Clinton: I Would Have Attacked Bin Laden.

Hello?!
Despite this being a NewsMax, argh, article, bear in mind that what it indicates can be verified easily.

Ex-president Bill Clinton now says he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks – if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the al-Qaida mastermind was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

"I desperately wish that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole," Clinton tells New York magazine this week. "Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."

"I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11," he added. "But it certainly would have complicated it.”

Despite his failure to launch such an attack, Clinton said he saw the danger posed by bin Laden much more clearly than did President Bush.

"I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did," he told New York magazine.

Clinton: I Would Have Attacked Bin Laden

Simply incredible.
More 'would have' or 'could have' or 'should have' from good ole' Bill. :shk:
On a side note here, since many feel that Hillary is running for President in 2008, does this mention by Bill aim to solidify or validate her centrist leaning platform?





seekerof

He had 8 years to do so. His words ring hollow.
Wonder if he is trying to sound hawkish so that
Hillary will look tougher for her 2008 run? Either
that or he's suffering from dementia and can't
remember that he had 8 years to go after UBL
and he failed to do so.

Military folks hate Hillary. When she went to Iraq/Afghanastan
for that Thanksgiving photo op the military nicknamed her
helicopter BROOMSTICK ONE.

No laughing matter but couldn't Bush say, I wouldn't have (not) done Monica Lewinsky?

Right after the we found out that there was a special military group tracking the 9/11 terrorists and it was his white house that failed due to P.C. issuses, which we are still plagued with.

He's a hyprocrit abd hopefully hillary is embarassed and will never become president!

I don't know about Clinton, but I can tell you, had I been president and gotten good information from the FBI and CIA that Bin Laden was behind the attack on the Cole, I would have gone after him, too! What's the big surprise here?

Not only that, but with the information that has come to light in the 9/11 Commission Report, I would most likely have prevented 9/11, too!

Any competent person with a desire to do so, could have prevented 9/11 and no doubt, would have, with the information they had. "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US" Yeah, there's a flag.

Bush is the only person I know that has let Bin Laden slip through our fingers more times than I can count.

In his defense, and believe me im no fan of clintons but he did lob cruise missiles into several of those camps in afghanistan.

Not only was the US and its inertest attacked multiple times by Al Quadea during Clinton’s terms but the white house back then was offered Bin Laden by Sudan and they refused it because of some freaking legal limbo.

What he is saying now mean nothing, when he had the chance he failed to act multiple times period.

In his defense, and believe me im no fan of clintons but he did lob cruise missiles into several of those camps in afghanistan

Yes he hit huts full of donkeys, because the camp was deserted by the times the missiles hit.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
In his defense, and believe me im no fan of clintons but he did lob cruise missiles into several of those camps in afghanistan

Yep ... he blew up empty tents. Millions of dollars in missiles and
he blew up a few 10$ tents. But you bring up a good point.
Clinton clearly knew UBL was a problem. Clinton can't claim ignorance
of UBL. So we are back to this ... Clinton failed to get UBL. He can't
say that he would have 'gone after him' ... history shows that
Clinton knew of UBL and his threat and that all Clinton did was toss
missiles at empty tents.

'I would have attacked UBL...' yeah, right.

I can see Clinton sending massive amounts of troops into
Afghanistan to chase UBL down. NOT! He used the missiles
(and failed) because he was afraid of confrontation in the
Middle East and because Clinton had cut military spending
and military projects to the point of weakening America ...

Just remember, the moment G.W. Bush took office, he had access to every last shred of information and intelligence that Bill Clinton did. Bush had ample time prior to 9/11 to act on the threat posed by Bin Laden and Al Queda, and did nothing. Clinton may have missed his opportunities to nail Bin Laden, and may also have been pre-occupied with avoiding legal entanglements, but in his defense, he also had a rabid Republican-led congress on his a$$ 24/7, and he never enjoyed the congressional support that Bush does now. Clinton was forced to focus too much of his time and energies on dealing with the likes of Newt Gingrich and his republican cronies, which obviously made him overly cautious.

And guess what? Here it is - post 9/11 and two freakin' wars later and that buffoon Bush still can't manage to produce Bin Laden. He's not even a very good war monger.............

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Pyros]

Amazing, with hindsight Clinton would have tried to get Bin Laden.

Its like Chamberlin saying 'Maybe i should have done something about Hitler before he invaded Poland...'

Last I checked, Clinton had plenty of evidence Al Qaeda was behind the USS Cole bombing. He's an idiot, plain and simple.

I doubt Hillary would get the nomination.

Clinton certainly is to blame for his limp-wristed response to the attack on the Cole, and if he had delivered a thorough reprisal 9/11 would of have been just another pleasant sunny day. But while Clinton is rightfully assigned blame for failing to neutralize bin laden, the odvious questions of "Why" go intentionally unexplored:

MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, we didn't try to assassinate him. What we tried to do, sir, is to do two different things. First, to either capture him and take him to a place where he could face justice or to provide the US military with precise targeting locations so the military could kill him. If you look at the 9/11 Commission report here in the United States, we provided that information to the Clinton Administration eight to 10 times and it was never acted on. By all rights, sir, if there was fairness in the world bin Laden today would be just a smouldering memory.

TONY JONES: Indeed, there was one occasion where you had him targeted for a cruise missile attack, but it was called off, I believe, because there were members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates being entertained by him at the time.

MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, in fact the princes were entertaining bin Laden. It was the other way about. And it was more than just cancelled. The National Security Council warned the government of the United Arab Emirates at the time. Clearly they put a prince above the safety of Americans and that's pretty much traditional in American - the governing elite tends to think more about what the world thinks of us than actually protecting Americans.

TONY JONES: I gather you'd have pressed the button without any qualms?

MICHAEL SCHEUER: Sir, the world is lousy with princes and I'm a Democrat with a small D. He would have been yesterday's news.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Originally posted by Vajrayana
Clinton certainly is to blame for his limp-wristed response to the attack on the Cole, and if he had delivered a thorough reprisal 9/11 would of have been just another pleasant sunny day. But while Clinton is rightfully assigned blame for failing to neutralize bin laden, the odvious questions of "Why" go intentionally unexplored:

MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, we didn't try to assassinate him. What we tried to do, sir, is to do two different things. First, to either capture him and take him to a place where he could face justice or to provide the US military with precise targeting locations so the military could kill him. If you look at the 9/11 Commission report here in the United States, we provided that information to the Clinton Administration eight to 10 times and it was never acted on. By all rights, sir, if there was fairness in the world bin Laden today would be just a smouldering memory.

TONY JONES: Indeed, there was one occasion where you had him targeted for a cruise missile attack, but it was called off, I believe, because there were members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates being entertained by him at the time.

MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, in fact the princes were entertaining bin Laden. It was the other way about. And it was more than just cancelled. The National Security Council warned the government of the United Arab Emirates at the time. Clearly they put a prince above the safety of Americans and that's pretty much traditional in American - the governing elite tends to think more about what the world thinks of us than actually protecting Americans.

TONY JONES: I gather you'd have pressed the button without any qualms?

MICHAEL SCHEUER: Sir, the world is lousy with princes and I'm a Democrat with a small D. He would have been yesterday's news.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

I quess Clinton may got orders from ''above'' to let him live, because they needed him for some future world dominating project

You guys are delusional, nobody in either the Clinton or Bush administration is actually out to get Bin Laden, if we were, we wouldn't have had CIA Agents meeting with him in an American Hospital in Dubai just a few weeks before 9-11, and long after it was supposed that he was behing the attack on the USS Cole. We turned down numerous offers of his extridition from several nations, including Afghanistan. Clinton this and Clinton that... wake up. Bitter Political enemies, or partners in the Crimes of BCCI and Drug Running through Mena AK? Here's some clues...









































I can go on and on with the pictures, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of them. Clinton was a Bush Family Lackey, and we have been under the Bush Administration since Ronnie Reagan took office.

Edit: Look for yourself...

[edit on 16-8-2005 by twitchy]

Please don’t make me laugh, your showing pictures of Clinton and Bush in public together as evidence for some terrorism conspiracy? LOL I suppose you want them to have to be restrained form each other when pledging support for the Tsunami relief?

Bitter Political enemies, or partners in the Crimes of BCCI and Drug Running through Mena AK?

Good post twitchy. Of course the only way guys like Clinton and Reagan got to run for president was as Bush Sr's lapdogs. Amazing how anybody thinks otherwise. Mena, AK, as you mention, is where weapons were secretly manufactured under Clinton and run down to central america in return for crack coc aine which was sold to poor Americans in California and elsewhere to pay for the destabilization ops down south. Gary Webb's book "Dark Alliance" is a good place to start investigating these connections. Webb, of course, was "suicided" and had two bullet wounds in his head.

As for "Shill" Clinton, he'll always have to live with the 1994 deaths of more than one million Rwandan men, women and children, hacked to pieces with machetes. He knew it was going to happen (they all did) and did not help those people. This event bothers me more than our current Iraq war, frankly.

en.wikipedia.org...

This comment about Bin Laden is laughable. Clinton was content to get bj's in office while watching people die. He wouldn't have chased Osama, and even if he tried to, he'd get slapped down by his master, George Herbert Walker Bush.


[edit on 16-8-2005 by smallpeeps]

Thats like saying BOTH carter and Reagan knew about the hostage taking ideas of iran or the gas lines of the 70's before they happened because they had their picture taken. Sometimes a picture is just a picture. Not everything should have conspiracy written all over it.











[edit on 16-8-2005 by 12 12 2012]

Do I detect irrelevant Clinton Bashing and rampant buck passing in this thread why yes I believe I do....
Why stop at Clinton why not pass the buck even further back to the president who green lighted the funding of the Mujahideen back during the Cold War?
Of course that would interfere with the worship of Ronald Raygun so prevalent in the right....

Carter was not in on the Bush power circle, but Reagan and Co. did arrange to hold back the hostages to sabotage Carter. This is known.

But yes, presidents will usually have lots of pictures taken together and that doesn't mean much. The written (and surpressed) word, however, will tell you all you need to know.

To my knowledge, it is not beyond anything but a theory that Reagan's people arranged the hostage release for political gain. If there is proof to make it well known, please, give me a link. I hate having missing links!

Carter, Bush and Clinton are members of the same groups. They are working for the same masters. Reagan was no member, but he was controlled by them as they were heavy in his cabinet.

If you want to read a first-hand account of Clinton missing the opportunity to bag Osama, read "Dereliction of Duty" by Col. Patterson (ret.). A good read.

Myh little ol' opinion? If they wanted Osama, they'd have him right now. Osama may not know it, but he is very important to the continued building of the NWO.