TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Clinton on terrorism...
Clinton on terrorism...
What a windbag full of shit.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...l20031016.shtml
| quote: |
| Clinton's do-nothing terror policy Rich Lowry October 16, 2003 If only President Bush had listened to Bill Clinton. The former president, who is now the Second-Guesser in Chief, told an audience the other day that he had warned President Bush about Osama bin Laden in an "exit interview" as he left office in early 2001. "In his campaign, Bush said that he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden." Oh, the Delphic wisdom of the Arkansas bubba! He's a Metternich with an eye for the interns. Clinton was right, of course. Bin Laden was a big security threat, who became steadily bigger during Clinton's years in office. What else could Bush have learned from Clinton during that exit interview? He could have learned how to retreat, how to apologize, how to slap wrists and how to temporize. He could have learned, in short, everything that would need to be reversed in U.S. terror policy within months of his taking office. Al-Qaida-trained Somali fighters downed American helicopters in the Black Hawk Down battle in 1993. Eighteen Americans died, which was enough for a jumpy Clinton to order a hasty retreat. Bin Laden took notes. "The youth realized," he later explained, "that the American soldier was a paper tiger." By way of explaining the bug-out, a former top Clinton official told me in my new book, "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years," "We didn't know we were at war with those guys at the time." Oh, well. The next attack against U.S. interests came in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen. In the midst of the investigation that focused on Iran, which was clearly implicated, Clinton made a quasi-apology to Tehran. "Iran," he said, "has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western nations." The poor mullahs. Both the Saudis and the FBI became convinced that the administration didn't want to pursue the Khobar investigation because hard evidence of Iranian involvement might force a military response -- and who would want to subject Iran to more "abuse"? After al-Qaida nearly leveled two American embassies in Africa in 1998, Clinton responded militarily, but with two inconsequential cruise-missile attacks. One was against a probably mistaken target in Sudan. The other was against a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. "We used kid gloves after the embassy bombings," retired Gen. Wayne Downing, former commander of U.S. Special Forces, told me. "Cruise missiles -- that's the coward's way out." And why attack just one Afghan training camp? Mike Rolince, former chief of the international terrorism division of the FBI, explained to me: "We never went back to the camps and dismantled the neighborhood where these people were allowed to train, test chemicals, recruit, plan operations. On a regular basis, we saw intelligence that documented what they were, where they were, how big they were, how many people were going through there, and the administration lacked the political will to go in there and do something about it." Amazingly, the Clinton administration didn't even designate Afghanistan a state sponsor of terror. That would have been too bellicose. By 2000, various government reports had recommended what were consensus measures to address the terror threat, from squeezing state sponsors of terror, to cutting off funding, to tightening visa policy, to loosening restrictions on the CIA and FBI. Clinton did none of it. He was, fundamentally, the do-nothing president about terrorism, although he knew -- as he tells us now -- the grave nature of the threat. It was Bush who could have told Clinton a few things about how to respond to terror in their exit interview, since his instincts were so much sounder. After the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, Bush as a candidate said that "there must be a consequence." Common sense, right? Not for Clinton. He let the attack go unanswered. |
Re: Clinton on terrorism...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka What a windbag full of shit. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...l20031016.shtml |
.. If referring to Clinton, this is not old news, and its been told and said a thousand times before. Yes, Clinton did say it back then.
Just reiterating my views that Clinton is full of shit.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Just reiterating my views that Clinton is full of shit. |
well say what you want, Bush is the one person that took some action against the 'Iraq/al-Qaeda link' with questionable action. Clinton isnt the sole person responsible for terrorists going after the US, look farther back...over many generations.
the funny thing is,
| quote: |
| Mike Rolince, former chief of the international terrorism division of the FBI, explained to me: "We never went back to the camps and dismantled the neighborhood where these people were allowed to train, test chemicals, recruit, plan operations. On a regular basis, we saw intelligence that documented what they were, where they were, how big they were, how many people were going through there, and the administration lacked the political will to go in there and do something about it." |
- Come on.. everyone knows that Bill Clinton was attacking the "Al Quaeda" by throwing missils and such. We all know what the threat that the US faced in 2000 after seen that tape of Osama saying that one of US biggest cities was to be hit, and Clinton did take care of that. - It was during the Bush administration that the CIA and FBI and the same administration scrwed and f&^@cked up. So why should Bill Clinton be "full of shit" when its actually true what he says.. its not like no one knew, its like, people forget after 4-5 years what Clintons actions were on Osama and Al Quaeda?? if so.. god help america.!
| quote: |
| US President George W. Bush was told by Bill Clinton about the threat al-Qaida posed months before the September 11 attacks - but ignored the warning. Mr Clinton this week revealed he told Mr Bush in January 2001 that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida posed the biggest threats to the US. The warning was issued during a meeting between the outgoing and incoming presidents. President Clinton also passed on a plan for a pre-emptive attack on bin Laden's headquarters in Afghanistan, but the Bush administration sat on it for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president. [...] The Clinton plan to take the counter-terrorist battle to al-Qaida was drafted after the attack on the warship the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Mr Clinton's terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, presented it to senior officials that December, but it was agreed the decision should be taken by the new administration. Mr Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice were told of the al-Qaida threat in meetings with Mr Clinton's outgoing team. The plan called for the attack on bin Laden, a freeze on al-Qaida assets, and aid to stamp out remaining terrorists cells. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.