posted on August 23, 2005 09:51:50 AM new
Many times on these boards we read the lefties making statements like...'This President is responsible for causing MORE problems with the terrorists'.....Whomever follows his administration will have a mess to clean up......He has done such damage....etc...you get the idea.
But they NEVER stop to consider that the clinton administration was the one who DUMPED the problems with terrorism on THIS President. And that it's been HE who's had to deal with what clinton chose to ignore....or at least NOT deal with at all. No guts....couldn't face the reality of the situation.
Here's a link to what I believe is a most informative interview with Richard Miniter and investigative journalist - on what clinton didn't/wouldn't do. The mess he left for this President to deal with. He also wrote a book on this subject.....How bill clinton's Failures Unleased Global Terrorism.
It's my position that it's always good to hear both sides of the story....especially when only this President is being blamed....and they excuse all of clinton's lack of ability to make decisions.
posted on August 23, 2005 09:59:46 AM new
Richard Miniter: One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.
President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office.
National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year.
In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.
Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines housed in two towering Yemen hotels.
Within hours, the CIA's counterterrorism center learned that the Yemen suspected a man named Osama bin Laden. (One of the arrested bombing suspects later escaped and was detained in a police sweep after al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000.) Lake says he doesn't remember briefing the president-elect about the attempted attack, but that he well might have. So it is safe to conclude that Clinton knew about the threat posed by bin Laden since 1993, his first year in office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?
Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings.
In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.
Lopez: You sorta defend Clinton against "wag the dog" criticisms in regard to that infamous August 1998 (Monica times) bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan and some bin Laden strongholds in Afghanistan.
That wasn't the problem, was it — that we fired then?
Miniter: Certainly the timing is suspicious. The day before the East African-embassy bombings, Monica Lewinsky had recanted her prior affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. The sex scandals kicked into overdrive.
Still, the president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden because of his sex scandals — he was doing too little. He should have launched more missile strikes against bin Laden and the hell with the political timing. Besides, after the East African-embassy bombings, any president would have been negligent not to strike back. If he had not, it would be open season on Americans. He would have been as ineffectual as Carter was during the Tehran hostage crisis.
Indeed, this was the mistake made following the attack on the USS Cole.
But Clinton was distracted by sex and campaign-finance scandals and his political support was already heavily leveraged to get him through those scandals.
If he fought bin Laden more vigorously, the leftwing of the Democratic party might have deserted him — which could have cost him the White House.
Instead Clinton's token, ineffectual missile strikes that only emboldened bin Laden. He believed that America was too intimidated to fight back — and was free to plan one of the most-murderous terrorist attacks in history.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 23, 2005 10:10 AM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 10:55:23 AM new
Say it aint so Linda.........We all know clinton couldn't do no wrong...........................NOT.
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 23, 2005 01:43:43 PM new
Yep, 7 - 8 years to deal with binland....but if he had it would make him unpopular with our EU allies and with his supporters. So instead, we got to experience 9-11. Thanks clinton....
-------------------
And now we are hearing more breaking news about what was not reported to the 9-11 investigative commission. Under HIS administration too. Hope they get to the bottom of just who was keeping this from that commission. Wonder if ol' Berger - of 'stuff all those papers in your pants' claim to fame - clinton supporter was able to get rid of the papers that might have proved this too.
And again....we hardly heard a word about his penalty. Nope...the left leaning press didn't run that story for two weeks - like they do when it would be something they think would hurt this President.
sad state of affairs, imo...that the MSM press can still decided what news will be read and what won't be. Biased suckers.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 23, 2005 02:14:47 PM new
where does he have his right hand now...on his crotch???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Golfer:Stop checking your watch all the time,its too much of a distraction.
Caddy:Its not a watch, its a compass
posted on August 23, 2005 04:31:45 PM new
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Same old mantra...over and over and over again.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 23, 2005 07:00:18 PM newBut they NEVER stop to consider that the clinton administration was the one who DUMPED the problems with terrorism on THIS President. And that it's been HE who's had to deal with what clinton chose to ignore....or at least NOT deal with at all. No guts....couldn't face the reality of the situation.
More #*!@ coming out of the queen's mouth.
Wasn't it Linda who kept on saying everyone should respect the President and his policies and views.
Just goes to show more of Linda's double standards. She wants everyone else to abide by her rules while she does something completly different.
Just one more hyprocrite in the Republican party. Linda can't even abide by her own rules.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 23, 2005 07:11:02 PM new
yada yada yada... yawn...
so, just one quick question...
let's just say (i'm already beginning to laugh)...
but if americans were stupid enough to vote another neonazicon into office (i'm about to bust from laughter)...
who would all these neocons blame for the huge disaster the next President will have to clean up (falling into hysterics now) thanks to this chickenhawk?
posted on August 23, 2005 07:36:02 PM newIt's my position that it's always good to hear both sides of the story
What a joke. Linda never listens to both sides of the story.
So Linda what is your favorite position? LOL
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
