Clinton freaks out!

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by easyt65:
As opposed to 8 YEARS of Clinton doing nothing!
8 years of ignoring OBLs declaration of war against the U.S.
8 years of ignoring Americans being murdered abroad, ignoring OBL, ignoring Able Danger, totally hosing this country's Intel capabilities, and emboldening Al Qaeda. Throw in an additional few months of sending in Sandy Berger, after he had left office, to attempt to steal and destroy the classified proof of his incompetence, and you have a GREAT model to compare Bush to

I don't see Bush playing sax in a local blues club!

 

[ProudAmerican]

A lot of EX people who worked for the president said a lot of things. You know what I say, I say shut up with this baseless nonsense you're spewing.

as long as you agree when some liberal on the board gives us a quote from an x Bush employee that makes some ludicrous claim about how he lied us into war.

Clinton was very active in dealing with the Taliban and the persuit of OBL during his term in office and that's a proven fact.

how many troops did president Clinton send after OBL and the Taliban during his "persuit" ??

He was the one that took us to war in Iraq against the wrong enemy.

we are fighting AQ there right now. how is that the "wrong" enemy? you do realize they are the ones that hit us on 9-11 dont you?

 

[PeteEU]

as long as you agree when some liberal on the board gives us a quote from an x Bush employee that makes some ludicrous claim about how he lied us into war.

If there were several former CIA operatives including high ranking ones and independant proof, then I would believe more.

how many troops did president Clinton send after OBL and the Taliban during his "persuit" ??

So the number of troops is the "key" to show action?

we are fighting AQ there right now. how is that the "wrong" enemy? you do realize they are the ones that hit us on 9-11 dont you?

Yep you are, but AQ was not there before the invasion and no amount of right wing spin using hearsay and wishfull thinking can change that fact.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If there were several former CIA operatives including high ranking ones and independant proof, then I would believe more.

I guess anyone can convince themselves of a reason to believe ex employees of one administration and not the other.

So the number of troops is the "key" to show action?

absolutely. AQ is an army, not some criminal element. signing paperwork alone just doesnt cut it.

Yep you are, but AQ was not there before the invasion and no amount of right wing spin using hearsay and wishfull thinking can change that fact.

you dont know that for sure. just more left wing talking points. but even if I concede they werent, there is no reason NOT TO SUPPORT kicking their *** there now, today. unless you have a partisan agenda.

 

[wonder cow]

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

He stated no such thing. If you listen to the speech in question, or read the transcript, it is very clear that he was talking about Sudan's offer to hand over OBL to the Saudis. Sudan would only give OBL to the Saudis on the condition that they pardon him. Saudis refused. Clinton tried to convince the Saudis to take OBL, but they still refussed.

Sudan never offerd the US OBL. The 9/11 commission investigated this and said it never happened. Richard Clarke also stated it never happened.

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

It is not the least bit laughable. It was a loaded question. FOX is a pure propaganda machine, owned and lorded over by a foreigner. Personally, I think it should be against the law for foreigners to own a controlling share in any media or publication operating in the US.

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?

That's what you get for watching FOX "news". Lies.

The Clinton/Clarke strategy ignored by Bush and lied about by Rice and the moron goons at FOX

January 25, 2001 memo from Clarke urging Rice to consider the plan that Rice and the goons at FOX "news" lie about when they continuously claim it never existed

 

[hipsterdufus]

A President doing things and raising money for his constituents and big issues is not big news. Ex-President clinton having a 'melt-down' about the fabricated 'over-emphasis' he placed on finding OBL....now THAT is news! :rofl

Of course, as so many libs keep telling me, 'why don't you stop talking about him and just let him go away?'

I am TRYING...waiting, hoping, and praying he just goes away, but he will NOT cooperate!:doh :rofl

Clinton hardly had a meltown. Anyone that knows Clinton, knows that he has a temper. I'd be upset too with the false crap that the media puts out against Clinton. He put a Faux reporter in his place and took control of the interview.

I do thing getting people as diverse as Laura Bush, Rupert Murdoch and Barbara Streisand to unite on a common cause is good news - worth reporting.

The bigger thing is Faux and friends aren't looking at any of the ISSUES re Clinton - just the fact that he got mad. BFD.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He stated no such thing. If you listen to the speech in question, or read the transcript, it is very clear that he was talking about Sudan's offer to hand over OBL to the Saudis. Sudan would only give OBL to the Saudis on the condition that they pardon him. Saudis refused. Clinton tried to convince the Saudis to take OBL, but they still refussed.

Sudan never offerd the US OBL. The 9/11 commission investigated this and said it never happened. Richard Clarke also stated it never happened.

According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA's bin Laden task force from 1995 to 1999:

"Clinton had 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden and Bush had none."

``In May of 1998 and 1999, we had two opportunities to capture him and eight different opportunities to kill him," Scheuer told the Globe yesterday. ``On every one of those occasions, the president or Berger and Clarke turned down the opportunity"

That's what you get for watching FOX "news". Lies.

The Clinton/Clarke strategy ignored by Bush and lied about by Rice and the moron goons at FOX

January 25, 2001 memo from Clarke urging Rice to consider the plan that Rice and the goons at FOX "news" lie about when they continuously claim it never existed

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

 

[tecoyah]

just....watch it...OK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60

 

[Stinger]

just....watch it...OK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60

Obermann's says 'Clinton said what none of us has said before, the truth about what he did and what the current adminsitration did', paraphase note the single caps.

So now Obermann is a bald face liar. He should go back to sports.

 

[talloulou]

just....watch it...OK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60

But this one is so much funnier..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqTKBI1ImTw

 

[Navy Pride]

A lot of EX people who worked for the president said a lot of things. You know what I say, I say shut up with this baseless nonsense you're spewing.

Clinton was very active in dealing with the Taliban and the persuit of OBL during his term in office and that's a proven fact. And if you have a memory disorder Navypride then remember this, Bush is the president now, not Clinton.

He was the one that took us to war in Iraq against the wrong enemy.

Yes but this thread is about Clinton.....If you want to start one about Bush go for it............

The CIA agent blamed Bush to but the fact remains he said Clinton had at least 10 chances to get OBL but refused........

 

[wonder cow]

According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA's bin Laden task force from 1995 to 1999:

Your response does not address the issue. What I was referring to, which you responded to, was the false allegations that Sudan had offered OBL to the US. This in fact is false.

As to Scheuer's accusation that the Clinton administration had ten chances to take out OBL, this hangs on his opinion of what constitutes a "chance". In response to this accusation, Berger has stated that some of the times Scheuer is referring to were instances where the intelligence was unclear and instances when the military officers in the field would advise against it.

As to all the bullshit semantics and word games about what constitutes a "plan" or a "strategy" or whether or not this was a "new" plan or a "comprehensive" plan, just click the following to see it for yourself:

Strategy for eliminating the threat from Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects

And furthermore this, and please note the attatchments listed at the bottom, in particular Tab A:

January 2001 memo for Condolizza Rice about the "plan" or "strategy" or whatever the hell you want to call it

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your response does not address the issue. What I was referring to, which you responded to, was the false allegations that Sudan had offered OBL to the US. This in fact is false.

In response to that I will state that we have the Sudanese saying that they offered Clinton OBL, we have the man who brokered the deal attesting to this fact, and we have Clinton admitting to it on tape.

As to Scheuer's accusation that the Clinton administration had ten chances to take out OBL, this hangs on his opinion of what constitutes a "chance". In response to this accusation, Berger has stated that some of the times Scheuer is referring to were instances where the intelligence was unclear and instances when the military officers in the field would advise against it.

Well no sh!t Berger is going to deny Scheuemer's claims because Scheuemer named Berger as well as Clinton:

``In May of 1998 and 1999, we had two opportunities to capture him and eight different opportunities to kill him," Scheuer told the Globe yesterday. ``On every one of those occasions, the president or Berger and Clarke turned down the opportunity" to strike.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa..._on_bin_laden/

I will further assert that Scheuemer was the head of the CIA's bin-Laden unit from 1996-99 and is the worlds foremost authority on AQ and far from a Bush proponent he has critisized the current administration just as much as the Clinton administration let's see what else he had to say:

WALLACE: But, Mr. Scheuer, I can see you beginning to shake your head. I mean, whether or not they had certifiable proof about the Cole, they certainly knew that Al Qaeda had been involved in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa.

In your opinion, as somebody who was up close and personal, why didn't the Clinton administration go after Al Qaeda after the USS Cole?

SCHEUER: Mr. Wallace, my opinion is not all that important. I went to a little Jesuit school in Buffalo called Canicius, and the priests taught us never to lie, but if you had to lie, never lie about facts. Mr. Richard Clarke, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Usama bin Laden. That's the plain truth, the exact truth.

Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.

But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir.

WALLACE: Mr. Benjamin?

BENJAMIN: Well, I simply disagree. The plans that Mike is referring to about being approved were actually disapproved by his own chain of command. The CIA did not have confidence in the operation that was drawn up, and we couldn't go forward with it.

After the attack on the East Africa embassies, the covert operations were restarted, and again the same assets that were being involved earlier proved to be feckless and didn't deliver the goods.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHEUER: ... saying this, that what Mr. Benjamin, who I have a great deal of respect for, but what I say doesn't matter. What matters is the documents that back up what I have to say or what Mr. Benjamin has to say.

The 9/11 commission ignored those documents, didn't publish them to the American people, let no one involved with the effort to get bin Laden testify to the American people.

This is not a question of interpretation or judgment. This is a question of fact. And the documents will show the president had the opportunity.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216964,00.html

As to all the bullshit semantics and word games about what constitutes a "plan" or a "strategy" or whether or not this was a "new" plan or a "comprehensive" plan, just click the following to see it for yourself:

Strategy for eliminating the threat from Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects

Sir I have read this memo three times over what you have here is not a "comprehensive plan," it is a brief description of AQ, a vague description of Clinton's rollback strategy against AQ, as well as, things that were on the table that had not evolved since 1998. Furthermore; point of fact, the things that were still on the table that were not adobted by the Clinton administration were infact by the Bush administration in the 8 months leading up to 9-11 and Bush infact changed the current strategy of rollback to one of elimination in the Spring of 2001.

And furthermore this, and please note the attatchments listed at the bottom, in particular Tab A:

January 2001 memo for Condolizza Rice about the "plan" or "strategy" or whatever the hell you want to call it

And please note that Tab A is the same as the first link that has already been debunked as the 13 pg. vague memo that it was rather than the, and I quote "comprehensive plan," that Clinton claimed that it was.

 

[wonder cow]

In response to that I will state that we have the Sudanese saying that they offered Clinton OBL

The 911 commission investigated this claim and stated that it was false. The only source of this information is from one individual in Sudan, a terrorist nation itself.

It makes no sense for Sudan to offer OBL to Saudi Arabia on the condition he is pardoned, then turn right around and offer him to the US.

and we have Clinton admitting to it on tape.

No you don't. What you have is Sean Hannity intentionally misconstruing comments Clinton made concerning Sudan offering OBL to Saudi Arabia, and the rumor machine that is modern day journalism and the web spreading that lie everywhere.

Well no sh!t Berger is going to deny Scheuemer's claims because Scheuemer named Berger as well as Clinton:

Like I stated, this is Scheuemer's opinion of what constitutes a "chance" to capture or kill OBL.

Looking back, I don't see any reason why anyone would not have taken the guy out if it was a good opportunity to do so. Which makes me think that Scheuemer over states the case.

What matters is the documents that back up what I have to say or what Mr. Benjamin has to say.

The 9/11 commission ignored those documents, didn't publish them to the American people, let no one involved with the effort to get bin Laden testify to the American people.

Where are the documents? Can I see them?

Sir I have read this memo three times over

Then you would know it is not a memo, but a 13 page summary of the "plan" or "strategy" or "whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it-document" developed by the Clinton administration to deal with Islamic terrorists.

And please note that Tab A is the same as the first link

Which is why I pointed it out. You see, this proves it was in fact an attachment to a memo sent to Rice in January of 2001, the "plan" she got that was not a "comprehensive" plan or a "new" plan, or maybe not a "plan" but a "strategy", or maybe it was just a love letter or a pathetic cry for attention by Richard Clarke.

How many typed pages does it take before one pays attention to a serious national security threat? Well, I guess at least 14.

By the way, what was the name of that PDB?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The 911 commission investigated this claim and stated that it was false. The only source of this information is from one individual in Sudan, a terrorist nation itself.

Well quite simply they were wrong and we don't just have the Sudan making the claim we, also, have Manssor Ijaz the man who brokered the deal testifying to the veracity of the story:

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Not to mention the fact that Clinton himself has stated on tape that this infact took place.

No you don't.

Yes I do:

"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."

Like I stated, this is Scheuemer's opinion of what constitutes a "chance" to capture or kill OBL.

Scheuer is the worlds foremost authority on OBL and it's not one "chance" it's 10 chances to capture or kill bin-Laden.

Looking back, I don't see any reason why anyone would not have taken the guy out if it was a good opportunity to do so.

Because Clinton ran his anti-terrorism campaign like he did the rest of adminisration he was more worried about a possible shift in public opinion if innocent people got killed in the strikes, than he was about killing OBL.

Which makes me think that Scheuemer over states the case.

What would be the motivation for that?

Where are the documents? Can I see them?

The 9-11 Commission refuses to declassify them.

Then you would know it is not a memo,

No it was infact a 13 pg. summary.

but a 13 page summary of the "plan" or "strategy" or "whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it-document" developed by the Clinton administration to deal with Islamic terrorists.

It was not a "comprehensive plan" as Clinton asserts it was a brief description of AQ and a vague description of the current failed roll back strategy that had not evolved since 1998.

Which is why I pointed it out. You see, this proves it was in fact an attachment to a memo sent to Rice in January of 2001, the "plan" she got that was not a "comprehensive" plan or a "new" plan, or maybe not a "plan" but a "strategy", or maybe it was just a love letter or a pathetic cry for attention by Richard Clarke.

Dude do I have to hit you over the head with it before you get the message? It was not a "Comprehensive Plan" it was a 13 pg. memo containing a brief description of AQ as well as a vague description of the current failed rollback strategy that had not evolved since 1998 but hay don't take my word for it let's ask Richard Clarke:

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

How many typed pages does it take before one pays attention to a serious national security threat? Well, I guess at least 14.

Bush was paying attention in the March of 2001 he switched from the failed rollback strategy against AQ to one of elimination, according to Richard Clarke Bush was quoted as saying: "I'm sick of swatting at flies where is my strategy for eliminating AQ?"

By the way, what was the name of that PDB?[/quote]

 

[Indy]

Hopefully this will quiet all of the hysterical screaming that we are hearing about Clinton on both sides. FactCheck.org, a non partisan organization that checks on politicians and political ad's claims and was even mentioned by Cheney during the debates, looked into the interview. Basically they said that majority of what Clinton said was true and based on factual evidence which they site. Rice's claims were shown to be false. Some of what clinton said was said to be debtable. The link is here:

http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Hopefully this will quiet all of the hysterical screaming that we are hearing about Clinton on both sides. FactCheck.org, a non partisan organization that checks on politicians and political ad's claims and was even mentioned by Cheney during the debates, looked into the interview. Basically they said that majority of what Clinton said was true and based on factual evidence which they site. Rice's claims were shown to be false. Some of what clinton said was said to be debtable. The link is here:

http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html

Factcheck is usually pretty good but in this case they got most of it wrong the trouble is they relied to heavily on the 9-11 Commission Report that didn't blame Clinton for anything and the words of Richard Clarke who has a grudge against the administration, I addressed some of their points in the other thread you posted this on:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/13865-republicans-prevented-clinton-attacking-terrorists-2.html#post402009

 

[wonder cow]

Dude do I have to hit you over the head with it before you get the message? It was not a "Comprehensive Plan" it was a 13 pg. memo

When did I ever state that it was a comprehensive plan? The whole point of my argument, that you I guess have completely missed or pretended to miss, is that the "comprehensive" plan language used by Rice and other is double speak. It does not mean a damn thing.

You see, in the minds of lawyers and politicians, you can say "I never got a comprehensive plan" which keeps you from technically lying hinging on the subjective use of the adjective "comprehensive", all the while achieving the exact same thing as a lie, misleading the public into thinking that the Clinton team never passed on the info about the Islamic terrorist threat.

Which has been the strategy of Bush and his administration the entire time he has been in office, that is to deflect blame for his own miserable failures on the previous administration.

offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden

But not to the US. To Saudi Arabia. Who refused to take him.

Also, in Clinton's statement that you quoted, he does not state that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US.

relied to heavily on the 9-11 Commission Report that didn't blame Clinton for anything

Maybe there is a reason for that.

and the words of Richard Clarke who has a grudge against the administration

right because he wanted a job at homeland security, right? or that is the line Rice and the rest of the gang throw out every time Clarke's name comes up.

He had a grudge against them because he had being telling these stupid mother f'ers for months that Bin Laden was close to attacking the US, and they did not listen to him. As a matter of fact, days after the attack the President indicated to Clarke that he still suspected Iraq of the attack, to which Clarke was flabbergasted, considering all the time he has spent stressing the danger of Bin Laden and his group.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When did I ever state that it was a comprehensive plan? The whole point of my argument, that you I guess have completely missed or pretended to miss, is that the "comprehensive" plan language used by Rice and other is double speak. It does not mean a damn thing.

You see, in the minds of lawyers and politicians, you can say "I never got a comprehensive plan" which keeps you from technically lying hinging on the subjective use of the adjective "comprehensive", all the while achieving the exact same thing as a lie, misleading the public into thinking that the Clinton team never passed on the info about the Islamic terrorist threat.

No actually the double speak is coming out of Clinton when he claimed that he described a vague 13 pg. memo as a "comprehensive plan," what are we not allowed to call Clinton on his bullshit now? Clinton made it seem that he had this big huge fail-safe plan to defeat AQ when infact all it was was a brief description of AQ and a vague summary of the current failed rollback strategy.

Are you honestly asserting this memo makes up for 8 years of failed policy in combating terrorism? Clinton passed on the info. that AQ was a threat well bravo I'm sure Bush didn't already realize that after the U.S.S. Cole.

Which has been the strategy of Bush and his administration the entire time he has been in office, that is to deflect blame for his own miserable failures on the previous administration.

Yes we know everything is Bush's fault from Katrina to the mine explosion, and Clinton is the man who shall not be blamed.

But not to the US. To Saudi Arabia. Who refused to take him.

Where does it mention Saudi Arabia:

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Also, you should have read further into the article:

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

While it does not specifically name the state it is obvious that they are talking about Saudi Arabia.

Also, in Clinton's statement that you quoted, he does not state that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US.

But he does state that he could have brought him here but didn't if the Sudanese didn't offer him then how do you explain this part of the statement:

"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.

Maybe there is a reason for that.

Ya because Sandy Berger was stuffing white house files down his pants that would have proven Clinton's culbabilty and, because Clinton and Clarke lied through their teeth to the Commission, and because Gorelick who was a member of the Commission and also the deputy attorney general under the Clinton administration steered the investigation away from the infamous Clinton-Gorelick wall erected by executive order through Gorelick's memo which prevented foreign intelligence agencies from discussing pertinent information regarding AQ with the FBI.

right because he wanted a job at homeland security, right? or that is the line Rice and the rest of the gang throw out every time Clarke's name comes up.

Well he wasn't demoted and he wasn't fired so why did he quit?

He had a grudge against them because he had being telling these stupid mother f'ers for months that Bin Laden was close to attacking the US, and they did not listen to him.

That's simply untrue Clarke has got a vendetta against this administration because he felt snubbed let's see what he was saying about Bush's actions before he got the axe to grind:

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

 

[Iriemon]

Factcheck is usually pretty good but in this case they got most of it wrong the trouble is they relied to heavily on the 9-11 Commission Report that didn't blame Clinton for anything and the words of Richard Clarke who has a grudge against the administration, I addressed some of their points in the other thread you posted this on:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/13865-republicans-prevented-clinton-attacking-terrorists-2.html#post402009

Yeah the trouble is they relied on the bi-partisan government study instead of the Weekly Standard.

 

[BWG]

:laughat:

Yeah the trouble is they relied on the bi-partisan government study instead of the Weekly Standard.

:rofl :2rofll: :2wave:

 

[Indy]

Yeah the trouble is they relied on the bi-partisan government study instead of the Weekly Standard.

No kidding.

"They are usually pretty good unless they don't agree with my nonsense."

 

[easyt65]

Instead of partisan studies, interviews after-the-fact years later, and heresay, I like to rely on the proof at the time and on those whow were actually in the inner circle.

Everyone wants to point fingers today, which gets us now-where, but we all 'jump in the water'. Everyone has their favorite reports to bring up to defend their argument.

Me? I like to look at the events as they happened.

1995 OBL Declares war on the U.S.
-- No reaction. I mean it wasn't like OBL's press conference was the equivalent to Pearl harbor, right?!
Kobar Towers gets bombed.
-- No reaction
USS Cole
-- No reaction
Failed twin towers bombing
-- No reaction
Marine CCC kidnapped/killed
-- No reaction
2 African Embassy Bombings
-- No Reaction

Ok, correction: Clinton ordered the bombing of al all-but-empty terrorist training camp, one we KNEW did not have OBL, AND the bombing of a milk factory.

During that time, the guy who carried around the 'Nuclear Foorball' as well as THE top CIA Operative who is/was THE consumate expert on OBL said Clinton had and did not take no less than 6 opportunities to kill OBL.

Clinton himself lied about being briefed by Able Danger, and Sandy Berger later got caught stealing and shredding Classified Federal Documents proving Clinton lied and laid out the truth about his success/failures against Terrorism over an 8 YEAR PERIOD, which is why he wanted them destroyed.

Those are actual events, not testimonies from parties twice removed or blah, blah, blah. They speak pretty powerfully about what went on. So Clinton is sruprised, in the heat of a media spurt in which OBL is a hot topic, that he gets questioned about his efforts to take out OBL?! It should have been expected.

As far as freaking out and getting mad because no one believes in, well he has no one else to blame but himself! He has lied so many times that he has earned his reputation for being an habitual liar! So again, this should be expected and NOT anything to freak out about!

I have heard a lot of dems/libs saying about the Foley/Hassert issue lately that the GOP can not assume personal responsibility yet this whole issue exposes the true depth of hypocrisy! The EXTREME Left wing of the Democratic Party has NEVER brought themselves to a point where they can admit Clinton's habitual lying, his sexual mis-conduct spanning his entire political career, his un-ethical and immoral behavior as President, and not only his failure to acknowledge the terrorist threat and the murder of Americans that followed but did not do ANYTHING even remotely close to substantial in response in order to protect and make this country more secure!

If he wants to stay in the Public Eye and get all the attention, he better get ready for more questions about his Presidency. his past is the only thing important about him now because his future is irrelevant to Americans!

The Libs and dems can wail all they want about what I have written - they will just be spitting in the wind, continuing to convuince themselves that their 'Emperor' did 'have clothes'...at least from the waist up! :doh :lol:

Then again, this is all waisted energy. We have CURRENT issues to deal with, and we should be looking to be a part of the solution of today rather than trying to finger point and blame for yesterday's mistakes.

 

[Kasmos]

For those of you that haven't seen this already, and for those of you who disregard all claims Clinton made as false accusations, you might want to read this.

http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html

It not only says what things Clinton said that are factual, but also what are either false or exaggerated, so it is not biased towards one party. Read it and then reconsider some of your guy's posts.

By the way, Rice is a moron and as usual gets caught in another lie.

 

[easyt65]

We aready had this discussion, and it was pointed out how factCheck primarily used the 9/11 Report as its source - the same 9/11 commission that did not hear a great deal of testimony from key personnel/operatives in the CIA, who weren't able to see Classified files Sandy Berger stole and shredded, and it was this 9/11 commission that had questionable ties and alliances to certain parites that made their participation questioned as bias.

As I said, everyone has their favorite reports to use to defend their own arguments....which is why I like to look at the ACTUAL eventa and listen to/watch the actions of those who were there themselves, who were the primary players and not those who sought to generate partisan reports later to justify/explain/condemn what went on.