Clinton faces some tough 9-11 questions

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Clinton faces some tough 9-11 questions
95
Wed, 03-17-2004 - 4:26pm
Lisa Myers has an exclusive report on secret CIA footage of OBL, and another missed opportunity to involve the military in combatting terrrorism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

Renee

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 6:53am
How do you account for the recording of Clinton himself at a meeting with businessmen in Long Island where he stated the reason that he did not take bin Laden was because he did not have the grounds to do so.

He goes on to say that he then pleaded with the Saudi's to take him, but they wanted no part of bin Laden.

Clintons own words seem pretty damning of themselves, dont they?


They don't to me, that sounds like what a responsible leader should do in that situation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 7:48am
<>

It tells me that Clinton was operating within the law. This suggests that we need to review the law. International law is really non existence. Note this time preceeded bin Laden's relocation to Afghanistan and his attacks against the US.


Edited 3/30/2004 8:58 am ET ET by hayashig

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 7:53am
<>

Libraone was responding to a question raised by bry. This is a long-running problem where Bushies always point to Clinton's short comings in defense of Bush. Thus libraone was just setting the record straight.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 3:42pm
>> It tells me that Clinton was operating within the law.

I agree, but actually he was acting within the ultra strict guidelines set forth by Janet Reno and Gorelick....if they had been more flexible, then perhaps Clinton could have issued his order to execute bin Laden at the first opportunity earlier than late 2000.

>> International law is really non existence.

I know...If you break international law, do they lock you up in international prison???? (a bad joke)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 3:49pm
>> that sounds like what a responsible leader should do in that situation. As much as it may sound good to just take out people you know are bad because you just know they will do something doesn't mean you actually get to do it.

Not taling about being responsible, I am talking about the fact that everyone in the Clinton Adminstration has said that there was never an offer from Sudan, when Clinton's own words point to the exact opposite, basically backing up the contentions of Mansoor Ijas, David Miniter, and Gerald Posner.

This was my point. I agree that he really did not have any basis to hold him, but if Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick had reduced the restrictions or reasons to hold him, perhaps something could have been done.

I am just saying that today, we have to take a good long look at our rules when it comes to dealing with both terrorists that we KNOW have committed crimes against us, and those that we SUSPECT have committed crimes against us. It is a different game after 9/11.

Clinton actually made a good case for why he could not take bin Laden when he was offered, I just can't figure out why everyone else in the Administration is still denying that bin Laden was offered.

>> When he did have the grounds to go after Bin Laden they put together a comprehensive plan to do so, a plan the Bush administration ignored and waited until 9/4 to give it the light of day.

With this point, I still say that if Clinton had gone to Congress with what he had, they would probably not have approved it, and if Bush had done it a month after taking office, he would have been rebuffed as well. 9/11 was the very unfortunate wake up call that the government needed to see exactly how serious the terrorist threat is here in the US.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 1:20pm
Clinton needs to answer the questions as well, as even Clarke said that al Qaeda was allowed to grow and prosper during the Clinton years due to the lack of intelligence that could be gathered on this organization.

It is not a direct attack at Clinton, but a fact finding inquiry to see what could have been done to help prevent this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-01-2004 - 8:22am
In the future, they are going to be a threat on a military level as well. They already are a dangerous adversary, but they are not threatening as yet, and it hopefully will never come to that point.

In the book "Death of the West" by Pat Buchannan he said that as China's population continues to grow, they are going to need 1) more land to live on as the country is becoming very crowded. Even though it is one of the larger countries in the world, only 35 - 40% of the land is inhabitable, or usable for food sources. 2) more resources to feed their growing population, and 3) more women as the ratio of men to women is getting to be a bit lopsided.

I dont necessarily agree with everything Buchannan says in the book, but he has an interesting point with this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-01-2004 - 8:32am
>> His terrorist theme has been critically flawed.

Perhaps, but this administration has done more about confronting the terrorists on their level than any of the past administrations, (I don't count the Gulf War as a war against terror, as the specific mission was to get Iraq out of Kuwait).

Ronald Reagan really did not fight terrorism in the same way either, but I guess it is all relative as terrorism was not seen as the same threat to the US in the 1980's and early 1990's.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 04-01-2004 - 8:54am

Here's an interesting article...........


The Yellow Peril Revisited.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-01-2004 - 11:19am
I posted it because now Madeline Albright has said that there never was a deal from Sudan to take bin Laden. Looks like she is not being totally honest on that one.

Sandy Berger has backed up that statement as well.

This is what I am getting at.

Clinton admits that there was, but because of the guidelines and restrictions placed on taking bin Laden, his hands were tied.

Pages