You can find Clinton's remarks in this article.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

Regarding the effort to get Bin Laden:

quote:

---

Wallace finally asked: "Do you think you did enough, sir?"

Clinton replied: "No, because I didn't get him."

Wallace chirped, "Right."

Clinton countered, "But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn't. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country: Dick Clarke. So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know…

Stung, Wallace was again interrupting. But Clinton held firm. "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked ‘Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?' I want to know…"

"We ask plenty of questions of…" sputtered Wallace.

"Tell the truth…" Clinton shot back, before revealing that he had Wallace's number.

"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because (Fox owner) Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about (climate change). You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care."

Truer words have rarely been spoken on a nationally-televised "news" program.

---

What, "Bill Clinton", is no thug even with his phyisical attempt to bully an interviewer? He is no scum even when he told blatant falsehoods with his raised voice of indignation?

Oh well. He let loose his jowels for the entertainment of his non-fan-fans.

* * *

quote:

---

"Clinton is kicking ass all over the place."

---

Heh. Wallace got the better of him by asking a few legitimate questions and letting the ex-POTUS go on a tear.

quote:

---

"now he is out of office he can be and say who he really is"

---

One born every minute.

quote:

---

"they say that being Liberal means never having to defend yourself from history"

---

Clinton acted like a man who knows he is guilty but thinks he can talk his way out of answering forthrightly a few unsurprising and quite legitimate questions.

* * *

Clinton's presidency was bookended by al Qaeda bombings - the 1993 attack World Trade Center attack, and the October 2000 suicide assault on USS Cole.

Wallace: "Do you think you did enough sir?"

Clinton: "You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."

Wallace: "I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?"

Clinton: "It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of."

Wallace to Donald Rumsfeld, March 2004: "But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. Pre-9/11, should you have been thinking more about that?"

---

Clinton: Why did you [the Bush Administration] fire Dick Clarke?

Current Secretary of State, Condi Rice, 2006: He "was the counter-terrorism czar when 9/11 happened, and he left [in 2003] when he did not become deputy director of homeland security," as he wanted [and was not fired].

---

Clinton: "When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy."

Clarke: "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. ... [a] plan, strategy - there was nothing new."

Chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security: “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.”

Clarke: “There was never a plan. [We had] these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

---

Clinton: The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office. I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy.”

Clarke: "Plan, strategy - there was nothing new. ... Had they evolved [at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000]? Not appreciably.”

Former Clinton National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger 2002: "We briefed them fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."

---

Clinton: "I tried and failed. They had eight months to try and they didn’t. I tried."

Clarke: In 2001 Bush "changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."

Former President Clinton, 2004: "At the time, in 1996, he had committed no crimes against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

---

Clinton: "But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying."

Arlen Specter, 1998: “I think the president acted properly.”

Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, 1998: “Despite the current [Monica Lewinsky] controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.”

Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, 1998: "Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do."

Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, Jesse Helms, 1998: “The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism."

Former Vice-President, Dan Quayle, 1998: "It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue."

---

Wallace: "I understand that hindsight is 20 20, but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"

Clinton: "Black hawk down, Somalia. ... No one knew al Qaeda existed then [in 1993 when we pulled our troops out of Somalia].

Beverly Kelley, Professor At California Lutheran University, 1993: "Gung-ho Americans were caught off guard, however, when a stunning counterattack by Aidid's militia, armed and trained by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, turned the seemingly simple extraction into an 18-hour bloodbath. The final death toll came in at 18 Americans and 500 Somalis."

Author of Losing Bin Laden, Richard Miniter, 1993: "President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year."

---

Wallace: "Did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the US? Did no one know in 1998?"

Clinton: "Absolutely they did."

Wallace: "When they bombed the two embassies? Or in 2000 when they hit the Cole?"

Clinton: "The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify."

FBI indictment of Bin Laden: "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connectin with the August 7, 1998, bombing sof the United States Embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

Bin Laden’s role in the 1998 embassy bombings was included in the grand jury indictment against him obtained by Clinton’s own DOJ.

---

Clinton had eight years in which to do more. Bush had eight months prior to 9-11-2001. Both could have done more as the men behind the desk where the buck must stop. Clinton should stop running from his actual record and just take his lumps and check his wagging finger.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

In this light, Clinton was a failure in national security. He always had misgivings about American military power. Mogadishu demonstrated this as he didn't allow US forces to use heavy gunships, fearing it would make him unpopular. His failed and weak responses after the first bombing of the WTC, Khobar towers and the USS Cole are well documented. But, the root of such failure is that Clinton was lazy and treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Instead of declaring war on an enemy who declared war on the US, he shuffled the problem to Justice Department and the FBI. Law enforcement presumes you have to commit a crime before you are pursued. Unfortunately, this doesn't work against terrorists and the nations that support them when they seek nuclear weapons.

Fighting terrorism is hard, unpopular and bloody. Bush recognizes this and is risking his Presidency by taking the toughest course. It'll take five or ten years to know if invading Iraq was right and worth it. But, it took guts to do it and I admire Bush and Rumsfeld for that. I don't admire Clinton for his manifest failures. I remember Clinton said he wanted to order special forces into Afghanistan, but his generals refused. Don't forget that Bush/Rumsfeld inherited a Clinton administered army. They ordered the same army into Afghanistan and Iraq despite the reluctance of the generals- some were fired. As Rumsfeld said, "You fight a war with the army you have not with the one you wish you had."

And this is a war, not a law enforcement problem That is the difference and Clinton realizes in his heart that he made the wrong choice. I know this will inflame some of you on this site, but all the soft power, sanctions and sanctimony won't make terrorism go away; there are people out there who threaten us and there is only one way to stop them and the states that sponsor them. All the anti-terror legislation that he passed or tried to pass is useless against suicide bombers.

quote:

---

It'll take five or ten years to know if invading Iraq was right and worth it. But, it took guts to do it and I admire Bush and Rumsfeld for that

---

But was anyone else bothered by the fact that Clinton's reference to Bin Laden was regret not just that they didn't catch him but that they didn't *kill* him. Of course there are states in the America that still exercise the death penalty. But I suspect that because the offender is...hmmm...non-white, Muslim, "eastern" the solution to just execute him minus a trial or anything can be made without anyone having a second thought.

Even the Nazi war criminals received fair trials.

[edited for grammar]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: smokingeatingdrinkingprohibited ]

quote:

---

Do feel free to come up to the usual standards around here.

---

Repuglythugs? Republiscum?

Yet not a word about the bullying and the prevarications of Clinton.

Just words of encouragement for his low behavior.

* * *

quote:

---

Its sad how these neo-con lovers are so duped, but surprisingly non-surprising.

---

Not one of the items in my comment has been contested. And yet Clinton's words would be lovingly swallowed whole?

Please provide a cite to backup your description of my comment as that of a "neo-con" lover. Did you mean to suggest Jewishness, or friendliness toward Jews, in some way? Or something else. Please support with citations. Thanks.

* * *

Ooookay.

Sources galore (and easy to google) that debunk the ex-POTUS and his heated and short-socked performance in the Wallace interview.

Clinton National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger 2002: there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition."

Wallace aks similair questions of Donald Rumsfeld, March 2004

Rice: Clarke not fired.

Clarke: no plan transitioned to Bush

Clarke: there was never a plan

Bonus quotation:

quote:

---

Jim Angel, Fox News, 2002: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no - one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

Clarke: You got it. That's right.

---

Clarke: there was nothing new

And more, and more, for bonus points.

Clarke: Bush changed things in Summer 2001

Clinton on Bin Laden - audio link - 2004

Beverly Kelley, "Saddam and 'Black Hawk Down'," Ventura County [CA] Star, 4-7-03.

Richard Miniter: Losing Bin Laden

Bonus quotation:

quote:

---

Richard Miniter: One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

---

FBI most-wanted-notice for Bin Laden, June 1999

Bonus quotation:

quote:

---

Rex Tom, FBI Director of Investigative Publictiy: In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.

---

quote:

---

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time.

---

Ryan C. Hendrickson, Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy, ed. Ralph G. Carter. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002), 196-216

quote:

---

[W]ith only a few exceptions, Clinton's decision to launch seventy-nine cruise missiles generated little controversy among members of Congress or opposition from other countries after the fact. [...]

Prior to the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, most Americans had never heard of Usama Bin Laden, who was, however, no stranger to the U.S. intelligence community. [...]

During his years in Sudan [1991-1996], Bin Laden was suspected of being involved in a number of high-profile attacks around the world. The first strike occurred in 1992 in Aden, Yemen [...] There would be a series of attacks over the next five years. Bin Laden is also blamed for a 1994 attack on a Saudi National Guard station that resulted in the deaths of five American military personnel. [...] 1996 strike on the Khobar Towers [...] an aborted assassination plot on President Clinton when the president traveled to the Philippines in 1994. In addition to these events, Bin Laden's network is believed to have had connections to the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in February 1993. Bin Laden's followers from the war in Afghanistan were also convicted of an attempt to bomb U.S. passenger jets 1995. His network was affiliated with a failed attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1995. The Islamic Group, which maintains an alliance with al-Qaida, also claimed responsibility in 1997 for the worst terrorist attack in Egypt [...] in 1997 al-Qaida was placed on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. [...] on August 23, 1996 [Bin Laden] publicly issued a fatwa [...] calling for a jihad (holy war) against the United States to oppose the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia [...] Under diplomatic pressure from the United States, in 1996 Sudan expelled Bin Laden, who returned to Afghanistan. In 1998 Bin Laden [...] issued a second fatwa [...] appealed to all Muslims to "kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military" wherever possible.

---

RE: Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Arlen Specter, Jesse Helms, Dan Quayle --

See: Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8-21-98.

See also Ryan Hendrickson, "American War Powers and Terrorists: The Case of Usama Bin Laden," Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 23 (2000): 161174.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

quote:

---

Repuglythugs? Republiscum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Clinton is kicking ass all over the place. My take on it is that now he is out of office he can be and say who he really is. (I can't imagine he is too pleased with Hilary these days). Good for Clinton!

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

---

I found this with many ex-Presidents with the exception of Reagan and Bush senior. I've listened to interviews with Nixon, Ford and Carter and was mesmerized by their incredible insight and grasp of foreign policy. It's fascinating to listen to Nixon on detente with the Soviets, opening up relations with China and so on. Then to remember how much I despised the man. It's difficult to know what is the true nature of the man in the Presidential office as opposed to what restraints or prism the office puts on the man. There's almost a Shakespearean tragedy quality to being President. The position is just too big and powerful and the President assumes a king or godlike status that consumes the man (or maybe woman one day).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abdul_Maria:
is that interviewer, i think his name is Chris Wallace, the son of Mike Wallace, who i guess is the long-time 60 minutes person ?

---

Yes.

FWIW:

quote:

---

According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton.

---

You parade Clarke first and foremost, as he also worked in the Clinton administration before his time with Bush. But for that very reason, he is suspect - because he has very good reason to cover his ass. (Why would he want to admit he was any less effective after 9/11?) It is very easy to find contradictory statements Clarke has made - particularly to the 9/11 Commission. To sum up, were any of these interviews not done by the usual suspects at Fox news, they would have more credibility - and possibly an iota of balance.

Lastly, you don't seem to understand where you are. (Cyberspace can be a confusing place, can't it?) You'll find that most of us here believe that Clinton was, by his record, a right-wing President. (Indeed, it seems that America will tolerate nothing else.) The difference is, if I dare to speak for more than myself, that Clinton was a democrat (beyond being a Democrat) and Bush is anti-democratic, to a point approaching fascism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Aside from the Monica episode, I've always had a lot of respect for Clinton. He's one speaker I'd pay lots of $$$ (if I had it) to see and hear him.

---

quote:

---

It'll take five or ten years to know if invading Iraq was right and worth it. But, it took guts to do it and I admire Bush and Rumsfeld for that.

---

It couldn't possibly be a "success", because it involved an illegal invasion of an independent country.

Just yesterday, a National Intelligence Estimate was released, with the conclusion that the occupation of Iraq is CREATING anti-American terrorists and jihadis, so that there are more now than at any previous time.

It's five years since 9-11. And Bush has made the situation worse. In the same time span, following Pearl Harbour, both Germany and Japan had been entirely defeated, with no threat remaining.

What about Bush's quote that he wasn't too concerned about Bin Laden? This well after the WTC attacks! I took it to mean that the man had served his purpose in justifying the invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq, which the war mongers had wanted to do for decades, and who cares what happens to him now.

It's funny that you can criticise Clinton for not trying hard enough. Where is the evidence that Bush ever tried at all? I know, let's start a whole different war that is doomed to failure and guaranteed to produce misery, and forget all about the guy!

God forbid I should defend a criminal like Clinton, but he came out and said he didn't do enough. All he was saying is when does Bushco have to answer these questions? He's absolutely right! When do you ask these questions of the criminals you seem to admire so much?

quote:

---

It'll take five or ten years to know if invading Iraq was right and worth it. But, it took guts to do it and I admire Bush and Rumsfeld for that.

---

See, this just betrays your scared-little-boy psychology at work. It took guts and you admire that, right or wrong. Are you so lacking in courage that any courage at all is noteworthy to you? The courage to send other people to do a lot of killing and possibly incur some bad press and negative public opinion. Wow these guys are brave! Shit, a serial killer has more courage than that. They do their own killing. Do you admire them? Or maybe wrong or right does matter after all?

Hitler had guts. Stalin too. That psycho at Dawson didn't cower in his room. He went out and showed some guts! Do you admire these people or revile them as the scum that they are?

I was so proud of him; I can't imagine how hard it is to remain cool against impossible odds and redundant and unfair questions; the same questions which are never asked to the 'other' side; as he pointed out several times; and as this fact is again as usual brushed aside.

And what made me angriest was that this guy; starting out with asking a ten-part-multi-dimensional-impossible-to-answer first question-with outlandish innuendos and ramifications...I was amazed that Clinton handled it as splendidly as he actually did. And not only did the question-within-questions-that-never-ended-show kept rolling; this guy had the gall to keep interrupting and interrupting Clinton as he began the almost impossible task of putting all of that propoganda together to make sense of it as a question; and actually address it, and answer it. Unbefuckinlievable.

I was standing up in boxer mode with this nad.

His intelligence wins hands over emotion; his emotion did come into play but I'm amazed that he remained as calm and collected and composed as he did; as he was being assaulted by neo-con propoganda; in this what is becoming nauseating upcoming campaign era. It's all so blatent I almost knocked out my new plasma.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: erroneousrebelrouser ]

quote:

---

This is a progressive baord in case you haven't noticed. We have no moral obligation to even talk to you.

---

As you bring it up, no, I don't think there is much progressive (in the common meaning rather than the self-serving political meaning of that word) about the remarks made at the beginning of this discussion.

What did you mean by "neo-con lovers"? Feel free to come up to the standards of this board and substantiate your remark with cites.

quote:

---

Are you so excited over war and murder? Do you get off supporting murderers?

---

Well, Clinton did say he wanted to kill, kill, kill, right? He was pretty excited.

But it is true, we should have woken up years ago to the threat of Bin Laden's fanatics that should now animate all of us.

But you meant something else. You imagine that the people with whom you disagree are supporters of murderers. We are disagreeing about Clinton's interview performance. That's the issue.

You may have no moral obligation to defend your accusations against those with whom you disagree. And none to support your favorable gut reaction to Clinton's tantrum. Sure. You could say that.

But look in the mirror and ask yourself, what thrilled you (and Michelle and others can jump in to give a substantive answer) about Clinton's thuggishness and prevarications?

You don't even need to dislike Clinton's policies, character, or whatever, to acknowledge that his churlish performance was nothing to cheer about.

* * * *

Lard Tunderin' -- your welcome. Those links are based on uncontested quotations from the primary sources. If you'd contest any one of them, please be specific. Afterall, you asked for cites and in your response you simply attacked the messenger rather than the substance.

quote:

---

all of your claims came from deep, deep within the neocon propaganda machine

---

What did you mean to say by "neocon"? And where is this machine located? Do you really mean all of my claims? Maybe, take issue with one to illustrate your point.

quote:

---

You parade Clarke first and foremost,

---

Clinton put Clarke front and center in his interview with Wallace, because the ex-POTUS hoped to spin that Clarke had made the case for Clinton's version of things.

But we can agree that Clarke is not such a great backup for Clinton.

Still, I quoted his freely stated account of events which was voiced much closer to the actual events and in a forum in which he could explain himself to various reporters. The retrospective of his book is more open to the charge of being overly self-serving to sell publication.

quote:

---

To sum up, were any of these interviews not done by the usual suspects at Fox news, they would have more credibility - and possibly an iota of balance.

---

That's a cop-out, I think. Which interview are you disputing, on substance? How about the Clinton staffers? Or Clinton himself?

Also, the quotes of the leading Republicans who approved his attack on Bin Laden show that Clinton was wrong in his remarks about all Republicans. The substance does not support Clinton's latest version of events.

quote:

---

Lastly, you don't seem to understand where you are. You'll find that most of us here believe that Clinton was, by his record, a right-wing President.

---

So you'd be confused by Clinton's remarks about "all the rightwingers"? And the "neo-cons"? Maybe you can make the distinction more clear between what you meant and what he meant.

By "where you are", you meant something other than an echo-chamber, yes? I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that whether or not you'd agree with Clinton "the democrat", one could agree he was behaving badly in this interview.

quote:

---

The difference is, if I dare to speak for more than myself, that Clinton was a democrat (beyond being a Democrat) and Bush is anti-democratic, to a point approaching fascism.

---

Woa. This discussion is supposedly about the "kick-ass" performance of Clinton.

Was he thuggish in a fascist kind of way, in your opinion?

If he had sat eye-ball to eye-ball, knee-to-knee, with you, would you have been thinking that his tantrum was something to applaude?

Maybe in that situation you would have backdown from a legitimate question and turned to effusively praise his intelligence and his not being Bush (as some other interviewers did). I'd hope you'd ask him to calm down and address the substance of the question directly. And challenge him on his misleading remarks. As Wallace did, briefly.

quote:

---

As social democrats ourselves, we are bound to be nostalgic about a man with whom we can at least agree about human rights.

---

Nostalgia may explain some of the "progressive" reaction to his tantrum, but a moment later wouldn't that be followed by concern about his deceptions? His dodging his responsibility? In this interview.

You know, after a speech in 2002, he was asked the same sort of question that Wallace had asked about doing more to connect the dots.

And he gave a far more reasonable and well-tempered response at that time. But he still tried to evade the problems he caused in his lack of leadership on putting an end to the murderous career of Bin Laden.

* * * *

quote:

---

It's funny that you can criticise Clinton for not trying hard enough. Where is the evidence that Bush ever tried at all?

---

I already provided a quote of Clarke who said that the policy had changed in the Spring and Summer of 2001. With Clinton nothing had changed from 1998 to 2001. He had several chances to take Bin Laden, but lacked the will to do it.

On at least one occasion he had good reason to not fire missiles. Such attack would have killed the noncombattants that Bin Laden had surrounded himself with. But since that time, Clinton would acknowledge, I believe, that Bin Laden's hiding behind children is no longer an excuse, sadly. Clinton says he'd have been more aggressive in Tora Bora, for example.

And, for the record, see my first comment in this thread. While Clinton had much more opportuny to do more, both men could have done more prior to 9-11. They didn't.

But the fight is on and they should be far more united than they are today.

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: Chairm ]

quote:

---

...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."

---

Oh, look. A strategy document prepared in 2000. While Clinton was president. Clarke may have balked at calling it a "comprehensive strategy" but the fact remains that Clinton had his people working on the problem and tried to get Bush interested in it when he took over. The Bush administration didn't want to hear about it.

The reason this interview is news is because Fox invited Clinton on to discuss his Global Initiative and then sandbagged him with questions delivered in the context of ABC's Path to 9/11 hit job. And Clinton's refusal to roll over is in the context of a top-down media led by Fox that has consistently given Bush a pass for his dishonesty and incompetence and a Democratic party that can't seem to find its spine.

The rest is semantics.

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: pogge ]

The genuine thuggish behaviour is the mass-murder carried out in the Middle East, ordered by the current American administration (and assisted by the spineless ass-kissers in the current British and Canadian governments).

Below, points 1 and 2 reiterate the lack of a comprehensive plan, as had been claimed by Clinton in his own voice in that interview with Wallace.

And point 3 direclty addresses the diversionary tactic of wishing away the significance with the words, "The rest is semantics".

1. Chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security:

quote:

---

"I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan."

---

2. Former Clinton National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger 2002:

quote:

---

"We briefed them fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."

---

3. No new strategy -- I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

quote:

---

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

---

quote:

---

I didn't see any "tantrum" or "thuggish" behaviour

---

He raised his voice in anger over a legitimate question.

He even acknowledged that query as legitimate before he heatedly returned to his diversionary tactics and conspiratorial accusations. His remarks do not stand scrutiny.

He leaned into his interviewer and repeatedly made hostile physical contact, poking and jabbing. Sure, mild compared to a fist fight, but as lame as Clinton is he tried to appear as menancing as he could muster without leaving his seat.

Falsehoods and bullying are thuggish; done in the heat of anger and petulence, the tone was that of a tantrum. If you think all of this was calculated, under control, then, I doubt that can help Clinton's case much. He would not have the excuse of feeling provoked, even as he was unprovoked in fact.

quote:

---

In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution

---

In an arranged conversation with a handful of hand-picked neocon apologists, the White House still feels the need to "clear" the information for distribution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chairm:

Sure, mild compared to a fist fight...

---

Yes, Clinton lost his cool, but it's hardly the total anger freakout that the Bush-lickers are making it out to be.

When Bush and his cronies have been caught on camera doing things like calling reporters assholes or lying through their teeth, their apologists have immediately rushed to their defence without question. The double standard is sickenly blantant.

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: Secret Agent Style ]

quote:

---

In fact, you could say Bill Clinton paved the way for George Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and strewed it with roses. W. owes him. Here's what I mean.

Bill Clinton was the first post-Cold War president. America had no rival. It was the sole superpower left standing. I doubt it occurred to U.S. policy-makers not to use that power: What was the point of “winning”? But there were some prerequisites. First, the rest of the world, in the form of the United Nations, had to be made acquiescent or irrelevant. Next, the exercise of power had to be justified in the name of humanitarian benevolence.

Let me capsulize the record. In late 1992, when Bill Clinton was president-elect, U.S. troops landed in Somalia, claiming humanitarian reasons. It was a UN-authorized mission, and ended with the Black Hawk Down incident. In 1995, the United States bombed Serb forces in Bosnia, again with UN sanction, and an even stronger humanitarian rationale: fear of genocide amid comparisons to Nazism.

In 1999, NATO forces, led by the U.S., attacked Serbia and Kosovo, with the same justifications, but this time with no UN mandate. That was the turning point. In 2001, after 9/11, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and, in 2003, it invaded Iraq. Neither had UN support, though the UN provided co-operation in the subsequent occupations. By then, the war on terror was a key motive, but humanitarian reasons were also invoked, especially in Iraq, when the other rationales dissolved. In Afghanistan, too, the cause of women, for instance, and democratization continue to be raised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:

And even milder compared the Bush administration ordering mass murder in the Middle East.
[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: Secret Agent Style ]

---

quote:

---

Well he did order air strikes on Iraq and Serbia.

---

Salutin makes the point that some of what Clinton did can be seen as a smaller-bore version of the mass criminality which is the Bush administration.

There's some truth to that. But only some.

No conceivable US President would meet with Salutin's approval, and all historic presidents have skeletons in their closets.

So, measured against an ideal, they all come up short.

But a critical question is: how far are they from that ideal? And here, the answer is that George Bush is astronomically worse in every way than Clinton.

Where, for example, is there anything in Clinton's record approaching Bush's new torture bill?

Which countries did Clinton occupy by force?

How many civilian casualties were caused by Clinton, as opposed to Bush?

Even the bombing of Serbia, Exhibit One for those who defend Milosevic (but claim they don't) pales in comparison with Iraq.

Serbia:

quote:

---

The war inflicted many casualties. Yugoslavia claimed that NATO attacks caused between 1,200 and 5,700 civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch counted a minimum of 500 civilian deaths in 90 separate incidents. NATO acknowledged killing at most 1,500 civilians.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#Civilian_Casualties

Iraq:

The website Iraq Body Count estimates that there have been a minimum of 43,000 US caused civilian casualties in Iraq.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/webcounters.php

quote:

---

So no, I really don't feel nostalgic for the days of Bill Clinton. If he had been in power on 9/11, I bet we would be in Iraq and Afghanistan now - and, what's more, he would have probably been able to persuade a lot more people to support the venture.

---