clinton faces music

[samclemens]

 

his "heal the world" do-nothing policies towards terrorism are at least a large part of the reason we are where we are today. im sure i'll be crucified for saying this. also, please don't bother slamming fox news, try instead actually adressing what was said in the interview. face it, foxnews is as legitimate as the other mainstream media sources like cnn and msnbc, and chris wallace is as legitimate as any other interviewing reporter.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

 

his "heal the world" do-nothing policies towards terrorism are at least a large part of the reason we are where we are today. im sure i'll be crucified for saying this. also, please don't bother slamming fox news, try instead actually adressing what was said in the interview. face it, foxnews is as legitimate as the other mainstream media sources like cnn and msnbc, and chris wallace is as legitimate as any other interviewing reporter.

 

 

It was funny as hell watching Clinton lose control, then try to pass the blame off onto Bush.

 

Fact is that they had Bin Laden dead in their sights on more than one occasion and they did nothing.

 

"I tried!!!" "I tried!!!" I wonder whether he was talking about getting Bin Laden or satisfying Monica Lewinsky?

[Balta1701]

And on the other hand, any left-leaning page you go to proclaims Clinton Smacking Down Fox News over the way they've dealt with the whole 9/11 issue.

 

Amazing how everything always fits in with however you've already decided to interpret things.

[samclemens]

And on the other hand, any left-leaning page you go to proclaims Clinton Smacking Down Fox News over the way they've dealt with the whole 9/11 issue.

 

Amazing how everything always fits in with however you've already decided to interpret things.

 

...so do you have any comment on what was actually said in the interview?

[Balta1701]

...so do you have any comment on what was actually said in the interview?

Yes. There's plenty I could say. But at some point, I'd just wind up banging my head against a wall here. You guys and the rest of the Fox News crowd want to blame Clinton 100%, and ignore everything that doesn't fit that case. I could go point by point here, but I'm heading out in about 5 minutes.

 

There's an ungodly amount of blame for 9/11, so much so that no one in their right mind really cares exactly who is actually at fault. If it's 60-40 Bush or 60-40 Clinton, I really don't care. Both sides made a ton of mistakes, and both sides should be judged based on them.

[Rex Kickass]

I do.

 

It's refreshing to see any political figure in this day and age take responsiblity for policy failings on his part.

 

And it's great to see that Clinton raised over seven billion for his initiatives. He's becoming a wonderful ex president.

 

Here's the "legitimate, fair and balanced" Fox News website promo for the Clinton interview.

 

[samclemens]

Yes. There's plenty I could say. But at some point, I'd just wind up banging my head against a wall here. You guys and the rest of the Fox News crowd want to blame Clinton 100%, and ignore everything that doesn't fit that case. I could go point by point here, but I'm heading out in about 5 minutes.

 

There's an ungodly amount of blame for 9/11, so much so that no one in their right mind really cares exactly who is actually at fault. If it's 60-40 Bush or 60-40 Clinton, I really don't care. Both sides made a ton of mistakes, and both sides should be judged based on them.

 

hey, you got me wrong. i dont blame clinton 100%, but i give him a large share of the blame. of course bush is partly to blame as well.

 

there's no disputing that clinton was in office for 8 years and saw 3 terrorist attacks on US interests, and in my opinion did nothing about it. bush was in office 8 months when 9/11 occurred, should have done more, but did not have close to the opporetunity clinton ha. thats the math i base my opinion on.

[bmags]

"i failed you, and your government failed you"

[samclemens]

I do.

 

It's refreshing to see any political figure in this day and age take responsiblity for policy failings on his part.

 

And it's great to see that Clinton raised over seven billion for his initiatives. He's becoming a wonderful ex president.

 

Here's the "legitimate, fair and balanced" Fox News website promo for the Clinton interview.

 

 

i commend clinton on his fundraising abilities too, but thats another thread in the filibuster. and it doesnt change the fact that his presidency has a legacy of getting voted in twice while raising taxes to the point of a profitable governement, losing the house and senate, and spending the last two years defending an affair with a naive girl. somebody name one thing he did about the screaming warning bells of a major terrorist attack, please?

 

look, bashing foxnews accomplishes nothing here, thats why i said everyone should leave it out in my opening post. you may not like it, but they are a legitimate news source, and chris wallace is a legitimate reporter. call him a hack, whatever, you want...people say the same thing about anderson cooper, and even about mike wallace, chris' father. attacking foxnews in this thread instead of what the interview consisted of is simply deflecting.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also, here's wallace's comments on the interview per drugereport:

 

"I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.

 

The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

 

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

 

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

 

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

 

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

 

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

 

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.

Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

 

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

 

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

 

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview."

Edited September 24, 2006 by samclemens

[KipWellsFan]

I don't really understand the big deal. Clinton wanted to get Bin Laden, he wasn't able to do it, he admits that.

 

Was Clinton such a couth guy as president that when he defends himself it's called "losing it" or getting "crazed".

Edited September 24, 2006 by KipWellsFan

[mr_genius]

Clinton was horribly weak on terrorism.

 

but hey, atleast he didn't offend any muslims! YEA!

[GaelicSoxFan]

hey, you got me wrong. i dont blame clinton 100%, but i give him a large share of the blame. of course bush is partly to blame as well.

 

there's no disputing that clinton was in office for 8 years and saw 3 terrorist attacks on US interests, and in my opinion did nothing about it. bush was in office 8 months when 9/11 occurred, should have done more, but did not have close to the opporetunity clinton ha. thats the math i base my opinion on.

Your math is technically right but skewed. Techincally, Clinton was President during the 1993 WTC bombing. He'd been in office for exactly thirty-one days. So IMO, that really happened on W's daddy's watch. Clinton used that as an opportunity to triple the counterterrorism budgets of the CIA, NSA and FBI. I seem to recall seeing on the nightly news during the Clinton administration several sleeper cells getting cleaned out. His administration even thwarted a truck bombing plot in Albania.

 

Now, I know that some cells slipped through the cracks, like the embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole. But ask the organizers of the 1993 WTC bombing if Clinton was soft on terrorism. I hear that prisoners like having visitors.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton only made two mistakes in office: NAFTA and trusting W to act on the plans he'd left in place to go after al Quaeda.

[samclemens]

Your math is technically right but skewed. Techincally, Clinton was President during the 1993 WTC bombing. He'd been in office for exactly thirty-one days. So IMO, that really happened on W's daddy's watch. Clinton used that as an opportunity to triple the counterterrorism budgets of the CIA, NSA and FBI. I seem to recall seeing on the nightly news during the Clinton administration several sleeper cells getting cleaned out. His administration even thwarted a truck bombing plot in Albania.

 

Now, I know that some cells slipped through the cracks, like the embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole. But ask the organizers of the 1993 WTC bombing if Clinton was soft on terrorism. I hear that prisoners like having visitors.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton only made two mistakes in office: NAFTA and trusting W to act on the plans he'd left in place to go after al Quaeda.

 

you are misunderstanding the point i was making. im not blaming clinton for the '93 WTC bombing, im saying that, the embassy bombings in africa and the USS Cole were all obvious warnings, which he did zippo about.

 

as for increasing the counterterrorism budget after the '93 WTC bombing, I cant find any data to refute that in the net, and i dont feel like looking forever, so i'll take your word for it. clinton gets no credit for that and it counts for nothing in my book. if he gets any credit for increasing the budget in response to a terrorist attack, it is more than offset by the "Jamie Gorrelic Wall" clinton's administration is notorious for (a policy put in place that discouraged the CIA and FBI from sharing info). and finally, you omitted from your explanation on how clinton was offered osama bin laden in 1996, when bin laden had been suspected a co-conspirator in the '93 WTC bombing in 1995 (clinton claims we had no grounds- he was suspected in the bombing but we had no grounds to at least question him? well, at least he mad the right PC decision and didnt offend any muslims...). big whoop, he busted some cells. bush's admin has busted cells too. therefore bush and clinton are on even ground as far as that aspect goes.

 

lastly, why dont you elaborate on the "plans" clinton had in place that bush has apparently failed to follow? i have never heard of them.

[jackie hayes]

 

his "heal the world" do-nothing policies towards terrorism are at least a large part of the reason we are where we are today. im sure i'll be crucified for saying this. also, please don't bother slamming fox news, try instead actually adressing what was said in the interview. face it, foxnews is as legitimate as the other mainstream media sources like cnn and msnbc, and chris wallace is as legitimate as any other interviewing reporter.

What motivation do you give others to respond to the content of an interview when you don't do it, yourself?

 

Neither party knew the situation for s*** before 9/11. If either C or B truly understood the consequences, he would have done more. It was a massive failure of understanding for our whole country, and this passing the buck crap has got to stop.

[GaelicSoxFan]

and finally, you omitted from your explanation on how clinton was offered osama bin laden in 1996, when bin laden had been suspected a co-conspirator in the '93 WTC bombing in 1995

Ah, you must be referring to Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistani descent, who claimed to be representing the Sudanese government, "offering" bin Laden in exchange for America lifting its embargo against the Sudan. The Clinton administration checked his story and found out that Mr. Ijaz, through several holding companies, co-owned an oil business with the Sudanese government and that it was highly unlikely that they, as state sponsors of terrorism as defined by the UN, would really turn over bin Laden.

Edited September 25, 2006 by GaelicSoxFan

[Texsox]

If Clinton had started yelling Bin Laden, Bin Laden, Rush and his ditto heads would have been screaming tail wagging the dog, he wants us to forget about Monica. How about the entire GOP fixating on a blow job instead of pushing for Bin Laden? While they were blowing millions on Ken Star, maybe they could have also worked towards anti terrorism? There are briefings for all the key leaders for both parties. Our political climate contributed to this for certain, but no one could forsee this event.

 

Of course the GOP faithful will blame Bush if an as yet to be identified terrorist blows something up anytime in the next 3 years?

[EvilMonkey]

If Clinton had started yelling Bin Laden, Bin Laden, Rush and his ditto heads would have been screaming tail wagging the dog, he wants us to forget about Monica. How about the entire GOP fixating on a blow job instead of pushing for Bin Laden? While they were blowing millions on Ken Star, maybe they could have also worked towards anti terrorism? There are briefings for all the key leaders for both parties. Our political climate contributed to this for certain, but no one could forsee this event.

 

Of course the GOP faithful will blame Bush if an as yet to be identified terrorist blows something up anytime in the next 3 years?

Tex, since it didn't happen, you can't really sayfor sure.However, in his one attempt, the Republican LEADERSHIP praised his efforts.Sure, there are always some on each side that differ, but the bulk praised his efforts.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/...8attack-us.html

 

But while the Republican leadership rallied to support the raids, some members of Congress reacted suspiciously, noting that the action followed by three days Clinton's acknowledgment to the public and a grand jury of his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky.

 

House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, "Our response appears to be appropriate and just."

 

And yes, there were his detractors, but who is this guy anyway?

Accusing Clinton of "lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions," Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said the president's record "raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say."

Was Bill afraid of the opinion of Dan Coats?

[Balta1701]

you are misunderstanding the point i was making. im not blaming clinton for the '93 WTC bombing, im saying that, the embassy bombings in africa and the USS Cole were all obvious warnings, which he did zippo about.

See what I mean? It's all Clinton's fault for not responding for the Cole attack. Yet, somehow, it's forgotten that the Bush Administration also failed to respond for to the Cole bombing. And it is also forgotten that Clinton did attempt a response to the embassy bombings.

as for increasing the counterterrorism budget after the '93 WTC bombing, I cant find any data to refute that in the net, and i dont feel like looking forever, so i'll take your word for it. clinton gets no credit for that and it counts for nothing in my book. if he gets any credit for increasing the budget in response to a terrorist attack, it is more than offset by the "Jamie Gorrelic Wall" clinton's administration is notorious for (a policy put in place that discouraged the CIA and FBI from sharing info). and finally, you omitted from your explanation on how clinton was offered osama bin laden in 1996.

And, once again, the 9/11 commission examined the available evidence about the purported offer by Sudan, and found none of it credible.

 

In hindsight, the Clinton Administration was clearly at fault for not taking Bin Laden's group seriuosly enough. They were at fault for not addressing obvious security issues, such as at the airports, and they were at fault for not pushing harder on every front. But all we hear is "clinton was horribly weak on terrorism!" and "Clinton did zippo about those obvious warnings". Because that's all that matters...how much blame can be put on Clinton.

 

Tex, since it didn't happen, you can't really sayfor sure.However, in his one attempt, the Republican LEADERSHIP praised his efforts.Sure, there are always some on each side that differ, but the bulk praised his efforts.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/...8attack-us.html

And yes, there were his detractors, but who is this guy anyway?

Was Bill afraid of the opinion of Dan Coats?

Right wing CNS News article from 98.

 

A substantial percentage of Americans are skeptical of President Clinton's motives in launching the latest attack on Iraq. An ABC News poll, taken soon after the military operation began, said that 30 percent of those polled thought the President timed the attack to delay his impeachment vote in the House.

 

The last time President Clinton launched air strikes on Iraq, Monica Lewinsky's name was just beginning to become a household word. The comparisons to that attack last winter with the movie "Wag the Dog," in which a president wages a fake war to divert attention from a sex scandal, were inevitable, but ultimately speculative, and only came from unofficial sources, not Congress.

 

Now, Lewinsky is probably more famous than Michael Jackson, and Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour bombing of Baghdad, just before a probable impeachment by the House, has some Members of Congress questioning the President's motives in violation of an unwritten code that says you don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief during wartime.

 

"Never underestimate a desperate president," said Rep. Harold Solomon, (R-NY)

 

Solomon, who is retiring at the end of the year, said Clinton's only way of postponing his impeachment and getting it "off the front page" was the air strike on Iraq.

 

Even Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) publicly questioned the President's motives. "Both the timing and the motive are subject to question," he said.

 

House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston (R-LA) was a bit more diplomatic in saying that he supported "the troops" while pointedly failing to say that he supported the President.

Operation Rommel in 98 certainly seems to have faced significant "Wag the Dog" type criticism, from the top Republicans in Congress. According to the Media Research Center, polls also showed that 30% of Americans believed the "Wag the Dog" scenario after Clinton's attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan. Arlen Specter was also supposedly on the "Wag the Dog" list about that attack as well. Edited September 25, 2006 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If Clinton had started yelling Bin Laden, Bin Laden, Rush and his ditto heads would have been screaming tail wagging the dog, he wants us to forget about Monica. How about the entire GOP fixating on a blow job instead of pushing for Bin Laden? While they were blowing millions on Ken Star, maybe they could have also worked towards anti terrorism? There are briefings for all the key leaders for both parties. Our political climate contributed to this for certain, but no one could forsee this event.

 

Of course the GOP faithful will blame Bush if an as yet to be identified terrorist blows something up anytime in the next 3 years?

 

 

If Clinton had actually whacked Bin Laden then it would have been all good and he would have cemented his credentials as a terrorist fighter. Instead, he let the pussy whipped lawyers talk him out of it and lobbed a few cruise missiles at empty training camps. If he was actually willing to get his hands dirty fighting terrorism instead of making a token BS attempt to do something he could have told Rush and his friends to f*** off.

[Texsox]

Evil, Republican leadership, at the time, praised his efforts. Now the GOP is saying it wasn't enough and trying to shift all the blame to the Oval Office. I believe this is flip flopping

 

It is wrong to blame something like this on one man. The percentage of government workers that change with a new administration is so small. However, no one could have predicted this. To claim that the earlier attacks should have woke us up to 9/11 just doesn't make sense. What horrific event should 9/11 wake us up to? What innocent person should we arrest now and get off the streets before he masterminds that attack?

 

Sam, have you forgotten that this was the first bit of terrorism by a foreigner? The previous event was by US military trained US citizens. Add in the Washington Sniper and perhaps we should "wake up" and start rounding up all ex-military and keeping them under lock and key.

 

I do blame Clinton for the Monica mess. It did reduce his Presidency to just holding on. However, we also have to blame the GOP for neutering him and not filling the void. It all has to fit together.

 

 

If Clinton had actually whacked Bin Laden then it would have been all good and he would have cemented his credentials as a terrorist fighter. Instead, he let the pussy whipped lawyers talk him out of it and lobbed a few cruise missiles at empty training camps. If he was actually willing to get his hands dirty fighting terrorism instead of making a token BS attempt to do something he could have told Rush and his friends to f*** off.

 

At that point in time, the man was innocent. While there are a few people who would support a US murder spree, I doubt it would be good for us in the long run.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

At that point in time, the man was innocent. While there are a few people who would support a US murder spree, I doubt it would be good for us in the long run.

 

 

 

Innocent? He had a MAJOR hand in the "Blackhawk Down" brawl in Mogadishu. That alone should have warranted a cruise missile up the ass or a snipers bullet to the noodle.

[samclemens]

Sam, have you forgotten that this was the first bit of terrorism by a foreigner? The previous event was by US military trained US citizens. Add in the Washington Sniper and perhaps we should "wake up" and start rounding up all ex-military and keeping them under lock and key.

 

you cant draw parallels between islamic terrorists and american soldiers. i dont think it works because you only have one event brought on by mcveigh, and three brought on by islamic terrorists. the warning signs were clear and clinton was incompetant. he had 8 years and bush had 8 months- all im saying is apportion the blame accordingly. he had the WTC bombing in '93, knew bin laden was a suspect by '95, and a year later personally took a pass at taking possession of him or at least questioning him. no, that might offend some muslims.

 

someone above said he responded to the embassy bombings, how? i dont remember anything, nothing drastic. did we even make an arrest?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

you cant draw parallels between islamic terrorists and american soldiers. i dont think it works because you only have one event brought on by mcveigh, and three brought on by islamic terrorists. the warning signs were clear and clinton was incompetant. he had 8 years and bush had 8 months- all im saying is apportion the blame accordingly. he had the WTC bombing in '93, knew bin laden was a suspect by '95, and a year later personally took a pass at taking possession of him or at least questioning him. no, that might offend some muslims.

 

someone above said he responded to the embassy bombings, how? i dont remember anything, nothing drastic. did we even make an arrest?

 

 

I wish the reporter would have nailed his ass on his dismantling of the CIA and Military during the 90's. That contributed to 9/11 just as much as anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

You cannot blame Clinton, or W, or HW, or Reagan, or any other single American leader for the rise of Middle East-born terror. The factors contributing to it had been simmering for, literally, centuries.

 

And even to have a more modern perspective, if you want to know why we failed to see 9/11 coming, the biggest single reason was the breakdown in our foreign and domestic intelligence gathering. More specifically, the CIA getting away from HumInt in favor of SigInt (which started primarly under REAGAN, for the record), and the FBI/CIA schism which has been there for decades. Those failings can be blamed on thousands of different politicians and government officials.

 

And the really sad part? We're only making snail's progress on changing the CIA, NSA and FBI as institutions. This whole DHS debacle (oh I know, I bet these agencies will work even better with MORE red tape and administrative overhead!) makes them worse off, the FBI is still a broken down old boys' network, and the CIA's progress towards better HumInt is going to take a long time to complete.

[AbeFroman]

I really don't want to read any of the bickering on the previous two pages of posts. Bill Clinton is kinda a hero of mine... so I want to say this:

 

Blaming anyone for not doing enough for 9/11 is partisan hackery. Stop it. Nobody understood or appreciated the threat of Al-Queda attack. If they had, we would have invaded Afganistan in 1992 or 2000 when either Bush or Clinton got into office.

 

This is the bullsh*t that cheapens the political process and detracts from legitimate discussions on salient political issues. I am Dem, and my party is just as guilty (probably more so) than the Republicans. I hate it... I wish they would avoid talking about so-called "pre-9/11 failures" except in an effort to constructively improve our intelligence gathering industry.