Clinton Ambushed on Fox News

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 25 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]324811[/snapback]</div>

By your lack of response you are confirming mr <strike>clinton</strike>Bush did nothing during his 8 <strike>years</strike>months to respond to (many more) Americans being murdered and attacked by terror[ists] - thank you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 29 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]325520[/snapback]</div>

So they did NOTHING. Which is the correct answer. And that is why clinton blew his cool with chris wallace. he will be looked upon by history as a failed president for not protecting American(s) and American interests - maybe the first president to do so. I keep forgetting the first sentence of the Oath of Office for the President - maybe you could refresh my memory for me...

I still canNOT get over this fact - as an American - how he did nothing - just sat back - treated it like a law enforcement issue - created barriers to prevent us from acting - shrunk the intelligence services and the defense budget...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 29 2006, 08:57 AM) [snapback]325540[/snapback]</div>

Well, you're half right. At least you finally admitted that Bush did nothing. So I assume you're apalled, as an American, at Bush's inaction?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 28 2006, 11:23 PM) [snapback]325414[/snapback]</div>

Very well stated & informative. Some things you have in there I wasn't aware of, being that I was a self-absorbed 20-something for most of Clinton's administration. Was it the lack of certification from the CIA that legally prevented him from doing something? Or did that legal precedent come from a different area?

I suppose anyone claiming Clinton should have done more is also saying he should have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress and ask them to give him the powers that Bush was given in the aftermath of 9/11. I'm sure that request would have gone over real well at the time.

Thanks for the enlightening post!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 29 2006, 10:17 AM) [snapback]325550[/snapback]</div>

clinton did not need cia verification - whatever that means - since we all know they have a long and cherished history of being inaccurate.

and you can trace the entire clinton presidency and find republican support for each and every military action clinton took - they implored him to do more - not less. this iraq war and war on terror is the first time in recent American history there is partison political bickering - even during the 50+ year cold war both parties were unified for the most part. even vietnam and korea and WWII. kosovo too - etc, etc.

and clinton did not have to go to congress to act. he shot the one cruise missile without going to congress and when he did it and even though it was an act of political cover the repubs did not play partisan politics with it.

and if he did go to congress - what makes you think the repubs would have said no. name ONE instance when a president went to congress in an attempt to PROTECT America[ns] and was denied what he wanted. I cant think of ONE time that happened.

so in the end - clinton dropped the big ball for 8 years - a first for any sitting president - and he realizes that now and is trying to re-write history.

 

Bill Clinton made dramatic policy shifts in our intelligence agencies by gutting them. He put restraints on them that caused major gaps in information and resources.

Here is just one example: "USAF SR-71's Retired. Clinton kills the Blackbirds by a Veto of Funding. On October 14, 1997 President Clinton vetoed funding for the SR-71 and thus has effectively killed all USAF Military operations of the SR-71."

He left the U.S. much weaker and much more vulnerable than we were before he came to power...

Best regards,
NoSpam

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 29 2006, 09:42 AM) [snapback]325564[/snapback]</div>

This CNN story contradits the above:

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

I specially enjoyed/cringed this quote:

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.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 29 2006, 10:16 AM) [snapback]325549[/snapback]</div>

Yes, to the best of my knowledge bush did nothing pre-emptive or in response to any acts of terror - which i dont think happened between him taking office and 9/10/01. if you can tell me any acts of terror perpetrated against America[ns] during that time frame i would be interested.

my point is that clinton had a dozen plus acts of terror in which Americans were murdered and he did not respond once! i am waiting for someone tell me what mr clinton did in response to WTC I 1993 with the murder of 6 Americans, the wounding of over 1,000 and the attempted murder of 50,000!!!! I will give you an additional tip - he did not even go to one hospital bed to visit even one victim nor did he even mention in until 3 weeks later during a radio address that centered around the economy. Tell me what you think of that action or should i say inaction. In my humble opinion if that were FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan - something would have been done FOR SURE. To this day i am left, like so many other Americans, wondering why mr clinton did NOTHING - and if that inaction strengthened the will and determination of our enemy (rhetorical question).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 29 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]325654[/snapback]</div>

The reason for doing something pre-emptive is to prevent an attack... like the one that happened on Sept. 11. Or do you think it's sufficient to merely retaliate when others attack us?

He captured the perps, among other things (see below).

That is because you are being fed mis-information. Clinton ordered missile strikes against OBL. Clinton's anti-terrorism team met every week to discuss terrorism, and specifically, OBL and AQ. Clinton's anti-terrorism team prepared a strategy document and gave it to Bush's, who apparently have not read it as they still do not realize they have it. These arguments have been repeated over and over, but I guess if you ignore them, they didn't happen.

Here are some excerpts from the strategy document given to Bush by Clinton:
"In 1998, the U.S. Armed Forces carried out strikes against a chemical weapons target and an active terrorist base operated by Usama bin Ladin, whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans."

"Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice."

On the other hand, W did worse than nothing. He misdirected our military into an unnecessary war, leaving us weak, strengthening our enemies, and in particular, providing a training ground and recruitment fodder for al Queda, and currently costing U.S. taxpayers nearly $2,000,000,000 a week! Yet, with the Republicans' full control of the House and Senate, and the backing of virtually the rest of the world, the mastermind of 9/11 remains a free man.

 

To be absolutely fair to Bush he really didn't have the whole 8 months, First he had to put his team together, get them trained and up to speed, I suspect that takes 1-3 months to get them there, then his team had to replace all the missing keys and other vandalism left over by the Clinton team. Then the outcry over the election took a couple months to iron-out and probably another month to recover from, so to be fair Bush probably only had 2-4 months.
In addition don't forget the previous Prez left the economy in a shambles and that was what was foremost on everyone’s mind at the time. So when something did happen he was actually out front doing something and not Golfing or getting a BJ in the Oval. The result has been, no attacks on USA soil like there has been elsewhere in the world and like there was after the first attack on America during the Clinton years.

Wildkow

p.s. BTW I have heard it from many sources that Clinton acts like that when he is caught in a lie. He does do a good "Mock Outrage". BaHaHahahahahaha . . . ahhhhh,..... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 29 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]325828[/snapback]</div>

I'm sure as evidenced by the vandalism done by the "transition team" from the Clinton Administration they were more than cooperative.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 29 2006, 07:41 PM) [snapback]325836[/snapback]</div>

Oh yes! That horrible vandalism MY GOD how did they ever work through it! Imagine the sheer terror of finding the entire letter W missing from the keyboard!! How did they ever survive!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Besides that, in 8 months, Bush would have needed at least 3 vacations. :lol:

 

I doubt Clinton was really 'ambushed' on Fox by Chris Wallace. I suspect Clinton knew full well that, given the timing of the ABC special that was slanted against his administration, he was going to be asked about bin Laden and was just waiting for the opportunity to lay into someone about it on a public forum. As someone else stated, it certainly wouldn't hurt his wife's political future, either.

That said, the whole 'whose fault is it about not getting bin Laden' debate is quite inane when the whole scenario is reviewed. To begin with, prior to 9/11, although bin Laden was certainly a terrorist, his activities just weren't enough to get Congress and the American public behind what would be necessary to actually get him, i.e., a full-scale invasion (or at least a well-funded assault) into what would likely be an uncooperative Middle Eastern country, that being Afghanistan.

It should also be noted that up until Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, bin Laden was technically a US buddy because he was helping the Afghan resistance against the invading Soviet Union. In fact, bin Laden offered to expel Saddam from Kuwait with his people from Afghanistan after the Soviets had withdrawn, but the Saudis declined, instead allowing Bush 1 to do it. This is what really set the wheels in motion as far as bin Laden targeting American interests and why it's so idiotic to hear Bush 2 describe bin Laden and al-Qaeda's motivation in their US terrorist attacks as being because 'they hate our freedoms'. Bin Laden couldn't give a s**t about US 'freedoms'. Bin Laden targeting the US is simply targeting Saudi Arabia by proxy.

If anyone is at fault for not having a timely 'war on terror', it is Reagan for not effectively dealing with the fallout from the Iranian revolution (and hostage crisis) which deposed the Shah on November 4, 1979. This was the first time in history that a radical Islamic religious sect actually became a state government in the Middle East and the timing was unfortunate because it effectively ended Jimmy Carter's presidency and handed it to Ronald Reagan, who would get the hostages released through a sleazy 'arms for hostages' deal.

To make matters worse, Reagan's answer to the October 23, 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut (for which Iran was likely responsible and killed 241 US military personnel) was to 'cut and run' by pulling the US troops out of Lebanon instead of invading Iran when he would have had the best opportunity to do so. While there were other opportunities (like Bush 1's chasing the retreating Iraqis to their border after the Kuwati invasion and the later bombing of the USS Cole and US embassies during Clinton's administration), the question that needs to be debated is whether bin Laden would have eventually became a terrorist leader/organizor capable of carrying out the WTC attacks and would Bush 2 be calling Iran a part of 'the axis of evil' that cannot be allowed to get nuclear technology if Reagan had invaded Iran when he had the chance during his tenure as POTUS?

That's why it just tickles me when I hear all the arguments from right-wingers that it's 'Clinton's fault and not Bush's' that we didn't get bin Laden when he had the chance. As someone else said, given the circumstances, neither of the Bushes nor Clinton really had either the motivation or the ability to 'get bin Laden' prior to 9/11.

If any US president is to blame for not doing anything about the entire Middle Eastern mess when there was a decent opportunity to do so, it's Reagan. You know, the guy that a lot of Republicans love to hold up as being 'the greatest president of the 20th century'...

 

Clinton is the smartest and best US politician alive today. He clearly knew the core question from Wallace would be why didn't he do more to get the terrorists after multiple acts of war by Bin Laden during his watch. Its simply about vanity. He is attempting to guard the most important thing to any ex-president, his legacy.

I believe Carl Rove is somewhere in the background operating the puppet strings again. Lastly, hasn't anyone noticed how if Hillary gets elected President that either a Bush or Clinton will have been in the White House (as President or VP) for 36 straight years ? Yikes !

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 25 2006, 06:15 AM) [snapback]324612[/snapback]</div>

That seems like a legitimate question to me should Wallace have not asked it? To bad they didn’t have you or Tony as moderators you could have just solved the problem by banning Wallace. There problem solved in the usual demoncratic way. :lol:

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 29 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]325828[/snapback]</div>

First meeting Nov. 29th FBI rules will not let any background checks for staff begin until there is a clear winner. During the transition from Bush Sr. to Clinton a few background checks began towards the end of Nov and Dec but almost all did not start until Jan. 1992. There was no controversy as to the winner that time so I doubt that Bush Jr's background check for his staff began any sooner and most probably quite a bit later. Therefore my initial timeline is probably the more accurate but nice try anyway.

Wildkow



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Sep 29 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]325925[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, so smart he got caught on the recieving end of a BJ in the Oval Office. Then he tried to argue with the court over what the definition of "is" is, :lol: yep he's one smart cookie! Too bad he does all his thinking with his penis!

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 29 2006, 07:17 AM) [snapback]325550[/snapback]</div>

President Clinton says that he was limited by the fact that the CIA wouldn't certify that Bin Laden's group was responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole, and I'm accepting that at face value. There are complex legal issues involved when our President is making a decision to kill someone, and I know I wouldn't be able to pull the trigger unless I was absolutely sure. I haven't seen an analysis that says it is true or not, but I suspect if it was not true the masses would be gathering with torches and pitchforks.

The Clinton Administration did increase domestic wiretaps after Oklahoma City in what a few people called alarming numbers. President Clinton now says he doesn't recall ever being turned down by the FISA court in requesting wiretaps, but AFAIK the proceedings are private so we don't really know. The "Big Brother" database program full of "political enemies" was compared by Republicans to the Nixon "enemies list".

There was even talk among the rabid right, by guys like radio host George Putnam, that President Clinton would try to declare a state of emergency right before the elections, suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, and stay in office. Sound familiar?

What we need is a dispassionate examination of the current situation and detailed suggestions on how to deal with the threat of terrorists. We don't get that from politicians because they have to paint their opponents as "out of the mainstream" or "dangerous to our liberty". It won't change, because its been going on since the first real contested election in this country, when John Adams ("He will make himself King!") lost a second term to Thomas Jefferson ("He is a godless atheist!)




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Sep 29 2006, 08:02 PM) [snapback]325893[/snapback]</div>

Uh ... you do know that President Reagan didn't take office until 1981, don't you?

And why did the Iranian Revolution happen in the first place? I think you can make the argument that President Carter, with his "no support for dictators" policy, created the crisis that removed a friendly dictator and gave us the first radical Islamic country with its unfriendly dictator.

I do agree about Lebanon, though. At the time, I thought we should have done more than lob shells from a destroyer off the coast.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 30 2006, 02:21 AM) [snapback]325943[/snapback]</div>

January, 1981, to be precise.

Jimmy Carter had brokered the fragile Camp David Accords between Anwar Sadat and Menachum Begin on September 17, 1978, a little over a year before the Iranian Hostage Crisis. There's no doubt that this had an effect on his decision making in the Middle East (specifically Iran). Carter certainly didn't want to take any extreme action against Iran that would upset the Camp David Accords, on which he had worked so hard to accomplish.

And the problem wasn't Carter's 'no support for dictators' policy, either, which is fundamentally sound. The problem was that he had no plan when those dictatorships (particularly those that had been established through US 'false flag' operations) collapsed and worse, radical, religous sects took over in a coup.

But it is true that Carter had a year to deal with the Hostage Crisis before being defeated by Reagan, so, yes, as far as which Democrat POTUS to blame for an inability to effectively address terrorism, it would be Carter (not Clinton).

Reagan still bears the most responsibility for a benign US anti-terrorism policy, though, because, if for no other reason, the situation was patently obvious for the full eight years of his administration, whereas it was at a critical state for only one of Carter's. Reagan's entire foreign policy consisted mainly of being a maniacal, all-consuming, anti-Communism fixation (rivaled only by Nixon's) and was what distracted his administation from the real Middle Eastern terrorist threat.

What's most ironic about this is that the current Bush Administration is filled with ex-Reagan and ex-Bush 1 people (and at the most senior levels) who had a chance to deal with terrorism when they were with those administrations and didn't do it back then when they had the chance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Sep 30 2006, 03:59 AM) [snapback]325963[/snapback]</div>

The most important threat in the world at that time was the USSR. President Reagan won the Cold-War. We don't give it much thought any more, but, those were scary times because of the nuclear threat of the USSR.

The main source of support for terrorism was Libya. Reagan boldly took care of that problem and now Libya is no threat. Reagan deserves much more credit for what he did than you are giving him.

Best regards,
NoSpam