Thursday, September 28, 2006

WWCD

I agree that it really is not important to look at how Clinton pretty much lied the entire time he was on FOX Sunday (or anytime he has ever talked)...except to make sure we do not make the mistakes he made again.

However, we have so many mindless sheeple liberals who stand up for this skid mark no matter what that I just want to make sure that they have one more chance to see how wrong they are...

Now, in defending Clinton on his role in the war on terror, you wave ANY right to EVER say ANYTHING about GWB, since Clinton did nothing, and Bush is doing something...

Here is Clinton's nothing:

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

8 comments:

Jim said...

Not a terrible article. It actually goes through some details and doesn't mention Clinton's dick directly.

It's interesting how Game can read even this article criticizing Clinton but giving SOME credit and yet Game says Clinton did nothing. Apparently reading something in black and white has no meaning if you suffer from OCD.

Regarding Operation Bojinka, was Clinton supposed to bomb the Philippines, or what?

Regarding Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. What he supposed to bomb Saudi Arabia?

No response from the Clinton administration? How do you know? Because he didn't bomb somebody?

The Clinton administration disrupted the Millenium plots. Mostly the work of Clarke, Clinton's head of counter-terrorism. Since Clinton himself did not foil the plot, he gets no credit? Did Bush personally foil the Florida "plot"?

More Arabic interpreters have been forced out of the Bush Administration because of being gay than for any other reason.

Ron said...

Game, yer gettin pretty funny. You talk about all of Clintons "lying" and care less about the fact that it is the hallmark of the Cheney administration. I just have to laugh. Yer off the hook..definately not gellin though.

PCD said...

Jim, would you rather the DNC, NYTimes, and LATimes be bombed? They are the biggest DOMESTIC enemies America has outside of the ACLU and the Ninth Circus of Appeals.

Ron, a lie is not defined with disagreeing with your propaganda.

Anonymous said...

Good point jim. OBL didnt have a real base to go after until after 97-98. Meanwhile, our latest candidate for late-term abortion, pcd, does his best to make all Cons look bad. Lets take a moment to give a round of applause to pcd, and game for encouraging him to post here, since he does more to make all Libs look correct than anything they could post on their own.

PCD said...

Rhyno, you speak about yourself, and the term is Post-partum Abortion, you ignorant teenager.

History will show Clinton fiddled while the Islamofascist fires burned brighter and brighter.

jhbowden said...

Jim--

I agree with you completely that Clinton deserves credit for a lot of things Republicans at the time were opposing. I remember the Republican Monica-missile bullshit, the crybabying about an Aspirin factory, the poor Iraq children Clinton was killing. All of these arguments made no sense. With the aspirin factory, error happens in war. BFD. The goofy impeachment efforts and endless investigations encouraged the terror attacks, since our enemies can tell when our leadership is in a political bind. Moreover, Saddam Hussein deserved everything he got, and killing innocents is going to happen anytime one stands up to tyranny.

I remember the people at FreeRepublic saying that Clinton was antogonizing the Muslims, increasing the terror threat, that he was bloodthirsty, out-of-control-- the same attributes people attribute to Bush today. JimRob has deleted most of the threads, and Republicans are in complete denial about how kooky they were in the 1990s:

Yankee Go Home
Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans.
Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 3:30 AM ET

"Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it."

snip

As Americans we need to get on the same page with respect to fighting terror. It seems whoever the opposition party is, it will clamor for peace, negotiation, and diplomacy for political gain, and it needs to stop. Unfortunately this needs to come from the top down, since many voters tend to take cues from the political leadership and the opinion-makers in the press about where their parties are going.

If Hillary wins and becomes the uberhawk, expect Democrats to support her, Republicans to become peaceniks, Democrats questioning their patriotism -- the entire spectacle is myopic and harmful in the longterm.

The Game said...

ron is a grown man and can not understand the meaning of the word lie...
also, this article was written so well, and can not be refuted, that Ron has to try and shrug it off. You have to do that a lot...I don't know what I would do if I was wrong all the time either

Marshal Art said...

One major difference between then and now, is that the Kosovo situation didn't threaten to spread throughout the world as does Islamofascist terrorism. I really don't recall those three acting all lib like in regards to that conflict and they suck for it. As I recall, there was a lot of concern over ethnic cleansing. In any case, there was support for some of the military action Clinton took against the Islamists. However, I'm sure there are some on the right who would rip on any Dem for any reason at any time.