Still blame Clinton for not catching Bin Laden???

Question

Those who believe in the Clinton – Osama myth: Read these and enlighten yourselves!!!!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408120011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130004

I see that the Neocons can’t see the truth even when it is presented to you. Racist Beaner…YOU grow up!!! With a disgusting name like that.

Racist Beaner: your uninformed questions speak for them self....go try to fool someone else as gullible as yourself!

Answer 1

just some more info, you know for fun

HEMMER: You paint a picture of a White House obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Why do you believe that was the case?

CLARKE: Because I was there and I saw it. You know, the White House is papering over facts, such as, in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Even though they knew at the time from me, from the FBI, from the CIA that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

HEMMER: The White House says that before they even arrived at the White House, the previous administration was obsessed with nothing. I want you to look at a picture that we saw last week from NBC News -- an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan. They allege, at the time, why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out. This was August of 2000. ( Full story)

CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States and around the world at the millennium period, they stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia, they stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world, they authorized covert lethal action by the CIA against al Qaeda, they retaliated with cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan, they got sanctions against Afghanistan from the United Nations. There was a great deal the administration did, even though at the time, prior to 9/11, al Qaeda had arguably not done a great deal to the United States.

If you look at the eight years of the Clinton administration, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of fewer than 50 Americans over those eight years. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 Americans were killed in Lebanon and there was no retaliation. Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed on Pan-Am 103 and there was no retaliation.

I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal. In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this "little terrorist" [Osama] bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

HEMMER: It seems like this could go for pit for pat, almost a ping-pong match. [I'd like to] show you a couple of images of the USS Cole bombing in October 2000, a few weeks before the election that saw George Bush take the White House. Prior to that, August 1998 in Tanzania and Kenya, the U.S. Embassy bombings there. If you want to go back to Beirut, Lebanon, the early 1980's, the White House is now saying go back to 1998, back to the fall of 2000.

CLARKE: Right, and what happened after 1998? There was a military retaliation against al Qaeda and the covert action program was launched, the U.N. sanctions were obtained. The administration did an all-out effort compared to what the Bush administration did. The Bush administration did virtually nothing during the first months of the administration, prior to 9/11.

President Bush himself said in a book when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said "I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus, it was the focus of my team." He is saying that. President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say this.

HEMMER: In part, what the White House would come back and say, the reason why they suggest that statement, is because of what was stated yesterday in the Washington Post. [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice wrote in part, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." Is she wrong?

CLARKE: Yes, it's counter factual. We presented the plan to her, told her the plan, told her the strategy. We presented it to her before she was even sworn into office. There are lots of witnesses.

It's just, you know, they're trying to divert attention from the truth here. They're trying to get me involved in personal vendettas around all sorts of attacks on my personality and they've got all sorts of people on the taxpayers' rolls going around attacking me and attacking the book and writing talking points and distributing them to radio talk shows and what not around the country.

Now, let's just look at the facts. The administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior to 9/11, despite the fact that the CIA director was telling them virtually every day that there was a major threat.

HEMMER: I am hearing from some families of the victims from 9/11, they're saying if it was such an urgent matter, if you truly believed the White House botched the war on terror beginning on September 12, why now on such a critical national, international issue do you write the book in March of 2004?

CLARKE: I wrote the book as soon as I retired from government. It was finished last fall and it sat in the White House for months, because as a former White House official my book has to be reviewed by the White House for security purposes. This book could have come out a long time ago, months and months ago if the White House hadn't sat on it.

HEMMER: The White House is saying they only check the facts when it comes to the book itself and whether or not they are sacrificing national security.

CLARKE: They took months and months to do it. They're saying, why is the book coming out at the beginning of the election? I didn't want it to come out at the beginning of the election. I wanted it to come out last year. They're the reason, because they took so long to clear it.

HEMMER: I want to go back to Condoleezza Rice yesterday on CNN's "American Morning." This is how she phrased this alleged conversation [between Clarke and Bush] that happened on September 12, 2001.

START VIDEOTAPE

Rice: I can't recollect such a conversation, but it's not surprising that the president wanted to know if we were going to retaliate, against whom are we going the retaliate. Of course, Iraq, given our history and the fact that they tried to kill a former president was a likely suspect.

END VIDEOTAPE

HEMMER: There are now questions about this conversation, what happened what did not happen. On CBS's "60 minutes" Sunday night, you said, "Well, there's a lot of blame to go around and I probably deserve some blame, too." How do you blame yourself?

CLARKE: Well, I don't blame myself for making up the conversation. I didn't hallucinate it. There are four eyewitnesses to the conversation that the president had with me. It's very convenient that Dr. Rice and the president are now having a memory lapse, a senior moment. The four eyewitnesses recall vividly what happened and agree with my interpretation.

This is not the president saying do everything, look at everybody, look at Iran, look at Hezbollah. This is the president in a very intimidating way, finger in my face saying, I want a paper on Iraq and this attack. Everyone in the room got the same impression and everyone in the room recalls it vividly. So I'm not making it up. I don't have to make it up. It's part of a pattern that this administration -- even before they came into office -- was out to get Iraq even though Iraq was not threatening the United States.

HEMMER: Tomorrow you will be publicly testifying on Capitol Hill before the 9/11 commission. What is your message to them, that we will hear tomorrow?

CLARKE: I think the message is that the United States mechanisms -- the FBI, CIA, DOD, the White House -- failed during both the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration.




with regards to the Abc piece.....
its fiction, and a piece of ####

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070008

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609080001

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070007

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609080003

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070001

Answer 2

People seem to forget that George Bush Sr., and George Jr., have been in very close contact with the Bin Ladens for years. As a matter of fact, they have been considered family by the Bin Ladens. You forget. They are both in the oil business. During 9/11, the only plane allowed in the air after the attack, were the entire Bin Laden family. They were being flown to safety. If you want to know more about this subject, read the book, "Dude, Wheres My Country". That will clear up alot of doubt who was involved in that attack.

Answer 3

The attack on the USA on the 11.9.2001 was probably the result of Muslims' bitterness over sanctions & wars on Iraq, combiined with Islamic terrorists being encouraged by the regimes of the Father, the Son and Peyronie's Disease helping Islamic terrorists in former Yugoslavia.

Answer 4

I am not sure who,what when and how you people think. But Clinton was suppose to have his very best out there looking for Bin Laden. Just like Bush is suppose to have his best out there looking. This current government may not want Bin Laden found. You guy run your mouths without your brain in gear. American need a scape goat and it real easy to use someone that you can't seem to find, if for no other reason then to cover your own excuses for your failures. All you have to do to find this information to be correct is to read American history. It has been proven that your votes don't mean crap. How do I know that to be true The Bushes just stole the presidency. And used a republican Filled supreme to help them steal it. When are you my fellow Americans going to wake up and smell the Roses...................

Answer 5

Bill Clinton did more harm than anything to this country when he let his personal affairs interfere with the running of this country. I could care less that he got a BJ from a young ugly intern, but when he lied about it and mad a media circus out of the whole affair, he should have had the balls to resign, but because he did not, the running of national security to a back seat to his own personal affairs. That is why Clinton is 95% responsible for 9/11.

Answer 6

I've heard Clinton say that the US was offered bin Laden but he rejected the offer because there was nothing to hold him on in the US. He says

""'Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

"'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 take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato.'"

Remember that 1996 was several years after the first attempt on the WTC.

So the report on mediamatters which is as liberal as moveon.org is correct in what is says, but doesn't give the whole story. Clinton claims he mispoke... or did he?

Answer 7

I am not going to believe a reporter on Ted Turner's payroll. Read Chapter 4 of the 9/11 Commision Report and form your own opinion. You'll be pleasently surprised and dissapointed by the years of planning and inaction that went into losing Bin Laden. Oh by the way it's not a myth.

Answer 8

Why would Clinton give a speech admitting it, then take it back? He's not that stupid. He wouldn't have owned up to it, if it weren't true. Still, it's not that relevant. The fact is those terrorists were here prior to the swearing in of Bush and neither of these guy did anything.

Answer 9

I don't think Bill Clinton was president, I think he played at it like a child playing house. His negligence in fighting terrorism for eight years allowed the plotting and planning for 9-11. I think he squandered his presidency, and is now fighting with ABC to protect what he thinks is his legacy. He will always be a liberal icon, no one can take that from you, but he was not a good president. Nothing you can offer me on-line would convince me differently.

Answer 10

I don't blame Clinton for not catching Bin Laden I blame him for not properly dealing with Bin Laden and letting a known terrorist build strength. As for Rush, he doesn't speak for majority of Republicans as all Democrates are lead to think. I find it interesting to note that Clinton misspoke!

Answer 11

Why would I want to read that drivel off of mediamatters. Clinton AND Bush both get blame in failing to prevent 9-11.