quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 and allow it to speak for itself, as well as compare what the GOP did to his bills and continual attempts to water down and belittle his efforts to increase anti-terrorism funding, but that would actually entail some critical thinking, so I guess we'll just skip over the hard stuff.

so what you're implying is that the Commander-in-Chief wasn't in "command"? yeah, i'll agree with that.

stop with the excuses dude. we were at war.

wow! even Byron York agrees with me.

quote:

Bill Clinton’s Excuses No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism. By Byron York “I worked hard to try and kill him,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News Sunday. “I tried. I tried and failed.” ”Him” is Osama bin Laden. And in his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. “All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book,” Clinton said at one point in the interview. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,” he said at another. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true,” he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke’s name 11 times during the Fox interview. But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up. Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action. Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?” That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came. The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.” Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.” The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That ****** is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.” So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.” Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225: Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more. In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.” But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so what you're implying is that the Commander-in-Chief wasn't in command? yeah, i'd aggree to that

I made no implication of the sort, so help me out here - what the fuck are you talking about? It's been well documented that the GOP Congress watered down Clinton's anti-terorism bills and got in his way numerous times, often times making claims of him wagging the dog and trying to avoid his little sticky blowjob issue (no pun intended).

Why wasn't the GOP Congress more complacent and helpful with Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts?

quote:

stop with the excuses dude. we were at war.

Funny, seems that the GOP Congress didn't know accept that very well then, did they? Why was that?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wow! even Byron York agrees with me.

Holy God! I wonder if Rush and Hannity do too?!?!?!

Oh my gosh I sure hope so! That would REALLY bolster your case then, wouldn't it?

I'll get to York's bullshit later tonight.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Ahh, fuck it, I'll do it now. Your yellow quote:

quote:

The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225: Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.

I think there certainly is some validity to this criticism, which Clinton has done well to both the public AND the 9/11 Commission acknowledging his mistakes. (Side note: has Bush acknowledged one fucking mistake he has ever made yet, esp. pertaining to bin Laden?).

Two questions are being begged here with our favorite National Review Bush ass-kisser:

1. Why was Clinton so detained and distracted by the whole Lewinsky scandal? Was it Lewinsky herself, or maybe, just maybe the GOP themselves had a small teensy role in aiding the sidetracking by pouncing relentlessly on him both in Congress and to the media at all stops? Who made his blowjob such a monumental blowup issue? Don't misunderstand me here, Clinton is responsible both for his actions and lie about the whole affair. But how much further did this whole distraction go by the GOP smelling blood and attacking nonstop?

2. Not a frequent reader of Byron, but similar questions that Clinton asked Wallace should apply to Byron - has Mr. York asked anyone in this Administration point blank questions about their documented ineptitude, indifference, and dismissal of the threat of bin Laden prior to 9/11? I'll take a wild stab and say, uhh, "probably not"?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I made no implication of the sort

sure you did. you didn't mean to but you did.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Funny, seems that the GOP Congress didn't know accept that very well then, did they? Why was that?

the most of entire country was in a pre 9/11 mindset pre 9/11, including myself up until the Cole.

this thread has nothing to do the Congress. what did they [GOP] have like a 1 seat majority.

Clinton was the Executive. the Executive controls our country's posture at the levels necesary to fight an enemy that chose to wage war on us. he failed.

you admit he failed when you defend him using Congress and the media as an example of his shortcomings.

i pulled this off a blog.

Clinton's assertion:

quote:

Originally said by Bill Clinton OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

the facts: >from his own Justice Department's indictment OF Mohamed Atta circa 1998<

quote:

* ...Third, al Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United States armed forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993, which were viewed by al Qaeda as pretextual preparations for an American occupation of Islamic countries.... * ...At various times from at least as early as 1989, the defendant USAMA BIN LADEN, and others known and unknown, provided training camps and guesthouses in various areas, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, Somalia and Kenya for the use of al Qaeda and its affiliated groups. The Fatwah Against American Troops in Somalia At various times from in or about 1992 until in or about 1993, the defendant USAMA BIN LADEN, working together with members of the fatwah committee of al Qaeda, disseminated fatwahs to other members and associates of al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked; The Establishment of Training Camps for Somalia In or about late 1992 and 1993, the defendant MUHAMMAD ATEF traveled to Somalia on several occasions for the purpose of determining how best to cause violence to the United States and United Nations military forces stationed there and reported back to the defendant USAMA BIN LADEN and other al Qaeda members at USAMA BIN LADENS's facilities located in Khartoum, the Sudan; Beginning in or about early spring 1993, al Qaeda members, including the defendants MUHAMMAD ATEF, SAIF AL ADEL, ABDULLAH AHMED ABDULLAH, a/k/a/ "Abu Mohamed el Masry," ... along with "Abu Ubaidah al Banshiri," a co-conspirator not named herein as a defendant, provided military training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations' intervention in Somalia; The Attacks on the United States Forces in Somalia w. On October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, persons who had been trained by al Qaeda (and by trainers trained by al Qaeda) participated in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack resulted in the killing of 18 United States Army personnel, namely, Donovan L. Briley, Daniel D. Busch, James M. Cavaco, William D. Cleveland, Thomas J. Field, Earl Fillmore, Raymond Frank, Gary I. Gordon, James C. Joyce, Richard W. Kowalski, James Martin, Timothy Martin, Dominick M. Pilla, Matthew L. Rierson, Lorenzo M. Ruiz, Randall D. Shughart, James E. Smith, and Clifton Wolcott.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the most of entire country was in a pre 9/11 mindset pre 9/11, including myself up until the Cole. this thread has nothing to do the Congress. what did they [GOP] have like a 1 seat majority. Clinton was the Executive. the Executive controls our country's posture at the levels necesary to fight an enemy that chose to wage war on us. he failed.

You have to understand something, and it may not be too terribly familiar to you given the past 5 years of near absolute Executive authority and GOP Congressional yes-men lapdogging. But contrary to those beliefs, Q, Congress does actually have quite a bit of power vested to it under our governmental system. And what occurred in the 90's under Clinton AND the GOP Congress speaks volumes not just about Clinton but the Congress who fought him tooth and nail every step of the way. I'm sorry but if you are going to criticize Clinton for his failures, those failures to which he owned up to and admitted (terribly strange concept to this Administration, I realize), you're going to have to include the Congress that watered down and fought his efforts at all stops as well.

quote:

you admit he failed when you defend him using Congress and the media as an example of his shortcomings.

I admit his faults, sure. But I'm also going to recognize the things he DID do and bring those things to the forefront to combat terrorism and al Qaeda.

Can you honestly try and do the same thing with Bush and this Administration prior to 9/11? Keep in mind, Bush didn't merely know about the threat of bin Laden only when he took office. He knew just as everyone else did about the threat of bin Laden since '98 or so. Yet he sat on his ass and did nothing to get him, EVEN WHEN IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT BIN LADEN WAS BEHIND THE COLE ATTACKS PRIOR TO 9/11. It's a difficult stance for you to justify, I realize, so perhaps you should maybe concede that point and we can move forward from there.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

some other events on his watch.

-Five days after Clinton took office, Mir Aimal Kasi shot two Central Intelligence Agency employees in their cars while waiting in the morning traffic outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The attack left three other people wounded. (To their credit, they caught this guy.)
-On March 8, 1994, two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.
-On November 13, 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians.
-On February 23, 1997, Ali Abu Kamal, a Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the “enemies of Palestine.”
-On November 12, 1997, two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in Karachi.
-On December 28, 1998, Yemeni militants kidnapped a group of western tourists, including 12 Britons, 2 Americans, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i pulled this off a blog. Clinton's assertion: the facts: >from his own Justice Department's indictment OF Mohamed Atta circa 1998<

I have to admit my lack of knowledge on the Somalia incident in general. One question I do have is this - Frontline has that information up, but what you left out was the very beginning:

quote:

Based on evidence developed in its investigation of the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, the U.S. Justice Department indicted Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's military commander, Mohammed Atef, on Nov. 4, 1998, for conspiring to kill Americans. The indictment included the following references to Somalia and Al Qaeda's training and support to Somali fighters.

Again I can't discuss the issue in detail because of my lack of knowledge, but what I want to know is the information obtained in the indictment - when EXACTLY was that information made known to anyone about possible al Qaeda involvement? Was it known by '98, or '93? How about '94? Because that's somewhat important to know before making any conclusions on false statements.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But contrary to those beliefs, Q, Congress does actually have quite a bit of power vested to it under our governmental system.

does this authority involve the tasking of our IA's, our DOD, and the DOJ?