Clinton freaks out!

[Thorgasm]

OK but one thing never changed and that is when a U.S. person is killed by a foriegn enemy it deserves a response.

[quote
Nice unsubstantiated claim. I especially like how they are the "Red Chinese" when Clinton is involved but when Bush Sr. gave them preferred trade status you were probably silent. Partisan.]

Clinton had Red Chinese campaign Contribusions which is against the law not because they're Chinese but because they are not United States citizens.

Another unsubstantiated claim. This is getting old.

Actually Clinton made the most significant change with the Clinton-Gorelick wall which prevented Military Intelligence and the CIA with collaborating the FBI.

Who is Gorelick? Partisan. The republican congress had nothing to do with this huh?

Not according to Clinton:


"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 and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." -- Bill Clinton

And what could he have done with him? He wasn't certified by the CIA.

A) The U.S. has had a 2MTW (2 major theatre war) strategy since Clinton.

B) We didn't spend more manpower because of the the lessons learned by the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan, less troops = less targets, we have taken Afghanistan with a small but effective force. Ever hear of the Greeks?

A) Are you justifying the current strategy by using Clinton?

B) How effective was our small force at getting UBL? I have heard of the Greeks. This is not a gay marriage thread.:rofl

 

[taxedout]

Wow, I just watched the interview and 'ol Willy game him what fore! Like him or not you have to respect a guy who can go in to an interview on a partisan newstation and make them look like fools. He was on their own turf for gods sake!

Give me a break. Given Clinton's status, he knew damn well Wallace would be forced to all but sit there and take his ranting. It was like yelling at your kids. Rather a wimpy display of self control and abuse of position from a pathetic scammer.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Along with setting her up for a prison term.

She caught on. She blew him in more ways than one.:lol:

I wonder how many times he's called her since he left office.:shock:

 

[Stinger]

Rewrite history? That is rich. He said that he failed in getting UBL.

And trying to rewrite history and blame everyone but himself and his cabinet.

Good luck citing sources to support this claim.

Good luck trying to refute it which I note you didn't.

National security isn't a domestic issue?

No. If is a matter of foreign policy and the Congress does no legislate foreign policy.

Dude, I am not excusing Clinton's failure. He isn't asking to be excused.

He sure is and trying to say he did a better job of it than the current administration is baloney.

But to demonize him for it is purely partisan hackery.

Why is pointing out that the manner in which he dealt with terrorism was a failure because of the POLICIES he as the PRESIDENT set? Especially when the Democrats want to go right back to them. If you can't learn from the past.................

Yes, peace and prosperity was terrible. :roll: Are you saying that Bush is being successful?

Yes, more so than the Clinton administration. Al qaeda is impotent, the terrorist are being forced into small independent groups without coordination or funding. They have failed to launch a direct attack on us.

Only if you are being obtuse. Isn't the republican congress culpable for letting Clinton's bad ideas get through.

What on earth are you talking about?

It is smoke screen partisan BS. If Clinton was SO negligent then why didn't the republican congress impeach him for not taking care of national security? You are claiming that they knew he should do more. Why didn't they speak out?

Where were you at the time? They supported what he did and pleaded for more.

 

[Stinger]

Who is Gorelick?

Geez no wonder you're so ignorant about this issue. You don't even know who Gorelick is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Geez no wonder you're so ignorant about this issue. You don't even know who Gorelick is.

That Gorelik was even on that panel was a joke in of itself

 

[Stinger]

That Gorelik was even on that panel was a joke in of itself

She was there to run interference for the Clinton administration while Berger was doing the document hiest.

 

[wonder cow]

That Clinton had a chance to take Bin Laden from Sudan. Actually there is more reason to believe it than not and Clinton even admitted in the speech before the Long Island Business Council meeting.

Please note that he in fact did not. Please note that I already posted the transcript of the speech you are talking about where he said no such of a thing.

If you are getting your news from MSNBC or Mother Earth you are getting sping and propaganda.

Yes. But it is a matter of how much and how intense the propaganda is. No one surpasses FOX in this area.

The source you list actually interviews people who have first hand knowledge, they were there.

Yes, I know. That is why I used Richard Clarke as a source.

 

[Stinger]

Please note that he in fact did not. Please note that I already posted the transcript of the speech you are talking about where he said no such of a thing.

Please note he did, he stated he turned down the offer and we also have Mansur Izhad who brokered two deals Clinton turned down.

Yes. But it is a matter of how much and how intense the propaganda is. No one surpasses FOX in this area.

Hardly, you'll get both sides there and to accuse Wallace of being a right wing commentator was laughable.

Yes, I know. That is why I used Richard Clarke as a source.

who directly contradicted Clinton's claim that they gave the Bush adminsitration the plan to get Bin Laden or that they ever had such plan?

 

[Captain America]

I know what I saw and heard. To be sure, he was hot under the collar. But I don't equate a finger poke when driving home a point a "physical attack.":rofl

You righties oughta give up the "Clinton freaks out/hatchet job" you are trying to pull off here. Saying it 3 times don't make it true anymore. America is hip to that trick.

Clinton was set up and he knew it. I know it. You know it. He gained nothing but respect from me for jumping in the dude's $chit. About time somebody stood up to these rightwing FOX whack-jobs.

This is getting silly. The desperation in here smells like.....victory.:mrgreen:

 

[Stinger]

I know what I saw and heard. To be sure, he was hot under the collar. But I don't equate a finger poke when driving home a point a "physical attack.":rofl

He was poking and prodding him in the leg with his finger in an angry manner, it was meant to intimidate Wallace. THAT was a phyiscal attack on him. And it is unprecidented, I've never seen anything like. Geez remember when Lazio simply walked over to Hillary to hand her a sheet of paper and the screams of how he was violating her?

You righties oughta give up the "Clinton freaks out/hatchet job" you are trying to pull off here. Saying it 3 times don't make it true anymore. America is hip to that trick.

He did freak out, it was amazing. And he was lying through his teeth in the process. It's his standard modi operendi.

Clinton was set up and he knew it. I know it. You know it.

And that is absolutely false as the evidence has shown.

He gained nothing but respect from me for jumping in the dude's $chit.

Really, he attacks a news reporter for asking a simple question, lies about it in the process and you respect him. How telling.

About time somebody stood up to these rightwing FOX whack-jobs.

And the truth be damned.

This is getting silly. The desperation in here smells like.....victory.

:spin:

 

[niftydrifty]

The desperation in here smells like.....victory.

Hear ye, hear ye. Absolutely.

I love it how any thread with Clinton in the title becomes a desperate attempt to bring up ANYTHING the man ever did. The topic is an interview that happened a few days ago, but mostly we hear about Sandy Berger's pants, and nearly anything and everything that happened in the nineties related to Clinton. With Clinton, you can forget about focus or the topic. So, as for the question, "did Clinton freak out?" Ha, by my calculation, not nearly as much as the far right nutjobs in here have.

 

[Captain America]

Hear ye, hear ye. Absolutely.

I love it how any thread with Clinton in the title becomes a desperate attempt to bring up ANYTHING the man ever did. The topic is an interview that happened a few days ago, but mostly we hear about Sandy Berger's pants, and nearly anything and everything that happened in the nineties related to Clinton. With Clinton, you can forget about focus or the topic. So, as for the question, "did Clinton freak out?" Ha, by my calculation, not nearly as much as the far right nutjobs in here have.

:rofl

They are becoming rather rediculous aren't they?

 

[Stinger]

Hear ye, hear ye. Absolutely.

I love it how any thread with Clinton in the title becomes a desperate attempt to bring up ANYTHING the man ever did.

ANYTHING? The defense of the country and the deaths of over 3000 is just an anything?

The fact that Clinton lied through his teeth when he attacked Wallace is just anything?

With Clinton, you can forget about focus or the topic. So, as for the question, "did Clinton freak out?"

The focus is, what did the previous administration do to fight the terrorist threat and do we want to turn to them again. Obviously Clinton is very defensive about the lack of success they had last time they were in power. Do we want to trust them again. Wallace asked a salinent simple question to which Clinton could have given a thoughtful, rational response. He didn't, he freaked out.

I know it probably embarasses those who try to defend him, but you choose the ground you take your stand on.

 

[niftydrifty]

ANYTHING? The defense of the country and the deaths of over 3000 is just an anything?

Easy there, Stinger. Don't, um, freak out on us. You're becoming unhinged. The deaths of 3000 happened in 2001. Clinton did try to proactively do something about that. Bush and Co didn't. You're exercising an extremely unbalanced double standard here.

The fact that Clinton lied through his teeth when he attacked Wallace is just anything?

I have not been convinced that he lied. Sure, the fact that it is merely your opinion that he lied is just anything.

The focus is, what did the previous administration do to fight the terrorist threat and do we want to turn to them again.

LOL. I thought the interview was the topic. Did Clinton freak out during this interview with Wallace? The interview in which Wallace brought up this thing that was on his viewers' minds, the thing that wasn't the thing Clinton told he would be interviewed about?

Obviously Clinton is very defensive about the lack of success they had last time they were in power. Do we want to trust them again. Wallace asked a salinent simple question to which Clinton could have given a thoughtful, rational response. He didn't, he freaked out.

LOL! "Do we want to trust them again?" You mention the previous administration, and ask "do we want to trust them again?" ... are they an option to get in again? Stay focused, Stinger. Don't freak out on us, please! You're 'defensive' sounded and looked a lot like an 'offensive' to many of us, Stinger. The question was neither salient nor simple. It was vague. It was highly subject to interpretation. "Do more?" One can always do more. Shoulda/woulda/coulda ... ha, these are not necessarily salient simple points by any measure.

I know it probably embarasses those who try to defend him, but you choose the ground you take your stand on.

I'm doing fine, thanks. Now, why not start a thread about the War on Terror, circa January 2001 - August 2001, Stinger? Naw, don't bother, it would be too easy, too embarrassing.

Doing nothing versus doing something. Hmmmm, in this case, you gotta prefer something. Ie., if you're rational, and if you have the capacity to be objective.

 

[Iriemon]

Geez no wonder you're so ignorant about this issue. You don't even know who Gorelick is.

[Comment censured to prevent member from being permanent banned]

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Geez no wonder you're so ignorant about this issue. You don't even know who Gorelick is.

[Comment censured to prevent member from being permanent banned]

Well why don't you restate it then. I stand by what I posted, if the person doesn't even know who she is they are ignorant of the issue being discussed.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Another unsubstantiated claim. This is getting old.

Chinese Embassy Role In Contributions Probed

By Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 13, 1997; Page A01
The Washington Post



A Justice Department investigation into improper political fund-raising activities has uncovered evidence that representatives of the People's Republic of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee before the 1996 presidential campaign, officials familiar with the inquiry said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/china1.htm

Who is Gorelick?

The Deputy Attorney General under the Clinton administration and a Democratic pick to sit on the 9-11 Commission, she is also the person who executed the executive order which prevented foriegn intel agencies from talking with the FBI in order to block probes into the China fundraising scandal.

Partisan.

Yep.

The republican congress had nothing to do with this huh?

Nope.

And what could he have done with him?

What could he have done with OBL? Oh I don't know he could have maybe killed or arrested him.

A) Are you justifying the current strategy by using Clinton?

No I'm saying that it's the same strategy IE the U.S. army is more than capable of handling 2 major theatres of war at one time thus no troops were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I have not been convinced that he lied.

Three lies off of the top of my head:

A) There was no GOP opposition of him going after bin-Laden infact there was unanimous support from Gingrich on down.

B) There was no such comprehensive plan given to the incoming Administration.

C) Clinton knew damn well who and where OBL was in '93.

 

[Iriemon]

Three lies off of the top of my head:

A) There was no GOP opposition of him going after bin-Laden infact there was unanimous support from Gingrich on down.

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

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP Majority Leader
"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

March 2000: Clinton Attempt to Fight Terrorism Financing Defeated by Republican The Clinton administration begins a push to fight terrorism financing by introducing a tough anti-money laundering bill. The bill faces tough opposition, mostly from Republicans and lobbyists who enjoy the anonymity of offshore banking, which would be affected by the legislation. Despite passing the House Banking Committee by a vote of 31 to 1 in July 2000, Senator Phil Gramm (R) refuses to let the bill come up for a vote in his Senate Banking Committee. [Time, 10/15/2001] Other efforts begun at this time to fight terrorism financing are later stymied by the new Bush administration in February 2001.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-603

B) There was no such comprehensive plan given to the incoming Administration.

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke submits a plan to “roll back” al-Qaeda over a period of three to five years until it is ineffectual. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] The main component is a dramatic increase in covert aid to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to first tie down the terrorists and then “eliminate the sanctuary” for bin Laden. Financial support for terrorist activities will be systematically attacked, nations fighting al-Qaeda will be given aid to defeat them, and the US will plan for direct military and covert action in Afghanistan. The plan will cost several hundred million dollars. However, since there are only a few weeks left before the Bush administration takes over, it is decided to defer the decision until the new administration is in place. One senior Clinton official later says, “We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office on January 20. That wasn’t going to happen.” However, the plan is rejected by the Bush administration and no action is taken (see January 25, 2001). According to one senior Bush administration official, the proposal amounts to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-603

C) Clinton knew damn well who and where OBL was in '93.

What was known about OBL in 1993? Until later in 1996 at most he was suspected to be a financial supporter of some terrorist groups.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Iriemon,

does it strike you as strange that Clark had such comprehensive plan to hand down to Bush, that he never implemented with Clinton?

I just find it strange that the guy had so much information to give to Bush, yet we were attacked over and over again during Clintons term.

One would think if they had such a brilliant, comprehensive plan.....they might have put it in place themselves.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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

A) The timing was suspicious the first attack on AQ came on the exact day that Clinton uttered those famous words: "I did not have sex with that woman," and the second attack came on the exact same day as his impeachment.

B) Eventually sanity prevailed and all of the Reps fell in line (See below).

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP Majority Leader
"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

A) That's Iraq.

B) That attack came litterally on the day of his impeachment, it was suspicious timing.

March 2000: Clinton Attempt to Fight Terrorism Financing Defeated by Republican The Clinton administration begins a push to fight terrorism financing by introducing a tough anti-money laundering bill. The bill faces tough opposition, mostly from Republicans and lobbyists who enjoy the anonymity of offshore banking, which would be affected by the legislation. Despite passing the House Banking Committee by a vote of 31 to 1 in July 2000, Senator Phil Gramm (R) refuses to let the bill come up for a vote in his Senate Banking Committee. [Time, 10/15/2001] Other efforts begun at this time to fight terrorism financing are later stymied by the new Bush administration in February 2001.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-603

This one is just bullshit.

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke submits a plan to “roll back” al-Qaeda over a period of three to five years until it is ineffectual. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] The main component is a dramatic increase in covert aid to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to first tie down the terrorists and then “eliminate the sanctuary” for bin Laden. Financial support for terrorist activities will be systematically attacked, nations fighting al-Qaeda will be given aid to defeat them, and the US will plan for direct military and covert action in Afghanistan. The plan will cost several hundred million dollars. However, since there are only a few weeks left before the Bush administration takes over, it is decided to defer the decision until the new administration is in place. One senior Clinton official later says, “We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office on January 20. That wasn’t going to happen.” However, the plan is rejected by the Bush administration and no action is taken (see January 25, 2001). According to one senior Bush administration official, the proposal amounts to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-603

There's the propaganda and here's the truth straight from the horses mouth:

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?
One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

CLARKE: .... the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000525.html

Hmm I wonder why Clarke changed his story after he got shitcanned? Maybe he had an axe to grind? Oh and look, it appears as though Bush did do something more than Clinton in those 8 months before 9-11 afterall.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon,

does it strike you as strange that Clark had such comprehensive plan to hand down to Bush, that he never implemented with Clinton?

Not particularly. It is explained in the clip I posted.

I just find it strange that the guy had so much information to give to Bush, yet we were attacked over and over again during Clintons term.

One would think if they had such a brilliant, comprehensive plan.....they might have put it in place themselves.

As the article said, this comprehensive plan had been developed in 2000, just a few weeks before the Clinton administration ended. My guess is that after the Cole was hit, a more agressive plan for addressing the AQ threat was drawn up. The Bush administration had other priorities.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here's all of that Republican opposition to Clinton fighting the war on terror continued from above:

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. -- Bill Clinton[/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader? [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives – the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears…oh my – and how it’s all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Regardless, this tool – with the assistance of search engines and services such as LexisNexis – allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word “is” means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president – or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter – began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]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. [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Crowley continued:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]“The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]“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.” [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]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. [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.[/FONT]
​

<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<CONTINUED>>>

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]“Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,” said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added][/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?[/FONT]


Regardless, in the end, sanity prevailed, and both Specter and Coats got on board the operation:

After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, Specter said: “I think the president acted properly.” [emphasis added]


[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]As for “neocons,” one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]So Thursday’s bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it. [emphasis added][/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Does that sound like a “Bush neocon” claiming that Clinton was “obsessed with bin Laden” to you? [/FONT]


[/FONT]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5888

Damn look at all that "neocon" opposition.