Worst of the Web Today: Taranto cited 1998 bin Laden PDB as evidence of Pres. Clinton's "inaction"
SUMMARY: OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto cited a 1998 memo to then-President Bill Clinton titled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks" to claim that Clinton ignored evidence of the danger Al Qaeda posed to the United States. However, the 9-11 Commission detailed an immediate and aggressive response to the memo by the Clinton administration.
In his September 27 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto responded to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) September 26 claim that "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team." Taranto pointed out that the "the 9/11 Commission reported that on Dec. 4, 1998, President Clinton received a Presidential Daily Briefing [PDB] titled 'Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks' " -- suggesting that President Clinton was guilty of the same "inaction" the Bush administration displayed in response to the August 6, 2001, PDB to which Sen. Clinton referred in her comments. Taranto omitted, however, the 9-11 Commission's description of how President Clinton responded to the 1998 PDB, and how President Clinton's immediate and aggressive response differed from that of the Bush administration to the 2001 PDB.
Taranto wrote:
If you're nostalgic for 1998, this is a good week for you. Poor Hillary Clinton, now a U.S. senator, is defending her husband, now an ex-president, after the latter's bad behavior, namely his outburst on "Fox News Sunday." The Associated Press reports:
"I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks," Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."
First of all, did Mr. Clinton really do "a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks"? It seemed to us that he looked not tough but desperate. He was not strong and resolute; he was lashing out from a position of weakness.
Second, the 9/11 commission reported that on Dec. 4, 1998, President Clinton received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks."
The 9-11 Commission report -- in the same chapter to which Taranto linked-- described Clinton's response as follows:
The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports.
As Media Matters for America noted, this response stands in stark contrast to that of the Bush administration to the August 6, 2001, PDB. The 9-11 Commission stated that Bush "did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so" and "found no indication" that his aides further discussed with him "the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" prior to 9-11 -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."
Taranto went on to write:
It is unfair to condemn Clinton with 20/20 hindsight, but history is unfair. Like James Buchanan and the Civil War or Herbert Hoover and the Depression, Clinton will take the blame for inaction while a crisis mounted. True, George W. Bush didn't do much better during his first eight months in office, but he had the remainder of his terms to make up for it. As someone who is obsessed with his own legacy, Clinton knows all this deep down, which is why he snapped in that interview. In a way you have to feel sorry for the guy.
Taranto offered no explanation as to how, exactly, Bush has "ma[d]e up" for all but ignoring Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months leading up to September 11, 2001. Bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, remain at large, President Bush reportedly passed up an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the newly declassified portions of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the number of terrorists worldwide has increased and that the Iraq war is "cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."
Too bad he has a forum to reach the uneducated. Wall Street Journal seems to have an incredible number of readers who have too few facts for their opinions. I wonder why this is?
Most Wall Street Journal readers are actually quite well educated - I'm afraid middle red-state america (dumbf**kistan per Rob Corddry!) are not WSJ's target audience. What's happened is that a higher level of misinformation - by leaving out any opposing evidence - is used to sway the more astute readers of the WSJ. These folks are by no means stupid, but they won't take the time to research the truth. The problem with Taranto's column is that he tells half of the truth. He doesn't lie, he takes the truth out of context, which is lying by omission. Unfortunately, it takes reasearch to uncover that type of lie, and most of us are working too damned many hours already, and would rather spend that time with our families than researching Taranto's lies. Thankfully, MMFA is here to do that for us.
Most Wall Street Journal readers are actually quite well educated - I'm afraid middle red-state america (dumbf**kistan per Rob Corddry!) are not WSJ's target audience.
**************************
With insulting, idiotic and factually devoid comments such as yours above, the term liberal elite lives and breathes in a big way. The problem that you have, and those that share this viewpoint, are not "liars" like Taranto, or the fact that people don't have time to research.......it's that until you start learning how to respect those in the "dumb" red states, you will continue to lose election after election.
So I suggest you look inward for the real problems, instead of blaming journalists.
I must say that i agree with both of your comments, that red states are part of "dumbf**kistan and that Democrats need to stop simply blaming the conservative media (and religion) and start trying to find ways to educate these dumbf**kistanians.
Ain't it great, the way Tommy is always looking out for us, and giving us helpful hints on how we can start winning elections. I find his advice the equivolent of saying "Roll Over and take it." He must think this strategy was employed, and has worked for the Republics in the last few elections.
Nothing really, and it doesn't take alot of brains to figure out if you are stumping for votes it might not be such a good idea to call them "dumbf**kistans".
But hey, just a thought.
The liberal elites know better.
I do. You'll forgive me if I ignore your advice as you disparage the left and right coasts.
but middle "red state" america also relies very, very heavily on the redistribution of the tax revenues from those awful liberal "blue states" like California and New York, and Massachussetts. God help them if they didn't have the redistribution of taxes from states that by themselves would rank in the top 10 or 15 in GDP. So, they can talk about those Godless liberal states all they want, when the truth is they couldn't make it without them. So, maybe I don't have the respect for them that you might think I should, but that works both ways.
For a party that claims now is not the time to point fingers, seems like if they spent as much time trying to find Osama as they do pointing fingers we'd have him by now.
I am sorry but I do feel there is a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.
The Right wing is doing everything it can to devert attention from this failure of a President by trying to blame a former President for the failures of Bush.
It is so ridiculous and its a serious threat to our democracy.
They dont want accountability for anything all they want to do is throw hate and fear and division.
Thinking Olbermann getting an envelope full of powder is funny has to be an all time low for these Sunday Christians.
Or at least a well-oiled propaganda machine. The only questions are how vast, who's pulling the strings, and how much of our tax money is being used to grease it. The White house has been caught twice paying "journalists" for favorable columns...who else is on their payroll? Does Karl Rove have a conference call with Limbaugh and all the Fox Trolls every morning? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
...to defend his favorite moron.
True, George W. Bush didn't do much better during his first eight months in office,...
Didn't do much better? That's like saying summer's not much cooler than winter. Nice of you to display your sincerity, James.
...but he had the remainder of his terms to make up for it.
There's an outside chance that might just possibly bring up a question of value here, James. Make up for 3000 dead people? What is your equivalent for a human life? Apparently, it's several tens of thousands (at least) of dead Iraqis and US soldiers, and counting. I sure hope we reach that equivalent value before MY friend or daughter is killed in Iraq.
Are these people absolute morons, or just so partisanly blind that they don't even know what they're saying any more?
He conveniently throws in this whopper: "George Bush didn't do much better during his first 8 months in office". Much better? Bush didn't do a damn thing, and I'm in the camp that thinks even if he had done everything Clinton did it still wouldn't have stopped 9-11.
It's pathetic from both sides, the 9-11 report clearly stated that both administrations failed and had a "lack of imagination" regarding the terrorist threat. So now the left wants to take solace in the fact that "at least Clinton tried" while the right bloviates about whatever the lie of the day is.
On the results scoreboard regarding Bin Laden, it's still Clinton-zip, Bush-zip.
The problem is everyone rallied behind bush. everyone. and he has used up that goodwill for purely poltical reasons. And when people start, after years of biting their tongues, start to question bush's motives and comptence, the right immeaditly jumps to blaming clinton. And clinton did more than zip. he did successfully prosectute the first World Trade Center bombers. His actions did help stop millinium attacks, on both coasts. Timothy McVie (a white, rightwing homegrown terrorist) was successfully prosecuted.
What clinton said about the right is true: they did hinder the war on terror when they wern't in the whitehouse. and you know what, according to bush's own NIE they are hindering the war on terror now.
Okay, if you want to give Clinton credit for his successes in the pre-war on terror, then I guess Bush deserves some credit as well for taking down some of the higher level operatives within Al Queda.
My zip-zip scorecard was referring to stopping the 9-11 attack and getting Bin Laden specifically.
Clinton did do stuff before 9/11. Bush did not.
The stuff that Bush did after 9/11 does not count when you are comparing his actions to Clinton's actions, because Clinton was not dealing with a 9/11 type event. Compare apples to apples, and the two guys are not comparable.
Clinton did a good job, but was not perfect, and Bush did a crappy job, and did almost nothing right in the fight against terrorism before 9/11.
The one big glaring example of a failure to act by Clinton would be that he did not respond to the USS Cole bombing, but that is easily explained by the fact that he assumed that Bush would do the right thing. In hindsight, if he knew that Bush was going to sit on that info, and shelve the plans that Clarke and others gave him, then you can bet your sweet bippy that Clinton would have gone ahead and tried to punish those responsible. Otherwise, Clinton did a good job given the circumstances. Bush did not. It's a simple as that, and anyone who says differently is not dealing fairly with reality and the facts.
You say: Clinton did do stuff before 9/11. Bush did not.
Response: True. I never denied that. However, by Clintons own admission he didn't do anything that WORKED. This is corroborated in the 9-11 report.
You said: The stuff that Bush did after 9/11 does not count when you are comparing his actions to Clinton's actions, because Clinton was not dealing with a 9/11 type event. Compare apples to apples, and the two guys are not comparable.
Response: My comparison was in response to Fatbobs post: ...And clinton did more than zip. he did successfully prosectute the first World Trade Center bombers. His actions did help stop millinium attacks, on both coasts. Timothy McVie (a white, rightwing homegrown terrorist) was successfully prosecuted.
Two of these three examples he cited dealt with actions Clinton took AFTER an attack had occurred. The comparison is not apples to oranges.
Try to find any commentator, anywhere, saying during Clinton's term that Bin Laden is a serious problem that is not getting enough attention.
Your accusation is obvious 20/20 hindsight. Clinton tried to kill bin Laden before the CIA would even verify that he had ever attacked Americans.
Clinton admitted he failed, he tried and failed but at least he tried. Those words are forever burned in my mind from our distinguished former president.
Clinton admitted it, why can't you? Clinton is a LOT smarter than Bush is and even Clinton couldn't get the guy. Perhaps Bin Laden is the smartest of the three.
with that comment. Osama smarter than Clinton and Bush?!?! Come on! *tongue firmly in cheek*
Well on 2nd thought, for all I know, he might be the smartest. I don't any of the 3 gentlemen personally.
He did fail to get Bin Laden. So has Bush, and Bush has had a much greater impetus to get Bin Laden since he attacked us in such a horrific way on 9/11.
But Clinton did a lot of stuff before 9/11, and Bush did not.
Again, if you compare apples to apples, Bush sucked, Clinton did not. Clinton was not perfect, but his biggest mistake was counting on Bush to do the right thing when he got into office. If Clinton had known that Bush was gonna sleep on the job (or take vacation, or have such a hard-on for anything Clinton or his staff created that he would shelve those products rather than dealing with reality), then I bet Clinton would have done something about the USS Cole.
Trying to claim that Bush and Clinton are comparable here is desperation, plain and simple.
of the Bin Laden unit through 1999 puts the bulk of the blame on Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke.
He criticizes Bush also, but Clinton and his advisors were around for 8 years and refused to kill Osama.
[link to www.washtimes.com]
Trying to blame Bush more than Clinton is a joke.
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him" and " I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. "
More than Clinton is not a JOKE except that it is a statement of basic FACT which is the same as a joke on Planet Wingnut
Listing the Mooney times as a source, now THAT is a joke here is mine
[link to www.whitehouse.gov]
how the head of the OBL unit felt when Georgie decommissioned his unit?
Was leaving office. IF he would have, could have stayed on as President, there is no 9/11. Period. Clinton would have acted on the warnings outlined in the 8/6/01 PBD which Bush ignored. No 9/11. Just 19 would-be hijackers imprisoned for a would-be criminal act. More than enough provocation to invade Afghanistan, with Republican support perhaps...or is this more so pure fantasy because the Republicans would have continued their unhealthy fascination with Clinton's "member" thus rejecting plans to invade and disband the Taliban, not to mention rejecting the recommendations of Hart-Rudman to form a Dept. of Homeland Security?
>>"both administrations failed"<<
Upon receiving the PDB, Clinton (as shown above) acted. Bush.... vacationed.
Both Presidents failed to catch bin laden. Absolutely true. But only one President failed to stop 9/11 from happening because we only allow one President to be in charge at a time. It happened on President Bush's watch. It is his sole failure.
If Clinton is blamed for 9/11 happening then you would have to logically blame the other 42 Presidents as well for not stopping it either.
Your comments are slightly skewed, in my opinion. I would say that Clinton bears a little more responsibility regarding 9/11 than, say, Warren Harding.
I understand your premise, the buck stops here - and I don't disagree with it, Bush was the President, not Clinton. But 9/11 was in the planning stages for years, so the responsibility, in fairness, lies with them both. What percentages should be attributed to each? Who knows and it is largely irrelevant to me.
The bottom line for me is, the real people who shoulder 100% blame for 9/11 are the terrorists who executed and carried it out.
Because those of us who fairly point out that Bush sucked and Clinton tried don't agree with you that the terrorists are to blame, right?
You're having a "meltdown". I said who I thought deserved the blame for 9/11. If you agree with me, fine.
Who is Sue? this came up earlier. Ellie was accused of being Sue because she was calling posters on here "trolls".
Tommy: You are, of course, correct: It was the terrorists who are to blame for 9/11; neither Bush nor Clinton should be blamed for it. But as you also know, the Republicans have played the "we are tough on terrorism" card for 5 years, and have constantly disparaged Democrats and Clinton as "soft on terror." Therefore, the question of who between Clinton or Bush is at fault, or "more" at fault, is relevant since the elections could very well be decided by what voters perceive to be true. The blame game has to be played since Republicans are asking Americans to just blindly accept that they are the "heroes" of 9/11, having to clean up the mess left by Clinton. That strategy necessitates that the actions of both Bush and Clinton be examined.
I disagree with your premise that the upcoming midterms will be some referendum on who is more responsible for 9/11 - Clinton or Bush? This is basically a beltway driven story that most people, from both sides, have their opinions, but don't consider it nearly as relevant as other issues when entering the voting booth.
Now admittedly, this is just my personal perception....but there are plenty of more important issues facing us today than the action or inaction of previous Presidents.
The Republicans will paint their Democratic opponents as soft on terror, I believe you are right on that, but this 9/11 debate is not at the heart of that.
The Democrats will paint their Republican opponents with the link to Bush chain, and the Iraq mess.
Negative ads will fly more than ever, I fear. It will be a nasty campaign, and we will all suffer as a result of that. Whether they work or not.
the real people who shoulder 100% blame for 9/11 are the terrorists who executed and carried it out
Wow, Tommy, way to go out on a limb there. It must take real insight and courage to state what's blindingly obvious to everyone.
No one's arguing about who's responsible for 9/11. The question is, who did more to protect us against terrorism? The answer is Clinton. Remember the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing in '93? They're all in jail now, and it wasn't Bush who put them there. It was Clinton who stopped the Millennium attacks. Clinton was aware of the threat of al-Qaeda, and in the second half of his presidency, turned more and more of his attention to counterterrorism.
On the other hand, Bush ignored terrorism until 9/11, and then he totally dropped the ball. After 9/11, everybody was behind the US. People were waving American flags in the streets of Iran. Even the most mediocre president should have been able to knock the ball out of the park and use that goodwill to push for a concerted, global effort to stamp out the threat of terrorism. It was a complete no-brainer.
But Bush demonstrated superhuman incompetence. First he failed to capture bin Laden and the Taliban, despite having the support of the whole world. Then he unilaterally invaded a Muslim nation which had nothing to do with 9/11, on false pretenses. Now everyone hates us, Iraq and Afghanistan are slowly descending into chaos, and Bush still wants to go into Iran. The world is immeasurably more dangerous, and our allies no longer trust us because we insist on going it alone. Meanwhile our lead in science and technology has dwindled, our educational system is a mess, and we're losing jobs overseas. And the Shrub sits in his ranch in Texas and twiddles his thumbs.
So, when you attempt to make a comparison of the two presidents...keep all this in mind.
I AGREE with MOST of your post.
But there was ONE point you made that was wrong.
"It was Clinton who stopped the Millennium attacks."...by Steve K
=====
Clinton had NOTHING to do with stopping the Millennium attacks. An ALERT U.S. Customs inspector named Diana Dean at the Canadian/US entry point is responsible for thwarting THAT particular incident.
----------------------------------------
**"She says no one had told her anything about being on alert for terrorists.
“I don’t recall any specific threats," she added. "I don’t recall anybody saying watch for terrorists.”
Customs officials confirm that no alert had gone out to the field."**
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
Steve K was also wrong on another one of his assertions. That we "unilateraly" invaded Iraq. Everyone knows that is not the case.
forgot about Costa Rica, and Palau
Good one, Tommy. Thank God we had Tonga covering our backs!
All I did was factually assert that we we did not unilateraly invade Iraq.
We did, however, violate the UN's mandate and invade before they finished checking for the very thing pushing us to the brink of war, WMD, because, as history SCREAMS at us, THERE WERE NO WMD, and it's likely Bush and Blair were aware of this, since the first 100 of 600 sites searched, turned up NOTHING.
And unless you can find that Poland gave the go order to invade Iraq, I'm still not completely sold on the "coalition" angle. How about the USA, GB and “all the rest”, which is how the earliest episodes of "Gilligan's Island" referred to the Professor and Mary Ann. Like it or not, the "coalition" is just a bunch of fringe cast members lingering on the periphery of a USA production. A bunch of Professors and Mary Anns, but not nearly as unassumingly hot. Mary Ann, I mean.
Funny
All I did was factually assert that we we did not unilateraly invade Iraq.
Who gave the go order to invade Iraq? Poland? Costa Rica? No, it was Bush. Iraq is the USA's brainchild. Saying it wasn't unilateral is a vain attempt to diffuse blame, as if "and the rest" is equally responsible for Iraq. Bull. The buck stops with Bush, with a side-order of Blair.
Oh yeah, the terrorists are at fault for 9-11, umm that's like blaming Mookie Wilson for having the nerve to hit the ball that went through Buckner's legs in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. Yeah, the terrorist bombed the WTC but it was Bush allowed it to happen. It's the way the terrorists play the game and if Al gore had taken his rightful place in the White House September 11th would just be another date on the calendar
Now so you won't feel so alone here, I will encourage all the liberals who are reading your post to respond in agreement.
Come on guys and gals, where is the love for this post??
I am trying. I really am. They are not being very nice, are they? Well, at least I am.
Tommy,
You are in an awfully strange mood today. What's up?
or drop any "shock and awe" million-ton bombs. Wingers like Taranto don't give a crap about results. They just want that feel-good brutality*.
*phrase coined by dKos's Hunter.
Does anyone here know how the real journalists that work at the WSJ feel about this kind of hackery? I know some of them must be Republicans, even the right-wing type, but by and large once you get off the editorial page the WSJ does a very good job with dealing with facts.
I suppose this question is better posted to some place like Romenesko but I am really curious, if someone here happens to know.
I see it as an issue of ethics. To have your name on the same masthead does imply a certain degree of acceptance, if not outright endorsement, of a fellow writer's work. I once resigned from a writing position at a magazine because of the content of another writer's work. He was intentionally (by his own admission) injecting racist commentary into his work ("to provoke," he said) and the editor was more then willing to indulge him, so I saw no other choice. It's a little less cut and dry in the case of Taranto, but if you consider yourself a serious reporter, and you're working for an editor who gives approval to such deceipt and spin, then you can either rationalize or resign.
Even if Bill Clinton had cruise-missiled Osama Bin Laden to death, why wouldn't Mohammed Al-Zarqawi have gone ahead with the 9/11 attacks?
Osama is not Doctor Doom. The plans were already in place.
If Bill Clinton had killed OBL and t George Bush had ignored all signs of Al Qaeda activity, we would have still had 9/11, and the republicans would be doing just what they're doing now: sneering "Oh sure, he attacked and killed some old guy. Big Deal. Why the hell didn't he get Zarqawi? Democrats are soft on terror!"
Killing or capturing bin Laden would be a MASSIVE blow to the terrorists. No longer could they say that God is protecting him. Afterall, if the mastermind bin Laden can be caught/killed, who else?
To answer your question: Even if Bill Clinton had cruise-missiled Osama Bin Laden to death, why wouldn't Mohammed Al-Zarqawi have gone ahead with the 9/11 attacks? Al-Zarqawi was not affiliated with Al Qaeda until AFTER the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and so had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
Meant to say Al-Zawahiri. Should have said 'his second in command."
All this chest thumping about Clinton being tougher on Terrorists that Bush is simply a diversionary manuever. Clinton failed and failed miserably. Just like so many other areas throughout his Presidency. Not only will he go down in history as the second President impeached, (and being a serial rapist and sex offender), but as the one who allowed Osama bin Laden to repeatedly attack the United States.
Below are some excerpts of Clinton's failures written by Tony Phyrillas:
The attacks of 9/11 were successful because our enemies saw weakness in Bill Clinton (and by extension, the American people). They were successful because Clinton and his top advisers were negligent. Our enemies succeeded because Bill Clinton defanged the CIA and FBI during his tenure in the White House. They succeeded because the U.S. military rusted under another oblivious Democrat who put all his faith in the hands of the United Nations.
The path to 9/11 was clearly delineated for anyone willing to pay attention. It was Bill Clinton’s job to connect the dots and respond accordingly to protect American lives. Clinton failed us.
On Feb. 26, 1993, during the second year of Clinton’s presidency, a powerful bomb exploded in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring 1,040 others. Clinton considered the plot to bring down one of the nation’s most recognizable buildings as a "law enforcement" matter instead of the opening salvo of a global war to wipe out the United States and Western civilization.
On Oct. 3, 1993, 19 Americans died and 84 were wounded in an ill-planned mission to Somalia to capture warlord Mohammed Aidid. The bodies of American servicemen were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by Aidid’s militia.
Instead of sending adequate troops to hunt down Aidid after the murder of U.S. servicemen, Clinton decided to cut and run, a policy advocated by today’s Democratic leadership on Iraq. Clinton’s retreat sent a message to terrorists all over the world that the United States doesn’t have the stomach to fight. Somalia remains a terrorist haven to this day.
On Nov. 13, 1995, five Americans were killed when a bomb exploded at a U.S.-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Osama bin Laden denied involvement, but praised the attack.
In February 1996, the government of Sudan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden and his top al-Qaeda lieutenants to the United States. Bill Clinton passed up a chance to bring the terrorist mastermind to justice, allowing bin Laden and his henchmen to escape to Afghanistan, where they would continue to plan for 9/11.
In June 1996, 19 Air Force personnel were killed and 300 Americans and others were wounded when terrorists drove a truck full of explosives into the Khobar Towers, a military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban came to power during the Clinton administration, capturing Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, in September 1996. The Taliban would offer sanctuary to bin Laden and his terrorist network.
Powerful bombs destroyed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya on Aug. 7, 1998, killing 257 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring 4,500 others. Clinton knew bin Laden was behind the bombings. Clinton knew bin Laden vowed to bring the war home to America. Clinton’s response? He ordered cruise missile strikes against empty terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan. Osama bin Laden would live to fight another day.
On Oct. 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in the port of Aden in Yemen. Terrorists drove a speedboat full of explosives into the side of the destroyer, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more. No response from Clinton.
The warning signs were there. Clinton chose to ignore them. Because of Clinton’s negligence, thousands of Americans died.
[link to www.therant.us]
Calling Clinton a rapist when there exists no evidence beyond a hysterical womans accusation makes you a liar. He is also not a sex offender because of consensual sexual acts. YOU ARE A LIAR.
The canard about the Sudan offering Ben Laden to the US has been debunked a dozen times including by the 9/11 commission, you repeat it anyway because you are a liar.
You consider an editorial to be a reasonable source here is one from the Seattle Intelligencer citing plots Clinton stopped
[link to seattlepi.nwsource.com]
CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts. · Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge. · Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania. · Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.). · Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
I defy you to give a comparable list of what President Gump has done.
You in your bloodlust just wanted Clinton to embrace the "lets get as many Americans killed as possible" policy that you rightwingnuts embrace today in Iraq. Its pathetic. You are a liar.
It is laughable the way you have latched on to your mantra. I worry about you.
If you'll notice, I wrote: Not only will he go down in history as the second President impeached, (and being a serial rapist and sex offender)...
As anyone who is not blinded by partisan rage can see, I am expressing an opinion. It is okay for you to disagree, and I expect it, but that doesn't make me a liar. For the record, there is more than one woman who has claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Clinton.
I guess that would make you... a liar. hahaha.
If one reads the 9/11 report, they say they find no evidence. As I have shown, they never explain why they don't investigate his claims.
Oh for the record, in another thread, you said the individual offering Osama was a private individual. Everybody knows it was their Minister of Defense. So, I guess, by your hysterical reasoning, that would make you a liar.
There are plenty of other people that do make the charge and back them up. See Richard Minter's book, "Loosing bin Laden"
Another one is Bill Clinton himself! In 2002 he explained why he didn't take the Sudanese up on their offer.
So does this contradictory evidence make you a liar?
Honestly Solon, I've provided contradictory evidence to your proclomations so many times that I think it has gone to your head. You've been reduced to shouting out like a baby your one note, "liar". I would think by now you'd realize that it only makes you look infantile.
Grow up.
Fox transcript, Clinton: They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in "Black Hawk down," and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.
Below is the truth. Clinton's administration sent out orders two days after "Black Hawk Down" to have his troops hole up in their base until they were finally withdrawn. That isn't cutting and running. It's cutting and hiding. He's a liar and his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger was caught, convicted, given probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.
All hail the great Clinton! ;-)
see: [link to en.wikipedia.org] In a national security policy review session held in the White House on October 6, 1993, President Clinton directed the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral David E. Jeremiah, to stop all actions by U.S. forces against Aidid except those required in self-defense. He also reappointed Ambassador Robert B. Oakley as special envoy to Somalia in an attempt to broker a peace settlement and then announced that all U.S. Forces would withdraw from Somalia no later than March 31, 1994. On December 15, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stepped down, taking much of the blame for President Clinton in what was deemed a failed policy. For all intents and purposes, President Clinton was now determined to militarily disengage from Somalia as quickly as possible. Most of the American troops were out of Somalia by March 25, 1994. A few hundred Marines remained offshore to assist with any noncombatant evacuation mission that might occur regarding the 1,000-plus U.S. civilians and military advisers remaining as part of the U.S. liaison mission. All U.S. personnel were finally withdrawn by March 1995.
The Battle of Mogadishu led to a profound shift in American foreign policy, as the Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to use military intervention in Third World conflicts, (such as failing to halt the machete-hacking deaths of an estimated 1,000,000 civilians by Hutu militia groups in Rwanda in 1994), and affected America's actions in the Balkans during the later half of the 1990s. President Clinton preferred to use the "air power alone" tactic and hesitated to use U.S. ground troops in fighting Serbian military and para-military ground forces in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999, out of fear of losing American soldiers in combat, as well as fear of repeating what happened in Mogadishu in 1993.
Your posts are one pile of debunked bunch of bull after another. Rush Limbaugh and the right wing lie machine have obviously hijacked your brain. Your boy Bush effed up. Deal with it. He dropped the ball, booted it and playing with it in the left field corner. And he's still playing with it, and will continue to flop and flounder till he is out of office after which he will yet continue to screw up and mismanage everything he touches.
He has the Farmer Brown Touch. Everything he touches turns to s**t.
The first WTC attack came about a month into Clinton's administration, so it must have been Bush 41's fault. Right?
Secondly, the Somalia mission was to assist the U. N. in rendering humanitarian aid. During that mission, the opportunity to go after Adid presented itself and the Army forces DID that. Unfortunately, there were problems and many brave soldiers died and were wounded. The Republicans were screaming the very next day that we should never have been there and that we should get out immediately. Also, the rescue mission might have gone a little better if we hadn't had to wait for Pakistan to provide armored vehicles which we didn't have because the Republican congress would not authorize the appropriation of funds for that purpose. Read "Black Hawk Down".
As far as the Sudan claim, that has been totally debunked many times, including by the 9/11 commission.
We could go on, but it it's a waste of my time to point out that your post is full of bulls**t right-wing talking points.