Link: Clinton administration warned incoming Bush administration of AQ danger

More: Clinton Addresses the Nation, 20 August 1998. Full transcript of President Clinton's two different announcements of actions taken against Bin Laden's network. The first announcement was made earlier in the day when the events first occurred, while the second announcement was a televised address to the nation that evening.

Note that all this occurred just as the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" was at its height of media coverage, and these actions (and the speeches) were dismissed by most people as a "Wag-the-Dog" distraction. In hindsight, it's obvious that while Clinton was trying to prevent what eventually happened on 9-11-01, most of the rest of the world was convinced that revealing his sex life was far more important to the nation.

That is a crock Lee. Don't blame the fact that Clinton found more time for blowjobs than he did to meet with some of his own cabinet members on America or Republicans. He did it. He denied it and tried to destroy Monica as a crazed stalker until the DNA came in, but he did admit it finally. That is why character is important and why you don't want sexual predators in the White House.

He was distracted and he engaged in such outrageous behavior that he caused a distraction for the rest of the country. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect the nation not to be mesmerized by a commander in chief that would perform sexual acts in the Oval Office with an intern and a cigar?

As for the statements he made in 1998, Republicans were paying attention and believed him when he said that Saddam had WMD and made regime change official US policy.

What difference does it make whether or not Clinton or Burglar or whoever passed on some secret plan to get bin Laden in 2000? Read my column, or Bob's excellent post -- Clinton had 7 years, 10 months and 25 days to do something about al Quaeda. The fact that he wanted to hand that problem off on the new administration after preventing them from even being able to transition is not something I would be trumpeting as a positive.

"Bin Laden preparing to hijack U.S. aircraft and other attacks."

4 DEC 1998 pdb

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb120498.html

He freaking knew.

Bill Clinton was President for another 7 years, 10 months, 25 days after this attack.

All the people responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing were caught and are rotting in jail. The no further Homeland attacks occurred for 7 years, 10 months, 25 days. Then Bush got in office and unlike Clinton who reacted to the PDB's Bush ignored them and focused his attention on missile defense and Iraq and then the World Trade Centers fell under his watch while reading My Pet Goat. An the perpetrator have not been caught, we've spent hundreds of billions, we're stuck in a quagmire with no solution, our military is destroyed and de-moralized and the terrorist threat is growing and our country looks like a military state and runs on fear mongering.

So what the heck was your point.

And here are the specific details of how much better Clinton was on terror compared to Bush.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046240/

Press launch and go to the 4:00 mark....

Not only did Ramsey Youssef come to America on an Iraqi Passport.....he bombed the WTC in 1993 on the 2yr anniversary of the United States and Coalition forces liberating Kuwait from Saddam's Iraq......this along with most of the 1990's Iraq history needs to be explained to the public b/c I beleive they are by and large extremely ignorant about it.

much less that the mastermind of 9/11 is Ramsey Youssef's cousin, KSM

The focus on al Qaeda's involvement in the 1993 WtC bombing is good, but let us not forget the August 7, 1998 bombings of the US embassies in East Africa. 257 people were killed and more than 4,000 were injured.

An attack against an embassy is an attack against that country's territory.
Those bombings killed Americans on American soil.
Al Qaeda operatives responsible for the attacks admitted that they did the crimes and that they were doing it as members of al Qaeda.

The Clinton adminstration's response was worthless and weak.

First of all, who in the world are you talking about
when you say "security voters." With all due respect that makes no sense. If you mean people who only vote based on security who are they? Apparently they must be right wing republicans. What an insult to be classified as one issue voters. So, your point really makes no sense.

What I get from all of this is the ongoing nonsense of each side blaming the other for 9/11. That also makes no sense and completely belies the facts. Clinton was at fault. Bush was at fault. The intelligence community was at fault. The pentagon was at fault. Why in the hell won't both sides (mine on the left) just admit it and shut the hell up about it. It changes nothing. The issue is what are we going to do in the future based on what we've learned form the past.

We (that includes me) sound like ridiculous schoolyard children sometime. nah, nah, nah. You did it. No I didn't you did. If our kids heard us they'd take us to the woodshed and smack some sense into us over some of these disputes.

The Clinton adminstration's response was worthless and weak.

Posted by: kevino

And it should have been??..................Fill in the blank SPECIFICS please.

Compared to the actions taken by the Bush Administration after they took over with new confirmation from the CIA that the Cole bombing WAS the work of Al Queda. And the Bush response was???...............fill in the blank.

All the people responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing were caught and are rotting in jail.

An out-and-out falsehood. As I stated previously, the bomb-builder Abdul Rahman Yasin fled New York for Iraq, where Saddam Hussein offered him sanctuary.

As it has been stated before, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

muirgeo, you do not know the facts.

muirgeo: The point is that the day the terrorists succeeded (even though part of the bomb didn't work as designed) in the first WTC attack they started planning another attack and no one detected their plans because the Intel community and military were destroyed by the Clinton Administration. Terrorist wandered freely around the U.S. during the 90's, taking flight lessons (weird lesson on flying a plane but not landing it) that should have been, and some information shows was reported to the FBI, who immediately ignored it because the Gorlick wall prevented them from asking the CIA if they knew of these guys.
So you and Lee should just don your Burka's and suicide bombs like the good little brainwashed aholes you are.

The right's obsession with Clinton at this point is emblematic of their failure to unite the nation.

Instead of facing the American people with integrity, explaining what went wrong in Iraq, and explaining how they intend to make that situation better, it's blame, blame blame Bill Clinton.

There is no avoiding the fact that Republicans aren't interested in bringing AQ to justice, and that particular inconvenient truth has caught the attention of the American people. It's election time, time for the Republican'ts to try to fool the public again - so they play the "let's blame Clinton" game...

Hugh,

I agree. I saw what Guiliani said about it and thought it to be pretty much on the mark.

The title of the story was wrong though.

muirego,

we're stuck in a quagmire with no solution, our military is destroyed and de-moralized and the terrorist threat is growing and our country looks like a military state and runs on fear mongering.

This paragraph is absolutely ridiculous. And with all seriousness, with this much a pessimistic distorted sense of reality, I wonder how you get through the day.

Quagmire, Our military destroyed, we look like a military state, fear mongering. You know, all of what you said looks exactly like fear mongering.

Lee-

Oh poor Bill-no one can blame him for anything.

Heck HE blames THE MILITARY-they wouldn't let him get Bin Laden.

If the Clinton administration thought that terrorism was serious and wanted to "help" the Bush Administration with recommendations-then why did they 'help" the smooth transistion by challenging absentee military votes for not having stamps? Why did they do petty things like removing the "W"s from the White House computer keyboards?

All fun and games for the Democrats like usual.

And you know who would have not put up with Bill going after Bin Laden?

His OWN party- D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S.

You people are pathetic-you can "theorize" that the Bush administration actually conspired and did 9/11 but a couple of criticisms of Clinton and you've got Terry Mcauliffe whining on CNN that an ex-President shouldn't have to face those type questions.

Hugh,

That makes you the first person on the left side of the isle, that I can recall, willing to allow Clinton to accept ANY part of the blame for 9/11.

It's also one of the first comments from you that I can agree with. There's plenty of blame to go around.

How we go forward is certainly more important that how we got here. Unfortunately for all of us, we really need to understand HOW we got here to make sure that we do not keep repeating the mistakes that got us where we are. I believe that 9/11 is still such a scar on the national psyche that NO ONE is willing to accept any blame whatsoever because then they will feel the guilt of those 3,000+ deaths from 9/11. That is exacerbated by our current state of 'gotcha' politics by both major parties no matter what the subject.

Bin Laden and friends got used to the Lather-Rinse-Repeat rhythm after 8 years of Clinton.

Lather: we attack them
Rinse: they lob a few cruise missiles at us
Repeat: we start planning the next attack

On 9/11 they expected the same thing...though I'm sure they expected a slightly stronger response. What they did NOT expect, because it had NOT happened before, was a "visit" by the U.S. military...and subsequent overthrow of the Taliban.

Bin Laden, IN HIS OWN WORDS, did not believe we would:
- put boots on the ground in sufficient numbers
- for a sufficient amount of time
- and absorb ANY significant casualities before we did a cut & run

Even now the alQueda types believe their allies the Dimocrat Party will force a cut & run if they can just hold on long enough.

There won't be much wind left in the alQueda sails if the Dimocrats don't win in November. 'Cause then they would be faced with 2 more years of Bush, with a Congress that was (more or less) behind him!

Here is the record-fact. This is what transpired during the Clinton administration's watch. This is from army.mil terrorist timeline and I edited it highly to the most relevant.

Clinton has some nerve BLAMING theMILITARY for his not capturing Bin Laden. I agree with Guiliani that the TERRORIST are to blame for 9/11 no one else.

But-Clinton handled the Somalia incident poorly and he CONTINUED to respond poorly when the US Military was ATTACKED.

I'm sorry but the US MILITARY are CITIZENS of this country too-and if Clinton is going to blame the military for something ridiculous-his supposed failure to capture Bin Laden than he should reap what he sows. It's that simple.

These are events that happend on his watch-they are plain and simple fact-not opinion.

Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000:
In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.

U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998:
A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible.

Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998:
Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a U.S. citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a sub-clan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.

Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, 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. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.

Yemeni Kidnappings, October 30, 1997:
Al-Sha'if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on smuggling charges and several public works projects they claim the government promised them. They released the hostage on November 27.

Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997:
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."

Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997:
A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, New York City, London, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kansas. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the Al-Hayat office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage.

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996:
A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996:
HAMAS and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.

HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996: Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996:
Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. Embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. Circumstances of the attack suggested it was an operation carried out by the 17 November group.

Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995:
The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. government, and over 40 others.

Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995:
HAMAS claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed 6 and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.

Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995:
Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993:
The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993:
The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.

Pre-emptively for Robert et Lee and all the other Democratic denialists-

Here is were Clinton throws sand in the eyes of the military-

And you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

Transcript

The entire military.

Yes the Pentagon thought he didn't have the legitimacy and the backing of his OWN Democratic party to pull it off.

But I bet you there would have been plenty of Special Forces volunteers who knew what Bin Laden was responsible for and who would have wanted to avenge the deaths of their military brothers and sisters.

Clinton was Commander in Chief but he has no internal locus of control instead he blames -

the entire military.

That is the kind of leader the Liberals rally around.

Shoot typo-

were=where

There has been a lot of criticism of what Clinton did or didn't do, but what about Bush? Did Bush have opportunities to capture OBL? Were there warnings of pending strikes? What did Bush do?

Below are some quotes lifted from pre 9/11 press briefings:

2/27/01

Q Ari, according to India Globe, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

6/27/01
Q And just to follow that, the Indian government have arrested a number of terrorists in connection with Osama bin Laden and his activities, also in Saudi Arabia now. Osama Bin Laden has called on India, that he will destroy all the U.S. installations and all the U.S. interests in India. So what is the U.S. government doing? Has the President spoken with the Prime Minister of India or anybody there?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is always concerned about extremism and terrorism and that is particularly the case with Osama Bin Laden. And the United States, working with our allies around the world, will remain vigilant in making certain that all steps are taken to prevent terrorist acts from taking place.
7/2/01
Q The murderous Osama bin Laden has threatened Israel and the United States in the next two weeks to, in his words, hit them where it hurts the most. Since President Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to attack the Barbary pirates and President Wilson sent the U.S. Army under General Pershing into Mexico in pursuit of a mass murderer of Americans, named Pancho Villa, the President realizes that these are two legitimate presidential precedents for his taking military action, doesn't he, Ari? Or does he think that Jefferson and Wilson were wrong? (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: The President will take action that he deems appropriate in national security interests.

Can you say "Silver platter"?

Barney said:

There has been a lot of criticism of what Clinton did or didn't do, but what about Bush? Did Bush have opportunities to capture OBL? Were there warnings of pending strikes? What did Bush do?

Two points here:

1. At the time of the attacks (9/11/01), Bush had been President about 8 months. Clinton had been President for the previous 8 years. It's entirely fair to ask what Clinton did (or, more accurately, didn't do) to address the terrorist threat. In addition, no one is saying that the Bush Administration was blameless; quite the contrary.

2. Your whole post is so typical of Leftists' responses--shine a light on your boy Bill and you guys go: "Don't shine that light over here! Look over there! Bush is worse!!"

You'd have a helluva lot more credence if you'd just admit that mistakes were made by both administrations.

"Silver platter." Yeah, right. This kind of mis-direction would be laughable if the real danger from Islamofascists weren't so serious.

BarneyG2000: "Can you say "Silver platter"?"

YEs I can...and I can even RECOGNIZE one when I see it! Sadly, for you, that was NOT one. A "reporter" quoting the India Globe, quoting an unnamed Taliban resource saying they want to make a deal is ludicrous!

Justrand:

No, Barney's right. The Taliban were all set to hand over Osama bin Laden, despite the fact that he and al-Qaeda were key allies in their struggle against the Northern Alliance. Indeed, the fact that Osama helped off Mahmoud Masoud (aka the Lion of the Panjshir Valley), the most effective of the Northern Alliance commanders, is irrelevant.

But, hey, Dubya wanted an oil pipeline for Unocal to go through.

So, instead of negotiating with the Taliban, he toppled the government---which is why that brand, spanking new pipeline's running through there, and why oil prices have dropped.

Of course, after the brutal Afghan winter, when millions of Afghans died (making them nearly extinct, just as Noam Chomsky predicted), it's hardly surprising.

What, why are you looking at me like that?

The truth hurts! Bush was warned of pending strikes and he did nothing.

Also:
The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.

CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."

Tenet and Black were both frustrated.

Hugh,

I didn't make up the term "security voters" but I guess it has different definitions. What I had in mind were the voters who think the security issue is number one because if we don't keep Islamic extremists from killing us the rest won't matter. There are many of these voters that are now bloggers strongly supporting Bush's efforts in the War on Terror and in Iraq. There are quite a few libertarian and even Democrat bloggers that voted for Clinton, but after 9/11 saw that school uniforms just didn't matter when fellow Americans were jumping out of buildings to keep from being incinerated. I was referring to those voters who ordinarily would vote Democrat, or would just as likely vote Dem as GOP, but since 9/11 cannot vote for Democrats because they don't believe Democrats are interested in addressing security concerns, but rather are interested in destroying Bush and winning elections. If you don't think those voters exist then you are not paying attention.

So let's recap.

On 7/2/01
The murderous Osama bin Laden has threatened Israel and the United States in the next two weeks to, in his words, hit them where it hurts the most.

On 7/10/01
They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Now, what did Bush do?

Rory: Don't ever post facts where Burka wearing Lee and company can read them. Their heads are so full of BS that facts can't penetrate.

They live on facts (aka fantasy facts) as posted by one bullet Barney Fife G2000

Bush didn't stop all air traffic prior to 9/11 and he didn't arrest all the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11. Those are two things that could have prevented the attack -- at least by those specific individuals on that specific day. There still might have been the same attack on 9/12 or 10/11 or some other time. I don't think he could have done either, really, not without more specific intel. By the time Bush came in, it was too late. The plot had already been planned. Unless we got some really specific details, it would have been hard to prevent, regardless of who was in office.

I think Bush realizes that and it is part of why he has taken the tactic of taking the fight to the terrorists.

I just wonder what would have happened if Bush had had enough intel to act and had tried to do something to stop it. If Dems oppose efforts to wiretap and profile and use aggressive investigative techniques now, after 9/11, how likely is it they would ahve commended Bush for using them prior to 9/11.

I have often asked friends discussing this what we could have done even if we had more specific information. I wonder how many warnings the government picks up of proposed hijacking and bombings a year. Even with a warning of a hijacking on 9/11, I wonder how many other similar warnings they get. Do you ground air traffic or alert the public of every threat? If you do that, at some point it becomes like our fire alarm was in the freshman dorm in college. The alarm went of several times a day. Most people ignored it. After you walk up and down five flights of stairs several times a week, or sometimes a day, you tend to lose the sense of urgency.

BarneyG2000:
"On 7/10/01
They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Now, what did Bush do?"

************
7/11/01...on the basis of the warning, and realizing that if attack is to come it will involve men between 18-35 of Middle Eastern decent, Bush orders PROFILING of all airline passengers along those lines. He also orders wiretaps be done on alQueda contacts.

7/12/01 - 9/1/01 though a combination of anecdotal incidents and a variety of rumors indicate some type of extra scrutiny of Middle Eastern men is taking place, the program is nevertheless successful in identifying several men on interest in the U.S. Though the "wall" between the FBI and CIA remains in effect...some agents are willing to bend the rules.

9/2/01 - the front page of the New York Times exposes the profiling and wiretapping. the Bush administration initially denies the allegation

9/3/01 - the ACLU files a Freedom of Information lawsuit demanding details

9/4/01 - a high ranking FBI official formally charges several agents with bending the FBI-CIA "wall" rule...throwing a chill over all agents willing to bend those rules

9/5/01 - 9/9/01 allegaations fly in all directions, and Democrats in Congress demand hearings...threatening impeachment proceedings

9/10/01 - the Bush administration suspends the profiling program, re-emphasizes the "wall", and orders a temporary halt to wiretapping of overseas calls associated with alQueda suspects

9/11/01, 5:00 a.m. Eastern Time...a nationwide communique is sent to all airport personnel ordering them to STOP any and all profiliing of Middle Eastern men...and to apply normal procedures on a random basis equally to all fliers

9/11/01, 5:43...Mohammed Atta breezes through airport security, along with 18 other Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18-35, at a variety of airports.....

Scrapiron-

Ya I gotta ease up on Lee yesterday he confessed to hating himself-he said he hated whiners...

Justrand,
That post is a good summary.

BarnyG2000
it was WJC who started finger pointing last Sun not Bush, the comment are showing Clinton was wrong to do so. Clinton did what he thought was the right thing when he was pres. yes he did make mistakes. Bush has done what he thought is right. Clinton is more occupied with he reputation than the welfare of the US. Bush has not blamed Clinton, Clinton has blamed Bush