President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws (1 Viewer)

[aps]

Let's go back to July 1996.

It's amazing how times have changed, isn't it? If a republican president wants something from a republican congress--he gets it. If it's a democratic president who wants something from a republican congress--he gets nothing.

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996
Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue." . . .

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

 

[tecoyah]

Let's go back to July 1996.

It's amazing how times have changed, isn't it? If a republican president wants something from a republican congress--he gets it. If it's a democratic president who wants something from a republican congress--he gets nothing.

I remeber that....and if memory serves I was rather pleased they stopped him from eavesdropping. Didnt much care for the Idea then.....but I do see it as a good Idea now....as long as its Legal.

 

[aps]

I remeber that....and if memory serves I was rather pleased they stopped him from eavesdropping. Didnt much care for the Idea then.....but I do see it as a good Idea now....as long as its Legal.

I agree. I just don't like the republicans trying to label Clinton as soft on terrorism.

 

[Stinger]

I agree. I just don't like the republicans trying to label Clinton as soft on terrorism.

He was, his legislation was soft and his direct actions were almost non-existent. but typical of Clinton, all talk no action. Remember how he was often "praised" because he talked about things, but people forgot it takes action to get them done.

 

[tecoyah]

He was, his legislation was soft and his direct actions were almost non-existent. but typical of Clinton, all talk no action. Remember how he was often "praised" because he talked about things, but people forgot it takes action to get them done.

Dude....I understand you're upset about Clinton and your Mom, He!! I'd be a bit p!ssed as well, But did you even TRY to understand what the article stated. This inability you show to grasp the Politics at the time (Clinton became a lame duck due to Scandal), let alone the far lower threat level Bin Laden posed until the final years of the Clinton White House is really getting Old. If you cant at the minimum, open your eyes to the realities of the Time, do not be suprised when those of us that can do not take your ignorance seriously.

 

[Stinger]

Dude....I understand you're upset about Clinton and your Mom, He!! I'd be a bit p!ssed as well, But did you even TRY to understand what the article stated. This inability you show to grasp the Politics at the time (Clinton became a lame duck due to Scandal), let alone the far lower threat level Bin Laden posed until the final years of the Clinton White House is really getting Old. If you cant at the minimum, open your eyes to the realities of the Time, do not be suprised when those of us that can do not take your ignorance seriously.

I understand exactly what the article states...............Dude.

And my comments about his all talk and no action go back long before Lewinsky entered the picture.....Dude. If you can't open your eyes to the fact that Bin Laden was MAJOR threat throughout the Clinton years starting with the first attack on the WTT then your ignorance of the matter is blaring.......Dude.

And the more salient point is what did Clinton do with those measures in the bill that passed?

 

[tecoyah]

I understand exactly what the article states...............Dude.

And my comments about his all talk and no action go back long before Lewinsky entered the picture.....Dude. If you can't open your eyes to the fact that Bin Laden was MAJOR threat throughout the Clinton years starting with the first attack on the WTT then your ignorance of the matter is blaring.......Dude.

And the more salient point is what did Clinton do with those measures in the bill that passed?

OK...so you are aware the article points to Republican dismissal of a Clinton attempt to shore up Anti-Terrorism Capabilities.....good. I was quite well aware of Bin Laden during the Clinton Administration, and did not consider him, or his organization (No One I know was aware of the name Al Queda at the time) a major threat to America. Those were different times Stinger, and to look at the past in todays light is disengenuous at best. Mind you...I seriously disliked Clinton, and in fact was republican at the time. But I do not remember Bin Laden being a household name in those times.....perhaps you knew more than I did, Or perhaps you Clinton Bash now....to avoid talking about Bush.

 

[Loki]

OK...so you are aware the article points to Republican dismissal of a Clinton attempt to shore up Anti-Terrorism Capabilities.....good.

With the benifit of hindsight, this legislation would have accomplished......nothing.

I was quite well aware of Bin Laden during the Clinton Administration, and did not consider him, or his organization (No One I know was aware of the name Al Queda at the time) a major threat to America. Those were different times Stinger, and to look at the past in todays light is disengenuous at best.

You're so right. It was an age with far greater problems than obl.

http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/monica.html

Mind you...I seriously disliked Clinton, and in fact was republican at the time.

Gone over to the darkside have you?

 

[tecoyah]

With the benifit of hindsight, this legislation would have accomplished......nothing.



You're so right. It was an age with far greater problems than obl.

http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/monica.html






Gone over to the darkside have you?

Yeah....Gotta admit Bush has pushed me away from that label....I havent really changed though, it would seem the Base has shifted away from me.

 

[Loki]

Yeah....Gotta admit Bush has pushed me away from that label....I havent really changed though, it would seem the Base has shifted away from me.

I don't love the republicans, esp the neocon elements. However, this is a two party system. We don't have that much to choose from. I abandoned the dems over the abortion issue after the birth of my son. I've never looked back.

 

[Stinger]

OK...so you are aware the article points to Republican dismissal of a Clinton attempt to shore up Anti-Terrorism Capabilities.....good.

Actually the Republicans in the Senate sponored the bill and the Senate Dems objected and the bill itself was aimed domestic terrorism not so much catching terrorist in foriegn countries. it was a response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton tied it up with his demands for ineffective measures with the House Republicans wanted remove. he agreed and they passed the bill.

BTW one of the measures the House wanted strip concerned warrantless wiretaps which Clinton wanted. Do you think they were right to do so?

But that is all meaningless to the fact that Clinton then did nothing with it. It is so typical of Clinton, lots of bluster and no action. LOOK AT ME I PASSED TOUGH LEGISLATION. And the fact is he did nothing after the first WTT bombing which WAS all about foriegn terrorist, the REAL threats, not McVie.

Then what did he do?

I was quite well aware of Bin Laden during the Clinton Administration, and did not consider him, or his organization (No One I know was aware of the name Al Queda at the time) a major threat to America.

The Clinton administration certainly did, you don't think someone who is trying to bring down the WTT is a threat.

Those were different times Stinger, and to look at the past in todays light is disengenuous at best.

Why?

Mind you...I seriously disliked Clinton, and in fact was republican at the time. But I do not remember Bin Laden being a household name in those times.....perhaps you knew more than I did, Or perhaps you Clinton Bash now....to avoid talking about Bush.

No, how about to remember how what the current crop of Democrats want to do and how badly it worked. They want to handle it like the Clinton administration, as a crime problem. Well once it's a crime it's too late.