The Real Bill C.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Desertrat, Oct 2, 2006.

  1. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #1
    Never a dull moment in politics and TV and the ensuing insider comments:

    http://www.leadercall.com/cnhi/leadercall/opinion/local_story_272092817.html?keyword=topstory

    In part:

    "Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

    Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

    The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

    Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

    Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

    In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

    Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

    The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake."

    As usual, actions have consequences--but so do inactions.

    'Rat
     
  2. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #2
    yeah, like the author had ever in past 5 year asked any questions about Bin Laden to Prez. Bush.
    Smear is Smear, I don't know why the author is more credible than Bill, than 9-11 commission (btw the commission was apparently NOT told all the truth by Rice), and he sounds like he knows exactly what happened.
    and ridiculously, he claims Clinton never paid attention to 1993 attack, while forgetting that from 1993~2000, there were no successful attack by Bin Laden, so are you going to think bin laden doesn't hate US in that 7 years? or it was Bill's effort?
    Loser is a loser, republicans never have guts to ask same questions to their own president in 5 years, just as Bill pointed out.
     
  3. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    Desertrat, get over it.

    I wish conservatives could get just past this false smear **** and admit that their beloved king can make mistakes.

    And this is a bad thing? If he had stayed, then you'd all be saying "look, Clinton was wasting time in Somalia just like all you liberals are saying Bush is in Iraq." There isn't any pleasing the right wing, you'd all bitch about it either way.

    Same thing here. You complain saying that he should have acted without the CIA and FBI certifying, but if he had acted without them certifying, then you would be saying he was out of control and taking the role of the Executive too far.

    I'd like, just for once, to see a neocon say "We messed up, sorry." instead of "It's everyone elses fault we're terrible."
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Wow, six years out and some people still can't get past their blind rage at Clinton. I guess Clinton-bashing will never go out of style, eh?
     
  5. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #5
    Apparently not.

    It's sort of funny. Conservatives don't like when people bash Bush, but then they turn around and do the same to Clinton. It's even funnier because Bush is honestly the worst president this country has ever had.
     
  6. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #6
    yea...it's embarassing, isn't it? :eek:
     
  7. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #7
    Ok, so Clinton proposing anti-terrorism legislation in 1996 that was pared down by a Republican Congress was doing nothing.

    link

    Point me at anyone who was claiming Bin Laden was a huge threat before the USS Cole.

    What did Bush do to target Bin Laden in his 8 months in office compared to Clinton's 3 after the Cole was bombed?

    Show me where Clinton blamed Bush I for the bombing on the WTC that took place less than a month after he was sworn in.

    Clinton may not have done as much as he could but at least he tried to do something once Bin Laden was identified as a large threat. He also didn't blame his predecessor for issues either.
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    If you are republican its all you have to run on. Really is, just blame everything on Bill. Bush still hasnt caught Bin Laden 6yrs laters. I can only think that because his family is so close to the Bin Laden's family that is why he disbanded the CIA group who was suppose to get Bin Laden in the 1st place. Borders still wide open, Constitution under attack by the very ones sworn to defend it from foreign & domestic enemys,Bill of rights under attack and the Geneva Convention ignored by the president who wants to spy on Americans and torture anyone it accuses. Hey the USSR did win the cold war.
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    And neither will historical revisionism. Perhaps this George W. Bush quote from the presidential debates in 2000, and why he said it, is meant to be completely forgotten:

     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #10
    Clinton never took the WTC bombing in '93 sufficiently seriously?

    Clinton had the FBI investigate and arrest the perpetrators, who are now in jail. Sounds sufficiently serious to me.

    Moreover, here's an article about the anti-terrorism actions the Clinton administration took. I'll believe this over the claims of Dick Morris, a man who's still sucking on sour grapes (not to mention prostitutes' toes) over his forced resignation while working for Bill Clinton. Morris is just one more anti-Clinton charlatan.
     
  11. Black&Tan macrumors 6502a

    Black&Tan

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    #11
    My thought is that he doesn't want Bin Laden to be found. Without the boogeyman to point at, who would we be scared of.

    Or, maybe Bin Laden's in Pakistan where we are impotent to reach him.

    Or maybe they're already got Bin Laden and are waiting for a suitably dramatic moment to announce the capture prior to the elections...
     
  12. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    :) Morris' article was linked at this AM's Google news. In checking around, I found 48 listed editorials/articles/comments. These were all across the spectrum from "He's worse than that!" to "He did righteous!"

    The deal looks like "I'll bet my inside guy against your inside guy, and raise you one talking head."

    Still, whatever your view of Morris, I don't think you could call Stephanopolous anti-Clinton, could you?

    it5Five, you're not quoting me; you're quoting Morris. The footnote of the article said that Morris was a Clinton advisor for twenty years. Why should I argue with Morris? Was he lying or mistaken about the roles of Berger and Tenet?

    Highly amusing--but a waste of time.

    What gets lost in all this politicky stuff is that whatever goofs were inherent in the system should be changed to avoid making the same errors now or in the future. Seems to me the real question, today, is the efficacy of Homeland Security. Analysis of past acts should serve to make the system more efficient, if possible--and not be stuck on assigning blame. I don't give a tinker's dam if Clinton was or was not at fault. What I don't want is any repetition of some variant of 9/11.

    Separately: It doesn't matter that Clinton's gone from the White House. He made decisions whose effects are still with us. That holds for his predecesssors, as well. E.g., go to Wikipedia and read what's said about the Iran-Iraq war that began in 1980, and what US President was considered an impetus for it. Numerous other examples abound, from even earlier times. And we know Bush's decisions will affect the next administration and the next...

    'Rat
     
  13. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #13
    we all know everybody is faulty here, the problem is if you want to sincerely conclude something by "looking back", why you let go the biggest, most obviously fault by current administration? Its hard to believe, yet exactly whats happening, just like those folks on Fox News, always digging 1000 miles into democrats' small problem, while let go republican's mistakes under your nose. This kind of double standard is hardly convincing, and make people doubt what your real purpose is.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Bingo- I'm sorry but, the responsibility for today's situation rests squarely with this administration. It's been 6 years- no matter what Clinton did or did not do, Bush has to take responsibility for what he has done and failed to do as well. Give it a rest desertrat. This administration is a disaster- Katrina anyone? Oh I suppose you'll blame Clinton for that too. And give me a break, NO is still a wreck. Bush has done little to help.
     
  15. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    clevin: "Democrats' small problems"? You kidding me? Stipulate for the moment that I agree with you about Bush: Blown-up embassies, a bomb under the WTC, the Cole, $250 million worth of Cruise missiles to blow up an aspirin factory and some empty campsites? A bunch of Saudis running around the U.S. for some years of learning how to fly airplanes and do their conspiring? Agency communications problems? "Echelon"? That's all just "small problems"? Chump change?

    You might not know it, but there are a lot of us conservative types out here who are in no way Neo-cons. Really. Believe it. A lot of us who have at least a modicum of "handle" on military stuff aren't pleased with the "how" of a lot of the Iraq doings. Some support, others oppose, the "why" of the Iraq invasion.

    leekohler, why should the feds pump more tax-dollar billions into New Orleans than you and I and us-at-large already have? Fed money is required for fed-associated projects, but rebuilding a bunch of flooded houses isn't part of the deal. For the overall picture, though, have you read the Popular Mechanics' article on Katrina?

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html

    'Rat
     
  16. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #16
    when comparing to Repub's cases, I would have to say those are "small", when Repub's policy cause the life of 3000 US soldiers, tens of thousand wounded, 100,000+ iraqi civilian death toll and rising, 100 iraqi death everyday, hundreds of billion of dollars spent, please tell me if thats "big" enough for you. or just iraqi's life is too cheap for you to mention?
    if you want me to see you as balanced, please, you should have mentioned something about the repubs in your original post, right?
    every post you wrote is trying to "balance" the failure of dems and repubs. please, if you seriously think dems and repubs are equally faulty here, by no way I would ever agree with you.
    PS, i am not blindly bashing conservatives, I know alot of smart of them, Im purely comment from the post of yours, and don't be surprised, I think some repub senators are smart and honest, altho they are not majority in senate's repubs.
     
  17. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #17
    So who voted to use force in Iraq?
     
  18. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #18
    so who presented evidence base to the senate floor for the vote?
     
  19. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #19
    It doesn't matter who did what, the democratic congressmen who voted for the Iraq war are just as much at fault for the war as the Republican congressmen, Bush, Cheney, and who ever the hell else either side wants to blame. Everyone seems to forget that 29 Democrat senators voted for the Iraq war: very prominent senators like Clinton, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. These senators share just as much blame in allowing the United States Military to invade Iraq as any Republican senator. Many people, including top Democrats, believed that Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Clinton believed it even before Bush was in office, so did Madeline Albright, add Sandy Berger to the list, so did Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry (in 1998 might I add, when was Bush elected again?), Bob Graham believed it, Al Gore thought so too. I could add more, but many of them are from after 2000, so I don't see the point in adding them since I will just be told that Bush lied to them all and they based their opinions off of his faulty intelligence. These senators and political leaders made a bad choice, just as Bush, Cheney, and the majority of Republican senators, but they were all acting off of what was believed to be correct and common intelligence at the time (we of course now know that to be false).

    To blame one party or one side is ludicrous; this war was a result of a failure by Democrats and Republicans, the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, and much, much more importantly the American people as a whole. We acted in an irrational way, most of us said, "Hell yeah bomb Iraq, lets get some!" We were not paying enough attention, we were not involved enough, and we failed to educate ourselves properly about previous matters or the matter at hand; we acted without thought. It's not the senators at fault, it's not the republicans or the democrats, or Bush, or Clinton, it was you, it was me, it was every American.


    And to add, not all Republicans support the Iraq war, in fact a fairly good sized amount don't (I think this is obviously shown by Bush's and the Iraq wars approval ratings). Also, alot of Republicans are not "neo-cons". There are many "paleo-cons," old style conservatives who favor small government, are not for massive wars with huge expenditures, and who generally believe in having governments with fiscal responsibility. Religous Republicans are not the main base of our group (just like tree huging, hemp wearing, electric car driving hippes are not the main part of the Democratic party, no matter how much Republicans want to believe that), many of us, me included, have never been to church, some of us are actually gay (can't say I'm in this group but I do know people who are), some of us are athiests, agnostic, or what have you, and alot of us do not like President Bush, in fact, the majority of us proably voted for him because we saw him as the better of two pretty ****** candidates.


    I'll proably be flamed for this post, but oh well, it's not like I post here much.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    What? I never advocated rebuilding in flooded areas. As a matter of fact, I think that's a bad idea. However, we as a country have a respnsibility to take care of our own when these types of things happen. And guess what? it's not happening at the moment. The feds should also be more actively holding insurance companies responsible when they deny people money the rightly deserve due to this disaster.

    And as for money, we certainly seem to have endless supplies of it to pour into Iraq. Why not our own backyard?
     
  21. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #21
    Nah, you made some good points. NO need to be flamed.
     
  22. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #22
    It's a bit simplistic to say that any members of Congress voted "for the war." What they voted for was an authorization for the president to use force in Iraq. Most presidents, when they request authority to use military force, will get it. It was then up to the president to use that authority wisely. Complaints about how responsibly the authority was used are completely justified, even by those who may have voted to give it. This "voted for the war" thing is little more than a smokescreen to protect the administration from appropriate criticism.
     
  23. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #23
    Voting for war is essentially what they did, they knew the president would use the power to invade Iraq. Approving the Iraq War Resolution was essentially a declaration of war, the president asked to go to war with Iraq and Congress said yes, what did they think he was going to do after he got the power to go to Iraq? Eventhough Bush made the ultimate decision to go to Iraq there are far more people to blame than just him (after all this is a system of checks and balances and that still applies in a Republican controlled congress and hosue) and his administration. Heres some people other than Republicans to start with:

    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Biden (D-DE)
    Breaux (D-LA)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Carnahan (D-MO)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Cleland (D-GA)
    Clinton (D-NY)
    Daschle (D-SD)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Edwards (D-NC)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hollings (D-SC)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lieberman (D-CT)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Miller (D-GA)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Torricelli (D-NJ)

    Theres also 81 Democrat reps in the house you can bestow some of the blame on, along with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and others who stated long before Bush was in office that they believed Iraq had WMDs. You can also blame me, yourself, your friends, your family, and everyone else who was a citizen of this country in the years leading up to the invasion.
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    You did make good points in your post, but this paragraph is the exception. It was NOT every American's fault that this war happened. I and many others, wrote letters, marched in the street, signed petitions, talked to whoever would listen and did whatever else we could to stop it. We believed the UN inspectors and felt that the Administration was rushing into a mess it would neither be able to handle, nor substantiate. Sadly, we were right.

    So, while you are correct about this being more than just Republicans, I seriously must take exception to your assertion that it's EVERYONE's fault. It wasn't.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    And despite the number of times you say it, believing that Saddam was trying to develop WMDs, as you correctly note that many leading Democrats did, and having it logically follow that those same leading Democrats would have made the leap to "we must invade Iraq right now" is another smokescreen designed to cover the GOPs ass and spread the blame.

    As well as what Lee said about the folly that no one was informed. That's crap. No one could have anticipated it, eh? That's this administration's most common refrain...
     

Share This Page