I knew when I saw that Leopold Stotch blogged this over at at OTB that there was a reason for the timing:
Clinton: I Would Have Attacked Bin Laden
Ex-president Bill Clinton now says he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks – if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the al-Qaida mastermind was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
“I desperately wish that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole,” Clinton tells New York magazine this week. “Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early.”
“I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11,” he added. “But it certainly would have complicated it.”
Despite his failure to launch such an attack, Clinton said he saw the danger posed by bin Laden much more clearly than did President Bush.
“I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did,” he told New York magazine.
Why now? What was Clinton up to? Because if there is one thing we know about Clinton, he’s always up to something. The New York Times provided the bombshell that Clinton was looking to defuse.
State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 – State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden’s move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam “well beyond the Middle East,” but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.
In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that “his prolonged stay in Afghanistan – where hundreds of ‘Arab mujahedeen’ receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate – could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum,” in Sudan.
The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden’s history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.
Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
So we now have proof of what was widely suspected. Clinton had every opportunity to stop bin Laden and was too busy… well, we all know what he was too busy doing in July 1996.
Perhaps had he been a little more concerned with the deaths of 19 service men then he was *ahem* himself, history might have been different.
Remember, this was at the exact time Clinton accused Lewinsky of telling people about the affair. Clearly he knew the Presidency was in jeopardy. Do you think maybe he was distracted?
Update Ironically, it was 6 years ago today he admitted to the affair.
Clinton seemed distracted by the inappropriate prying into his personal life in the same way most people are distracted by flies at a picnic. It did not stop him from enjoying himself and it didn’t stop him from being a good president. It didn’t cause him to miss Bin Laden. If Bin Laden was so easy to stop why haven’t we found him with Bush’s approach. He is a tough guy.
My message is different than yours. Its based on the obvious facts. I am not obsfucating reality. We have poor people in the United States that need our help. We have sick people – decent people- who cannot care for themselves because they can’t get insurance or affordable health care. They need our help. We are putting young American soldiers in harms way to pay the price of poor political decisions. Many of them have died. Don’t get me wrong we are locked in for the long haul in Iraq. The initial decision was not justifiable but it is equally unjustified to walk away. At the same time – We cannot afford to aggressively assist people with adoption but we will spend millions to change the rules on abortion. I am against abortion but I am in favor of making sure babies live with people that want to raise them. If someone gets pregnant and doesn’t want the child we need to find a place for that child. We cannot make someone want that child anymore than I can convince you to vote for Hillary. She speaks to these issues in a sensible and sensitive way. If my message seems to be loud maybe you should listen. If you think it is distracting -understand it- and be distracted.
Four times last Fall i went to high school football games where dead children who had played in the past few years there honored for being dead in Bush’s political war. When I look at my boys and imagine them dead because of Bush’s war I get angry. When I think of Cindy Sheehan and the moms and dads at those football games I am truly saddened.
If you believe it is a noble cause tell me that you would be willing to sacrifice your son or daughter so that Iraq can be where it is. If you say you would I will call you a liar. If you change the subject you are a fraud. If you say no help me and others find a better alternative to Bush. We were lucky to have Bill Clinton as president.
RE: john’s post (August 18, 2005 12:12 AM)
john, you’re giving me a headache. I don’t know which comment causes the worst pounding, but this one seems pretty good:
If you believe it is a noble cause tell me that you would be willing to sacrifice your son or daughter so that Iraq can be where it is. If you say you would I will call you a liar.
I can no more “sacrifice” a son or daughter as Bill Clinton can tell the truth. We have a VOLUNTEER military of ADULTS. They choose for themselves what is noble which is what makes our military so special. If I had a son or daughter serving in our military (I choose to keep this impersonal/anonymous and not disclose whether I do, don’t, or am even of age to have mature kids or grandkids), I cannot think of a decision that would make me more proud. Other professions are certainly worthy and meritable… but I would not endure the slightest hesitation in endorsing my offspring’s voluntary service in our military whether it be Bosnia, South Korea, Germany, Somalia, Afghanistan or, egads, Iraq. However, it would matter not one whit what I thought. The soldier volunteers. There is no altar. There is no knife. There are no sheep. There IS a patriot.
Well, back to your Starr fetish and Clinton lovefest.
If you can’t find any of Hillary’s accomplishments to list just say so. There’s no need to rehash what’s already been claimed about Starr digging into Clinton’s sex life. That’s already been proven to have happened after he got the information that he didn’t act on. You’ve totally sidestepped my questions and and tried to distract us, that’s just plain dishonest. You’re going to owe some Hail Marys and Our Fathers for that one John, you’re moral compass has failed you again.
BR: the NRO linked information I’d intended looks like it scrolled quickly off that page due to frequent updates.
I have a copy of it saved to document but I am not sure I can reprint it here given the copyright restrictions, and Wizbang’s policy as to not reprinting protected content.
IF you can go to that link at NRO and locate a section by John Podhoretz called, “OKAY, HERE IT IS,” that’s the portion I was referring to here earlier. Pretty much sums up the essence of the events of late as to Clinton and Janet Reno’s suppression of the military intelligence information.
I am also willing to bet that Sandy Burger Pants was busy trying to “borrow” unloanable classified documents because others wearing Pants and Pantlettes knew what was coming otherwise.
O.K., reading on through the comments, I see BR has already noticed the Sandy Burger Pants rip.
O.K., I’ve now read through the later commments (bullwinkle, BR, Jim, eLarson, AnonymousDrivel, pvaughen…) and I feel compelled to make this observation:
— Clinton’s seemingly now being DEFENDED by his apologists BECAUSE he launched missiles? But President Bush (and us conservatives) are being flamed because we support the War in Iraq, and the War on Terrorism? But the Left reviles “war,” but Clinton fired his missiles, but the Left wants peace, but Clinton was busy, but the economy was good under Clinton but the economy is better under President Bush and that’s bad…
Clinton singlehandedly deconstructed, or tried to, the U.S. Military. He reduced funding overall, eliminated troops, reduced recruitment…IF he has ANY legacy in any “constructive” (his perspective, not mine) fashion as President it is that he deconstructed (tried to) the U.S. Military, because we “no longer needed” a large defense (his words were very close to that, if not those, although this morning I don’t have an exact quote).
Clinton allowed U.S.military to be truly butchered in Kosovo out of deflection to the bombastic U.N., which tells you where Clinton’s loyalties were and probably still are, what with him now hyped as possible new head of that organization (few find that matchup startling, I dare to guess).
And, just think, if Gore had landed in the White House (thank God he did not), the Left would have had him to blame for the “bad economy” just as it was tanking in Clinton’s final years in the Executive. But, no, same conditions, different Admininstration by different party and the Left instead blames Bush for a bad economy that is now better than it ever was while Clinton was in office.
Just saying here, there are a lot among the Left who seem to believe the spin and memes and have no firsthand familiarity or knowledge about the actual events of the first Bush White House after Reagan, or even of the Reagan years, and seem to have immortalized Clinton based upon what they’re reading written by other people who also have no firsthand experience, etc. It’s as if the Left has just created a nice tidy world out of thin air and called that “the Clinton Golden Age” or something similarly ludicrous, out of touch with what actually took place during Clinton in the W.H.
I continue to read that it was the fault of Republicans who “attacked” Clinton due to Clinton’s sexual behaviors…I mean, that was the final evidence of a man with bad morals and poor character, but it was not the reason. I can tell you, however, that the exposure of Clinton’s stupidity was the eye opener for me about just who was in the Presidency…I could barely look at him after that “I did not have sex with that woman…” appearance, so obvioulsy lying.
It wasn’t that Clinton had “sex” (or not “sex”) (but, jiminy he had sex with Lewinsky) but that that was the final straw of him dallying around with such huge issues taken into demeanment. Hearing Clinton now on his expensive speaking tours is a sad thing to behold.
And Hillary? The only moral authority she ever had she lost when she danced on the beach and ponied back up to “the cute guy.” Give.me.a.break. They deserve each other. America does not.
Now as I stated before, I was raised Catholic. Irish-Catholic. Hardcore. Nuns in grade school, Jesuits in high school and college. I don’t equivocate. You’re preaching to the choir. I don’t accept failures of “personality”. That’s bullshit frankly. I was raised to be a man that took responsibility for my actions. I was raised to do the right thing first. To respect others and to respect what I was given. I was raised to work (read “earn”) what I receive and to appreciate it. I was also raised with the idea that one should help their fellow man. And I do I know are those less fortunate.
While you washed your dishes tonight and were helping tutor your offspring, I wonder if you had considered that. You suggest that we should drop everything and focus on the fact that there are poorer and less fortunate people in OUR country the truely need assistance. I couldn’t agree with you more that they need our assisatnce. But the issues run deeper than who is in office.
People are living on the door step of my office. Ther are several steps that lead to a nice sheltered area at the door. There are services out there that can provide them with a bed and meals, but they decline. In fact, one is right across the street. They live on the door step because they don’t want to participate in society. They don’t need to. They have you and everyone that hands the change from their ashtray. You know, it’s the only time I wished more people smoked.
“Men for others!” I was told. Yeah, nice slogan. I got off the bus when the people I was trying to help said “I’m voting to Clinton”. No that was cheap. I’m sorry. But really, I got off the bus when the people I was trying to help found a more profitable way by using the system. I never said they were stupid! And neither are you!
I wouldn’t begin to suggest that the issues of poor people in our country can be fixed by the person in office. That is no their job. That is the job of the Congress. They need to create law, not hand outs. When did it become a bully-pulpit. Petulant, spoiled children. I know politics is politics but really.
John, you said:
“Clinton seemed distracted by the inappropriate prying into his personal life in the same way most people are distracted by flies at a picnic.” First of all, the inappropriate part what that he had an affair. And my point was that the lying is second nature to him. Your suggestion that because it is so common for him that an affair would not be distractingis not only disturbing but dis graceful?
And how can you be a True Catholic if you are down with the party the finds it acceptable to terminate a fetus? Cold ain’t it!?!
I have three brothers. A fireman, a fed and a Marine. The fireman works in a major US city. The fed, and former Marine and Border Pator Agent, works for I.C.E. (Immigration, Customs Enforcement – part of Homeland Security). He kicks a-holes out of the country. The Marine is a Marine. Has been for twenty years. He has been through both Bushes and Clinton. He has been to Saudi Arabia and Iraq a few times. He trained some of those who have been killed. He was in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He was most recently in Iraq last year. I know many military personel who consider it an honor to do what they do. I know an Army commander who was in a Humvee that got hit by an RPG. It killed the man behind him and left him nearly dead with shrapnel wounds to his arms, legs, torso and head. His hearing is severly diminished. He spent nearly a year recovering. Guess where he is now……Iraq. How do they do that? Freaks me out! I’m an architect. I don’t get the motivation. But I understand the person; the purpose.
Maybe you don’t. It’s not about our willingness to kill them. Its about their willingness to kill indescriminently. They don’t want stability. Until they do, we are all at risk no matter where we are.
Later,
-pvaughan
Oh, my humblest apologies for not knowing exactly what your president was doing on a particular day in 1996… obviously that’s the sort of thing everyone should know.
And I’m not a “liberal”, so you can stop applying your stereotypes to me, OK?
Pvaughn-
It is amazing that we have such similar backgrounds and come to such different conclusions.
I am a very conservative democrat. I do not support the party position on abortion. I made that clear above. I think that people have to make choices and be accountable. You and i were fortunate to be born to parents who were mentally, physically and fiscally able to give us everything we have used to succeed. I know you know better than to think the poor people who “live” at your doorstep do it by choice.
If you do not aggressively support the programs necessary to help the poor and unwanted children that are not aborted today, the problem will mushroom out of control when abortion is no longer the norm.
The majority of abortions are not middle class white mothers they are poor minorities who don’t have any prospect for their own lives let alone the life of their unborn child. Studies have shown the easiest way to stop abortion is to provide alternatives.
We spend billions in corporate welfare allowing businesses to shelter profits offshore. We allow corporate executives to rape and pillage the pensions of workers who built their wealth. We have Congress worried about steroids in baseball and for all their “Christian fervor” the best we get from this administration is leave it to the private sector to care for the poor etc.
John McCain is the exception. He adopted an orphaned child that was darker than him and the Bush used that and race baiting to beat him in the South Carolina primary.
The history of failed social programs are as long as the failed foreign policy we have today. Dems and Reps. You are right it doesn’t matter who is in office. Neither party has given a truly moral man that we should be proud to follow to church. I will be the role model for my children. I want the government to adhere to Judeo/Christian principles that guides or laws and programs to support what is going to improve conditions for our most poor.
We are closing mental hospitals and putting those people on the street. The bad cases end up in prison. The guy on your doorstep is probably one of those who should be hospitalized not criminalized. Certainly it is not his expression of rugged individualism.
We are building more and more prisons to accomodate the growing number of “criminals”. A significant amount of the crime that has landed them in prison is related to drug addiction and drug use. If it is our children or Rush Limbaugh they end up in a treatment facility and go back to prosperous lives. If they are poor minorities they go to prison with no hope of ever prospering.
I don’t have the answer but it isn’t in Iraq and it isn’t the brand of wicked mean spirited “christianity” being touted by the current administration and Congress.
I will switch when I see meaningful support for adoption and the end of race baiting by the republican party.
When Bill Frist can see life in Terry Schaivo but can’t see his way to support family services to aid adoption it is clear that leadership is blind to Christian values.
You seem like a thoughtful guy. We both have work to do in our respective parties. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. The Dems are bad in other areas. I can take that for now because I feel the core issues are better addressed by them. Peace
pvaughn-
About the Iraqi War…When I say it was a political decision rather than a security decision I mean the decision was based on the policy that a potential democracy is better than a contained tyrant and the financial and human cost to America must be weighed against the potential benefit of that democracy. I do not think it is worth throwing away volunteer soldiers or conscripted soldiers to effect the regime change. We are far from certain whether life will better in Iraq in the long run. The liberation of Iraq opens Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria to many years of destabilized governments -democratic or otherwise. The ethnic tribes that were cut to pieces when those states were originally created still exist. Without cooperation in the area from those other countries the Kurds, Baathe, and Shiites and a few other groups will try to develop self rule and defeat the political entities we are trying to create. There is no incentive for a Turkish Kurd to remain loyal to Turkey when there is the prospect of an oil rich Kurdistan if they can wage a successful civil war. Why will the Iraqi Kurds “naturally” embrace the Baathist’s who tried to eradicate them under Saddam. In all that turmoil which is inevitable and present today we have created a breeding ground for terrorism that will be much harder to contain than Saddam. We can’t just wave our flag and say democracy and expect it to stick. We have a short history with our democracy and we have our problems being inclusive with minorities and mostly we want to be inclusive. The political states in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria only been around since the 1920s when Britain abandoned their colonial rule. Before that the Kurds, Baathists, and Shiites had a thousand years to fight each other and develop their identities as nation states. Our attempt at democracy in a part of that region does not take into account the true nationalism and legitimate interests of those people. Especially since the groups exist across the political boundaries of other sovereign nations.
There is a reason Bush 1 did not fight this good fight. The cost to America without world support and participation is too great. Our soldiers are not supposed to question the decisions made by our political leaders. They are doing what they are told to do. Their voluntary sacrifice for the wrong cause is still noble. Their voluntary sacrifice does not make the cause noble.
In addition, we are not asking our military to fight a war in Iraq at this point. We are asking them to be the security police force and bear the brunt of attacks rather than inflicting them. Our soldiers are not trained to do that.
Its a lot like asking you as an architect to build a daycare on a toxic land fill only you have to be the engineer and contractor as well. I am sure that the design would be superior, the engineering would be adequate – I assume you are not a trained engineer or contractor for purposes of this example – and the construction might be okay. Just because it is well designed does not mean it is well placed. Just because you can muddle through the engineering and construction does not mean you are the best person to do that job.
Iraq is a toxic land fill and we are asking soldiers to do things they are not trained to do.
In the end the ill-conceived political war in Iraq will not be worth the cost.
When I suggest you think about one of your children being sacrificed for this cause is it worth it? I am trying to take it from the abstract of someone elses child and sacrifice and see if the political answer still works. For me it does not.
The service and sacrifice will always be noble but that has nothing to do with cause.
I agree with John.
This war was a political choice and not a security imperative. Comparing the morality of a sex act between two consenting adults to the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis and almost 2000 Americans is bizarre and symptomatic of the right wing as represented by Smirky the Lesser and his cohorts.
The selectivity of facts surrounding many of these arguments that Clinton is responsible for 9/11 is astounding. Let’s not forget that Osama was created in large part by the US under Ronnie Raygun. Let’s not forget that Smirky and Condi were give SPECIFIC warning in August 2001 that Al Queda was going FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS. In fact, I think that Smirky looks far worse than Clinton for not capturing Osama. Many of you are in such deep denial about this President, I am surprised your heads don’t explode. Where are the sane Republicans I used to know? Where is the small government, isolationist GOP? WHy are we nation building when Smirky promised not to do that?
“Clinton Ignored Bin Laden Warning During Lewinsky Affair”
Bush Ignored Specific Bin Laden Warnings During August 2001’s Annual Vacation and Brush Clearing Photo-Op Tour
I’m no Clinton fan either guys, but not everything is the fault of his libido.