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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
You seem to have a bad habit of inserting your own opinions into those of other's as well. If I'm not affiliated with any party then how can I be engaged in partisan bickering? I'm criticizing Clinton for two reasons:

1)He was a crappy president
2)This thread is about Clinton

If we're going to debate pre-9/11 only then this is still a stupid argument. If Clinton had two terms in which to try and kill Bin Laden then how would he expect Bush to do more in 8 months?

Also, and I haven't heard anyone mention this yet. But would we have had reason to kill Bin Laden, based on international law, before 9/11? I have yet to see any proof that Clinton was trying to kill Bin Laden and I think that's the problem. Clinton may have tried to catch Bin Laden, but Bush is trying to kill him. Big Difference.

Clinton stated in the interview that he left a detailed plan on how to deal with terror before he left office. He said the man he put in charge was demoted when Bush came in. Clinton would have known whether they were abiding by his terror strategy or not simply by watching the news. When Clinton left office he was more concerned with enjoying life out of the public eye and picking offices uptown in Harlem. He's an ex-president, he's retired more or less. He just doesn't like anyone giving him a bad name.

The fact remains that Clinton had 8 years to try and prevent the 9/11 attacks and he did next to nothing. For whatever reason. Bush had 8 months to prevent the attacks, now when have you ever known the government to take less than 8 months to do anything?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to blame the attacks on Clinton, or take fault away from Bush. But the fact remains that the attacks went through and blaming the new guy for things you didn't do only works in business.

Clinton went on FOX, he was asking for it anyways.

This is getting old, because no matter what I say you'll just spin it. No one has shown any evidence that Clinton tried to do anything with Bin Laden.




posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Since the wingers are trying to make this all about PRES. CLINTON and to distort the truth I decided to go searching once again,............... and looky what I found

www.gwu.edu...




Bush Administration's First Memo
on al-Qaeda Declassified

January 25, 2001 Richard Clarke Memo:
"We urgently need . . . a Principals level
review on the al Qida network."

Document Central to Clarke-Rice Dispute on Bush Terrorism Policy Pre-9/11

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 147

Edited by Barbara Elias

February 10, 2005 - Original Post

Update - September 27, 2006



In the news

"'01 Memo to Rice Warned of Qaeda And Offered Plan"
By Scott Shane
New York Times (archive)
February 12, 2005

"Verbatim: What Clarke Really Said, When He Said It"
Washington Post (archive)
February 20, 2005

"From the Archives, but Still News"
By Michael Getler
Washington Post (archive)
February 20, 2005




Update - September 27, 2006

"A Comprehensive Strategy to Fight Al-Qaeda"?
Rice versus Clinton on January 2001 Clarke Memo

Washington, D.C., September 27, 2006 - In a series of recent public statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has again denied that the Clinton administration presented the incoming administration of President George W. Bush with a "comprehensive strategy" against al-Qaeda. Rice's denials were prompted by a September 22 Fox News interview with Bill Clinton in which the former president asserted that he had "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" with the incoming Bush administration in January 2001. In a September 25 interview, Rice told the New York Post, "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," adding that, "Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11."



Funny thing............. how things come back to bite ya in the behind isn't it Secretary of State "Rice"





The crux of the issue is a January 25, 2001, memo on al-Qaeda from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to the debate over pre-9/11 Bush administration policy on terrorism and figured prominently in the 9/11 hearings held in 2004. A declassified copy of the Clarke memo was first posted on the Web by the National Security Archive in February 2005.



As I said before, Bush and his Administration were to "full of their selves" not to pay attention to what was done by Clinton before leaving office
.

Oh and so the Repugs can't try and deny it still ,......... it came from

The National Security Archives



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Good post, Nanna.

Here's a link to another thread that I started a few days ago on this very subject.





[edit on 9/28/2006 by Stormrider]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux

3)If Clinton took Bin Laden as such a serious threat then why is it that we the people, the true targets of Bin Laden and his cronies, heard nothing about Al Qeada et al?
5)Clinton hardly ever talked about "terrorists".



My summary response is because you weren't paying attention???

Clinton talking on terrorists

Not comprehensive, just until I got tired of copying links:

www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
archives.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
archives.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
cgi.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
archives.cnn.com...
archives.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www2.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
archives.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
transcripts.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...

Clinton talking on bin Laden

archives.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
archives.cnn.com...

I have to go for now. If you want me to continue to add to the list, let me know.

[edit on 9-28-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Very nice work, Valhall. You get all three of my wats votes for the month.
Keep up the good job.


You have voted Valhall for the Way Above Top Secret award. .




[edit on 9/29/2006 by Stormrider]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
No one has shown any evidence that Clinton tried to do anything with Bin Laden.

I think the couple of posts above me should satisfy that...

If you still cannot accept it, well, then there's just no way you're going to think anything other than what you what to think.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Though it is interesting, we never got into a major 'declared' war durring the clinton years. Yet we still got into quite a few skimerishes and conflicts. So we never realy have had a era of peace.

Are those wars inherently bad, the Yugoslavian one (which quite a few people critizize) was stoping that Milosavich guy and his minions from ethnic cleansing (in europe I might add) who was being tryed for genocide some time after. Genocide and ethnic cleansings happening right in front of out eyes in real time (mirroring that of Sudan). Now I understand that some Serbian fanatics/nazis or people who don't realy have much morals might seem to be angered at other countrys steping up to prevent the genocide, but I am sorry that your flawed reasoning can not be acomidated. If a government kills off and genocides people, then they probably have a right to break off from that country and form their own 'safe' one. It may seem incovient for people trying to memorize all of the countrys in a certain region, or for people wanting to dominate over some others, but too bad the lives of other people I think should be valued over a flawed government.

Mabey in a distant future, when both groups (in whatever conflict) get along mabey they countrys can be merged again under join government. But untill then it would be safer to allow sovernty and devision, if people are not quite advanced yet to live in harmoney then we should not force it on them, if we do we will continue to get more genocides.

This is off topic, and reminesent of Yugoslavia, I think if Clinton was president in this current day he would probably do something about Sudan. Put a stop to the conflict in it much like Yugoslavia. This is just a hypothesis, and a bit of a anger over a lack of what our current government is doing their, which is pretty much nothing. Genocide is happening right in front of out eyes, chaos, and we instead decided to go to a place where the major cleansings and killings stoped a while ago.

Though, not to say that Clinton may not have been planing to invade Iraq, before the whole sex scandel he was doing some bombing of facilitys and stuff. Then he stopped for the most part and no one asked him to continue. "Iraq shmack who cares about that place, like we will go war their, lets focus on the sex scandel" in the colective thoughts of the Senate and represenatives.

With Iraq under Sadam Hussein, it was inevitable that we would have made make war with it. It could have been a few years latter from now, or earlyer, not much difference.

The ideal time to have changed the government would have been probably durring the first Gulf war, which I find strange to have someone who is republican/conservative (george bush seinor) to show restraint and stop the war when it clearly was being won. Makes me almost wish that somehow, his son despite his flaws from a time warp came into his time (as a full grown man) and took over decision making, and continued with the war for liberation. Even though I am a critic of Buch Jr, he was better then senior thinking about his handeling of wars and consitancy (the previous bush was allied and ok with Sadam untill the world got pissed off at him invading Kwait).

I am geting on a tangent, well I guess the point is that, even though we tend to look to presidents from the distant past as some great ideal (Bush Seinior, Ronald Regan) they kind of sucked, Regan suported the Contrals and Talabain, and old Bush had some missdealings of supporting and being ok with some very bad people too. The current Bush seems to be a saint next to them, it not like he is doing something equivelent to what they did in their day like giving arms to the genociders in Sudan, or to some oddball millita group/government.

Whoever our leader is, they seem to get into a lot of wars and conflicts, it is inevitable. We have never had a period of true peace, but as long as wars and general conflicts keep happening, they should be made and chosen wisely.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join