State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Advance The Man, Aug 17, 2005.

  1. Advance The Man macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    #1
    Had he done something about it, we might not be in the mess we are now. :(

    Seems he didn't want to rock the boat. Economy was screaming, he was running for re-election, he was having awesome Whitehouse parties - why screw that up for going after a known financier for terrorism? :confused:

    Clinton Knew About Bin Laden
     
  2. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #2
    The fact that Clinton didn't do anything does not excuse Bush from not doing anything.



    Typical right-wing fashon. Blame everything on the democrat that was in office before. I'm shocked that you guys have yet to blame Clinton for Bush's pretzel incident.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Richard Clarke deals with some of this in his book. Whether he did enough or not, Clarke argues that the Clinton administration was the first to take this issue seriously, and even more to the point, that Clinton took it more seriously than his successor.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    If Bush hadn't been so focused on getting on vacation 6 months after being sworn in, and had paid attention to the memo stating 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US' we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. :(

    Perhaps if Bush's daddy hadn't armed and supported bin Laden back before Clinton ever became president we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. :(

    Perhaps if Bush had not let the people around him stovepipe and cherry-pick the intelligence he would have suspected there wasn't enough evidence to justify risking American lives in combat. :(

    Bush lied, and people died. :(
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    Not this again.

    This is just a variation of old claims that Clinton wasn't tough enough on terrorism.

    Link

    The former part of that quote speaks for itself. As for the scandal...well, Clinton may've done the deed (with Monica Lewinsky), but that was only the culmination of a long-unfolding, complicated plot by Richard Mellon Scaife and other neo-cons to implicate Clinton in something, anything...so I think the neo-cons have gotta share at least half the blame for that.

    Again, this is a variation on old stuff that has already been debunked by Al Franken and others.

    What about the current occupant of the White House, who got a memo in advance of the Sept. 11 attack, but never reacted to it (or maybe even never read it) because he was on vacation?
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Will you just stop with the direct questions? You know it'll only cause trouble...
     
  8. Heb1228 macrumors 68020

    Heb1228

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #8
    Maybe Bush should have done something, but he had 1 year whereas Clinton had 4. You have to at least admit that Clinton deserves more blame than Bush here.
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #9
    I thought that was the general idea. ;)
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #10
    ...If we're gonna argue the issue temporally instead of with regard to opportunity and advance warning.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    Not quite. If you read the article (and Richard Clarke's book), you will know that bin Ladin was protected by the Sudanese government, and it wasn't until he relocated to Afghanistan that he became vulnerable. This is where he was nearly killed in the Cruise missile attack -- which I recall at the time a lot of Clinton critics didn't exactly greet with applause. Also, it's nearly 100% hindsight to argue anyone really knew what bin Ladin was capable of undertaking before the embassy bombings in 1998. Still, the Clinton administration left a detailed plan for dealing with terrorism on President Bush's desk in January 2001, which Bush proceeded to ignore for the next seven months. Then there was the security briefing warning about terrorists flying hijacked airplanes into buildings, which landed on Bush's desk only weeks before it actually happened.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Perhaps, but I think if you refer to IJ's reference to Clark's book you'll find that Clinton was trying, despite the best efforts of the opposition to destroy his presidency, to fight terrorism. However he was fighting it with one hand tied behind his back dealing with the bogus investigation of him by partisan republicans. Clinton's administration successfully prosecuted the people behind the first WTC bombings. He tried a decapitation strike but missed bin Laden. This recent revelation about Atta tells us about Able Danger.

    Bush was doing nothing to combat terrorism. At least nothing that has been produced yet to show he was actively pursuing the threats posed by terrorism prior to 9/12/01.

    And then to top it off, Bush made things worse. He's created more terrorists than we've killed off, he's hollowed out our military to the point that we would be forced to pull up stakes in Iraq if another major front opened up on us right now. I know a lot of conservatives think people like me spend to much time worrying about what the rest of the world thinks of us, but without international assistance we cannot foot the bill for World Cop nor Bringer of Democracy to the Unenlightened. We are facing staggering debt right now because of this 'forward leaning' posture. We've opened the door to 'pre-emptive warfare'. We've become torturers. We've tossed our civil rights in the wastebasket. For what? And are we any safer? The public doesn't think so, and at this point I concur with them. We're $250 billion poorer, less safe, and less well defended under Bush.

    So sure, Clinton could have done more. But that's not an excuse for Bush to do the same. 'Oh the other guy was worse' doesn't excuse your own incompetence.
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    The amusing thing (in a disturbing sort of way) is how the Bush administration justified their inaction on the August 2001 security briefing because it didn't contain specific or actionable information, but we're supposed to accept the proposition that the Clinton administration had enough actionable information about bin Laden prior to 1998 to do more than they did. The fact that the Clinton administration came closer to taking him out before more than a handful of Americans even knew who he was than the Bush administration has in nearly four years of effort since 9-11 gets conveniently misplaced. Somebody needs to explain how this logic works because I just don't get it.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    You're just not thinking Right.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    Hmm, well I think I can safely predict silence from our Right Thinkers in response to this question.
     
  16. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #16
    "While President Bush mentioned the terror mastermind by name more than 10 times in his 2004 State of the Union address, bin Laden wasn't named once by the president during this year's address http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050223-ubl-hunt.htm

    I suppose this is moot for some 'Right Thinkers' or maybe even some 'Left of Right Thinkers', but The Hunt for UBL should not be placed on the back burner of "old news". And comments like "We haven't had real, solid information since the Tora Bora campaign on his location", from Mark Kirk (R-IL) lead me to rethink who's doing the thinking, Right or Left. And I'll refrain from commenting on personal views of the State Dept. though words like "right" and "think" would not find their way in to the description.
    X
     
  17. Advance The Man thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    #17
    Agreed. Clinton avoided conflict cause he was so worried about losing votes. My opinion is Clinton was an extremely selfish President. Bush does what's right for the country, not worry what polls indicate.
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    ... he said, completely ignoring all of the information provided in subsequent posts.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    He's probably got everyone to the left of Genghis Khan on "Ignore".
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    Quite likely, which is one of the reasons why I predicted silence in response. Sadly, some people choose to live in echo chambers of their own construction. One wonders why anyone would bother coming here if they're not even remotely interested in discussion.
     
  22. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #22
    ya know, not one liberal yet has admitted that Clinton screwed up, they all say that it is a diversion, that W is all the bad, blah-blah, then they complain about how people talk about Clinton.

    Just once, sometime, plz, one tall standing W hater, just admit Clinton screwed up before W was in office. Just once somebody admit it.

    There a thousand things that led up to OBL being a pain in the bottom. From crap in his childhood, to US policy in Afg to be a pain in the russans bottoms. And one of the many screw ups was OBL and the sudan, another the cruise missle idea. Should W have been after him more when he came to office? YES.
     
  23. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #23

    I'm a liberal, and yes, Clinton could have done something. There, he screwed that up. Happy? However, that does not excuse Bush from continuing to ignore the problem. However, at least Clinton redeemed himself by having one of the strongest economies this country has seen in a long time. Bush screws up and we get 9/11, and continues to screw us over.
     
  24. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #24
    thanks for the "he screwed that up" for years part, cause W could have done something in the 10 months he had.

    If you believe that 9/11 was strickly Bushs fault, you have a lot of reading to do.

    Clinton's strong economy was built on Enron, Worldcom, and .Com accounting fraud. It was an illusion, while Sen Lieberman pandered to the accounting lobby. The projections of tax income were based on a booming economy that was supposed to be actually booming, not busting.

    feel free to follow the trend lines of when clinton got into office, and as he was leaving.
     

    Attached Files:

  25. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #25
    link

    The linked site has links backing up all the information.

    Wake up Mr "advance the man"
     

Share This Page