Bill Clinton Blows a Gasket On Fox

[August1991]

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.

I'd say the same.

Apart from the validity of the points Clinton made, he made them forcefully and well. It's sad that the Democrats have no one as quick-witted to lead them. Clinton puts Bush Jnr. to shame.

Interesting clip.

[Shady]

Apart from the validity of the points Clinton made, he made them forcefully and well

So you're praising him for lying well?

From the Washington Post today:

Some of Clinton's statements on Fox have drawn scrutiny. He said that after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, "I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan." The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, just more limited options such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles or Special Forces. And nothing in the panel's report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.

Clinton also asserted that the Bush administration "didn't have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office." In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the deputies committee and one on Sept. 4, 2001, through the principals committee composed of Cabinet officers. What Clinton may have been referring to was counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's frustration that the principals disregarded his urgent calls to meet sooner because of a months-long policy review.

Washington Post

[LonJowett]

I have quotes too. These ones indicate “national security be damned; we want to talk about blowjobs.”

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

GOP 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 [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

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 Street Journal editorial: "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."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'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?'"

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."

Wall Street 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 [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

[newbie]

And who dragged their heels with anti-terrorism laws? link I think some folks are forgetting their history.

[jdobbin]

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 . . ."

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

Did you read any of what you posted? Under what law could they have arrested bin Laden and tried him in the U.S.? No American death had been linked to bin Laden at this time. Or do you think the U.S. routinely has a hit squad out there just to deal with potential targets?

The 9/11 Commission has said repeatedly that Clinton started a military plan to destroy al Qaeda's network even though there was no dead Americans tied to bin Laden at the time.

Bush had no military plan. They were still talking policy months after being elected and subsequently didn't deal with bin Laden although he faced an indictment in the U.S. This is also in the 9/11 Commission.

[sharkman]

I think I at least showed some evidence on the question of what they could have charged Osama with in 96. In '95, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds of the -93 WTC bombing, was arrested, searches of his property showed links to Osama. It's Obvious Clinton didn't think that was strong enough to do anything with, and he was proved wrong with the '98 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Clinton's response? Lobbing cruise missiles at terrorist training camps and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. US senior administrative officials admit on Sept. 23/98 that they had no evidence that directly linked bin Laden to the factory.

Here's hypocrisy for you: Clinton wouldn't accept Osama from Sudan in '96, claiming they didn't have enough to bring him in under U.S. law. He then authorizes cruise missile strikes about 2 weeks after the U.S. embassies are hit. There is no way they had enough evidence to arrest him at that point. But he doesn't even try to arrest him, he just lobs missiles at him.

The thing is, a terrorist who commits acts of terror should not be tried in the judicial system as a U.S. citizen would. This is something Bush changed and rightly so. And Clinton believed this at least at the time he sent a cruise missile strike, even though he ignores it now when he admits refusing Osama from the Sudanese.

Did Bush have a plan? If you listen to Richard Clarke, Bush did until the 9/11 commission, when Clarke changed his tune after his employment ended with the administration.

[jdobbin]

I think I at least showed some evidence on the question of what they could have charged Osama with in 96. In '95, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds of the -93 WTC bombing, was arrested, searches of his property showed links to Osama. It's Obvious Clinton didn't think that was strong enough to do anything with, and he was proved wrong with the '98 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The 9/11 Commission said there was no direct link to Osama bin Laden in 1996 that could have led to an arrest and an indictment. That commission was composed of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Even Bush doesn't make the claim that you do because the 9/11 Commission report is quite clear.

[sharkman]

I think I at least showed some evidence on the question of what they could have charged Osama with in 96. In '95, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds of the -93 WTC bombing, was arrested, searches of his property showed links to Osama. It's Obvious Clinton didn't think that was strong enough to do anything with, and he was proved wrong with the '98 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The 9/11 Commission said there was no direct link to Osama bin Laden in 1996 that could have led to an arrest and an indictment. That commission was composed of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Even Bush doesn't make the claim that you do because the 9/11 Commission report is quite clear.

Perhaps Bush is too polite to blame Clinton, but I am not. They may not have had enough to bring Osama into a U.S. court, but as I've pointed out, they didn't really need to do any such thing. Clinton tried to murder him with cruise missiles later, without enough evidence to bring him into a court of law. The commission is simply giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

But if Clinton simply would have allowed the CIA to accept Osama on the down low from Sudan in '96, question him and then kill him, the embassies would still be standing as well as the twin towers. They wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq, and thousands of lives over the globe would have been spared. All of that stems from one decision. Clinton admits he tried and failed, and his failure reverberates to this day.

[BubberMiley]

Clinton admits he tried and failed, and his failure reverberates to this day.

And like Clinton said, at least he tried. He didn't dismantle everything instead.

[Riverwind]

But if Clinton simply would have allowed the CIA to accept Osama on the down low from Sudan in '96, question him and then kill him, the embassies would still be standing as well as the twin towers.

Those buildings would still be standing if the CIA had not assisted Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists in the 80s. If you are interested in dishing out blame for past actions that are mistakes in hindsight then the Regean administration deserves tons of it.

Clinton's argument was that in 1996 Bin Laden was a theoretical threat because no Americans had died. After the embassy bombings the threat was no longer theoretical so Clinton was able to take direct action. IOW, the actions that were impossible in 1996 were possible in 1998.

[sharkman]

But if Clinton simply would have allowed the CIA to accept Osama on the down low from Sudan in '96, question him and then kill him, the embassies would still be standing as well as the twin towers.

Those buildings would still be standing if the CIA had not assisted Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists in the 80s. If you are interested in dishing out blame for past actions that are mistakes in hindsight then the Regean administration deserves tons of it.

Clinton's argument was that in 1996 Bin Laden was a theoretical threat because no Americans had died. After the embassy bombings the threat was no longer theoretical so Clinton was able to take direct action. IOW, the actions that were impossible in 1996 were possible in 1998.

And like many more before me and after me much closer to the issue than us, I can say that Clinton made a bad decision. We can go on back to the English and French to get to the root of the blaming if you like, but in the context of the '96 decision to not accept Osama from Sudan, Clinton screwed up. Clinton never said Osama was a theorectical threat either, but his underlings found out in '95 that Yousef was linked to Osama and the '93 trade center bombing. And six Americans died in the '93 bombing. He screwed up plain and simple.

And like I've said previously, the operation to knock down the towers was well under way by the time Bush came to power, they may have already started their 747 training.

[jdobbin]

And like I've said previously, the operation to knock down the towers was well under way by the time Bush came to power, they may have already started their 747 training.

And if Bush had continued military plans already in place, Osama bin Laden might have been dealt with and the plot uncovered.

The 9/11 Commission keeps saying the blame game won't work.

The mid-term elections is making the Republican desperate so they are blaming Clinton for September 11.

[sharkman]

And like I've said previously, the operation to knock down the towers was well under way by the time Bush came to power, they may have already started their 747 training.

And if Bush had continued military plans already in place, Osama bin Laden might have been dealt with and the plot uncovered.

The 9/11 Commission keeps saying the blame game won't work.

The mid-term elections is making the Republican desperate so they are blaming Clinton for September 11.

Anyway, I thought Clinton looked rather over the top for a guy who has done nothing wrong, during the Fox interview. Some say the reason he did it was to rally the Dem troops for said elections, as they have been having bad news lately. Oil prices have come way down, gas prices have dropped off nicely, and Bush's ratings have begun their bi-annual climb. It's going to be an interesting election season. The Dems have probably lost Leiberman's contest, since he didn't dry up and blow away like they thought he would.

[KrustyKidd]

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror

It held the key to the War on Terror insomuch as to do what, in a perfect world should have been done (oust the Saudi Regime for appeasing Conservative Wahabbism and allowing Jihadist groups to flourish and replace them with either a democracy or a dictator of the US's liking) was exactly what Al Queda wanted to occur, as that would have galvanized the Muslim world against the west in one swoop making their dream of a region wide movement a reality. Hence the hienious attack on 911 that was designed for maximum response rather than harm.

This is discussed with links here.

The invasion itself helped generate the forces that have Al Qaeda on the defensive now. Iraq is the most strategic country in the Middle East and following the invasion of Iraq, key countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran began to change their policies to support the U.S. against Al Qaeda. The invasion was a good idea and the administration had good reasons for doing it. But they had nothing to do with WMD or Al Qaeda.

We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda's financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.

More

By April, the United States had another important consideration on its plate: the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia. The United States was the primary cause of that deterioration. It had forced the Saudi government to crack down on al Qaeda in the kingdom, and the radical Islamists were striking back at the regime. An incipient civil war was under way and intensifying. Contrary to myth, the United States did not intervene in Iraq over oil -- anyone looking at U.S. behavior over the past year can see the desultory efforts on behalf of the Iraqi oil industry -- but the United States had to be concerned about the security of oil shipments from Saudi Arabia. If those were disrupted, the global economy would go reeling. It was one thing to put pressure on the Saudis; it was another thing to accept a civil war as the price of that pressure. And it was yet another thing to think calmly about the fall of the House of Saud. But taking Saudi oil off the market was not acceptable.

[Shady]

And if Bush had continued military plans already in place, Osama bin Laden might have been dealt with and the plot uncovered

Exactly what military plans are you referring to?

"The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban"

Washington Post

[Shady]

Under what law could they have arrested bin Laden and tried him in the U.S.?

Wrong mind-set. That was one of the major failures of the Clinton Administration, treating terrorism as just a law enforcement issue, when it's also a national security issue and a military issue.

[Riverwind]

That was one of the major failures of the Clinton Administration, treating terrorism as just a law enforcement issue, when it's also a national security issue and a military issue.

I would say that failing to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue is _the_ biggest failure of the Bush adminstration. The US will be paying for the damage done by Bush to its repuation and its relations with the rest of the world for generations (never mind the montetary cost)

It is clear to anyone who is willing to look at the evidence that the invasion of Iraq has increased the terrorist threat and made it much more likely that a future 9/11 like attack will occur.

[Liam]

I would say that failing to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue is _the_ biggest failure of the Bush adminstration. The US will be paying for the damage done by Bush to its repuation and its relations with the rest of the world for generations (never mind the montetary cost)

Bingo, we have a winner. Bush sees the GWOT only in military terms. He fails to recognize the diplomatic, socio-economic and law enforcement tools at his disposal to combat terror. And he'll doom us all as a result.

[Rue]

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.

You got to be joking. You think Bush and Chaney are in the position to second guess Clinton given their record to date? Where have you been.

[jdobbin]

Exactly what military plans are you referring to?

"The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban"

Washington Post

The military plans were to deal with Osama bin Laden. There was no plan to invade Afghanistan or the Taliban.

The 9/11 Commission reports says that the plans were turned over to Bush.

Bush said that there was no worthwhile military target .

[jdobbin]

Wrong mind-set. That was one of the major failures of the Clinton Administration, treating terrorism as just a law enforcement issue, when it's also a national security issue and a military issue.

By that same token, Bush should have arrested Chavez in New York for future crimes against Americans.

[BubberMiley]

Yeah, and Nixon had every opportunity to arrest O.J. when he was still playing for the Bills.

[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.

You got to be joking. You think Bush and Chaney are in the position to second guess Clinton given their record to date? Where have you been.

Actually, you have it about 180 degrees backwards. I'm saying Clinton is in no position to blame Bush since he had EIGHT years to deal with the problem before 9/11 happened, and Bush had eight months.

Shady, I agree. Treating terrorism with law enforcement is quite useless, you might as well sue Osama. At the same time, even Clinton wandered from this philosophy when he sent cruise strikes at bin Laden in '98 before he had been tried and convicted of any crime. (No one seems to understand the hypocrisy of it) Oh, and Clinton sent strikes whenever it would divert attention away from his skirt chasing ways, but he was a man of principles, damnit!

[jdobbin]

Actually, you have it about 180 degrees backwards. I'm saying Clinton is in no position to blame Bush since he had EIGHT years to deal with the problem before 9/11 happened, and Bush had eight months.

Shady, I agree. Treating terrorism with law enforcement is quite useless, you might as well sue Osama. At the same time, even Clinton wandered from this philosophy when he sent cruise strikes at bin Laden in '98 before he had been tried and convicted of any crime. (No one seems to understand the hypocrisy of it) Oh, and Clinton sent strikes whenever it would divert attention away from his skirt chasing ways, but he was a man of principles, damnit!

This is still blaming Clinton while saying that Bush had no responsibility at all for September 11.

[Liam]

Shady, I agree. Treating terrorism with law enforcement is quite useless, you might as well sue Osama.

That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the "law enforcement" approach. Bush is treating the GWOT *only* as a military exercise, but he's doing NOTHING, NO THING, to do basic police work which can help target terrorists and stop acts of terror prior to their commission. The (questionable) plot to blow up planes with liquid explosives was foiled SOLELY by law enforcement means.