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.

 

Bill Clinton: I Got Closer To Killing bin Laden

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Former President, Bill Clinton, lashed out at Fox News Sunday anchor, Chris Wallace, when Wallace asked him why he hadn't done more to put al-qaeda and Osama bin Laden out of business, during his time in office. Clinton had been told that he was being asked on the show to discuss his new initatives on climate change, which he had been talking about on other news programs, including Meet the Press with Tim Russert. Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of doing a "hit job" on him and pointed out that Fox News had never asked the same question of President Bush or others in his administration, which had eight months in office, prior to 9/11, to go after bin Laden and al-Qaeda and did not; "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed," he said.
 



www.cnn.com
NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.

"We do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq," he added, referring to the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. (Watch Clinton go on defensive -- 1:18)

In the interview, which was taped on Friday, Clinton also lashed out at Fox's Chris Wallace, accusing him of promising to discuss Clinton's initiative on climate change, then straying from the issue by asking why the former president didn't do more to "put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business."

"So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me," he said to Wallace, occasionally tapping on Wallace's notes for emphasis. "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of?



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Was this another attempt by neo-conservatives and the GOP to try to put the blame on Clinton for 9/11? Fox News has long been accused of conservative bias in it's reporting and opinion pieces and considering that Fox isowned by Rupert Murdoch, it's understandable why it may have that rep. But, Murdoch has recently made up with the Clintons, even going so far as to attend a Hillary re-election rally. So what is to be made of the row on Sunday?

Personally, I believe this was intended by Chris Wallace as a way of "getting one over" on Clinton. I have never really appreciated Wallaces approach to interviewing and news reporting which always seems to come across ( at least to me) as smug and superior; almost condescending at times.
What everyone else thinks is up to them but I believe Clinton did his best to get bin Laden but got little help from the military or the intelligence community who both had their heads buried deeply in the sand.

Related News Links:
www.cbsnews.com
www.bloomberg.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Bill Clinton did indeed try to get Bin Laden ... I think it's strange to criticize him when we have an administration that has invaded 2 countries in the search for Bin Laden and he has still managed to elude capture or death.

The difference betweent the Clinton administration and the current one? Clinton tried going after Bin Laden when he was basically unknown to the general population and there wasn't a lot fo support ... Bush tried going after him with wide support from the public (at least for a short time afte 9/11).

Apparently we trained Bin Laden well ... he's managed to elude capture for going on a decade.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
If you believe that Clinton truly tried then tell me why he called ahead of time and warned Bin Ladan that missles were on their way giving him and his party plenty of time to leave the area.

If you believe that then why when the CIA called and said we have him, "What do you want us to do sir." "Nothing" Clinton said.

Why did Clinton say, "Nothing"?
Why did Clinton pre-warned Bin Ladan?

[edit on 25-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
This doesn't surprise me one bit that Fox News and the Republicans would try to do a hit job on President Clinton,...... after all they want to protect the Bush Administration anyway they can,... even if it means trying to blame Clinton for everything that has happened since his leaving office, when it fact Bush and his Administration are to blame for everything that has happened since taking up residence in the white house. Clinton left a report for Bush but Bush trying to be a big shot and not wanting any help from Clinton did as he wanted to do and seen fit, not caring if there was something very important (clinton's report) that needed his attention and just dismissed it as if it wasn't worth his time or effort.

I will say that President Clinton gave that fox news reporter MORE than what he bargined for and didn't want to hear about his god-like Bush ,



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I'm new here. After reading some other threads, I want to preface this with the fact I am a Libertarian and hold both the Democratic and Republican Parties in low regard. I thought Clinton was a good President with bad moral judgement.

Everyone needs to see this interview before judging. There was a lot of strange body language going on. Clinton brought up the subject himself and then blamed the interviewer for bringing it up. He would not let the interviewer even talk and kept yelling at him, interrupting him and throwing accusations around that were bordering on hysteria. This all happened in the opening minutes of the interview. The show had apparently promised to spend about half the time on the topic he wanted and in return he was supposed to answer any question given for the other half. The show kept it's word. In fact, since Clinton would not let the interviewer even speak, he got more than he was promised.

It was really strange to watch. To sit and watch an Ex-President loose complete control of his emotions like that was just plain weird! He had lapses where he clearly forgot what he was saying in the middle of a tirade. At times he seemed more than a little confused. He also said some things that sounded like he thought he might not live to be very old for some reason? I wonder if there is not some health issue with him the public has not been told?

Everything he said was predictable. He denied loudly anything that painted him in a negative light and blew his own horn loudly when on a topic that made him look good. There was nothing of importance revealed while he went through his emotional roller coaster. He still has that charisma though. I'll bet he would be fun to have a beer and a burger with



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   


Why did Clinton prewarn Bin Ladan?


Clinton did not "prewarn" (there is no such word) Bin Laden.

The US notified the Pakistani Government that the missiles would be crossing over Pakistan, so that the Pakistanis didn't think they were Indian missiles and nuke New Dehli. If you have any idea what was going on in 1998, this would make sense to you, but I'm betting you don't.



Why did Clinton say, "Nothing"?


He did?

Or did you just see a fictional scene in that ABC propaganda "docudrama"?

[edit on 9/25/06 by xmotex]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
If you believe that Clinton truly tried then tell me why he called ahead of time and warned Bin Ladan that missles were on their way giving him and his party plenty of time to leave the area.

If you believe that then why when the CIA called and said we have him, "What do you want us to do sir." "Nothing" Clinton said.

Why did Clinton say, "Nothing"?
Why did Clinton prewarn Bin Ladan?


sources and links please.

back up the claims, deny ignorance is the key here.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


Why did Clinton prewarn Bin Ladan?


Clinton did not "prewarn" (there is no such word) Bin Laden.

The US notified the Pakistani Government that the missiles would be crossing over Pakistan, so that the Pakistanis didn't think they were Indian missiles and nuke New Dehli. If you have any idea what was going on in 1998, this would mase sense to you, but I'm betting you don't.



Why did Clinton say, "Nothing"?


"mase" dosn't make sense.

You did it ever cross your mind that the call could of came about the time it was hitting. To the proper authorities then. No the call came to warn him. Period.

He did?

Or did you just see it in that ABC propaganda "docudrama"?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by Shar
If you believe that Clinton truly tried then tell me why he called ahead of time and warned Bin Ladan that missles were on their way giving him and his party plenty of time to leave the area.

If you believe that then why when the CIA called and said we have him, "What do you want us to do sir." "Nothing" Clinton said.

Why did Clinton say, "Nothing"?
Why did Clinton prewarn Bin Ladan?


sources and links please.

back up the claims, deny ignorance is the key here.



www.9-11commission.gov...


enjoy.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by InDirectViolation
Everyone needs to see this interview before judging. There was a lot of strange body language going on. Clinton brought up the subject himself and then blamed the interviewer for bringing it up. He would not let the interviewer even talk and kept yelling at him, interrupting him and throwing accusations around that were bordering on hysteria. This all happened in the opening minutes of the interview. The show had apparently promised to spend about half the time on the topic he wanted and in return he was supposed to answer any question given for the other half. The show kept it's word. In fact, since Clinton would not let the interviewer even speak, he got more than he was promised.


What you saw was edited. Please read the entire transcript of the interview and you will see that Clinton did not bring up the question himself and maybe understand a little more what that "strange body language" was all about.
You can read the full transcript here.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar

www.9-11commission.gov...


enjoy.


as I thought. Please go to page 117 (134 of the PDF document).
Please read the 3rd paragraph for us Shar, and show us how your evidence shows that Xmotex was correct to the very details.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Well, what I just read said what I said, the warning was SENT.
Not to mention Bin Ladan was at a news conference in 1998 another chance to take him out. How many chances were passed up?

[edit on 25-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
do I need to quote it?



www.9-11commission.gov...
"Since the missle headed for afganistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan's army chief's of staff to assure him the missle were not coming from India. Officials in Washinton speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Laden." page 117(134 in PDF), paragraph 3, 4th sentence in.


now please tell me how you plan to twist that into the commission saying that some one in washington called osama to warn him. You obviously were intentionally trying to twist this statement, but it won't work whatsoever. xmotex was pretty much dead on with his statement before.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
What are you not reading correctly.....

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was SENT to MEET with Pakistans army.....

Who do you think sent him?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Off the top of my head Clinton could have had Bin Laden on at least one occasion almost GUARANTEED, and could have possibly had him in another.

One was in Afghanistan where Bin laden was spotted by US drones, and the other was when Sudan offered to "give" him to the US. We rejected the second because we had noting to hold him on, go figure.

Clinton may have pursued Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda but he pursued it as a law enforcement issue and not as a military one. Big difference there, one is more limited to specific individuals directly involved in the attacks the other target the whole organization all over the world, and before they strike. There is no excuse to have attacks by Al Qaeda committed in 93, 98 and 2000 and yet still pass up opportunities to kill Bin Laden.

Link 1
Link 2

Sorry folks but if you are into fair criticism then you KNOW that Clinton deserve a LOT of it, for this particular case.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormrider
What you saw was edited.


Thanks for the link. My post was concerned with his odd behavior compared to what I've seen in the past. I was remarking mainly on how Clinton was acting and his forgetting what he was saying mid-sentence. Watching this interview and reading it are two different things. I'm not interested in who was right or wrong. I was just concerned there may be a health issue involved as evidenced in how he conducted himself. He looked and sounded tired and at times seemed to forget what he was saying. He lost control of his emotions which was strange from a President also. All possibly signs of a health issue. Even if I did not vote for him (or Bush) he was our President.

I also got the impression President Clinton was battling some guilt issues associated with 9/11.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
westpoint, fact is, osama never is suppose to be a military target. Hes not a soldier, hes a murderer. He isn't and shouldn't be treated as though he is part of an army, hes nothing more then a criminal. A foreign criminal, but still just another criminal.

Second off, I don't like clinton, and I do think he holds some blame, but not blame for 9/11. I believe he should be blamed for not doing more then he did. That doesn't change the fact they did LESS when he left office rather then more. So obviously clinton was not the factor that needed to be changed to get bin laden. If less effort was put in, Clinton was a positive factor in trying to find bin laden, not a negative one.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
What are you not reading correctly.....

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was SENT to MEET with Pakistans army.....

Who do you think sent him?



Clinton, whats your point? Clinton, along with his advisors, sent this guy to make sure it was clear this was not a nuclear attack. Some one in pakistan MIGHT have tipped off osama. How clinton called osama to warn him, which was your assertion, god only know how it came to be.

fact is this, clinton didn't tip off osama, he was worried about a misinterpretation causing a nuclear conflict. If you cant realize this, even though it says it directly in the paragraph, Im sorry thats your problem.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Clinton could likely have eliminated Bin Laden several times. But why would the US government, whatever party in power, take out such a great asset? Once a CIA operative, always a CIA operative. With his business partner Bush now running the show, OBL and his handlers are probably enjoying their semi-retirement in seclusion, with an understanding in place. Funny how some people forget that while OBL may have gone from fighting Communists to producing the occasional music video, he's still on the payroll. Bigwigs such as he just can't just up and leave the game. As a migratory bird is tagged and observed by the biologist, so is Bin Laden's status known. If the US government can register and track hordes of criminals, do you really think they would have let OBL, their own asset, slip away?!



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
If Clinton was actually trying to warn the Afghanistan government of the comming missles, he would have done it through the normal diplomatic channels. Instead he sent someone to warn the Afghanistan army knowing full well that there were Bin Ladan sympathisers among them that would warn him of the coming attack.

Once again they would of known it wasnt nuclear after it all happened. He missed several opportunities. We were at war Bin Ladan said it during the Clinton Admin.

Maybe you should read the WHOLE 9-11 report not part of it. What about the New Conference with Bin Ladan why did that get passed up?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join