Reply
Thu 16 Oct, 2003 10:07 am
Clinton warned Bush of bin Laden threat
Wed October 15, 2003 10:27 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.
"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."
The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the September 11 attacks.
Time magazine reported last year that a plan for the United States to launch attacks against the al-Qaeda network languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved only a week before the September 11 attacks.
But the White House disputed parts of that story, which was published by the magazine in August 2002.
"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition," a White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at the time.
The White House was clearly irritated by the report, which appeared to suggest that the Bush administration might not have done all it could to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."
Clinton said that after bin Laden, the next security priority would have been the absence of a Middle East peace agreement, followed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."
Clinton's vice president Al Gore, who ran against Bush in the 2000 election, did not make the threat from al Qaeda a major focus of the presidential campaign, which both candidates kept focused mainly on domestic topics.
A courageous rebuttal to the fluctuating spin that Clinton weakened the US' defense, and as such allowed 9/11 to happen. Total bollocks.
BBB: The October 23rd issue of the NYRB has a very interesting article (review/commentary) by Arhur Schlesinger Jr. in which he lays out clearly the construction of the rationale for Iraq, all common sense to the contrary notwithstanding. The process has been in large part a vendetta (as I've pointed out before) on the part of neo-con unilateralist pre-emptive strikers who, from the Truman administration onward, have been trying to turn the US into a unilateralist nation and (here's the key) have been ridiculed and sidelined by their colleagues.. . The Bush administration has provided them with payback time.
I had a fleeting mini-thought as I read the first part of Schlesinger's article, a thought I've had before, one that's madly superficial, but one which I hold onto as a piece of the whole truth!: the people who adopt the anti-international, unilateralist line are those who've had a rotten time (if any)overseas! Laugh -- gwan, laugh! -- but these guys are like American travellers who are very discomfited by and distrustful of different cultures, feel out of place, and wish the whole world could be "paved" American.
Clinton is, of course, an epitome of the cultivated American populist, a man "of the people" who was educated and influenced by internationalism as well as his own culture, something which served him and the US very well but which is anathema to those who grew up believing we're the only nation in the world which knows how to do things right.
The Iraq invasion was a little like enabling the guys who'd been ridiculed all these years to go back home and rape the prom queen they could never get a date with.
Tartarin: Eyeless in Iraq
Tartarin, thanks for the New York Review of Books article info. I looked it up and find it fascinating. ---BBB
Quote:these guys are like American travellers who are very discomfited by and distrustful of different cultures, feel out of place
I SO agree. It's an illness really. Bred and cultivated by generations of egocentric, egoistic and xenophobic families.
And the xenophobia deliberately fostered by politicians during the Cold War, the purpose being to keep the scare going, Wolf, keep the defense industry in clover, and their minions in Congress.
BBB -- I thought pastes were being frowned on and am delighted to see you posted the NYRB article in its entirety, including the last section on the history of unilaterialism and not seeking monsters.
The 9/11 attack was a plan that took five years to finalize, that would mean it began in 1997, why didn't Clinton take action if he 'knew' "bin Laden was the biggest security threat to the United States" instead of handing the ball off in an 'Oh by the way, you may want to do something about him' fashion.
Clinton could have had him more than once, it is documented.
Well, it's all part of Bill's legacy revision tour, he doesn't want to take credit for 9/11 but he's got it, too late Bill. And I bet he thanks God everyday he wasn't in office on 9/11 having to make the tough decisions. No one at that time would have believed we would have gone two years without another attack.
So it's come to no admission from him that he squandered opportunities, instead it's 'I told Bush this guy was a problem' to absolve himself of any responsibility.
People don't like his name to be brought up since he isn't in office, but he never goes away, keeps himself involved in politics etc. so he's fair game IMO.
I don't see anything out of Clinton's mouth anytime anywhere that looks like he's trying to absolve himself.....there's a long gap between that and simply refusing to take the full blame for it.....when he doesn't deserve it........here's the plain unvarnished truth in the form of a question that has only one answer.......On September 11, 2001 who was the president of the United States? Whose watch did this happen on? Sorry, that's two questions.
Perhaps if the current administration spin doctors and the "better kiss Bushs' ass because Powells son is head of the FCC" media whores weren't helping to put the blame on Clinton 24/7 he wouldn't feel any need to point out that "Hey, I told him". Bush was told and did nothing, and we paid the price on 9/11.
Clinton had eight years and didn't eliminate Bin Laden when he had the chance. #41 didn't eliminate Hussein when he had the chance. Coulda woulda bla bla bla . 9/11 happened on Bushs' watch. End of story.
Yet another Clinton apologist is heard from
Please point out my apology....and please answer me this....who was president of the United States on 9/11/2001, and where does that famous buck stop at the end of the day?
If you will not answer that straight ahead question then I put forth the notion that you are a Bush apologist at the same time you claim there is nothing to Bush apologize for.
Can't you see that Clinton is trying desperately to salvage a remnant of the legacy he could have had if he just kept his pants zipped?
Don't even think about shifting the blame to my man because your sleazy excuse was more concerned with his public image than trying to do what was right----
The truth is that Bush has taken a huge gamble politically because going after bin Laden and Saddam is "The Right Thing to do". You can present all the conspiracy theories, spout off about "no WMDs" ----how we were deceived into war--etc. Bush took action ----Clinton did not because he was a cowardly wimp.
Brand X is correct---Cliinton is fair game because the SOB won't go away----he just keeps making a pest of himself.
What would folks ever do without a Clinton to compare a Bush to?
perception wrote:Can't you see that Clinton is trying desperately to salvage a remnant of the legacy he could have had if he just kept his pants zipped?
Hmmm..the blowjob rears its ugly "head" again. But wait...how many people died becasue of it?
Quote:Don't even think about shifting the blame to my man because your sleazy excuse was more concerned with his public image than trying to do what was right----
GI Joe Carrier landing anyone?
Quote:The truth is that Bush has taken a huge gamble politically because going after bin Laden and Saddam is "The Right Thing to do".
And thank the gods they are safely behind bars now..oh, wait, where are they?
Quote: You can present all the conspiracy theories, spout off about "no WMDs" ----how we were deceived into war--etc. Bush took action
Yup, of course he hasn't actually managed to "get" those he was supposedly after, but he definitely took action. Killing people seems to be a Republican family value!
Quote: ----Clinton did not because he was a cowardly wimp.
Or perhaps becasue he was:
a) Sane
b)Had advisors who weren't (all) loonies.
c) Wasn't trying to show daddy that his pee pee was bigger!
Quote:Brand X is correct---Cliinton is fair game because the SOB won't go away----he just keeps making a pest of himself.
Yup, how dare Clinton still be alive.
What I can see perception, is that you are a bigger Bush apologist and blind supporter of him than I could ever conceive of being for Clinton......I too, think Clinton tarnished his legacy because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants....but I don't think anyone died because of it....I think Clintons behavior may or may not have kept Gore out of the White House.....and I do not support Clinton in that........but I still would like you to tell me....who was President on 9/11/2001? Whose watch did 9/11 happen on? Cna't you, or won't you?
My god the "broom" is back
Hello Tartar----have really missed your "cheerleading" support of the lefties. Bingo----wow that was a real "Zinger"
Does that really mean something in Texas?
perception wrote:My god the "broom" is back
Hello Tartar----have really missed your "cheerleading" support of the lefties. Bingo----wow that was a real "Zinger"
Does that really mean something in Texas?
I think "Bingo" means that
you have run out of fuel
Polar Bear wrote:
I too, think Clinton tarnished his legacy because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants....
TARNISHED IT??????----I think destroyed is a better word for his legacy and tarnished the office of the president
You also wrote:
but I still would like you to tell me....who was President on 9/11/2001? Whose watch did 9/11 happen on? Cna't you, or won't you?
I don't have any trouble answering a question that is self evident----what is also evident is that Bush acted in the best manner possible and the left secretly agrees and can't stand it. All you've got left to say is "Coulda, Shoulda---DIDN'T.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace