Just watched this interview on Fox Sunday it was pretty interesting.[/align][/align]Ex-President Clinton defends bin Laden efforts [/align]In interview, Clinton says he "worked hard" to deal with al-Qaida leader[/align]The Associated Press[/align]
Updated: 2:50 p.m. ET Sept 24, 2006[/align][/align]
function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) {
var n = document.getElementById("udtD");
if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) {
var dt = new DateTime();
pdt = dt.T2D(pdt);
if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false :true));}
}
}
UpdateTimeStamp('632947206509330000');
NEW YORK - In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.
"That"s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "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 people you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?""
He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.
Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton"s "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, "Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?""
"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.
Clinton said he "worked hard" to try to kill bin Laden.
"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody"s gotten since," he said.
He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you"re so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."
The interview was taped Friday during Clinton"s three-day Global Initiative conference
[/align]
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
what I object to, is the designation of an impeached president who was disbarred as a lawyer in his home state, who disgraced the Oval Office by engaging in extramarital activities with an intern, as an 'elder statesman'.
He's a disgrace and an embarrassment. I do not listen to him as he is a liar and a cheat. Those who admire him are misguided and place their trust in him erroneously.
Clinton is out of control. The right-wingers had eight months to capture bin Laden and did nothing? He had eight years to capture bin Laden and did nothing, including turning down an offer from the Sudanese government (as was pointed out by DougMD on another thread here yesterday) to basically give him to us on a silver platter. The only time Clinton made any concerted effort to go after al-Quada was launching a few scuds at a pharmaceutical factory, very arguably a "wag the dog" measure to take national attention off the Lewinsky scandel.
The Bush administration did not put forth the effort to go after terrorists prior to 9/11 as they should have. Arguably, we paid the price because of that. But the Clinton administration spent eight years virtually ignoring the increasing terrorist threat from radical Muslims, and at least the Bush administration went after al Quada after the first terror attack against America during his tenure. Granted, 9/11 was an attack against us on a much larger scale than anything that happened during Clinton's administration, but would Clinton have gone after al Quada as intensely as the Bush administration if 9/11 had happened on his watch? Who knows? The '93 WTC bombing, '95 embassy attacks and '98 USS Cole attack suggest that he wouldn't have.
Clinton should focus on his "world-wide initiative" and stop criticizing the current administration on a subject that he obviously didn't find important during his terms in office.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Clinton is out of control. The right-wingers had eight months to capture bin Laden and did nothing? He had eight years to capture bin Laden and did nothing, including turning down an offer from the Sudanese government (as was pointed out by DougMD on another thread here yesterday) to basically give him to us on a silver platter. The only time Clinton made any concerted effort to go after al-Quada was launching a few scuds at a pharmaceutical factory, very arguably a "wag the dog" measure to take national attention off the Lewinsky scandel.
veyr very very true. well said. Did you know a reporter was thrown out of the White House because he aske dthe president if he had ever seen "wag the dog"?
Quote:
The Bush administration did not put forth the effort to go after terrorists prior to 9/11 as they should have.
thats true, but, then again, we never knew what would happen, I dont blame Dubya.
Quote:
Arguably, we paid the price because of that. But the Clinton administration spent eight years virtually ignoring the increasing terrorist threat from radical Muslims, and at least the Bush administration went after al Quada after the first terror attack against America during his tenure. Granted, 9/11 was an attack against us on a much larger scale than anything that happened during Clinton's administration, but would Clinton have gone after al Quada as intensely as the Bush administration if 9/11 had happened on his watch? Who knows? The '93 WTC bombing, '95 embassy attacks and '98 USS Cole attack suggest that he wouldn't have.
he would have hid like the coward and weasel that he is
Quote:
Clinton should focus on his "world-wide initiative" and stop criticizing the current administration on a subject that he obviously didn't find important during his terms in office.
Amen!
-Travis-
__________________
"Jesus answered and said unto him; Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" John 3:3
Ban Canned Hunting. If you don't speak up against it you are part of the problem.
One thing to remember is that the '93 WTC bombing was intended to take down both towers, since they figured one would fall into the other. The only difference between then and '01 is they happened to put the bomb in the wrong place the first time around.
I agree Bush could have done more in his 8 months too, but for Clinton to say he did more than Bush is ludicrous given that all he had to do was say "yes."
I believed the first thing he did wrong was to take time to be
interviewed on such a biased news station. Fox News not many up
here even take more then five minutes of there time to watch it.
Quote:
by engaging in extramarital activities with an intern
It is no doubt wrong but, if some of you out there did it should
it be blasted all over the news for the world to see. I see that
him and his wife got on with it and even if you can't.
Quote:
Granted, 9/11 was an attack against us on a much larger scale than anything that happened during Clinton's administration, but would Clinton have gone after al Quada as intensely as the Bush administration if 9/11 had happened on his watch? Who knows? The '93 WTC bombing, '95 embassy attacks and '98 USS Cole attack suggest that he wouldn't have.
I believed he would of tried to stop it in the first place and not just sit
back and ignore it. I also believe he would of hit back much harder then
the Bush admin. did. After all he did try once before with cruise missles
andI am sure the hit after 9-11 would of been alot harder and far more devistating then what had happened by the Bush group.
Phil, Fox News has a conservative slant, but it is the least biased of any of the major news sources.
I saw part of the interview Saturday on a YouTube link from Drudge. This morning I saw the entire interview. Clinton was unbelieveable. A former president should handle himself better than that. If any of the Republicans, most recently Bill Frist and Laura Bush, got on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and started getting pinned down like that, and acted the way Clinton acted, the rest of the news media would have a field day with it.
As for what Clinton's response would've been, I find it hard to believe he would've responded harder than Bush responded after 9/11. Again, we knew bin Laden was responsible for American deaths in the mid-'90s and were offered his head on a silver platter. No strings attached (well, perhaps some diplomatic ones). We didn't have to spend money on a military campaign or risk the lives of any service men. All we had to do was get extradition papers in order. And Clinton refused. And bin Laden went on to help plan attacks against the USS Cole and 9/11.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Phil, Fox News has a conservative slant, but it is the least biased of any of the major news sources.
I disagree with this Ben, perhaps it is because of the part of the country
we are from.
I did not see YouTube, and no doubt he should of handled himself better. I
also look at all the slaming going on ever sense he was president and as
you can see here it still has not stopped. Even with the years of seeing
Bush in the office. I also see Clinton as trying to make peace in the Middle
East, something that has happened sense.
And I would find it hard to believe that any president would of sat back
and watch 9-11 and not respond! I do believe Clinton would of hit much
harder and with a plan on getting things done. Something that appears to
be lacking here.
Phil, I'm not saying that Clinton wouldn't have responded. I'm sure he would've responded by attempting to arrest and prosecute those responsible. That's what he did after each of the terrorist attacks that occurred during his tenure in office. My doubt is whether he would've taken steps to disassemble al Quada's terror network in the Middle East. If we're going on his actions after the terror attacks of '93, '95 and '98, we can only assume that he wouldn't have. As I said, 9/11 was a much bigger attack than the previous attacks, so perhaps he would've; we'll never know. But in the meantime, he should refrain from criticizing what the Bush administration is doing, because his own administration was largely marked by inaction after repeated terrorist attacks. In the five years leading up to and including 9/11, there were three major terrorist attacks against us. In the five years since 9/11, there have been none. I do not think that is merely a coincidence.
Could we do more? Of course we could do more. But you see the public outcry that resulted around the globe because we invaded Iraq. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if we started invading places like Pakistan and Syria to root out terrorists?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Clinton on Fox
