PDA

View Full Version : Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden


Chuck
September 25th, 2006, 10:34 AM
Personally I think it is great that Clinton finally spoke out against all the people that said he did nothing.

Heres the story: (Click The Read Source at the bottom to see the Videos)
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former president Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.

"We do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq," he added, referring to the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. (Watch Clinton go on defensive -- 1:18)

In the interview, which was taped on Friday, Clinton also lashed out at Fox's Chris Wallace, accusing him of promising to discuss Clinton's initiative on climate change, then straying from the issue by asking why the former president didn't do more to "put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business."

"So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me," he said to Wallace, occasionally tapping on Wallace's notes for emphasis. "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of? (Watch Clinton blast the "neo-cons" -- 1:51)

"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," Clinton said.

Wallace said that the question was drawn from viewer e-mails.

Clinton asserted he had done more to try to kill bin Laden than "all the right-wingers who are attacking me now." In fact, Clinton said, conservatives routinely criticized him for "obsessing" over bin Laden while he was in office.

"They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed," he said.

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred about eight months after Bush took office.

The former president said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, but the action was never carried out. Clinton said that was because the United States could not establish a military base in Uzbekistan and because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to certify that bin Laden was behind the bombing.

"The entire military was against sending special forces into 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 Qaeda was responsible while I was president."

Clinton also defended withdrawing U.S. forces from Somalia in 1993, after 18 servicemen were killed in Mogadishu when their Black Hawk helicopter was shot down.

Bin Laden told CNN in a 1997 interview that his followers were involved in that attack, which occurred eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center.

"There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it," Clinton said.

In recent weeks, Clinton has responded to criticism of his administration's anti-terrorism efforts, sparked in part by the airing of an ABC docudrama miniseries called "The Path to 9/11."

The show, broadcast during the weekend before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, dramatized events leading up to the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11.

Former members of the Clinton administration protested in particular a scene that shows then-National Security Adviser Samuel Berger ducking a chance to have bin Laden killed or captured in a 1998 raid by CIA agents and Afghan guerrillas.

The scene contradicts the findings of the 9/11 Commission, upon which ABC had said the film was based.

(Read the Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html))

Anonymous Coward
September 25th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Bush's daddy and Bin Laden's daddy are business partners in the oil industry, right? Hmm now it is mafia style, kill one's son, and retaliation happens?
Why didn't Clinton continue to try and get Bin Laden While he was in office?

kdown
September 25th, 2006, 12:52 PM
" I did ( finger pointing ) try to kill that man "
Opps....Wrong scandal......LOL

who cares??
September 25th, 2006, 12:57 PM
I believe what Clinton was saying is that he tried to send special forces but got resistance from FBI & CIA. As he reports he fully understood the treat posed by Bin Laden and Al-Queida and passed that first hand information on to the Bush Administration.......it happened on Bush's watch. Could he have taken action to stop it we will never know. However, since that time do we feel safer?? Bin Laden remains the Most wanted man in the world, and Al-Queida along with other terrorist groups and nations feel that we are weak and inadaquate, and vulnerable.....without diplomacy and an appeal to the humanity of nations our percetions in the world community wiil continue to be as the bully on the playground. An enemy of my enemy is my friend!!! We have made many enemies during this administration!!!

Chuck
September 25th, 2006, 09:44 PM
Realistically it was the emotion of the time. Before 911 Americans were not wanting or in a mind set to invade anyone or purposely kill anyone.

What is obvious is George Bush is doing nothing to slow down spending or help Americans with jobs that pay more than 6 dollars an hour.

mark
September 26th, 2006, 12:24 AM
........Hmmm, I'd better stay out of this one.

I'll get into trouble for sure......see ya mark

kdown
September 26th, 2006, 07:13 AM
Clinton must have practiced that tirade a week or two in the shower. Lies and half-truths continue to be a major part of the Clinton presidency. He didn't need the CIA or the FBI to "certify" an attack on OBL. OBL had already been indicted by the Fed gov. with a 25 million price tag on his head after the first WTC bombing. He was the commander in chief for Gods sake. All he had to do was issue the order.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215607,00.html

Aww come on Mark give us your two cents worth

kdown
September 26th, 2006, 08:51 AM
The following comes from the 9/11 Commission Report.

" After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that
it would be held responsible for another attack Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a " preliminary judgment", President Clinton and his chief advisors told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them "

Chuck
September 26th, 2006, 10:11 AM
You do the Math.

USS Cole was attacked Oct. 12th 2000. Election was Nov. 2000. New President January 2000. Clinton had only 2 good months to gather information that would have been suitable to present in court. Not rumors or hear say. At the end he had to be ready to turn over the office to a new guy.

FBI - CIA all have a non partisan opinion and report report. Only the facts. Not only did Clinton not have all the information he did not have the time.

Bush refused to take advise from Clinton and discharged information given him. His main goal was to Invade Iraq and prove Iraq responsible to the American people.

All we are going to do is get into the same old argument we always do here. and we still have 2 years of war and financial bankruptcy facing the country.

Not to mention 6 years later bin Laden is still running free. Unless he died of natural causes.

Not to mention that Americans where really not in tune to invade anyone till after 911.

tkcomer
September 26th, 2006, 10:36 AM
First off, why are we blaming Clinton for not getting bin Lauden? Why not blame the administration that helped create him? It was under the Reagan administration that funded and gave weapons to the future Taliban/al Qaeda. Those wonderful “freedom fighters” that are now fighting us. Heck, anyone remember the huge debate on using helicopters when we first went in to Afghanistan? Because we were afraid of all those stinger missiles we gave them in the 80s might still work. Those were deadly effective against copters. A lot of people can’t seem to comprehend we created these monsters. The people screaming to kill them all don’t have a clue that this has been brewing since the 50s. And that their very own, hard earned dollars has been used to create this mess. All bin Lauden and the others have ever asked of us is for us to leave their countries. Is that a hard concept to understand? Instead, our arrogance has us fighting two wars, wasting billions of dollars and getting our finest killed and maimed. All because our politicians can’t keep from sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong. Jeeze.

Chuck
September 26th, 2006, 10:47 AM
Very well worded TK

bdr
September 26th, 2006, 01:16 PM
You all should have seen the interview, Slick Willy got VERY PO'ed LOL.
It was an obvious setup with Chris Wallace, and he got flamed for it too.
Poor Bill, I miss him and the prosperity we had when he was in office..

BDR

kdown
September 26th, 2006, 01:35 PM
I just don't get it !!!!!!!!!

who cares??
September 27th, 2006, 10:34 AM
My concerns are with the nuclear weapons that are in the middle east in Usbakistan. The administration reports they are our allies we have no concern with the weapons programs......now doesn't that sound alot like the freedom fighters of the 80'"s??? We have no friends in the middle east and we are creating more enemies everyday....Now it's time to end imports give jobs back to Americans and become a self sustaining nation and get our noses out of everyone elses business!!!

kdown
September 27th, 2006, 10:51 AM
Ain't gonna happen. Its a world wide econcomy and many, many Americans like it that way. Besides - Wal Mart would be almost empty..LOL

kybikertrash
September 27th, 2006, 11:20 AM
But you know if we stopped these improts we would have to be a self sustaining country and wages would be better and people could buy American made goods instead of all the Chinese junk we now have that doesn't last.

The only reason Americans love the cheap items Wal-mart carries is because all of our good jobs are gone or going and it is all they (we) can afford, sadly.

tkcomer
September 27th, 2006, 11:43 AM
I’m not against trade with friendly countries. Just trade with countries that are hostile to us. And I’m not talking just militarily a threat. Mexico would be one. Their corrupt government encourages its citizens to come here. And then send that money they earn back to Mexico. Some friend. And if we are not using our military to occupy countries, we are selling/giving weapons and ammo to some very ruthless dictators and war lords because they are fighting ruthless dictators we don’t like. I bet if the truth be known, the United States has caused more deaths than the Soviets by trading with monsters that use our money to kill their own citizens or start wars with their neighbors. And by using our military against regimes that are on the “not our friends at this time” list. And Mr. Downing is right. There will be no change as long as we keep putting the same buffoons back in office year after year.

Chuck
September 27th, 2006, 09:23 PM
I am not against trade. I am against giving out all the trade.

A higher import tax balances the playing field. It makes it more economical to produce products for USA consumption in the USA. Thanks Bush for removing this.

A lower export tax increases the sale of products produced in the USA for sale other country's.

Right now we Buy more than we sell and what is worse is we buy more than we produce. There is no balance.

Sales to other countries and the purchasing of US made products increase our GNP. This makes the value of a dollar stronger and we would need to borrow less money for the national debt.

This is the basics in High School Economics.

The fact the we are inverted on import and export makes for a negative economy, Higher unemployment and the overall feeling of the average person feeling poor.

What we are seeing is reduced jobs, reduced home sales and reduce overall buying. If your not feeling the crunch then you don't have to work for a living.

If you think the country is doing fine you need to chat with one of the people that is a part of the record unemployment or the record rate of foreclosures on their homes.

Public services like welfare has larger numbers with no extra money to work with.

The only businesses doing any good in the USA is Wal-Mart and the fast food industry.