"Clinton flat out lied about Bin laden"

Fox news interview of Clinton blow back

from JoeUser Forums

Michael Scheuer, the CIA operative who was in charge of the Bin Laden unit was interviewed this week and was out-right emotional in his assertion that contrary to Bill Clinton's claims on Fox News last week, Clinton did have plenty of opportunities -- 10 actionable ones to be exact -- to kill Bin Laden but chose not to.

In each case, there was a plausible explaination (such as not wanting to risk damaging a Mosque).  But Clinton strenuously argued that he had done "everything in his power" to get Bin Laden whichi s just not true.

So that we're clear: I don't think Clinton really did anything worse than Bush did in his first 8 months.  The problem I have is Clinton's bald-faced attempt to rewrite history as someone who was aggressively fighting terrorists which is flatly untrue.  Bush wasn't aggressive pre-9/11 and neither was Clinton.

Clinton made 4 claims that were discussed on this weekend's news shows:

1) That he did everything in his power to get Bin Laden.  Not true at all. The CIA operatives involved came out this past week (with Michael Scheurer himself being the latest) to state emphatically that that was not true ("A flat out lie" said Scheuer).  "It is a question of fact" said Scheuer. He also was unhappy that the 9/11 commission wouldn't even allow operatives to testify.

2) That he had a "battle plan" drawn up in 1998 to take out the Taliban.   This came as real news to, well everyone. No such battle plan existed. Total on-the-fly fabrication.

3) Claimed that he left a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy". In another thread on JoeUser.com, left-wingers argue that the 14 page position pager that Richard Clarke provided Clinton in 1998 constitutes this comprehensive-anti-terror strategy document. While that demonstrates how far Clinton apologists will go to defend their guy, there was no such comprehensive strategy document or plan put together.  Incidentally, Clinton had rejected that 1998 strategy document.  And for left-wingers who aren't familiar with how this sort of thing works -- units provide the President with policy documents that are typically a dozen or so pages that give a summary of a strategy. If accepted, they are then turned into an actionable plan that typically is hundreds of pages long and outlines how exactly something would be done (THAT is what most knowledgeable people would consider a comprehensive anti-terror strategy).

Bush didn't take terrorism seriously. But Clinton didn't provide anything that a reasonable person would consider comprehensive on what the US should do regarding global-terrorism. 

4) Clinton claimed that Republicans complained that he was "obsessed" with Bin Laden.  Nobody can seem to find any Republicans (and certainly not congressional --read ELECTED Republicans) who said anything that could remotely be construed as Clinton being "obsessed".  Fighting terror was a relatively low priority during Clinton and Bush until 9/11.

I never have felt Clinton was somehow responsible for 9/11.  I didn't begrudge him not getting Bin Laden.  But I DO begrudge him trying to rewrite history to suit his political ends.  During the 9/11 commission I was very unhappy with the political nature of it with people like Sandy Berger (who got caught removing papers) seemingly trying to cover things up.

Clinton was no more responsible for 9/11 than Roosevelt was responsible for Pearl Harbor.  But Clinton apologists need to spare us with the reinvention of history here. Clinton was no terror warrior. 

11,453 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
How DARE you accuse him of lying!!!

He.
Did.
Not.
Have.
Sex.
With.
That.
Woman.

Anyone who accuses him of lying is OBVIOUSLY just a political assassin with sour grapes about the Clinton Camelot. He was our first black president, you know, too. He's ten feet tall, pees Jack Daniels, and can rip the head off a grizzly.

"His poop is considered currency in Argentina."
"He did all the makeup on the Planet of the Apes movies."
"He drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls."

LOL, sorry... when people talk about Clinton I can't help but think of Bill Brasky on SNL. The fact is he's just another guy who got to play hero because everyone hated his political opponents of the time. The Left had dealt with 12 years of Republican control and they'd have made the Manson family Camelot after that.

The problem is, they've inflated him so much that now he's a super-villain to the other side. He'd have had to do something to be a super villain, though. People making a huge stink of Clinton's part in 9/11 are just playing to his faux importance, and his faux importance needs to respond... with lies. A shame this is what politics is.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats will do anything to get Clinton off the hook no matter what he does.

KingBee just did an article trying to assert that Clinton DID leave a comprehensive anti-strategy plan for Bush -- a bi-partisan commission report on global terrorism that contained suggestions on what should be done.  Do Democrats realize how ridiculous that sounds?

As I said in my response on that article, that would be akin to Clinton saying that HE left the Bush administration a comprehensive plan on how to deal with global warming.

Clinton lies. It's one of his problem. He's pathological about it. And no matter how many times he lies, his supporters will come out and do intellectual sommersaults (sp) to rationalize what he really meant (such as "Oh, by comprehensive strategy he means a commission report on global terrorism.." -right..).

I don't blame Clinton for 9/11. I don't think he did anything different on terrorism than any other President might have done.  But the attempt to retroactively turn him into a terrorist warrior is disgusting and has caused me to lose a lot of respect for some pundits and bloggers.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's because he's more in love with his myth than the truth or even the wellbeing of the nation he claims to represent around the world. You can look at what he chooses to lie about. He can't be impeached now, he isn't running for anything or will lose his advertising contracts.

Nope, he's scared to death that his blurb on the History channel in 30 years will mention what he didn't do about bin Laden. The idea is so horrible to him that I think he'd do about anything to overcome it. He's a trailer park kid who made good, and all his life has been treated like Superman, when in reality he's just Clark Kent with a good stylist.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
How DARE you accuse him of lying!!!He.Did.Not.Have.Sex.With.That.Woman.


hahahahah

All I could think of was this......LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE......
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Excellent article Draginol (as usual).

I was actually surprised at how much traction Clinton's blow up got last week.  If he had said some of the same things without getting purple in the face while doing it then many would moved on past it.  He couldn't do that though because the Democrats are in the fight of their lives to get control of the House and Senate and they can't appear soft on terrorism.  Knowing that their hero *was* soft on terrorism, or at least was distracted in his handling of the issue,  the Dems needed Clinton to come out swinging on their behalf and he did.

Now he'll get called on it by yourself and others that point out the lies and discrepancies in his statements, but it won't matter because the unwashed masses will just feel that Clinton was being picked on by the VRWC and they'll give him yet another pass.

I wish the man would disappear already.  Go take over the U.N. or something like that.  Move to Venezuela and give Hugo Chavez advice, or maybe go to Cuba and help out Castro.   Just get out and take a few of the other loons with you (especial Babs Streisand).

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

He's a trailer park kid who made good, and all his life has been treated like Superman, when in reality he's just Clark Kent with a good stylist.

I think that is the definitive quote on Clinton.  Very Insightful.  As is the Article Brad. Both get insightfuls.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Writen as I could never do. well done brad, let us see if you catch as much flak as I did about bill.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
He probably did. But, putting it in context, there are lies and bigger lies. Colin Powell and, by mandate, George Bush, sat in the United Nations assembly,
pulled out a vial and stated that Saddam had WMD. Those are pretty big lies--and they cost lives!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: adnauseamPosted: Monday, October 02, 2006
He probably did. But, putting it in context, there are lies and bigger lies. Colin Powell and, by mandate, George Bush, sat in the United Nations assembly,
pulled out a vial and stated that Saddam had WMD. Those are pretty big lies--and they cost lives!

as usual whenever stating "where are the WMD"S" you all seem to come down with dementia and amnesia and conviently forget that the entire democratic party said saddamn had WMD"S. MUst be nice to live in you dream world.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Colin Powell and, by mandate, George Bush, sat in the United Nations assembly,
pulled out a vial and stated that Saddam had WMD. Those are pretty big lies--and they cost lives!


It is only a lie if you do not believe it to be true.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes Doc, but it is the truth if you can see no further than your nose.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: adnauseamPosted: Monday, October 02, 2006
Yes Doc, but it is the truth if you can see no further than your nose.

as I notice when outmanauvered with the TRUTH you folks just pretend not to see the reply.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes Doc, but it is the truth if you can see no further than your nose.

There was a world of myopic people back then, including most of the UN.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
" He probably did. But, putting it in context, there are lies and bigger lies. Colin Powell and, by mandate, George Bush, sat in the United Nations assembly,
pulled out a vial and stated that Saddam had WMD. Those are pretty big lies--and they cost lives!"


Oddly any real, qualified attempt to prove that statement hasn't come to the same conclusion. Such is usually the case with faux-liberal mythology.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is a transcript of the interview in question. Yes, it is on a liberal, progressive site, but if people like they can probably find the same transcript on a site whose content they are more likely to trust: Link

Draginol said:
But Clinton strenuously argued that he had done "everything in his power" to get Bin Laden...


Draginol uses the phrase, "everything in his power" an additional time in the post as well, to hammer home the point.

Try as I might, I just don't see where Clinton says anything like "everything in [my] power". I do see a contrite and humble "I tried and failed.", but nothing even aproaching the hyperbole directly attributed to him.

It is pretty easy to accuse someone of lying if one fabricates their statements, but I just don't see the point. The tone of this post is one of setting the record straight, so to speak, but it is actually just more misinformation for the non-reality based community to forward to each other's emails.

As I said, I don't see the point in discussing imaginary statements and events, but Draginol comes close to making some valid points. I wish only that the supporters of the current administration would parse the statements of the sitting president about issues relevant (in that they are happening right now) to today with as much scrutiny as they do that of a president long since out of office making statments about attitudes a nearly a decade ago.

Did any Republicans specifically call President Clinton "obsessed" with binLaden? Well, maybe they didn't use that exact word, but Clinton wasn't quoting anyone in particular.

Like when Draginol put "everything in his power" in quotes and implied that someone actually said that -- that is an example of of a "flat out lie", and not just an exaggeration.

For Republicans did indeed ridicule and fight tooth and nail efforts by Clinton to stop bin Laden and other madmen. Like when
Rep. Jim Gibbons said. "Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems." Link

(I use quotes here in the traditional sense, meaning that that is something this "ELECTED" republican actually said.)

Or how about this CNN article from 1998, headlined, "President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws" Link
Edited Excerpt:
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

ut while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
...
The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.
...
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.


So, here we have Republicans resisting anti-terror legislation, to the point of calling aspects of it "phony", and in a particular irony having problems with expanded wiretapping.

And Time magazine Link never uses the term "battle plan"--they prefer "strategy paper"--but I doubt, as Draginol puts it, "This came as real news to" those intrepid reporters. Draginol also states that whatever plan Clinton was referring to was "drawn up in 1998" but I believe Clinton's actual words were more along the lines of, "After the Cole (rr here, the Cole was bombed in 2000), I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden."

So we are reduced to an opinion on how many pages constitutes "comprehensive". But seeing as Draginol just makes up his facts, why would I respect his opinion?

Tell you the truth, Draginol, I'm pretty fucking disappointed.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
So we are reduced to an opinion on how many pages constitutes "comprehensive". But seeing as Draginol just makes up his facts, why would I respect his opinion?


"If" you do not respect his opinion, then stop responding to his posts. Brad has been doing this for a long time. He does "not" need to make up facts. If you have not seen this by now, you never will. And I hate to break it to you but....blogging is ALL about opinions!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
If he does not need to make up facts, then he shouldn't do it.

I guess that last post was too filled with actual information for you to internalize it. I'll put it succinctly.

Clinton did not "strenuously argue that he did 'everything in his power'", as Draginol claims. That is a statment of fact, by directly attributing a quote. It is a stament of an untrue, that is, made up, fact, as Clinton never used those words. He said "...everything I thought I responsibly could."

Draginol also refutes Clinton's claim that "he had a "battle plan" drawn up in 1998 to take out the Taliban." Clinton made no such claim. Draginol's statement of fact, is again, not reflective of reality.

Draginol also says, "Nobody can seem to find any Republicans (and certainly not congressional --read ELECTED Republicans) who said anything..." Anothert statement of fact that is not true. I linked just a couple examples of elected officials. Here's an interesting bit of insight into how the non elected republicans felt, as they respond to a thread headlined "Wag The Dog ! Wag the Dog! We are bombing Afganhistan" Link

So, again, a stament made as fact is untrue. If blogging is all about opinion, then stick to opinion. But if you make claims of fact, you had better prepared for someone to look into them.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the whirlwind surrounding this was JUST about Clinton's honesty that would be one thing but it seems to me that the outrage is an attempt to misplace one's frustration over Bin Laden, 9/11, and Islamofascism (and Bush's handling of it) upon Clinton.

If we are going to be more upset about Clinton's actions up to leaving office than of Bush's actions AFTER entry then we're more foolish than we give ourselves discredit for. If that's not enough then maybe we can throw the Katrina debacle in and try to finagle our way out of that one too.

To me this whole blogosphere is about discussion of views/ideas/philosophies that could one day result in a populace educated on this exchange rather than our NFL like fanatacism for our parties that exhort us to adopt party line perceptions regardless of our COMMON sense. I suppose otherwise this superabundance of debates (or arguments?) could also result in the fracturing of our traditional parties into little cabals protected by our affiliation and an inability to find common ground.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
While true that Bush had eight whole months, Clinton had eight whole years. That's a big difference. The first year of a presidential term is pretty hectic for any administration, especially one under fire over the election that put it in. I'm not such the big Bush cheerleader anymore, but I don't blame him for inactivity leading up to 9/11.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Try as I might, I just don't see where Clinton says anything like "everything in [my] power". I do see a contrite and humble "I tried and failed.", but nothing even aproaching the hyperbole directly attributed to him.


Funny, we live in a world where we don't have tosay the exact words of what we mean in order to say what we mean. You say he said nothing that sounded like "everything within my power? OK let's see:

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.


From your own link, if this doesn't sound like he meant he did everything he could or almost everything he could, I don't know what does. However, I believe you took too straight the whole "everything in [my] power" a little too exact. We all know that people use words to difine more than what the real meaning is. Some people think that 8 hours of work is a lot while others think it's just 8 out of 24 a day. But hey, you can think what you want, after all, this is the US right?

Draginol also refutes Clinton's claim that "he had a "battle plan" drawn up in 1998 to take out the Taliban." Clinton made no such claim. Draginol's statement of fact, is again, not reflective of reality.


Oh my good, so Draginol missed it by 2 years, ever occure to you that maybe he made a small mistake. he is human afetr all. But Clinton did say this:

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.


So draginol was not completely wrong. He just got the date wrong, big deal.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol also says, "Nobody can seem to find any Republicans (and certainly not congressional --read ELECTED Republicans) who said anything..." Another statement of fact that is not true. I linked just a couple examples of elected officials. Here's an interesting bit of insight into how the non elected republicans felt, as they respond to a thread headlined "Wag The Dog ! Wag the Dog! We are bombing Afghanistan" Link">Link


Awful funny but, that article was deleted! Care to try again?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler, that link works for me. The fact that it is hosted on an archive site just means thefreerepublic.com has changed their website sometime in the past six years. The vitriol of the republican constituancy of the time clearly demonstrated.

You choose to ignore the links I made to contemporaneous news sources quoting elected Republicans blatantly implying that they felt terrorism was not as important as Clinton thought it was. I feel that is a pretty fair non-clinical definition for "obsessed", to say that what he considers important is phony and not worth serious and timely consideration.

If you disagree, then it is just a semantic argument, but I feel the links I have provided are enough to refute the claim that "nobody..can seem to find anything." Additionally, I am not the one presenting these arguments as fact. If you say nobody can find anything, that clearly gives the impression that someone tried to find something. Whoever that someone was did not try very hard.

Charles.C uses the same quote I originally did, even including Clinton's qualifier "...you can criticize me for this." A humble Clinton is saying I tried, and if you don't think I tried hard enough you can criticize me for it. But that it not what went down in the original post.

I assume now that Clinton's statment "...everything I thought I responsibly could." is the one Draginol intended to refute. And he probably could have. But instead he attributes a false, and stronger statment to the former president than was actually uttered. If you don't think authorizing the first official assassination attempts in US history is a reasonable effort, then again, it is just semantics. And of course, today, it may also seem reasonable to bomb a mosque, in light of 9/11 and after being jaded, inured, and numbed by the collateral damage of Iraq (which, nonetheless, has nothing to do with al Quaeda or 9/11), but back in the late 1990's it would have been considered UNreasonable, unAmerican, and generally uncool by republicans and democrats alike. Reasonable effort was claimed, not every effort.

I'm not blaming Bush. I'm not saying Clinton is faultless and beyond reproach. I'm just saying that if someone ostensibly wants to clear the air, they should not obfuscate their argument with mis-quotes, straw men, and false negatives. The date confusion was more than a typo, as it is used in a later argument to ridicule the size of the paper handed over to the next administration.

"After the Cole...", Clinton said, meaning his administration had three months to put together that plan. But they got it together and presented it, as was reported in the Time Magazine article titled "They Had a Plan".

And this plan, to attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power, is seperate from the comprehensive strategy anti-terror legislation, which you wouldn't know from reading the original post. That legislation was mocked, by Republican constituents and politicians, as unimportant, something the Democrats could study if they wanted to, but not worthy of taking real action on. You would not be aware of this distinction from reading the original post.

All I'm saying is, if you want to set the story straight, then get your story straight first. Draginol titles the piece "Clinton flat out lied about bin Laden", but none of his arguments, beyond a lower level CIA operative's claim, support that assertion. He could easily, as I have here, taken Clinton's exact words and given them careful scrutiny, but chose instead to fabricate, and in so doing, only adds to the amount of confusion and misinformation.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
If all knew Bin Laden was such a danger to the United States and Clinton failed to kill him prior to January 20, 2001, WHY DID Bush not act from January 2001 until 9/11/2001?

Why did Rice not act after the July warning and WHY did Bush not act after the report in August 2001 that said Bin laden wanted to attack us?

Seems like they BOTH failed to protect our country!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler, that link works for me. The fact that it is hosted on an archive site just means thefreerepublic.com has changed their website sometime in the past six years. The vitriol of the republican constituancy of the time clearly demonstrated.


Well the link does not work for me. What I get is "The requested article has been deleted". And just to clear the air. I read your "other" links and was not impressed. If the website has changed their site in the past year, and the article is not available anymore....maybe you shouldn't post the URL to that page anymore. Since the link seems to work for you why not quote the article itself?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why did Rice not act after the July warning and WHY did Bush not act after the report in August 2001 that said Bin laden wanted to attack us?
As usual col has to come and blame Bush. First of all col, killing bin laden months before Sept. 11 wouldn't have stopped it. It was planned years in advance. Second, what really would they have done in Sept.? Ban all arabs from flights maybe? Detain muslims at the airports? Because surely you would never have complained about that, right col jihad?