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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Okay, if we're really going to explore who is responsible for the terrorist threat, and the lack of response, lets look at the whole thing shall we. Reagan started this whole mess. He was the one who had the CIA train and equip these guys. He was the one that made the decision to abandon Afghanistan and allow that country to become completely destablized and turn into a never ending civil war. This bred the scourge we have today.

As to not responding to attacks, again Reagan was the first to ignore a major attack. Terrorists attacked the marine barracks in Beruit in 1983, and Reagan elected to "cut and run". There was no response to the terrorist action. None.

Bush41 had similar opportunities to respond to the developing threat but did nothing. bin Laden was active in Sudan from 1989-1992, and there were plenty of opportunities to take him out. bin Laden was allowed to fester while the focus was in Iraq. Bush's inability to recognize the Wahabi outrage of American soldiers being in Saudi Arabia only stoked the recruiting effort. He completely misread the situation and allowed it to grow.

We know Clinton missed some good opportunities to kill bin Laden, but he did make an effort. We now Bush43 went after bin Laden, but took his eye off the ball and didn't finish the job (or did he and he likes having the boogie man around?).

There is more than enough blame to go around, but if you really want to know who screwed the pooch, look no further than Reagan and his dropping of the ball in Afghanistan. If he had paid attention to the region and helped stablize it we would not be where we are.




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
wow shar, Im done, you just want to plainly deny and ignore the text there in the 9/11 commission report to fit your own view. This is a class A example of it if I ever saw it. Theres no debating a person who refuses to read.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797




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.



excellent answer grimreaper
.

Here's what I see...... no matter HOW many/ much facts points to Bush's incompetents in running our country , not protecting the citizens of the USA, stomping on the middle-class, poor, helping the rich get richer, Bush will never admit to this, his Administration would never admit to this, and the Bush worshipers complicity to everything that has taken place since he took office will not admit to the wrong done at the hands of their leader,.... oh no they'll just sit on their hands with a smug look across their faces because they cannot bring theirselves to admit that they are wrong or that they elected the WRONG Republican into office.

Bill clinton may have gotten a BJ from whatever her name was, BUT, that had no bearing on his leadership skills, it had no bearing on his plan to bring the budget under control (which he did ) and get it out of the -RED and bring it in to the + where thanks to the last Republican president put us way in the RED(before Clinton). Clinton did a lot for our country,.............. thats more than what I can say for either Bushes
.

I'm glad that Bill Clinton SHOWED FIRE, showed that he is a real man and not a mealymouth whimp like Bush with his sneaky beady eyes god Bush reminds me of a RAT !



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
wow shar, Im done, you just want to plainly deny and ignore the text there in the 9/11 commission report to fit your own view. This is a class A example of it if I ever saw it. Theres no debating a person who refuses to read.


No, I just read it without blinders on. Clinton passed up opportunities theres no denying that.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar

Originally posted by grimreaper797
wow shar, Im done, you just want to plainly deny and ignore the text there in the 9/11 commission report to fit your own view. This is a class A example of it if I ever saw it. Theres no debating a person who refuses to read.


No, I just read it without blinders on. Clinton passed up opportunities theres no denying that.



So Shar,
What is Bush's excuses for not being prepaired for 9/11? After all, he KNEW they were going to attack the USA, he knew it way back in August 01,... so what's Bush's excuse for not being on HIS WATCH as it WAS Bush's WATCH after all when 9/11 happened.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
So give me your sources. Deny Ignorance is what seems to be said around here.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
According to the wrong wingers among us Bill Clinton was evil incarnate, that his mere presence would cause milk to curdle and women to cheat on their husbands and livestock to abort. According to them he could do nothing right and George Bush saved America from his pernacious influnce. According to them the recession of 2001 was his fault (Allen Greenspan created it deliberately ....remember his trying to cool down an over-heated economy?) and that he all but invited Al Qeada to attack us. Bullhooey on that stream of liquified manure. Clinton's biggest crime was that he beat Bush senior (a far better and more qualified man for president than the son ever will be even after 8 years, and I did not like him) and turned the Republicans out of the White House after 12 years. Jesus Christ himself would have been equally attacked by these sore losers (and worse winners) had he won instead.

Good for Clinton for defending himself so vigorously. I am sick of these wrong wing lies. He may not have been perfect but he is head and shoulders above the whiney spoiled brat we have now.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
If i remeber correctly,i was watching a documentary on the history international channel about bin laden. And our drones picked him up at some sort of meeting in the desert with others. Clinton had the opportunity to hit bin laden with cruise missiles but had to decide against it because there were saudi royals there present with bin laden.The fallout would have been too great if these saudi's were killed.So the opportunity was lost.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
Once again they would of known it wasnt nuclear after it all happened.


Would this have been after they already started launching their own nuclear weapons? Although it's doubtful they have any ICBM's assembled it would probably be better not to find out the hard way. I think it is more than valid to adequately warn a government that has nuclear power that there may be missilies heading directly near their air space but the target is not their country.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Hello all you libs out there, If you really want to know about Bill Heres a quote from Rush's show;

Wow. That interview with Bill Clinton yesterday? Can you imagine how Paula Jones must have felt? Kathleen Willey? ''Purple rage''. That is how George Stephanopoulos described Clinton's anger in his book when Clinton and Stephanopoulos were both in the White House. It was such an innocuous question, even though Chris Wallace did suggest that it was generated by viewers, people in e-mail. I think that's actually one of the things that set Clinton off if indeed he was set off. The idea that he was blindsided by this is a bit absurd. He knew he was going on Fox, and he knows what the ground rules are. He's a former president. Nothing's really out of bounds or off limits for these kinds of things. I think, you know, rather than this being a meltdown, I think Clinton's been waiting for this ever since he first heard that I supposedly helped write The Path to 9/11. I think he's been waiting to explode, and this was the question in public that he had been waiting for. I think he's very proud of what he did yesterday. I think Clinton thinks he hit a home run, even though no Democrats are out there defending him. You gotta remember: Clinton's a pathological liar. His only truth is what he says. The real truth, reality, is not his. His reality is what his memory is, what he constructs it to be.
You could see very plainly how thinly created, how thin the foundation is of his legacy. It all hinges on a mainstream media that covers for him and continues to promote the legacy. But when it came to it yesterday, he could only cite Richard Clarke as a "factual asserter" to make his case. He couldn't cite the 9/11 Commission, admitting that it was a political document -- and we know why it was a political document. The Democrats in that committee were there to hide the lapses of the Clinton administration. I think what happened yesterday on Fox News Sunday. I got the transcript today Saturday night, Saturday afternoon, Saturday night, and I was just -- you know, in one way, I was stunned, such an apparent loss of control, such a horrible PR blunder and mistake by the people whose reputation for PR greatness is unsurpassed. The timing of this could not be any worse.
But what we say yesterday is that with Bill Clinton it's all about him. He doesn't really care about the impact on the Democratic Party, except maybe for Hillary, and certainly not this election cycle. He's concerned about himself. He's concerned about his legacy. It also illustrates my point, and I've been making this for years. One of the reasons the Democrats smear people -- and that's what Clinton did yesterday, he smeared "neocons." Here's a former president. He may have used the term before, but I'm not aware that he has. "Neocons" is something that kook Democrats, the liberal blogosphere fringe, some in the Drive-By Media use, but we got the earthy Bill Clinton. We got what he really thinks about his political enemies and so forth.
He thinks everything is a vast right-wing conspiracy, as does Hillary. It seems to be one of the pages, one of the old pages in their playbook that they keep going to, sort of like this New York Times story yesterday about the National Intelligence Estimate that basically said what? I mean, it's been mischaracterized as well. They pull a couple of quotes from it, the New York Times, and try to portray that the whole estimate said what their small little analysis of it said, but it's really nothing new. It's just opening the book, the playbook, to an old page, and in this case "Bush is creating the terrorists." Well, that's really working, isn't it? I am dumbfounded here at how they're so predictable. Everything that they do is predictable.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
There's More;
I got a note from somebody today said, "Well, I think this is the equivalent of the New York Times story the week before the election in 2004 about all these newly found, unexploded weapons and ammunition and so forth, which was an old story, at least a year-and-a-half-old story. They tried to turn the elections on that," and I said, "No, this is campaign season. The intelligence community is going to keep leaking," and I told Snerdley today, I said, "You know, the problem with this is not what the Democrats are saying and doing with these leaks. It's the fact that the leaks are happening. If it is true -- that the intelligence community, CIA, DIA, wherever they are, if it's true -- that that they are more interested in destroying a sitting president than they are doing their jobs, then we have a fundamental problem in the intelligence community. The way the Democrats spin this is really of no concern to me because we've heard it all before: Bush lied people died. Bush created terrorists there were no terrorists prior 9/11 blah, blah, blah, and yet we got Bill Clinton out there saying yesterday he was "obsessed with bin Laden" and the Republicans were mad at him for being obsessed with bin Laden -- and that's a lie! Extensive research over the weekend can't find any example of any Republicans being anything other than supportive of Clinton with his missile strikes, with his warnings of Saddam Hussein. More on that as the program unfolds. But I tell you, for the last 50 years, the Drive-By Media gave no challenge to liberal Democrats. Whatever they asserted, whatever they believed, whatever their policies were, were fawningly promoted -- for the most part. There are obviously exemptions to this.
During the same 50 years, conservatives opposing all of this were routinely challenged, questioned, laughed at, made fun of, impugned, and forced to defend their policies -- and in the process, learned how to do so in a persuasive way. What we saw yesterday is that Bill Clinton and the Democrats cannot handle tough questions, and that wasn't even a tough question. As I say the thing Clinton didn't like about it was that Chris Wallace cried, "I'm getting e-mails from viewers, Mr. President," and of course Clinton is a liberal Democrat, doesn't want to hear what people think. He's trying to change their minds, and I think that's part of what set him off.
Do you remember at any time in the last five years President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, or any Republican acting the way Bill Clinton did on Fox News Sunday: losing it, intimidating the interview, getting in their space, pointing fingers, jabbing fingers at Chris Wallace's notes?
Wallace said, "I felt like a mountain was falling down on me." Remember when Hillary debated Rick Lazio, and Lazio walked over and presented her some papers, "You can't invade her space! Why, that's sexist. You're trying to intimidate the girl! You can't do that." Clinton yesterday couldn't wait to set forward on that chair and jab his finger -- very, very unusually long fingers, by the way, too. I think I'm starting to understand why liberal women have a fascination with this guy, but nevertheless -- jabbing that finger in an intimidating fashion, those eyes on the verge of madness. Chris Wallace held ground out there, but can you imagine how Juanita Broaddrick felt? The only thing he didn't say when he left is, "Hey, Chris, better put some ice on that lip." I understand when he walked out he was still exploding, and this time at his staff. Apparently he thinks he got set up. But you don't see Republicans respond this way to some of the most vile, mean-spirited, hard-hitting questions ever, and yet Clinton does because he's not used to it.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
And even more;

It's a big mistake to react that way, ladies and gentlemen, because all it's going to do is focus attention on what he said. The biggest mistake they've made is acting upset about the movie, The Path to 9/11, and Clinton can't help it because it's all about him. It's not about the Democratic Party, and it's not about the future of the country or even the safety of the country. It's about his legacy, and he knows that he doesn't have anything major that happened in his administration -- in terms of war, foreign policy -- that's going to create such greatness in his electrician, so he's gotta rewrite history about how he was "obsessed with bin Laden." At any rate, we got a lot to do. We've got the audio sound bites. We've got some other things, a lot of research that I've done here to try to set all this straight. He's going to regret having done this. This is not the way they wanted to do this -- and keep a sharp eye, because I still don't think a whole lot of Democrats other than Dean are out there defending him. But in spirit of bipartisanship, ladies and gentlemen, and in the spirit of reaching out to those on the other side of the aisle, demonstrating fairness and understanding: I think we should all admit before we get started with all this that we need to about kind. President Clinton did protect us from those who threatened us greatly. The Branch Davidians.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Good for Clinton for defending himself so vigorously. I am sick of these wrong wing lies. He may not have been perfect but he is head and shoulders above the whiney spoiled brat we have now.


I agree with you 100%, Grover. Even though I don't consider myself a Democrat (I'm a little too conservative), I voted for Clinton in both of his presidential elections. Even given his terrible judgement when it came to the Monica Lewinski debacle, I believe that he was a greater president than Bush 1 or 2 and deserves a lot more respect than he is getting right now.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The "report" that the Clinton administration passed on to Bush was not a new plan; it was just the same old failed policy that Clinton had practiced during his tenure.

So Bush had 8 whole months to prevent 9/11? Clinton knew about al Qaeda's plans as early as 1998:

Presidential Daily Brief to Clinton warned of Hijackings
Just for a trip down memory lane. We are all familiar with the left throwing up the August 6th, 2001 PDB, but did you know?

“The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [-] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold.A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options-perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

bin Laden


Chris Wallace asked Clinton a legitimate question. Clinton lost his cool.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
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.


What is a normal diplomatic channel? Telephone?
Why does sending a body(which is a personal gesture of great respect) instead of making a phone call, implicate the ex-president in warning his targets?

Regardless of that topic, the ex-president was ambushed, and anyone would be angry if it occured to them.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

So Bush had 8 whole months to prevent 9/11?


That's not the statement he made. He said 8 months to try to capture bin-laden. Nice try.

the air in America pre 9/11 was alot different, and Clinton would not have had the support to have a no-holds barred approach to killing him. You can't blame him anymore than you can blame anybody but the 19 hijackers that were on the planes. Hindsight is always 20/20.

For Rush's statement, if they are so predictable, what are they going to do next?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I cannot abide Mush Loosebowels even in print...he is one of the biggest fountains of liquified cow manure there is.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.


I think part of the issue was the majority of US public would not have accepted civilian casualties at that time in order to eliminate Bin Laden. His name had been circulated as a terrorist ... but the vast majority of people still had no idea who he was until 9/11 came.

Everyone keeps mentioning he passed up an extradition offer from Sudan. That is misleading at best ... Sudan's official offer was to extradite Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in the mid 90's. Saudi Arabia did not want him in their country and had rescinded his citizenship in 1994 ... since he wasn't facing any criminal charges in Saudi Arabia they didn't want him. How does this become Clinton's fault?

There's no evidence that there was ever an offer to extradite Bin Laden to the US. The 911 Commission report states that there were claims that an offer was made but the report goes on to state that there was no evidence found of any offer.

Media Matters .. article on false claims

Wiki Entry on Bin Laden in Sudan



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
"I want you to listen to me: I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..."

How is it that anybody from any rational perspective can give this self indulgent narcissist any credibility?

Sure, the left likes the way the right hates him, but what he said to Wallace was untrue and childish; worse it was demonstratably so, especially in regard to relying on Richard Clarke's book, which contradicts most of what Clinton claimed.

I am mystified as to why some American progressives choose line up behind this diseased creature. (Sorry, but if you don't release your medical records, you are hiding something.)



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
What did President Bill Clinton mean by, "I could have gotten Bin Laden if the CIA and FBI would have certified it." I believe this is what he said, but what did he mean by certify.

I don't think Clinton could have gotten Bin Laden because of all the red tape and politics. Congress didn't give away free passes to Clinton like they have for George W. Why didn't Congress give Clinton full control of terrorism after the first World Trade Center Bombing, or the embassys, or the Cole. Republicans wouldn't give it too Clinton. Bush was given free rein of the world and still hasn't captured Bin Laden.

So everyone knows i am a democrat and a huge supporter for Bill Clinton, so I am bias, I am not so fair and balanced like Fox News. wink, wink



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join