Clinton did not do enough.....

[dennis99ss]

and other stuff.

Kind of out of the monster thread below (or above) as it may be.

But, this may be in there, I'm not sure.

I assume that some think that Bill did not do enough to address al queda, and osama, during his presidency. If that is your belief, and you now think there is evidence to support the argument, ala the interviewers, and the conservative agenda's current attack strategy, that Bill should have done something based upon his knowledge at the time, then I would assume that you think there was enough evidence to indicate a serious threat, and that it was clear enough for the President to know about it and take action with regards it.

If Clinton is held to the standard of having this knowledge, why is there not a similar complaint against W, in that, for 8 months, he was in Bill's place, and therefore would have had the same information, etc. as you base the complaints against Clinton on. I don't remember W doing anything during the first 8 months, and certainly can't remember one of W's followers, who attack Bill soo frequently, ever finding fault in W's actions prior to 9/11.

So, if Clinton had the duty, knowledge, etc. to act, why isn't the same complaint made against W, for the first 8 mos of his administration.

 

[FreshTressa]

I think the complaint has been placed against W.

 

[N.Bailey]

The ENTIRE government let us all down. The left, the right, the CIA, the FBI, and on, and on, and on, and on.

 

[eclectics]

I think the complaint has been placed against W.

It has, but no Republican seems to want to talk about it.

 

[AllyandJack]

Clinton had 8 years. Bushie had 8 months. By the time Bushie was in office, the plan was in place. It was being planned right under Clinton's nose. I'm no fan of Bush and his policies and I don't hold him completely innocent. But, 8 years compared to 8 months? Yes, I think Clinton had more of an ability to do something about it. He had warnings. There were attacks under his watch.

Do I think Bush is blameless? No. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[dennis99ss]

A&J, your comments are the exact response I am talking about. Clinton had eight years. He knew, he should have acted, he didn't. etc. Bush only had 8 mos. if Clinton had all the info, then Bush should have acted.

I think your response states my issue better than I could.

I am not blaming the entire event on Bush, although I do believe he has a large percentage of it. However, if Clinton should have acted, doesn't that mean the baush is as culpable, if not more so, for failing to act?

 

[N.Bailey]

A&J, your comments are the exact response I am talking about. Clinton had eight years. He knew, he should have acted, he didn't. etc. Bush only had 8 mos. if Clinton had all the info, then Bush should have acted.

I think your response states my issue better than I could.

I am not blaming the entire event on Bush, although I do believe he has a large percentage of it. However, if Clinton should have acted, doesn't that mean the baush is as culpable, if not more so, for failing to act?

It's all hindsight. Do you really think it's fair to point the fingers now in either direction? What does it accomplish? Do you think Clinton or Bush wouldn't have done all they could to prevent if the had the luxury of hindsight pre 9/11?

Can you see how you're placing blame on Bush, but stating no one should do the same to Clinton? It's a catch 22.

Until we get passed all this, IMO, this country will never move forward.

 

[bsnyder]

As I said on the other thread, I think this blame game is pointless and stupid. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.

 

[HOGFAN]

I really dont blame him too much. He did what he thought was right at the time. In years to come folks will probably be blaming Bush for not getting rid of those idiots in N.Korea and Iran. But I am sure that right now, 'things' are not right for that to happen.

 

[AllyandJack]

A&J, your comments are the exact response I am talking about. Clinton had eight years. He knew, he should have acted, he didn't. etc. Bush only had 8 mos. if Clinton had all the info, then Bush should have acted.

I think your response states my issue better than I could.

I am not blaming the entire event on Bush, although I do believe he has a large percentage of it. However, if Clinton should have acted, doesn't that mean the baush is as culpable, if not more so, for failing to act?

Clinton had 8 years while it was being planned. He had many years for his people to realize what was happening, to stop it in the planning stage while our embassies were being bombed and The Cole was being bombed and the WTC was being bombed and while these people were training to execute this attack in our country. Maybe Clinton wasn't even aware what was going on - I'm not saying he knew and let it happen, that's for the conspiracy theorists. Obviously something went horribly wrong during his administration.

Nobody is blameless...but, when it comes to the ability to gather information and execute a plan to prevent it....Clinton had the advantage of time and, supposedly, the cooperation of the international community because he was so loved.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just explaining why I feel the way I feel.

 

[salmoneous]

If there is a single DIS poster who does not agree with the following - "Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush did enough to stop alQaeda from attacking us on 9/11" they are a complete idiot.

Now if people want to argue that both of them did what they thought was best at the time and it's only in retrospect we see the problems, that's still open for debate.

 

[eclectics]

If there is a single DIS poster who does not agree with the following - "Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush did enough to stop alQaeda from attacking us on 9/11" they are a complete idiot.

Now if people want to argue that both of them did what they thought was best at the time and it's only in retrospect we see the problems, that's still open for debate.

Well said!

 

[N.Bailey]

If there is a single DIS poster who does not agree with the following - "Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush did enough to stop alQaeda from attacking us on 9/11" they are a complete idiot.

Now if people want to argue that both of them did what they thought was best at the time and it's only in retrospect we see the problems, that's still open for debate.

Of course and we use this information to make sure it never happens again.

 

[Sirius]

If there is a single DIS poster who does not agree with the following - "Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush did enough to stop alQaeda from attacking us on 9/11" they are a complete idiot.

Now if people want to argue that both of them did what they thought was best at the time and it's only in retrospect we see the problems, that's still open for debate.

bravo

 

[ChrisFL]

I really dont blame him too much. He did what he thought was right at the time. In years to come folks will probably be blaming Bush for not getting rid of those idiots in N.Korea and Iran. But I am sure that right now, 'things' are not right for that to happen.

Excellent point

 

[TheDoctor]

I like this quote. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2493200&page=1

....I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

Clinton was referring to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, briefing that President Bush received at his Texas ranch.

Until now, her husband's televised outburst on Sunday seemed to be a case of a former president trying vigorously to protect his legacy from even the suggestion that he was tepid in dealing with the likes of Osama bin Laden.

Political observers opined that Clinton might also have been signalling his party to defend itself equally strongly this fall against insinuations that Democrats are weak on terrorism.

I am glad that the democrats are defending themselves from the GOP lies about the war on terror. I find it silly for anyone in the GOP to claim that they are tough on terror given bush's total and complete failures in this area.

BTW, did anyone see Carville and Begala on the Today Show this morning. They were so very pleased that President Clinton fought back against the GOP lies about Sept 11 and the global war on terror.

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is more proof that Condi lied about the bushies' attempts to combat terrorism before Sept 11, 2001. http://thinkprogress.org/

In her interview with the New York Post, Condoleezza Rice falsely claimed that President Bush’s pre-9/11 anti-terror efforts were “at least as aggressive” as President Clinton’s. In fact, the 9-11 Commission disputes that account. While the Bush administration should have been preparing for a potential terrorist attack, it was instead focused on developing a costly missile defense system. Here are the facts:

Clarke Handed Over Plan To “Roll Back” Al Qaeda. “The terrorism briefing [in the White House Situation Room in Jan. 2001] was delivered by Richard Clarke … enior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations…say that Clarke had a set of proposals to ‘roll back’ al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, ‘Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.’ Clarke’s proposals called for the ‘breakup’ of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel.” [Time, 8/4/02]

Bush Said “Most Urgent Threat” Was Ballistic Missiles. In a speech on May 1, 2001, Bush said, “Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.” [Bush, 5/1/01]

Bush’s Priorities Did Not Include Al Qaeda. “After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04]

Rice Was “Focused On Matters Other Than Terrorism.” “A review of the record, from testimony and interviews, suggests that Ms. Rice…was usually fixed on matters other than terrorism [before 9/11], for reasons that had to do with her own background, her management style and the unusually close, personal nature of her relationship with Mr. Bush. … [T]he reality is that Ms. Rice has virtually no public utterances about Al Qaeda to point to as evidence that she was as engaged in the issue as she was in Mr. Bush’s other foreign policy agendas.” [NYT, 4/5/04]

Rice Was Set To Deliver 9/11 Speech On Missile Defense. “On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address ‘the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday’ — but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals. … The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04]​

President Bill Clinton, meanwhile, was focused on the terrorist threat. He outlined a three-pronged strategy for combating terrorism in a 1998 speech at the Naval Academy

President Clinton has done a valuable service by clearing the record and putting the bush record on trial.

 

[TheDoctor]

I think the complaint has been placed against W.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html

A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after she became National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements the Secretary made to reporters yesterday,.....

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told a reporter for the New York Post on Monday. "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."

Rice made the comments in response to claims made Sunday by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that his administration had done more than the current one to address the al Qaeda problem before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. She stopped short of calling the former president a liar.

However, RAW STORY has found that just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The strategy document includes "three levers" that the United States had started applying to Pakistan as far back as 1990. Sanctions, political and economic methods of persuasion are all offered as having been somewhat successful.....

The document makes it clear that the Clinton Administration recognized the problem that Pakistan posed in mounting a more sweeping campaign against bin Laden: "Overt action against bin Laden, who is a hero especially in the Pushtun-ethnic border areas near Afghanistan," Clarke speculated in late 2000, "would be so unpopular as to threaten Musharraf's government." It notes that, after the attack on the USS Cole, Pakistan had forbidden the United States from again violating its airspace to attack bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The memo sent by Clarke to Rice, to which the Clinton-era document was attached, also urges action on Pakistan relating to al Qaeda. "First [to be addressed,]" wrote Clarke in a list of pending issues relating to al Qaeda, is "what the administration says to the Taliban and Pakistan about ending al Qida sanctuary in Afghanistan. We are separately proposing early, strong messages on both."

The bushies did nothing with respect to Al Qaeda other than ignore the August 6, 2001 PDB. The bushies ignored Al Qaeda for nine months and then wondered why we were attacked.

 

[blanq]

If you want to address how our presidents have dealt with the issue of terrorism and how we came to the mess we are in today, it is necessary to look way past Clinton to Reagan and W's father. If you want a good primer on the history, I would highly recommend Richard Clarke's book: "Against All Enemies: Inside America's war on Terrorism."

Clarke tells the history of these four presidents and their terrorism policies:

Reagan did not retaliate for the murder of our Marines in Beruit, violating his own terrorism policy by trading arms for hostages.

George H. W. Bush did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of the Pan Am passengers, didn't have an official counterterrorism policy and left Sadam Hussein in power requiring us to leave a large military presence in Saudi Arabia.

It was Clinton who identified terrorism as a major post-Cold War threat and acted to improve our counterterrorism policies, quelled anti-American terrorism by Iraq and Iran and defeated an al Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia. Clinton could not get the CIA, Pentagon and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.

George W. failed to act prior to 9/11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite several repeated warnings, failed to stomp out Bin Laden when he had the chance due to not authorizing adequate resources in Afghanistan, and then launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that has strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide and has alienated a good chunk of the remaining world's non-Islamic population as well.

 

[Charade]

If there is a single DIS poster who does not agree with the following - "Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush did enough to stop alQaeda from attacking us on 9/11" they are a complete idiot.

.

Idiot here!