surprise on their side, no matter who was in the white house.

[jdobbin]

In this video clip, Clinton claims he did all he could to get Osama but failed. No mention about Yemen's catch and release of bin Laden after asking the U.S. if they wanted him. Plenty of finger pointing and over the top defensiveness, however, and blaming others, like the CIA and FBI.

In another clip I couldn't find, Clinton actually says with a straight face that the Bush administration had eight months to do something about bin Laden but did nothing. Maybe his memory was confused as during the Lewinski affair, but he had EIGHT YEARS to to something. Kind of sad to see him so wild eyed and old.

Edit: For some reason my link to youtube.com says the cllip is unavailable, but when I keyword search clinton smirk on their page it shows up and plays. My apologies.

Clinton had a military plan to deal with al Qaeda. Bush did not. It's in the 9/11 Commission papers.

[Higgly]

Yeah that's right. Clinton had ol' Osama in his sights. Clinton is right when he said he tried to get Osama and failed, but at least he tried. The first thing Bush turned his attentinon to when he got into office was finding some way to invade Iraq. This is before 9/11.

I saw a replay of the interview and I thought good for you. Somebody finally gave some back to those hacks who run Fox. He stood up for himself and looked damned good doing it. I'd say his public image has gone up a notch or two for it.

[BubberMiley]

The Republicans tried to paint attacking bin Laden as a wag the dog attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

They called the attack on bin Laden "an impeachable offence."

They wanted to cut and run after blackhawk down immediately, and now are trying to say that the measured six-month withdrawal emboldened the enemy.

I can see why he's angry. They're a bunch of lying hypocrites.

[sharkman]

Try watching the entire clip. He did try, in the midst of the Republicans saying there was no threat. Look back, you'd be surprised at what the neocons said at the time. They were all busy trying to nail Clinton on Lewinsky. And read Richard Clarke's book. It's all in there. Plus, Clinton, IMV, acted completely appropriate considered he was set up on Wallace's show. I applaud him finally getting a chance to set the record straight. And I really like the fact that Bush abanonded Clarke's plan and did absolutely nothing for 8 months. Some partial Clinton ideas:

The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

Hey, I've seen Bill repeatedly 'set the record straight' since he left office. Books like the one you mentioned are from fans, they're not going to ask the tough questions. What was telling about this latest round of 'setting the record straight' was his protesting too much, which might as well be an admission of guilt.

I say again: Yemen offered Osama to Clinton and Clinton refused. To now blame it on the CIA is passing the buck. Again, Clinton had 8 years, and yet he has the gall to castigate Bush for not solving the terrorist problem in 8 months. That's the definition of a hypocrite. On top of it all, Clinton passed legislation that lessoned the ability of the CIA if not the FBI as well. He can bluster all he wants, but all he did was lob missiles at terrorists during the U.S. embassy attacks and the U.S.S. Cole attack.

[jdobbin]

I say again: Yemen offered Osama to Clinton and Clinton refused. To now blame it on the CIA is passing the buck. Again, Clinton had 8 years, and yet he has the gall to castigate Bush for not solving the terrorist problem in 8 months. That's the definition of a hypocrite. On top of it all, Clinton passed legislation that lessoned the ability of the CIA if not the FBI as well. He can bluster all he wants, but all he did was lob missiles at terrorists during the U.S. embassy attacks and the U.S.S. Cole attack.

In what year was that? In 1996, Clinton ordered bin Laden's organization destroyed.

[sharkman]

In what year was that? In 1996, Clinton ordered bin Laden's organization destroyed.

I'd say something went wrong with that order, wouldn't you?

[BubberMiley]

He can bluster all he wants, but all he did was lob missiles at terrorists during the U.S. embassy attacks and the U.S.S. Cole attack.

As opposed to Bush who, prior to 9/11, dismantled the anti-terror program and did nothing.

[jdobbin]

I'd say something went wrong with that order, wouldn't you?

The 9/11 Commission has said that the attempts to kill bin Laden didn't succeed but that Clinton provided Bush with the information to continue the pursuit of bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission says that Bush idnd't have a military plan to destroy the man.

[newbie]

Books like the one you mentioned are from fans, they're not going to ask the tough questions.

Richard Clarke is hardly a "fan." He worked for 4 presidents and I'll take his word over yours.

I say again: Yemen offered Osama to Clinton and Clinton refused.

How about a credible link?

[sharkman]

You can choose to believe who you will, but there are dozens of recent books out there that discuss the Clinton years, you've chosen one that is friendly to Clinton.

My memory was a little off, it was Sudan that offered to hand over Osama to the U.S. under Clinton's watch, he said no. So, you've heard absolutely nothing about this? This was one of the many times when Bill needed to 'set the record straight'.

[jdobbin]

You can choose to believe who you will, but there are dozens of recent books out there that discuss the Clinton years, you've chosen one that is friendly to Clinton.

My memory was a little off, it was Sudan that offered to hand over Osama to the U.S. under Clinton's watch, he said no. So, you've heard absolutely nothing about this? This was one of the many times when Bill needed to 'set the record straight'.

The 9/11 Commission disagrees with you. They said that FBI didn't believe that they had the evidence for an indictment. At that time, bin Laden was not linked to a dead American.

Clinton rushed through things in 1996 so that the U.S. could attack bin Laden's organization as a threat to world security. By this time, he was in Afghanistan.

So my question is, did the U.S. have the power of arrest for someone not linked to an American's death?

[gc1765]

You can choose to believe who you will, but there are dozens of recent books out there that discuss the Clinton years, you've chosen one that is friendly to Clinton.

My memory was a little off, it was Sudan that offered to hand over Osama to the U.S. under Clinton's watch, he said no. So, you've heard absolutely nothing about this? This was one of the many times when Bill needed to 'set the record straight'.

Another Source (Washington Post)

[newbie]

You can choose to believe who you will, but there are dozens of recent books out there that discuss the Clinton years, you've chosen one that is friendly to Clinton.

Fine. You find me another book from someone as close to this topic and as impartial as Richard Clarke and I'll read it. Until then let me update you on this man's resume:

Starting in 1985, Clarke served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. During the presidential administration of George H.W. Bush, he coordinated diplomatic efforts to support the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the subsequent security arrangements. He also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda . His positions inside the government have included:

* United States National Security Council, 1992-2003

o Special Advisor 2001-2003

o National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000

o Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003

* United States Department of State 1985-1992

o Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, 1989-1992

o Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, 1985-1988

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

[newbie]

My memory was a little off, it was Sudan that offered to hand over Osama to the U.S. under Clinton's watch, he said no. So, you've heard absolutely nothing about this? This was one of the many times when Bill needed to 'set the record straight'.

I think you're guilty of the "hindsight is 20/20" syndrome. The U.S. couldn't make a case in 1996 for extradition. And Clinton did set the record straight. Review your history.

[KrustyKidd]

Fine. You find me another book from someone as close to this topic and as impartial as Richard Clarke and I'll read it. Until then let me update you on this man's resume:

Clarke is a credible source.

Clinton was a good president and, probably would have done a better job prosecuting the war on terror. That said, he would more than likely have done the same a Bush and, more than likely would have invaded Iraq as well seeing as how he was the one to have ousting Saddam a mission approved by congress. Only after 911 did the criteria with which to do that change from non violent to vilent means change. Notice how Clinton resonded to the towers attack by throwing cruises at Afganistan, a point with which the right says was weak kneed. Imagine if he had a real reason like Bush had for actually devoting a good part of America's arsenal towards that country. I'm sure you would have seen a similar response then. If Bush had not have had 911 occur and simply attacked Afganistan, it would have been the similar situation.

[Riverwind]

more than likely would have invaded Iraq as well seeing as how he was the one to have ousting Saddam a mission approved by congress.

I don't buy that. Clinton or any democratic president would have invaded Afghanistan - no question about that. Iraq, however, was a uniquely Republican obession. It is likely that a Democratic administration would have talked about invading Iraq but they would have never followed though unless there was a clear concensus in the security council.

[KrustyKidd]

I don't buy that. Clinton or any democratic president would have invaded Afghanistan - no question about that. Iraq, however, was a uniquely Republican obession. It is likely that a Democratic administration would have talked about invading Iraq but they would have never followed though unless there was a clear concensus in the security council.

Overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein. Clinton made that US policy. Look it up at your leisure. Then, take into account the post 911 world with Saddam in violation of every condition of the ceasefire from the Gulf War and the US under pressure to lift sanctions.

See, I understand why Clinton could not act and, I also see why Bush had to act. One only needs to pull their head out of the box that partisan politics pulls idiots into. Do you actually think Clinton would have invaded Afganistan and outsted the Taliban by proxie and then called it Miller time on the War on Terror?

[Riverwind]

See, I understand why Clinton could not act and, I also see why Bush had to act. One only needs to pull their head out of the box that partisan politics pulls idiots into. Do you actually think Clinton would have invaded Afganistan and outsted the Taliban by proxie and then called it Miller time on the War on Terror?

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror (the desire to oust Saddam not withstanding). If anything, Iraq was a buffer against terror because he and the Islamists hated each other. I think Clinton or Gore would have stuck around Afghanistan long enough to finish the job instead of rushing to invade yet another country that was not an immediate threat. It is hard speculate too much on these different permutations - Clinton might have called it a day and left Afghanistan too early too. However, I do believe that Clinton would have made the decision to invade Iraq based on the intelligence available rather than making the decision first and then demanding that the CIA produce the intelligence that would justify the decision. Based on what we know now that would likely mean Clinton would have at least waited even if he never ruled out the possibility of invading Iraq.

[Shady]

He did try, in the midst of the Republicans saying there was no threat

Complete nonsense. Republicans never said there was no threat. You're either ignorant or lying.

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:

"Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do."

Or

Senate majority leader Trent Lott, August 21, 1998:

“Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.”

Or

“Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,” said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.”

Or

Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:

"I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue."

Now, of course there were Republicans who had a definite problem with the timing, but how could you not? The two days he picked to bomb. The day he confessed about Monica, and the day he was impeached. Hmmm, how coincidental.

In 1996, Clinton ordered bin Laden's organization destroyed

LOL, he had a funny way of showing it.

Bill Clinton, February 15, 2002:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato . . ."

Clinton had a military plan to deal with al Qaeda

LOL, just like he had a plan for middle-class tax cuts. Never happened.

[sharkman]

Starting in 1985, Clarke served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. During the presidential administration of George H.W. Bush, he coordinated diplomatic efforts to support the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the subsequent security arrangements. He also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda . His positions inside the government have included:

* United States National Security Council, 1992-2003

o Special Advisor 2001-2003

o National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000

o Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003

* United States Department of State 1985-1992

o Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, 1989-1992

o Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, 1985-1988[/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Well, his credentials seem impressive, don't they. What concerns me is the way he flung dirt as he left the Bush administration. A guy with an axe to grind is not so objective as you assume. He is on record in 2002 stating that there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton to the Bush administration. At the 9/11 Commission after he was let go he stated he told Bush there was a plan ready since before Bush was inaugurated. One of the statements is a lie. Someone who is willing to lie to damage an administration is not trustworthy. But believe whomever you choose.

Meanwhile Clarke wants to blame Bush, who was in power for eight months before 9/11. The operatives were probably already in the U.S. and trying to get training for 747s by then. Clarke had 8 or 9 years to work on the terrorist problem as he was chair of the counter terrorism security group.

On you other assertion that the Clinton administration did not have the case for extradition, Osama was plenty busy blowing up buildings and financing others by '95. Here's a summary, by PBS of all things:

'92 - Osama claimed responsibility for a bomb attempt on 2 U.S. soldiers. Others died, but the soldiers had left early.

'93 - World Trade Center bombing investigation shows links with Osama when the mastermind, Ramzi Yousef is captured in '95.

'95 - Osama is financing terrorist camps and even the New York Times says so in '96.

The whole problem was Clinton insisting he had to be tried like a U.S. citizen would, in the judicial system. He wouldn't give the CIA permission to take him out, or face a military trial. A terrorist who is committing acts of terror should receive a bullet, not a trial with lawyers whining about browbeating the witness. Clinton's claim that they didn't have enough on him is just more blame shifting, when he had two terms to deal with this problem, and blames Bush for not solving it in eight months.

[GostHacked]

I say again: Yemen offered Osama to Clinton and Clinton refused. To now blame it on the CIA is passing the buck. Again, Clinton had 8 years, and yet he has the gall to castigate Bush for not solving the terrorist problem in 8 months. That's the definition of a hypocrite. On top of it all, Clinton passed legislation that lessoned the ability of the CIA if not the FBI as well. He can bluster all he wants, but all he did was lob missiles at terrorists during the U.S. embassy attacks and the U.S.S. Cole attack.

You do know that Osama was a CIA asset back in the 80s? Through the sales of weapons and arms to the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan (freedom fighters now turned terrorist, funny how that goes) to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. The US created their own problem by supplying these guys with arms (the reason was to fight that big bad boy Communism) and now it seems that they have turned into the Taleban and are now considered terrorists.

So if the CIA told Clinton to back off, there was a reason for it. The CIA wanted to protect it's asset. The CIA was calling the shots, not the President. Even today that is still happening. You thin George is calling the shots? Or even Cheney for that matter?

[M.Dancer]

You do know that Osama was a CIA asset back in the 80s? Through the sales of weapons and arms to the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan (freedom fighters now turned terrorist, funny how that goes) to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. The US created their own problem by supplying these guys with arms (the reason was to fight that big bad boy Communism) and now it seems that they have turned into the Taleban and are now considered terrorists.

Sure he was........

Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?

Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate

The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom -- as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK -- but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding." He notes:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../24-318760.html