Does anyone believe Clinton on going after bin Laden?

Question

In his interview with Chris Wallace on Sunday, Bill Clinton said that he talked to the CIA and FBI about going after the Taliban in Afghanistan and ultimately Osama bin Laden. Clinton claims "The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.
Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.
But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11.
The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would've had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night."
First of all.... he WAS the president and could have gone into Afghanistan if he was serious about it. Secondly, since when does a president let the CIA or FBI dictate foreign policy?

Here's my source w/transcript

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html

I encourage you to read the whole interview or go to Foxnews.com and watch the video which is even better. Clinton really blew a gasket.

Interesting.... when I ask a question about Clinton, Bush's name keeps coming up. Did I mention Bush in my question?

Answer 1

I love the way he wags his finger! Whenever you see him wagging his finger, that's a "TELL", he's lying!

Answer 2

It was a typical "FOX News" attempt to deflect attention from real current issues just before an election, and Clinton took Wallace to the woodshed.
Clinton was an above-average President, and Bush is the worst since at least Warren G. Harding.

Answer 3

Clinton is a pathological liar. He consulted with the CIA only ONCE. That's ONCE in 8 years re: OSB. He talked with the FBI just a few times. He actually put a wall between the CIA and the FBI, hindering their ability to communicate and exchange security information, thereby putting this country at risk. Clinton got so upset and fingerpointing because Mr. Wallace "struck" a nerve with Bubba. Mr. Wallace was right and Clinton was caught with his pants down yet again.

Answer 4

Yes I do believe Clinton. While the intelligence bureaus don't dictate foreign policy, they have to be relied on for vital information, which has to make its way through the channels to the president. Richard Clarke is probably the most reliable source of how or where that process was impeded at any given time during the Clinton admin. as well as the Bush admin. I think what Clinton was getting at is that his intentions were more noble than that of the present administration, and it does get annoying that certain newspeople with certain biases who are employed by certain networks (Fox) don't address certain questions to President Bush. Clinton admits the failure to get bin Laden during his administration, but acknowledged that it was of utmost importance and he tried. I believe he is sincere in that, and also sincerely wishes his efforts had succeeded. Since then, Bush has proven how inept he can be with no apologies. What was up with demoting Richard Clarke, when he was pushing for what needed to be done? If Chris Wallace wants accountabiIity, let him bark up Bush's tree and ask the same questions. The fact that Clinton showed emotion shows me 1) an honest reaction, and 2) indignation at the obvious, typical, petty right-wing fingerpointing to divert attention from the real issues, and from who is now responsible for future successes or failures.
Someone needs to stand up to smirky little jack @s* reporters. Clinton was just reflecting the frustration of the American people who are sick of being strung along on false pretenses by the present admin, and the lack of accountability to the American people.

Answer 5

The question is not whether you believe Clinton -- the War Powers Act is as he said it is.

The question is whether you believe Clarke, who had little good to say about any of them.

What the Bush Administration has never denied is that it pushed Clarke out, and had no interest in going after bin Ladin. It went after Iraqi oil, and it sought to make Iraq a US protectorate, if not colony. If the Green Zone isn't neo-colonial, then what.

Today, Bush will say that bin Laden is irrelevant. But the reason bin Laden is irrelevant is that the Iraq war has created thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of independent cells, each trying to replicate bin Laden.

Why do people still want to fight yesterday's political battles -- against a pensioner with no power whatsoever? On Y! A/R you still see rants about Whitewater and Foster.

It's no wonder that Monica has decamped to London, England.

Answer 6

Clinton was a president who would never in his life commit to using ground troops. He would only launch air wars because he knew opinion would turn on him once American troops started dying. Which is what is happening in Iraq. If the death count was 200 would people want to pull out of Iraq? Now in his defense Clinton was right about one thing, and that is that the Republicans were critical when it came to Clinton launching missiles at Al Qaeda and Iraq in response to attacks or plots against Americans. Republicans were saying that Clinton was using the missile strikes to divert attention away from his infidelity scandals.

Answer 7

Slick Willie was DEFINITELY talking out his @$$. The CIA and FBI certified that bin Laden was a threat after the first World Trade Center bombing, and the government of Sudan had bin Laden and offered to hand him over in 1999. Clinton blew them off. As a result, the U.S.S. Cole had a big hole blown in the side of it and a bunch of my brothers in the Navy died as a result. He's so full of $hit it's a wonder he doesn't squeak going into a turn...

Answer 8

there have been various possibilities to seize Bin weighted down yet Clinton replaced into greater in contact approximately 2 issues that took precedent. First replaced into his legacy which had he dealt with employer might have been super, no longer the somewhat mediocre legacy that he has now. the reason that he did no longer take of employer, he replaced into greater in contact approximately getting laid than his activity. additionally, the discourse approximately his strikes replaced into no longer approximately intercourse, however the actuality that he lied below oath approximately it. His strikes with Lewinsky replaced into the reason he lied, yet replaced into no longer the concern. the concern replaced into that he lied and subjoined perjury if so. It replaced into the reason that he lost he license to prepare regulation in Arkansas. it is the concern with the arguments from the left, they continuously attempt to divert the communicate remote from the actual themes. actual concern, perjury, the lefts concern, intercourse. below are some hyperlinks that talk Clinton's failure to take Bin weighted down whilst the prospect arose. there is not any protection for all of us of any occasion that screws up this undesirable.

Answer 9

I don't believe anything that comes out of Bill Clinton's mouth. Great question, you should get some interesting answers!! It is about time Clinton have to answer for something.

Edit : Amen to what Ruth said and to Lisa's remarks, I see Bush at least trying to do something about Bin Laden.

Answer 10

Actually Chris Wallace was blubbering and fumbling. What a joke he is. To think Clinton can be manipulated like the bumbling idiot Bush.

Clinton was concise and forceful and put the reporter, the cons and the neocons in their place.

Answer 11

No. I don't believe Clinton recognized the threat in the first place.

Check out all of the military down-sizing which occurred during the Clinton administration (where do you think the so-called balanced budget came from)?

If Clinton had perceived a threat of terrorism to the safety of our country, he would have bolstered the military, not down-sized it.