posted on July 16, 2004 12:58:41 PM new
John Kerry volunteered for service in the Navy during the Vietnam War, where he served as skipper of a swift boat that patrolled the Mekong Delta. Lt. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star with V, three awards of the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Presidential Unit Citation, Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. He is a cofounder of the Vietnam Veterans of America and a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In the United States Senate, he has led the fight to investigate the fate of POW/MIAs in Vietnam, treat and compensate victims of Agent Orange and study the cause of war-related illnesses in Gulf War veterans.
posted on July 16, 2004 01:02:24 PM new
Linda. Did you ever consider that John Kerry may have said those things, however, your interpretation is completely out of context?
Seriously, I don't think there is one liberal, or as you like to call us, ultra-liberal who didn't think that Hussein needed to be removed from power. Kerry simply reflects that as well.
You have to consider that even though he said those things, he perhaps disagrees with the method, tactics and timing that was used by the Bush Administration, especially now that we know how overexaggerated the claims were by the entire Bush Administration in their justification for war against Iraq.
I might also add that we are once again removing more troops in Afghanistan, where I believe the real mastermind of 9/11 is hiding. Linda, can you tell us why the Bush Administration has decreased the amount of troops over the last two years in Afghanistan? Do you seriously think that us ultra-conservatives wouldn't support the caputure of Osama? Ironic, considering how much Bush's ratings drop. I still think he's going to pull Osama from his pocket in October.
Many congressmen voted based on what ended up being bold faced lies, and they tell us that they would never have voted to give Bush those powers if they knew the truth.
Linda, you really need to start barking up the right tree, or bush in this case.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jul 16, 2004 01:06 PM ]
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jul 16, 2004 01:07 PM ]
posted on July 16, 2004 01:09:03 PM newLinda have you ever heard of the expression..."the buck stops here"?
I sure have. And he hasn't retreated on his actions....as kerry as done. This President said after our 9-11 attack and with the threat the world saw and felt from saddam....it was necessary action.
He has the guts to accept his actions, decisions, etc....so unlike the spineless kerry...who said exactly the same thing almost all the democrats were saying but NOW....now it's somehow all different. That somehow is the 'wind' has changed....and he's putting our National Security at risk to gain his political dream, the WH. To hel* with National Security.
The decision for war lies with Bush not members of Congress.
I agree. It was his ultimate decision. But had he not been given the vote from the Congress to do so, and did so anyway, his impeachment would most likely have been called for immediately. He received that approval from our Congress. Only 11 in the Senate voted against giving him that war power.
He had the intelligence reports that he gave to Congress.
As the Commission report in the opening thread says....he did not lie.
They all looked at the same intelligence reports...they all are responsible. And, imo, they all voted to take the correct action. It's just that now their 'turncoat' behavior sickens me. Shows that the majority of the democratic leaders have no backbone to support the decisions THEY made.
It was his reponsibility to make sure the intelligence information was accurate, not members of Congress.
It was our intelligence agencies responsibility to give accurate information to both our Congress and our President. And they gave the best they had.
Bush needs to accept responsibility for his actions. He has....and that's why he's going to be re-elected. The fair-minded people of this country can easily see we weren't lied to....no agency was pressed to 'sex the information up' and that even though only small amounts of womd have been located...he acted in this Nations best interest. Removed from power saddam which actions was approved during the clinton administration when the Liberation of Iraq legislation passed our Congress. Why? Because saddam's always been seen as a threat to the world.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 01:13:42 PM new
George Bush..."Too busy getting stoned on Air Force One to worry about our military service personel getting killed."
posted on July 16, 2004 01:24:29 PM new
It was his reponsibility to make sure the intelligence information was accurate, not members of Congress.
It was our intelligence agencies responsibility to give accurate information to both our Congress and our President. And they gave the best they had.
If we did receive the best information our intelligence agencies had, then we are all in for a repeat of 9/11. If that was the best I would hate to see what the worst is
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 16, 2004 01:32:01 PM new
rusty - You have to consider that even though he said those things, he perhaps disagrees with the method, tactics and timing that was used by the Bush Administration,
I've bolded his words....he was against blasting the president for not moving, military, FAST ENOUGH against the threat.
Go back and read kerry's own words.
especially now that we know how overexaggerated the claims were by the entire Bush Administration in their justification for war against Iraq.
Again not willing to see what the commission has stated on this issue. He did not lie. Tony Blair did not lie. They both felt with saddam not cooperating and with all the time he had to do so, action was necessary....taking 9-11 into consideration.
For crying outloud....saddam admitted to having these weapons....had used these weapons in the past....and never proved to the UN in 13 years that they'd been destroyed....plus he still wouldn't comply with the UN even at the final, final warning.
He could have....he chose not to. This President took action.
Linda, can you tell us why the Bush Administration has decreased the amount of troops over the last two years in Afghanistan?
I'm not privy to direct information from our President. But from what my son tells me it's as more nations have stepped up to the plate to help in Afghanistan less of our troops are needed there. It's basically become a 'peace keeping' force that we still have there.
Do you seriously think that us ultra-conservatives wouldn't support the caputure of Osama?
I don't know what to think about that group of American's anymore. It appears to me they side with our enemies against our country's policies on almost all issues. And I saw how they complained we hadn't found saddam either, but when we did capture him were they elated? No....just turned their focus on who we didn't have yet. Said capturing him didn't matter. So...I'm left to believe they'd react in the same manner. If BL were captured...they'd continue with their negativity and say IT didn't really matter either...because there's always another terrorist willing to lead their cause.
Ironic, considering how much Bush's ratings drop.
They'll go back up once all the 'book' reports from the liars are proven to be wrong. This fight has only just begun. Kerry hasn't stated any policy - so far he just deals in generalizations. That will change. And our culture issues vs his ultra-liberal positions will be discussed. The people will see kerry for what he is - and this President will be re-elected.
I still think he's going to pull Osama from his pocket in October.
So? If he does fine...if it doesn't happen at least we have a man in the WH who is willing to fight these terrorists.....not surrender to them....think they can be negociated with...like kerry.
Many congressmen voted based on what ended up being bold faced lies, and they tell us that they would never have voted to give Bush those powers if they knew the truth.
Again, they weren't lies. There was some misinformation. WHY? Because during the whole clinton administration nothing was done to get our people on the group and in the ME to have better intelligence. Little was done when our Nations interests abroad were attacked by these terrorists.
And this President received the very same information all the members of our Congress did. They all voted for it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 01:45:31 PM new
John Kerry volunteered for service in the Navy during the Vietnam War, where he served as skipper of a swift boat that patrolled the Mekong Delta. Lt. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star with V, three awards of the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Presidential Unit Citation, Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. He is a cofounder of the Vietnam Veterans of America and a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In the United States Senate, he has led the fight to investigate the fate of POW/MIAs in Vietnam, treat and compensate victims of Agent Orange and study the cause of war-related illnesses in Gulf War veterans.
posted on July 16, 2004 01:46:27 PM new
rusty - Again, here was kerry's position at that time.
[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, 'but nonetheless I am glad we've reached this moment in our diplomacy.'
And of course there's the statements of hillary clinton who publically stated on the Chris Matthews show that she had her OWN people check out the sources/information and that's why SHE voted to give Bush war powers.
If you and other lefties think after being as involved in the workings of the WH as she was as first lady for 8 years, that she didn't know what was going on and could be so easily fooled....then there is never going to be any hope that someone, like yourself, would ever believe anything from anyone if it doesn't fit your agenda....which now is to remove a President that has taken the necessary action and removed a threat to the ME.
---------------------
And crowfarm - If you'd ever read what kerry's commanders have said about him....when he joined he joined a division that up until that point had seen no war 'action/fighting'. That situation changed and he couldn't get himself out of there fast enough. Some hero...
But more than what happened in VN...and his siding with our enemies...his statements about the other soldiers still there fighting...that he used some special rarely use exclusion to get out, leaving his unit....is his position/voting record on funding our defense, military and intelligence agencies.
Not a man to be in the WH during a time when this Nation is dealing with the terrorists.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 01:49:22 PM new
Linda,"I'm not privy to direct information from our President. But from what my son tells me it's as more nations have stepped up to the plate to help in Afghanistan less of our troops are needed there. It's basically become a 'peace keeping' force that we still have there. "
You are right you are not privy to direct information from our president so how do YOU know if he lied or not? And your son? If he's as stupid as his mother.......
""Do you seriously think that us ultra-conservatives wouldn't support the caputure of Osama? ""
"""I don't know what to think about that group of American's anymore. It appears to me they side with our enemies against our country's policies on almost all issues. And I saw how they complained we hadn't found saddam either, but when we did capture him were they elated? No....just turned their focus on who we didn't have yet. Said capturing him didn't matter. So...I'm left to believe they'd react in the same manner. If BL were captured...they'd continue with their negativity and say IT didn't really matter either...because there's always ..."""
posted on July 16, 2004 01:49:51 PM new
Linda- Clinton asked for more funding to fight terrorism, and the Republicans shot him down. They were more focused on spending 80 million dollars to go after Clinton over a family matter. Kind of backwards if you ask me.
If Bush pulls Osama out of his butt in October, that is fine with you... Just another neo-con supporting those dirty little tactics.
As for those troops in Afghanistan... Don't you think it is the duty of Commander in Chief to find, capture and/or kill Osama Bin Laden in order to decapitate his terrorist network? We're pulling troops out of Afghanistan b/c other coutries are bringing in troops as peace keepers??? Come on now. That is pretty lame. Peace keepers isn't the solution to ridding the world of the mastermind of 9/11. Are you seriously using peace keepers as justification for the removal of US troops from a region where Osama is hiding? Here is a clue Linda- Bush and the Bin Ladens are friends. You do the math and figure out where this is heading. The Saudi's are already giving amnesty to terrorists.
As for your justification for war you continue to say that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and this is why we attacked. The inspectors found nothing. We found nothing. You should have your head examined if you still want to use this as justification.
Let's turn the table. If the United States is being accused of having weapons of mass destruction, and inspectors continuously find nothing, where is the breaking point for the US to put their foot down and say enough? I guarantee you our own government and people wouldn't support continuous inspections if we proved ourselves free of what we are being accused of. Ironic that Hussein gets the last laugh on this one. Sure he was removed, but the justification was false, and this only hurts America for the future generations, something that George Bush and yourself have no clue about.
posted on July 16, 2004 01:56:29 PM new
Well, linda, you finally developed somewhat of a spine and actually and finally answered the question in your rather unintelligent way.
Linda, finally, said,""And crowfarm - If you'd ever read what kerry's commanders have said about him....when he joined he joined a division that up until that point had seen no war 'action/fighting'. That situation changed and he couldn't get himself out of there fast enough. Some hero... ""
LINDA BUSH DIDN'T GO AT ALL!!!!! IT'S A FACT!!!
""But more than what happened in VN...and his siding with our enemies...his statements about the other soldiers still there fighting...that he used some special rarely use exclusion to get out, leaving his unit....is his position/voting record on funding our defense, military and intelligence agencies. ""
Is this rambling incoherent mess some weird justification that BUSH didn't GO AT ALL!
""Not a man to be in the WH during a time when this Nation is dealing with the terrorists. ""
KERY WON'T BE HIDING IN A BOTTLE! Linda, you dork, It isn't an act of bravery to send OTHERS into war!
posted on July 16, 2004 02:00:30 PM new
What I have a 'clue' about is the seriousness of this situation...this war on terror. That the left appears to be unable to see, unwilling to fight against.
What I also see is the far left siding with our enemies. Believing them over our own country.
What I pray for is that American's are not foolish enough to elected a man who's so far left agenda leaves our Nation vulnerable because they're so blind to the promises of the terrorists intentions.
They're not going to be making any distinctions between our political parties as they continue to achieve their stated goals against our nation.
It's not going away....we MUST deal with it. This President IS dealing with it. Kerry can't be trust to do so - his past actions prove that.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 02:08:37 PM new
Linda you keep saying Kerry is against our troops but everything I have read shows he has voted in favor of our troops more times than he voted against.
You can keep saying he is against defense, and against our troops but the fact is he is not. And yes I will believe an nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" source like factcheck.org over you.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 16, 2004 02:30:48 PM new
So as I understand it, Linda wants a bragging, chest thumping, arrogant ass for president so that:
We can attack any country our president feels like attacking.
More and more other countries will grow to hate us because of this.
Terrorism will grow as terrorists get more support from countries who hate us.
As long as we have young people to slaughter in war we can start wars all over the world....war will become a way of life.
We don't appear "weak" by intelligent diplomacy.........................
The playground bully, who is stupid, rules with his fist because his brain is too small to handle life any other way.
Anyone who believes violence is the only answer is a brain dead bully. I think the strongest people don't have to resort to violence as a first resort...they have better ammunition.
posted on July 16, 2004 02:41:01 PM new
I have stated many, many times that I also supported the clinton administrations bombings in Iraq. I only wish he'd done more. But fact is he has said exactly the same thing about saddam/womd as this President has.
And I will always hold t
And while I know many here gleefully point out all the 'left leaning hype' that book writers bash the President in....here's one from the 'other side'. And please note that most of the sources used were democrats.
-----
September 11, 2003, 11:45 a.m.
Clinton's Loss?
How the previous administration fumbled on bin Laden.
A Q&A by Kathryn Jean
Lopez
Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist. His new book, Losing bin Laden:
How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror has just been released by Regnery. He spoke to NRO early today about the run-up to the war on terror.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: What did the Clinton administration know about Osama bin Laden and when did they know it?
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.
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.
In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.
Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines housed in two towering Yemen hotels.
Within hours, the CIA's counterterrorism center learned that the Yemen suspected a man named Osama bin Laden. (One of the arrested bombing suspects later escaped and was detained in a police sweep after al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000.) Lake says he doesn't remember briefing the president-elect about the attempted attack, but that he well might have.
So it is safe to conclude that Clinton knew about the threat posed by bin Laden since 1993, his first year in office.
Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole?
Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.
Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had ordered his staff to review existing intelligence in relation to the bombing of the USS Cole. After that review, he and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, were convinced it was the work of Osama bin Laden.
The Pentagon had on-the-shelf, regularly updated and detailed strike plans for bin Laden's training camps and strongholds in Afghanistan.
At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services. If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.
Lopez: When the World Trade Center was first bombed in '93, why was it treated at first as a criminal investigation?
Miniter: The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full extent of the bin Laden menace because the president's decision to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its information with the CIA — without also having to share the same data with the accused terrorists.
Woolsey told me about his frustration that he had less access to evidence from the World Trade Center bombing — the then-largest ever foreign terrorist attack on U.S soil — than any junior agent in the FBI's New York office.
Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all — even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad.
More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he tried.
By contrast, if Clinton treated the bombing as the act of terrorism that it was, he would be assuming personal responsibility for a series of politically risky moves. Should he deploy the CIA or special forces to hunt down the perpetrators? What happens if the agents or soldiers die?
What if they try to capture the terrorists and fail? One misstep and the media, Congress, and even the public might blame the president. So Clinton took the easy, safe way out, and called it a crime.
Lopez: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not take advantage of such opportunities?
Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information.
He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.
Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious."
Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?
The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custodyp. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.
After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."
In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.
Steven Simon, Clinton's counterterrorism director on the National Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would benefit U.S. security since "It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time." Buys time? Oh yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected.
Lopez: This amazes me every time I hear it: You write, "When a small plane accidentally crashed into the White House lawn in 1994, West Wing staffers joked that it was [Jim] Woolsey trying to see the president..." How could the CIA director have that bad a relationship with his president? And this, after the first WTC attack. Did no one in the West Wing get it?
Miniter: Never once in his two-year tenure did CIA director James Woolsey ever have a one-on-one meeting with Clinton. Even semiprivate meetings were rare. They only happened twice. Woolsey told me: "It wasn't that I had a bad relationship with the president. It just didn't exist."
One of the little scoops in the book is the revelation that Clinton froze Woolsey out because the CIA director refused to put a friend of Bill on the agency's payroll. This account was confirmed by both Woolsey and the Clinton's consigliore Bruce Lindsey.
Considering the Justice Department's experience with Webster Hubbell, another Friend of Bill, Woolsey's decision may have done the CIA a great deal of good. But Clinton's pique did not make America any safer from bin Laden.
Another Clinton intelligence failure involved a refusal to help the CIA hire more Arabic language translators. In 1993, Woolsey learned that the agency was able to translate only 10 percent of its Arabic intercepts and badly wanted more translators.
But Sen. Dennis DeConcini refused to approve the funds unless Clinton phoned him and said it was a presidential priority. Despite entreaties, Clinton never phoned the Democratic senator and the CIA didn't get those translators for years.
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?
Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.
Lopez: You sorta defend Clinton against "wag the dog" criticisms in regard to that infamous August 1998 (Monica times) bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan and some bin Laden strongholds in Afghanistan. That wasn't the problem, was it — that we fired then?
Miniter: Certainly the timing is suspicious.
The day before the East African-embassy bombings, Monica Lewinsky had recanted her prior affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. The sex scandals kicked into overdrive.
Still, the president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden because of his sex scandals — he was doing too little. He should have launched more missile strikes against bin Laden and the hell with the political timing. Besides, after the East African-embassy bombings, any president would have been negligent not to strike back. If he had not, it would be open season on Americans. He would have been as ineffectual as Carter was during the Tehran hostage crisis. Indeed, this was the mistake made following the attack on the USS Cole.
But Clinton was distracted by sex and campaign-finance scandals and his political support was already heavily leveraged to get him through those scandals.
If he fought bin Laden more vigorously, the leftwing of the Democratic party might have deserted him — which could have cost him the White House.
Instead Clinton's token, ineffectual missile strikes that only emboldened bin Laden. He believed that America was too intimidated to fight back — and was free to plan one of the most-murderous terrorist attacks in history.
Lopez: How did George Tenet perform during the Clinton years vis-à-vis al Qaeda/bin Laden?
Miniter: Tenet seemed to take a too legalistic view of CIA operations. He was risk-averse, wanting almost absolute certainty before recommending action, focused on safeguards against error and unintended consequences. Tenet seemed more concerned with not getting in trouble rather than relentlessly pursuing results to safeguard Americans against terrorism, the focus of a warrior.
Each time U.S. intelligence pinpointed bin Laden, Tenet was against a missile strike on the grounds that the information was "single threaded" — a pet phrase of the director which means single source. The predator was armed and fitted with video cameras mostly to overcome Tenet's objections to taking out bin Laden.
Lopez: Madeline Albright — frequently called upon expert nowadays — what's her record vis-à-vis al Qaeda?
Miniter: Albright always insisted that diplomatic efforts would best yield results on bin Laden.
Even after the Cole bombing, Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts with the Taliban to turn him over, even though that effort had been going on for two years with no progress. Two simple facts should have made Albright aware that the Taliban would never turn over bin Laden: Osama had married off one of his sons to Mullah Omar's daughter.
The Taliban weren't about to surrender a member of the family — especially one that commanded thousands of armed fighters who helped maintain Omar's grip on power.
Lopez: What exactly is the Iraq-al Qaeda connection?
Miniter: Osama bin Laden's wealth is overestimated. He had been financially drained during his years in Sudan and financing terrorist operations in dozens of countries, including training camps, bribes, etc., requires a large, constant cash flow. Saddam Hussein was unquestionably a generous financier of terrorism. Baghdad had a long history of funding terrorist campaigns in the bin Laden-allied region that straddles Iran and Pakistan known as Beluchistan.
Documents found in Baghdad in April 2003 showed that Saddam funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden since the 1990s. Saddam openly funded the Iraqi Kurdish Group and its leader, Melan Krekar, admitted that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan. George Tenet testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq had provided training in forging documents and making bombs. Farouk Harazi, a senior officer in the Iraqi Mukhabarat reportedly offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
Salah Suleiman, an Iraqi intelligence operative, was arrested in October 2000 near the Afghan border, apparently returning from a visit to bin Laden. One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin, reportedly fled to Baghdad in 1994. Iraq ran an extensive intelligence hub in Khartoum; Sudanese intelligence officers told me about dozens of meeting between Iraqi Intel and bin Laden.
Tellingly, reports that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague several times in 2000 and 2001 have not been disproved. I have far more on this in Appendix A of Losing bin Laden.
Lopez: What most surprised you to learn about the Clinton years and terrorism?
Miniter: Three things:
1) That the Sept. 11 attacks were planned in May 1998 in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan, according to American and British intelligence officers I interviewed. In other words, the 9/11 attacks were planned on Clinton's watch.
2) The sheer number of bin Laden's attacks on Americans during the Clinton years.
3) And how much senior Clinton-administration officials knew about bin Laden and how little they did about it.
Lopez: This sounds like this could all be right-wing propaganda. How can you convince readers otherwise?
Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials, including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA director, Clinton's counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
And, while I shine the light on Clinton's shortcomings in dealing with bin Laden, I also give credit where it is due. Chapter nine is all about one of the greatest (and least-known) Clinton victories over bin Laden — the successful thwarting of a series of plots to murder thousands of Americans on Millennium night, 1999.
If anyone has any doubts about the credibility of this book, they should read the acknowledgements, which list many of my sources. Or peruse the more than 15,000 words of footnotes, that allow the reader to see exactly where information is coming from. Or examine the intelligence documents reproduced in Appendix
B. Or pick a page at random and read it. Any fair-minded reader will see a carefully constructed and balanced account that attempts to lay out the history of Clinton and bin Laden.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 02:48:21 PM new
No logansdad - I mean go the the *US Senate site* [url] and there you can see the actual way he's voted. The U.S. Senate site where their votes on the issues are recorded.
I've posted his Senate voting record many times - it's very long and very clear.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 16, 2004 03:34:16 PM new
Gotta hand it to you linda, when you hate you sure put a lot of energy into it! But I suppose you thrive on hate.
You are certainly obsessed with Clinton but then you're just plain obsessed.
So you like war and killing...just like Bush ...as long as it's not YOU.
Well, if bush is re-appointed you'll get your wish and you'll be delighted at the war and bloodshed to follow for years and years. I'm sure you'll be so happy you were right and take much pleasure in other's suffering.
But linda,I think that's the only thing you'll have any delight in...kinda twisted but that's what bitterness, envy, loneliness, stupidity and hate do to a person.
I feel so sorry for you that I'm not going to pester you any more...I don't know what might send you over the edge if you aren't there already.
And I don't care anymore what you post because who the hell reads this stuff anyway...see, all that work you did for a handful of people, 1/2 who think you're ridiculous and the other ones who are as stupid as you are.
Ah, don't let Linda get to you. I know it's difficult sometimes, but if you work real hard at it you'll find it easy to let her words roll off your back and into the trash can.
It always amazes me how one person can be so against things they think are religiously wrong (gay marriage, abortion etc.) and at the same time be happy with and supportive of a man who could so easily kill. Kind of contradictory, don't you think?
posted on July 16, 2004 04:43:12 PM new
Thanks cheryl and I agree about the contradictions ....it's actually very spooky which is what my last post was about.
I know she's ridiculous but I'd hate to be the one who pushes her over the edge. Linda would never understand this concept of caring about someone besides yourself and backing off. I do.
She's pathetic so I'm starting to feel like the "bully" I complain about.
And I realize her ONLY outlet is this forum so let her have at it......
Believe me when I say I'm not making any excuses for Linda, but she has had a rather rough year. That's mainly why I just roll with her punches. However, the rough year will be over soon enough.
Fewer and fewer people are willing to roll with the kind of punches linda is delivering. Right now many posters who generally post here are on Ebay Outlook and other places.
I agree. That's why I said I'm not making excuses for her. I admit I get soft sometimes, but once my dander is up, it's pretty much up for the evening. Just ask my boyfriend. LOL!
I was wondering where the other posters went to. I really haven't seen too many on Outlook either. Explains a lot.
Hang in there crowfarm. We don't want to lose another one! We like you!
posted on July 16, 2004 07:44:26 PM new
Oh, cheryl, I will keep posting but whenever linda or her alter ego, twelvepole (and they are the same), post I feel a need to wash my hands or take a shower....real evil gives me the creeps. No other poster, no matter how much I disagree with them gives me this "slimed" feeling...even bear is just a grouchy old dope, not evil. Linda is just so filled with hatred it comes through in her posts and hate has no part in my life which is why I really do feel sorry for her but at a distance....
Look at it this way...can you imagine linda having any close friends??????????
posted on July 16, 2004 08:51:09 PM new
I doubt that twelvehole.
I don't bother posting except occasionally as Linda constant cut and pastes bore me to tears. Aside from which every knows an empty drum makes the loudest sound. If I wish to check out the right wing view I can always watch fox (I do occasionally as I am curious to see their spin.
This will be well above the heads of many here but the easiest way to explain it is many posters are nothing more than manifestations of negative energy and not worth having any dialog with. Much like flies they are only good for swatting. That is my view of the right.
And just to keep it on topic you've got to be insane to believe Bush is owed an apology from anyone. The man has more blood on his hands than Jeffrey Dalmer.
posted on July 16, 2004 09:29:34 PM new
oh lord...here we go again. daveb, popping in to say why he doesn't post here much anymore.
And it's been the same speech for 3 of the last 4 years he's posted here. Yet...he keeps poppin' in and 99% of the time it's reference me or comment on something I've said.
I'm so flattered, daveb.
But a little creativity in a 'new blaming speech' would be a nice change. This ones gotten rather boring.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
