It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton faults Bush on bin Laden

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Boy, howdy! This is rich. Bush has done more to thwart terrorism in his tenure than Clinton would have done in two lifetimes.


Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks.

In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on "Fox News Sunday," the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted "right-wingers" for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.

"But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden's danger. "They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."

Reuters


Here's a good synopsis of Clinton's war on terrorism:


...[T]he al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks had first engaged U.S. troops as early as 1993 when the Clinton administration deployed U.S. military forces to Somalia. Their purpose was humanitarian: to feed the starving citizens of this Muslim land. But, America’s goodwill ambassadors were ambushed by al-Qaeda forces. In a 15-hour battle in Mogadishu, 18 Americans were killed and 80 wounded. One dead U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets in an act calculated to humiliate his comrades and his country.

On February 26, 1993, eight months prior to the Mogadishu attack, al-Qaeda terrorists had struck the World Trade Center for the first time. Their truck bomb made a crater six stories deep, killed six people, and injured more than a thousand. The planners’s intention had been to cause one tower to topple the other and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. It was not only the first major terrorist act ever to take place on U.S. soil, but—in the judgment of a definitive account of the event—”the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted, anywhere, ever.”

Yet, once again, the Clinton administration’s response was to absorb the injury and accept defeat. The president did not even visit the bomb crater or tend to the victims. Instead, America’s commander-in-chief warned against “overreaction.” In doing so, he telegraphed a clear message to his nation’s enemies: We are unsure of purpose and unsteady of hand; we are self-indulgent and soft; we will not take risks to defend ourselves; we are vulnerable.

The al-Qaeda terrorists were listening. In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden told ABC News reporter John Miller:

We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut, when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions [to attack]. We rely on Allah. [emphasis mine]

www.frontpagemag.com...


The steadfast resolve of al Qaeda, the Brady Law, which left a scar on the Second Amendment, and Monica Lewinsky are Clinton's legacy. He has a lot of room to talk.

To be fair, Reagan's putting the Marines in Lebanon in an impossible mission and then pulling them out was a huge mistake that has reverberated through the decades, along with the fiasco a decade earlier which was called Vietnamization.


[edit on 2006/9/23 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Pointing fingers never solved anything, unless they are pointed at a time machine. Being a president of any country carries the burden of being blamed for all good, and all bad.

I will be bold and say that the US should choose it's intrusions with more foresight. I believe the world needs a superpower to look to for aide in a time of crisis, be it war, famine, epidemic, etc. But every president has their black-list of wrong-doings.

We just need to spread love through peace and example. Not by the barral of the gun.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,"

Ghandi



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Grady, I just finished reading The Looming Tower, which gives a pretty heft account of the rise of Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Zawahiri and, according to the book, Al Qaeda wasn't actually involved in Somalia. It seems they were there, small group actually, and they had already left when the americans were ambushed and the soldiers were dragged thru the streets. Bin Laden took credit for it, as he had done with other battles in the past.

Clinton's administration failed to nail Bin Laden for many reasons. One of the main problems we had was the CIA withheld intel from the FBI for fear of exposing sources, stealing thunder, taking glory etc. The CIA knew of a meeting that took place between several of the 9/11 terrorists and a couple of the Cole plotters. The CIA had photos of the meeting and didn't let the FBI know about it when they were investigating the Cole bombing. A few months prior to 9/11 there was an FBI fear of islamic fundamentalists in flight schools (someone called in about a strange student) and the fear went unchecked, for several reasons. Right after 9/11, the FBI was interrogating one of the Cole plotters in Yemen and the CIA busted out the photos they had, which the FBI had never seen and sure enough, Atta and a few of the others were there.

Clinton blew a few opportunities but the beaurocratic b.s. of who gets the arrest, who gets the glory and who has the best intel managed to make things far worse.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
While Clinton Admin deserves equal blame in this they do not deserve any MORE thatn this current Administration does. Both asre to blame equally... and since we are nearing election time it makes sense that the republicans are trying to shift the blame of 911.. so that theycan save as many seats as possible.

BOTH are equally to blame here.

Clinton Admin failed miserably... but so did the Bush admin.


original quote by: GradyPhilpott
Boy, howdy! This is rich. Bush has done more to thwart terrorism in his tenure than Clinton would have done in two lifetimes.


I am not going with the Bush was the babe in the woods routine on this.
Fact is; Bush was in office for the better part of a year.. so if Bush took the prewarning signs any more seriously than Clinton did... then 911 would never have happened! But he didnt.. and neither did the rest of his Admin.

Other than that.. thanks for showing Clintons screw ups too.. because like I said he deserves a fair share of the blame.. him and his Admin that is.

And you know what really sucks? No accountability on EITHER side of the political spectrum here.... our govt. like it or not was responsible for neglegence that allowed this to happen... dems and reps both... and most of all our Intel Community(if they are not complicit that is). Where are the court marshalls and prosocutions of our inept leadership that failed us so miserably on that faitful day?

thank you for your time,
TONE23



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I don't know about you Grady but how can you call the mess we have in the middle east a victory against terrorism?

Sorry but I don't see where we are winning under Bush war.

Bush has done more to thwart terrorism? or Bush has help created terrorism to the point that now is more terrorist that hate American and bush policies than anything else.

I see no victory at all.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Marg is right on one thing for sure....

We are not winning the WOT anymore than we are winning the war on drugs.

And a 9% conviction rate of terrorist suspects is hardly doing much to thwart the ideology(which cant be killed) that is terrorism. 91% failure sound like success to you?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Oh I love this tidbit......



"They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."

Reuters




...8 months! Clinton had 8 years!!!! and yet he did nothing. I am glad people are realising what a piece of grabage that man was.

apparently clinton was more concerned with domestic threats...


Under his adminisrtration....

the brady bill was passed.... (now expired
)

Janet Reno killed Men, women, and children (AMERICANS!!!!) at Waco, Texas.

Need I go on?

Clinton also sold nuclear technology as well as rocket technology to OUR ENEMIES!!!!!! (China)

When he left office everyone praised his administration.....5 years after 9/11 people are begining to realise he was worthless.




[edit on 23-9-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I don't know about you Grady but how can you call the mess we have in the middle east a victory against terrorism?

Sorry but I don't see where we are winning under Bush war.

Bush has done more to thwart terrorism? or Bush has help created terrorism to the point that now is more terrorist that hate American and bush policies than anything else.

I see no victory at all.


Isuppose you would prefer we left our borders wide open and rolled over and pretend no one died on 9/11 and let it happen a few more times? :shk:

I dont understand you marg...

you want to see how the war was a victory? consider this...

under clinton there was the 93 WTC attacks and the USS cole was bombed....obviously his policies regarding terrorism were inefective.

Under Bush only ONE terrorist attack has happened....and NONE since 9/11...

SO.... I do believe you are rather short sighted. Just because the War makes the US unpopular and just because soldiers, who volunteered, have died, That doesnt make the War a failure.

I think people are against bush and his war because it interferes with other agendas that special interest groups want.


Thats my opinion....



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I think our administration from the past to the present allow terrorist to thrive for political agendas that now we have seen the result of it, for any war, be drugs or terror is always money to be make.

Should I remind everybody that the 9/11 was under Bush.

We have been killing more women and children and so call terrorist in the middle east under the war on terror, Enough to have avenged 9/11 three times over.

If china was such an enemy why US does business with them and why we have their goods all over our nation and how we allow Wal-mart to carry them in their stores?

I think that the enemy is only in the eyes of the beholder.

Only a sympathizer of the mess Bush has done under the war on terror will agree and find excuses for his mess.

Is the old children's blaming game, so predictable.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
consider this...

under clinton there was the 93 WTC attacks and the USS cole was bombed....obviously his policies regarding terrorism were inefective.

Under Bush only ONE terrorist attack has happened....and NONE since 9/11...




So funny! He had Two, I had one. Big difference there buddy. Oh wait, what is that memory? The 93 attack on the WTC was less than ONE MONTH after Bush Sr. Left office. Coincidence, I think not! But way to pin that one on Clinton, he hadn't even finished moving in yet.
BUSH



I think people are against bush and his war because it interferes with other agendas that special interest groups want.

Thats my opinion....



Open your eyes. Literally. When you look up at the sky do you see blue? :puzz:

_AAC

[edit on 23-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
If you read/watch the whole interview you will realize that Clinton takes blame but reminds that demon Wallace that Busy did nothing. At least Clinton tried. And when he did attack Bin Laden he was demonized by the republicans. Specter and others kept saying it was WAG the Dog or some stupid crap.

Bush sat on many warnings for 8 months trying to figure out what a muslim was, he did nothing. Since that time, he has only made things worse.

Clinton was no hero but as he said, at least he tried. Had one single republican senator supported him, he might have done more.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I don't know about you Grady but how can you call the mess we have in the middle east a victory against terrorism?


I'm in kind of a hurry here, but I don't remember saying anything about victory and I admitted that there is plenty of blame to go around.

Clinton's criticizing Bush is purely political and ignores all the policy blunders of the last thirty years that have contributed to the state of Islamic terrorism in the world today.

If it turns out that bin Laden has already died in a dank, remote cave somewhere, then all this criticism is for naught as it relates to bin Laden. If he is still alive, I'd be willing to bet that his life is worse than death.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Just think of everything that's going to be blamed on Bush by the next president elected. At least Clinton did'nt deliberately create a huge mess for someone else to clean up. He did try to do something and maybe would've succeeded but for the republicans criticizeing his every move.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I know Grady is just a comment of mine, not the comment coming from you.

I blame the administrations starting with Carter from the middle east mess that have to deal with now.

Playing the blame game will take us nowhere.

And for bin laden I always refer to him as the resurrected because to me he has been long death.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

So funny! He had Two, I had one. Big difference there buddy. Oh wait, what is that memory? The 93 attack on the WTC was less than ONE MONTH after Bush Sr. Left office. Coincidence, I think not! But way to pin that one on Clinton, he hadn't even finished moving in yet.
BUSH



So you admit it is unfair to blame GWB for 9/11 when clinton had 8 years to deal with the issue and twiddled his thumbs?

Also, dont modify what I said when you quote me, otherwise you are misquoting me.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Clinton also sold nuclear technology as well as rocket technology to OUR ENEMIES!!!!!! (China)


China is an enemy of the west? Since when?



Isuppose you would prefer we left our borders wide open and rolled over and pretend no one died on 9/11 and let it happen a few more times? :shk:


That's not what she said and you know it. Nobody wants to see another 9/11 - nobody. To even state that is insulting. What Marg, and many others wanted, was to see the situation handled responsibly, which it wasn't.


you want to see how the war was a victory? consider this...

under clinton there was the 93 WTC attacks and the USS cole was bombed....obviously his policies regarding terrorism were inefective.

Under Bush only ONE terrorist attack has happened....and NONE since 9/11...


What a rediculous argument. Let's take a look at it.

World Trade Center Bombing:
1 Terrorist
6 dead
1000+ Injured

USS Cole Bombing:
Handful of Terrorists
17 Dead
19 Injured

Total: 23 Dead, 1000+ injured under Clinton from major terrorist attacks.

World Trade Center Attacks (including Pentagon):
19 Terrorists
2973 Official Deaths, 24 Still Missing
Countless Wounded

Total: 2997 Dead, Countless injured under Bush from major terrorist attacks.

So you see, while Bush's America was only hit once, there were over 100 times as many dead. Not to mention that the USS Cole wasn't even in America, so it hardly counts. Try another angle, that one doesn't work.



SO.... I do believe you are rather short sighted. Just because the War makes the US unpopular and just because soldiers, who volunteered, have died, That doesnt make the War a failure.


No, the war is a failure because it's against something that doesn't exist. You can't kill an ideology. Add to that the fact that Usama is still at large and the states are fighting a war in the wrong country (Canada is handling Afghanistan now), and I'd say that the WoT is a dictionary-definition failure...that is, if it was ever possible that it could have succeeded in the first place.



I think people are against bush and his war because it interferes with other agendas that special interest groups want.

Thats my opinion....


You're entitled to your opinion, fair enough. Doesn't mean it's right, though



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This kind of thread does not promote unity of purpose, or strengthen resolve, or do anything good (in my opinion). It does foster dissension and help to polarize people and it does distract people from critically and objectively examining related events. Who is more to blame is meaningless. The fact is, we are engaged militarily and politically in a foreign country and our men and women are being killed in that engagement. We need to support them and attempt to make their job easier or we need to bring them home. All the wishy, washy criticism and political bickering we are engaging in is totally counterproductive.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I laughed so hard when I heard Clinton blamed the Bush admin. What a joke. 8 years compared to 8 mths.


Bush had one major mistake he left the clinton cabinet in place.... thats where he went wrong. They were not on his side.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
I laughed so hard when I heard Clinton blamed the Bush admin. What a joke. 8 years compared to 8 mths.




Well no wonder then that Bin-Laden is still alive after 5 years under the bush administration.

Funny that we can only remember from Clinton was his white house affair and the how good the economy was.

But under Bush we have the biggest Terrorist attack to our nation and an elusive master minder.

I wonder.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
But we are not failing...we have the videos of Bin Laden sending messages to all...that's not failure, that's succesful Hollywood at work. How can he be dead when all those videos and audios are out there waiting to be released?

Anyway, Clinton, Clinton...clinton. Who's your daddy now??? Its Bush..and Bush couldnt round him up...but we could get all the tapes we wanted. Bush himself said once (as you well remember) that Bin Laden was not important now....
Then he said he was. Then we forgot about Bin Ladin...then the tapes started coming out again. We can find anyone in this world, except for good old Bin.
That's because he's dead and has been dead and the tapes are and have been fake.
What a tangled web we weave.....

Clinton failed, so did every president up till now. This current president is not a failure, he's worse than that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join