Clinton slaps down Fox, sets record straight on terrorism

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]. . . Thankfully American voters are able to see thru this silly ploy for what it really is.
But doggone it it sure does give some folks some running room. Too bad its in a closed room with no way out. Laughing…laughing I am…:banana:[/quote]
"Most in CNN Poll Say Bush Misled Public About Iraq
Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) – A majority of U.S. adults say President George W. Bush has deliberately misled the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN. . . . ."
We’ll see who has the last laugh. :slight_smile:[/quote]Uhhh…spook…the post was referring to former Pres Clinton*.
Having some morning perception problems?
Or is this your daily “spookism”?[/quote]

The only people you discuss in that “ploy” portion of the post above are Bob Woodward, Richard Ben-Veniste, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft and the July 10, 2001 meeting between Tenet and Rice so I had no clue you were actually discussing former President Clinton. Go figure.

If you’re nice to me today – for a change – I’ll tell you how to spell “connundrum.” :slight_smile:

[quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]. . . Thankfully American voters are able to see thru this silly ploy for what it really is.
But doggone it it sure does give some folks some running room. Too bad its in a closed room with no way out. Laughing…laughing I am…:banana:[/quote]
"Most in CNN Poll Say Bush Misled Public About Iraq
Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) – A majority of U.S. adults say President George W. Bush has deliberately misled the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN. . . . ."
We’ll see who has the last laugh. :slight_smile:[/quote]Uhhh…spook…the post was referring to former Pres Clinton*.
Having some morning perception problems?
Or is this your daily “spookism”?[/quote]The only people you discuss in that “ploy” portion of the post above are Bob Woodward, Richard Ben-Veniste, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft and the July 10, 2001 meeting between Tenet and Rice so I had no clue you were actually discussing former President Clinton. Go figure.
If you’re nice to me today – for a change – I’ll tell you how to spell “connundrum.” :slight_smile:[/quote]spook -
My sincere apologies. You are correct.
Since the actual topic of this thread was the video of former President Clinton*, I erred in this reply to you. It was my morning perception problem. Again, my apologies.
You still have your daily spookism priviledge.

As to the spelling matter…close enough is good enough…chabbuduo as it were…gist and all that.

Factcheck.org puts in their six cents about the Fox Clinton interview, as well as Rice’s response… And guess who comes out the winner…

Rice defenders will enjoy this little doosey:

[quote]Rice Responds:

The day after Clinton’s interview on Fox, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a meeting with writers and editors at The New York Post , said the idea that the Bush Administration took no action on terrorism pre-9/11 was “flatly false,” calling the Bush efforts “at least as aggressive” as what Clinton had done, and denied Clinton’s claim that the Bush team had been left a plan by the previous Administration.

Rice: We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.

(Factchecker) False: Rice’s statement is not supported by the 9/11 Report, which describes the plans Clarke drew up and says they were conveyed to Bush’s aides, as we noted earlier. The 9/11 Report says that as the Clinton Administration drew to a close in December 2000, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper on eliminating the al Qaeda threat, “the first such comprehensive effort” since a 1998 plan known as Delenda (p. 197). The Report also says (p. 201): “After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper.”

Clarke is emphatic about the matter, telling interviewer Charlie Rose on Sept. 28, 2006:

Clarke: The Clinton Administration in the last month, in December of 2000, asked us to develop a comprehensive plan that we could hand off to the Bush Administration that had a military attack plan, that had an intelligence attack plan. It had diplomatic steps. It had economic steps. It was a comprehensive plan.

Rice also denied that Clarke had been demoted, saying “Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened.” Technically true, in that Clarke’s title didn’t change, but effectively false, since she cut him out of key meetings and lessened his authority.

We can find no independent confirmation for the claim made by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit who appears as “Mike” in the 9/11 Report, that the CIA knew exactly where bin Laden was at least 10 times yet no action was ordered, as he told the Boston Globe . As we’ve noted above, in mid-1999 intelligence operatives felt certain of bin Laden’s location, but no strikes were ordered, much to the frustration of some involved. Similarly, in Dec. 1998, intelligence was received that bin Laden would be spending the night in the governor’s residence in Kandahar. But officials charged with deciding whether to mount a cruise missile strike thought there was too great a likelihood of collateral damage, and that the intelligence was not sufficiently reliable. ‘Mike’ told a colleague he’d been unable to sleep after the decision. But the decision to hang back was vindicated when later reports indicated bin Laden had left his location by the time the missiles would have hit. And the Report adds a bit of context: “[F]aulty intelligence had just led the United States to mistakenly bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the NATO war against Serbia,” bringing intense scutiny and criticism to the Administration and CIA.

The 9/11 Report says that problems pinpointing bin Laden’s location continued. In 2000, military operations in Afghanistan were planned, but were “limited by the same operational and policy concerns encountered in 1998 and 1999. Although the intelligence community sometimes knew where bin Laden was, it had been unable to provide intelligence considered sufficiently reliable to launch a strike.” (p. 188)
[/quote]

Now go back and read the Clinton section, please. Notice the predominant TRUE’s and MOSTLY TRUE’s, the occasional EXAGGERATION notwithstanding.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]. . . Thankfully American voters are able to see thru this silly ploy for what it really is.
But doggone it it sure does give some folks some running room. Too bad its in a closed room with no way out. Laughing…laughing I am…:banana:[/quote]
"Most in CNN Poll Say Bush Misled Public About Iraq
Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) – A majority of U.S. adults say President George W. Bush has deliberately misled the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN. . . . ."
We’ll see who has the last laugh. :slight_smile:[/quote]Uhhh…spook…the post was referring to former Pres Clinton*.
Having some morning perception problems?
Or is this your daily “spookism”?[/quote]The only people you discuss in that “ploy” portion of the post above are Bob Woodward, Richard Ben-Veniste, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft and the July 10, 2001 meeting between Tenet and Rice so I had no clue you were actually discussing former President Clinton. Go figure.
If you’re nice to me today – for a change – I’ll tell you how to spell “connundrum.” :slight_smile:[/quote]spook -
My sincere apologies. You are correct.
Since the actual topic of this thread was the video of former President Clinton*, I erred in this reply to you. It was my morning perception problem. Again, my apologies.
You still have your daily spookism priviledge.

As to the spelling matter…close enough is good enough…chabbuduo as it were…gist and all that.[/quote]

Fair enough. Thank you, sir.

Hey Spook, that little bit of pleasantry you just posted just took the spotlight off the BOMB that I just dropped. Numerous posters have been dropping that “Clinton let Bin Laden get away 10 times” line repeatedly. They should now consider themselves spanked.

I think that most people are talking about how Clinton dropped the ball in taking bin Laden from Sudan in 1996. So er is that you who just got spanked? haha

Anyway, I do not blame Clinton. It was a different country with a concern for international law back then. There is no way we could have taken hold of bin Laden or we would have been (gasp) violating international laws. Pity about the World Trade Center and the people there. I am sure that they understand.

First of all, I’ve heard this “let him get away 10 times” dropped around here right and left, so come off it. And about the Sudan '96 story, gee I’d think a document as extensive as the 9/11 report would’ve brought that up. I’ve seen evidence for both sides on that story; however, what I do know is that the integrity of Mansoor Ijaz, the originator of this story, has been brought into question numerous times regarding his claims therein.

Incidentally, did you read the REST of the factchecker article, Fred, where FC comes up again and again with TRUE and MOSTLY TRUE regarding Clinton’s claims in that interview?

And I notice you make no comment whatsoever regarding the glaring FALSE next to Rice’s reply.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has some beautiful observations on the original Fox interview in this explosive commentary:

youtube.com/watch?v=hoNpcFR7e64

My favorite quote: “The President has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfeasance in American history…To hear him bleat and whine and bully, one would think that someone other than him had been president on September 11, 2001 or the nearly eight months that preceded it.”

He also seems to offer some evidence that Bush may have had an opportunity similar to the one Mansoor Ijaz alleges in this commentary:

youtube.com/watch?v=ns6r-GqA … ed&search=

Unfortunately the video is incomplete and I can’t get the full text yet. In the meantime, I suggest you actually read these articles and watch these videos. Even you might be able to discern the ring of truth in them. Then again, it’s been said that when faced with the choice between admitting we’re wrong and proving there’s no need to do so, most of us get busy on the proof. Better get busy on the proof then. Haha.

It suddenly occurred to me we’ve been over a lot of this ground before. Did a bit of searching and here it is:

[quote=“Vay”]After 911, Newt Gingrich: blamed Clinton because of his “pathetically weak, inability to focus and stay focused.” If Clinton had “lacked focus”, it would’ve been no surprise, since Newt’s House conducted dozens of investigations against him! Gingrich also said, when Clinton ‘dropped a couple of bombs on Sudan and Afghanistan’ that Clinton “did exactly the right thing.” However, on 9/13/01, he said on Fox, “The lesson has to be that firing a few Tomahawks, dropping a few bombs is totally inadequate.”

What a dick.

Regardless, his accusation about “lack of focus” is just b.s. You ask about trophies? Well, 38 days after he took office, the first WTC bombing occurred. Clinton captured, tried, and convicted those responsible: Ramzi Yousef, Adbul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah. Their capture must’ve thrown a big wrench in their plans to blow up 12 airliners simultaneously and kill the Pope!

Clinton could also be said to have thwarted attacks against UN headquarters, the Lincoln tunnel, the Israeli embassy in Washington, the LA and Boston airports, the US embassy in Albania? Well, he didn’t do any of these things himself, but give him a break, he’s not Governator!

So how can he be credited with these successes? Well, he did triple the counter-terrorism budget for the FBI, and doubled anti-terrorism funding overall. (When Clinton asked for this funding, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch objected: “The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding.” Damned tax-and-spend Democrats!)

Clinton created a top-level national security post to coordinate federal counter-terrorism activity. The first holder of this post was Richard Clarke.

Plus, both Clinton’s first and second crime bills contained stringent anti-terrorism legislation. (Gingrich opposed expansion of the FBI’s wiretap authority after the Oklahoma bombing. “When you have an agency that turns 900 personnel files over to people like Craig Livingstone?it’s very hard to justify giving that agency more power.”)

Clinton also created a national stockpile of vaccines, including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

“By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him,” Barton Gellman reported in a 4-part series in the Washington Post. Clinton’s was “the first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort.”

Furthermore Clinton ordered a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of Bin Laden, which did not contradict Reagan’s presidential order against such, since Bin Laden was not a “head of state”. As for the “letting OBL slip away in Sudan”, well, far as I know that one can be attributed to my favorite Repub mouthpiece Sean Hannity.

The story comes from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American investment banker with a big stake in Sudanese oil who claims to have transmitted a middleman offer between the US and Sudan. Ijaz wanted the US to lift sanctions against Sudan, which were in place for very justifiable reasons: terrorist sponsorship, slavery, genocide.

Ijaz had said that Sudan was ready to hand over Bin Laden. However, the US doesn’t conduct diplomacy through self-appointed, private individuals. When the Sudanese government was contacted directly, no such offer existed, negotiations produced nothing, and further intelligence did not back up fact Ijaz’ claim.

Anyway, on 10/12/2000, Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole. In response, Clinton put Richard Clarke, the 1st national anti-terrorism coordinator, in charge of taking out Al Qaeda. Clarke produced a strategy paper that he presented to Sandy Berger on December 20th, 2000.

The plan was as follows: break up al Qaeda cells and arrest personnel, attack financial support for its activities, freeze its assets, give aid to governments such as Uzbekistan, the Phillipines, and Yemen, scale up covert activity in Afghanistan to reach Osama, increase support for the Northern Alliance, and put Special Forces on the ground in Afghanistan. This was all in the cover story of Time in August, 2002. A Bush administration official said in this article that Clarke’s plan was pretty much “everything we’ve done since 9/11.” (Notice the emphasis on the word, “since.”)

However, as this plan came a bit late in the game for Clinton - the attack on the Cole being the impetus – Sandy Berger arranged 10 briefings for Condoleeze Rice, and personally attended the ones on terrorism. Richard Clarke was kept on as head of counter-terrorism.

However, in spite of the 2/15/01 Hart-Rudman report which warned of mass-casualty terrorist attacks on the US being “a serious and growing concern”, the Bush administration did just about nothing to act on Clarke’s plan. VP Cheney’s task-force to counter domestic terrorist attacks never even met. The plan, after being bounced around since Bush took office, only reached Colin Powell and Rumsfeld on September 4th, 2001. Bush never even saw it - he was out on the ranch.

On 9/09/01, Congress proposed an increase of $600 million for antiterror programs. This aroused a threat of presidential veto, as the money was to come from Rumsfeld’s missile defense program, which was to cost an estimated $200 billion!

When FBI director Thomas J. Pickark requested $58 million from the Justice Department for new agents, translators, and intelligence analysts, Ashcroft turned him down. The date of the official rejection letter was 9/10/01. On that same date, Ashcroft also sent his budget request to Bush. Out of the 68 spending increases requested, none dealt with terrorism. Nor was it mentioned on Ashcroft’s memo list of his top seven priorities.
[/quote]

[forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph … ich#147994](Bush & Blair (BB) nominated

Not really Fred.

[quote=“Satellite”]

Um, do you mean it wasn’t really a pity, or they wouldn’t really understand?

In either case, he was being sarcastic.

I’m surprised right wingers are not trying to make 9/11 to be some kind of Clinton conspiracy to attempt to discredit Bush in his first days as president.

But they probably would have if it had worked against him instead of for him.

The Left produces more conspiracy theories than the Right because their hippy mothers did so much LSD back in the 1960s.

jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazin … 24,00.html

[quote=“fred smith”]I think that most people are talking about how Clinton dropped the ball in taking bin Laden from Sudan in 1996. So er is that you who just got spanked? haha

Anyway, I do not blame Clinton. It was a different country with a concern for international law back then. There is no way we could have taken hold of bin Laden or we would have been (gasp) violating international laws. Pity about the World Trade Center and the people there. I am sure that they understand.[/quote]

Pity that Bush and his team completely dropped the ball during their first 8 months in office. The moments when Bush found out about the attack were recorded on video, and so we know that he spent more than 7 minutes sitting there frozen stiff, not knowing how many poll points he might lose for getting up in the middle of a book about a goat … or for running all over the country like a crazed chicken.

Pity that Bush responded to 9/11 by invading a secular WMD-less country with no planning, thus quagmiring a superpower’s military.

Pity that Republicans can’t stand accountability from their officials.