The memo has been released, and if you had any doubts that the left had any desire to do anything but to politicize 9/11, check out the Calpundit’s rhetoric:
Look, I know there’s a perfectly good case to be made that the PDB merely states generalities and doesn’t warn of a specific, impending attack. That’s fine as far as it goes, and it’s the spin I’d expect the White House to put on it.
It’s all spin in the weird world of Democrats. How about it is the truth?
*** Update ***
Link added- I thought I had done this originally, but I guess I was paying to much attention to the Masters and not enough to what I was writing.
Terry
This past Saturday afternoon, Drudge put up a link to a May 2002 Washington Post story in which the infamous August 6, 2001 briefing memo to the President was described in great and accurate detail. On Sunday, he posted a story from the same timeframe in which Florida Senator Graham also described and downplayed the significance of the August 6 memo.
Among other things, given this history, how on earth can politicians and media folk act as if they now have uncovered a “smoking gun” that proves the Administration knew 9/11 was coming and did virtually nothing to prevent it? To recite but one example of the kind of over-the-top hysterical reaction now coming out of the DNC in their Talking Points Memo, Al Hunt on CNN’s Capital Gang characterized the memo as “destroying whatever remaining credibility this Administration had over 9/11.” {Paraphrasing from memory}
Have these people no shame whatsoever? Of course not….it’s the political season and they want to take power no matter what… and no matter the consequences.
Terry
Here’s an excerpt from the last reference I mentioned in my initial comment about Senator Graham, who was and is certainly no friend of the President. And yet this is what he was saying back in 2002 based on his knowledge from having served as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:
“Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. ‘The particular report that was in the President’s Daily Briefing that day was about three years old,’ Graham said. ‘It was not a contemporary piece of information.’
“Graham’s comments contradicted combative statements made recently by the Democratic congressional leadership, and confirmed White House assertions that the only specific threats of al Qaeda hijackings known to the President before September 11 came from a memo dating back to the Clinton Administration.”
shark
ONCE AGAIN, SINCE THE INFO IN THAT MEMO IS FROM 1998, WHAT DID CLINTON DO ABOUT IT????
Oliver
Perhpas if the Bush administration had a better record of truthtelling we wouldn’t be looking for ulterior motives in everything they do.
Ricky
The above message was brought to you by Clinton’s biggest fan.
Nicely done, Oliver. Maybe someone from moveon.org can read it & not laugh, because the rest of us are giggling.
SteveMG
James Carville once admitted that defending the Clintons was liking joining the Mafia. Once you’re in, you’re in it for life.
Oliver defends whatever the Boss tells him to. No questions asked.
But he does make someone else start his car in the morning.
SMG
burnplant
“ONCE AGAIN, SINCE THE INFO IN THAT MEMO IS FROM 1998, WHAT DID CLINTON DO ABOUT IT????”
Uh, he had all the agencies on high alert and captured the millenium bomber in 1999.
What did Bush do?
Went on vacation for the 1000 time.
At the very least you dumbasses voted for Bush to IMPROVE on Clinton’s record, not sit on his ass and wear fake cowboy hats, remember?
What can he do?
Economy: Nope
Flesh out terror plots with skeletal information: Nope
Start a War with any idea as to how to “win”: Nope
Make America safer from future terror attack: Nope*
*Remember we are reminded daily that we are just around the corner from the “big attack” and unless Bush gets a detailed memo with the exact date, time, place and method he can’t do shit about it. Time to go fishing with poppy.
George W Bush, Easter 2004: “There was not a time and place of an attack. It said Osama bin Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that. What I wanted to know was, is there anything specifically going to take place in America that we needed to react to?”
It’s funny that a bunch of conservatives don’t think that their government should do anything for the money they earn.
IXLNXS
The memo proves nothing, nothing I say.
True patriots will back our President, and trust these charges are unfounded. To do anything less is unpatriotic. To further press this matter besmirches our nation and President in a time of war when the nation should be unified in fighting the evil terrorism is.
In case it isn’t noticed the sarcasm on this one may leave a bad taste in your mouth.
SteveMG
The millenium bomber was stopped by a border patrol agent who noticed that the bomber was sweating profusely.
Mr. Clinton gets credit for that?
Okay, what about:
the first Trade Center bombing?
the Cole bombing?
the Khobar Towers bombings?
the Kenyan Embassy bombings?
the Tanzania Embassy bombings?
the failure to take Bin Laden when he was first offered by Sudan?
the failure to take Bin Laden when he was offered a second time by Sudan?
As Dick Morris acknowledges, and he was at the meetings, Mr. Clinton had little interest in security and terrorism issues during the time that he (Morris) was advising him. Can you imagine the uproar if Karl Rove said 1 per cent of the things that Morris says about Clinton’s poor judgment in defense matters.
SMG
Oliver
I always think its funny that the same people who would be howling at the moon had Clinton pursued a military strategy vs. AQ are now saying he didn’t do enough.
Anyhow.
Yes, President Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. But his lie didn’t lead to 600 soldiers being killed for mythical WMDs.
SteveMG
I always find it funny that apologists characterize Clinton’s serial perjury, obstruction of justice, denial of due process for another citizen, violation of his oath to upload the laws of the Constitution – including A LAW THAT HE SUPPORTED ON SEXUAL HARRASSMENT THAT HE SIGNED AT A WHITE HOUSE CEREMONY – as simply a “blow job.”
If a Republican president had done the same thing, liberals would have tarred and feathered him. We would have had feminist law professors and the left screaming about the privilege of white male power and the abuse of women and the subjugation of females by the power structure. My gawd, entire libraries would have been filled by tomes by leftwing crackpot legal “scholars” on how terrible women were treated in America.
Instead, it’s a Democrat; so they let it pass.
Drink that kool-aid Oliver. Drink it down. All of it.
SMG
Terry
With each passing day, that revised logo for Oliver looks more appropriate : LIKE FLYPAPER TO STUPID
Mike
Burnplant:
For your edification:
“Members of Al Qaeda had planned to launch additional September 11 style attacks on The Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago, according to transcripts from the interrogation of Khalid Shakh Mohammed, Al Qaeda’s Chief Operating Office. The transcripts, published by a British newspaper, reveal that Al Qadea had planned a second wave of attacks on the heels of September 11 targeting the west coast. Those plans were aborted, Mohammad said, because of President Bush’s decisive crackdown on terrorist threats.”
Mike
CleverNameHere
Nice bootstrapping strategy, there, Oliver. Dems chant “Bush lied! Bush lied!” to hammer home the impression that this administration is extraordinarily given to prevarication.
Then, when time after time the charges of the Dems are disproven, the Left retreats by saying “well, if he didn’t have such a bad track record with the truth, we’d be more inclined to believe him”.
Utter BS. You don’t hate him because you think he lies. You hate him because he’s a Republican. And maybe you also think he lies, but that too is because he’s a Republican.
Oh wait! Maybe I’m presuming too much to think I can read your mind? Well maybe if the left didn’t believe it was the Carnac Collective (Bush REALLY just wants oiiiiiil, Bush REALLY just wants to have an election issue, Bush REALY just wants veangence for his Daddy), I might give a damn.
Jay
Uh, he had all the agencies on high alert and captured the millenium bomber in 1999.
I love this. The threat of what could possibly happen when the year 2000 rolled around had people selling all of their shit and moving into underground bunkers.
The entire world was on edge wondering what was going to happen. Airline executives had to be flying on planes as the clock struck 12 to reassure passengers that planes were not going to start dropping out of the sky.
The security for these events were unlike anything we had ever seen all over the world and yet the Clintonistas actually want to hold up Billy-Jeff as their Superman who foiled the millenium bombing plots. Give me a break. It’s like saying Clinton himself caught the Oklahoma City bomber when it was an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman who stopped McVeigh because he didn’t have a license plate on his car.
But his lie didn’t lead to 600 soldiers being killed for mythical WMDs.
If there were no WMD, how many Iraqi’s did Clinton kill during Operation Desert Fox? How many people were killed in the aspirin factory for mythical chemical weapons? How many innocents in Yugoslavia were killed over genocide that never happened?
Oliver, you’re a smart guy. So please stop peddling the bullshit that Bill CLinton lied only about a freaking blowjob. Doing so makes you a Democratic Underground moonbat nominee.
burnplant
Steve MG says
“Okay, what about:
the first Trade Center bombing?”
Oh, but Steve, the first WTC bombing was 4 1/2 weeks after Clinton took office. The Bushies are currently crying that they only had 9 months, boo hoo hoo, how is that our fault, boo hoo hoo. So clearly 4 1/2 weeks is a smaller amount of time than 233 days (only 233 days? boo hoo hoo!).
I’m sure there is an answer for that, since there is a lie for all your delusions…Carter’s fault maybe?
Why do the low expectations of Republicans have to hurt all of us Americans?
Ricky
KNEEPAD ALERT!
Someone forgot about the sexual harassment lawsuit & the lying under oath & obstruction.
But, that’s okay…it’s “different”.
How’d you spend your middle class tax cut from the ’93 budget?
SteveMG
Burnplant:
Oh, I didn’t know the President got 4 months off for free. Geez, and you say Bush is away from the job?!
You conveniently ignored:
The Khobar Towers
The Cole bombing
The Kenyan bombing
The Tanzania bombings
The first offer from Sudan to turn bin Laden over
The second offer from Sudan to turn bin Laden over
Dick Morris’ eyewitness accounts of Clinton not being interested in security and defense matters
I’ll stop him. My fingers are getting tired.
And why do I think if the Oklahoma City bombing occured during the Bush presidency you’d criticize him for not stopping that?
SMG
Reg
Calpundit jumped the shark awhile ago. He’s just another leftie hack.
Andrew J. Lazarus
If the FBI had the flight numbers in a Bush memo, you would have complained they didn’t have the seat numbers, so it was OK to go on vacation.
I mean, that’s the only reaction I can have to claims that only Pres. Bush’s decisive actions against terrorists stopped another bombing on the West Coast. Like, Al Gore wasn’t going to ground flights and stiffen airport security? (He might even have kept the dozens of Bin Ladens in the country for extended interrogation.) This is starting to border on idolatry, that the sun wouldn’t rise if we didn’t have Bush. That’s how Saddam liked Iraqis to think. That’s not how Americans think. (It’s also doubly ridiculous, since the Shoe Bomber wasn’t deterred by these threats, he was stopped in flagrante delicto. And triply ridiculous, that the terrorists would presumably have been in-place already, and our threats against Osama and the Taliban would not have interfered with their operations, unlike the security changes that were actually implemented.)
Jay, according to the Kay Report, Operation Desert Fox administered the coup de grace to Saddam’s CW program. He actually did have illicit programs going AND CLINTON DESTROYED THEM. Alas, in 1998 we started buying our intelligence from Ahmad Chalabi, and after he promised he would make Iraq pro-American and pro-Israeli, the marks believed everything he said.
And one last point, the claim that all the information in the memo is from 1998 is false. It’s just a transparent and false cover story. Why would the PDB in 2001 be just a rehash of stuff from 1998? Summer re-runs, like TV? Feh! The truth is, we had intel all summer that AQ was gearing up for an attack with airplanes. Now, I don’t fault Bush that much for his pre-9/11 performance, but his denials afterwards are insulting. This president’s motto is “I never got the buck.”
ANSWER THIS: WHY DID A.G. ASHCROFT STOP FLYING COMMERCIAL IN *SUMMER 2001*? Not when he entered office based on info from 1998. IN SUMMER.
burnplant
“Oh, I didn’t know the President got 4 months off for free. ”
Much like facts, details seem to escape you, don’t they Steve?
That’s 4 1/2 WEEKS, and the point is being compared to Bush and Co whining about 233 days – get it?
Your other points are shit, soldiers in the Middle East get killed. They got killed under Reagan (want to talk about his response? Look it up, kid), and Bush I. The difference is that attacks on American soil.
If you put any weight in Dick Morris’s syphlytic ramblings you are the partisan turd you seem. Case closed, sad boy.
burnplant
Here’s to you, BAD AMERICAN PRESIDENT:
“President Bush was in an expansive mood on Aug. 7, 2001, when he ran into reporters while playing golf at the Ridgewood Country Club in Waco, Tex.
The day before, the president had received an intelligence briefing — the contents of which were declassified by the White House Saturday night — warning “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.” But Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday.
“No mulligans, except on the first tee,” he said to laughter. “That’s just to loosen up. You see, most people get to hit practice balls, but as you know, I’m walking out here, I’m fixing to go hit. Tight back, older guy — I hit the speed limit on July 6th.”
I wish I could tell my grandkids that I had the smarts to vote this guy into office. You guys must be very proud.
bains
Oliver, interesting that even Clinton believed in those ‘mythical’ WMDs. Yes it is unfortunate that American soldiers have lost their lives. But that happens in war.
The sad truth is prior to 9/11, our idealogically split nation would not allow any president to actively target ‘alleged terrorists’. I’m not a big fan of the current President, yet he has had the balls to break the mold. We no longer have the luxury of waiting until convictable evidence is accumulated before (re)acting. Preemption is now a usable tool of statecraft(?).
We’ll see next November if the people think Iraq was justified, but hopefully even will-o-the-latest-polls presidents wont feel encumbered (a la AG Reno) when the next threat arrises.
Mason
I can’t count how many times I’ve seen this “Ashcroft stopped flying” bit in the last few weeks. Can someone PLEASE provide a link to a definitive story on this, that doesn’t come from the world socialist workers or some other nutjob website? Or is this just the newest meme from the Bush=Hitler crowd?
Mason
Here we go:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
Tongue Boy
“ANSWER THIS: WHY DID A.G. ASHCROFT STOP FLYING COMMERCIAL IN *SUMMER 2001*? Not when he entered office based on info from 1998. IN SUMMER.”
Why don’t you tell us *your* theory, Lazarus?
Andrew J. Lazarus
Man, anything Bush or his officers say is Gospel truth. I’m sure I can find a link of Clinton explaining his innocent mentoring of Monica. Didn’t you guys ever watch Columbo?
The PDB makes it perfectly clear: our intel knew AQ had a plan to do something naughty with airplanes. The Administration was too concerned with Saddam’s WMD to change airport security plans one bit. Believe it or not, I find that excusable: we get a lot of threats and hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately for the US, this Administration feels compelled to rule under the Divine Mandate of Heaven, and therefore can not admit any error. (That would be near blasphemous.) Hence the ridiculous cover-up of the obvious, that warnings were received, and for bureaucratic reasons, they were pretty much back-burnered.
HH
At this point the hatred knows no rhyme or reason… I’ve seen lefty message boards where they have described the memo as a warning that planes WILL be used SOON to attack buildings in the U.S. and Bush knew exactly what was going on and did nothing. No matter that there is nothing in the PDB that remotely points to that, it said it, dammit and that’s that. Bush is to be hated and no amount of fact or truth can get in the way of that.
HH
“He actually did have illicit programs going AND CLINTON DESTROYED THEM. ”
Of course to this day even Clinton doesn’t make that extraordinary claim.
HH
Oliver engaging in projection… everyone knows Bush going after AQ would have caused lefty howls… most Republicans attacked Clinton for bombing an aspirin factory because THEY WANTED HIM TO ACTUALLY ATTACK AL QAEDA with more than a couple of lobbed cruise missiles.
burnplant
No, HH, the Republican congress gutted terrorism fighting legislation. From 1996…
http://tinyurl.com/ype7q
And if they’d truly wanted to do something about then they had the chance WHEN THEY TOOK OFFICE but they just sat on their asses.
Your argument in a nutshell –
Clinton: doing something, but too little = BAD
Bush: doing nothing at all = GENIUS
dg
No politician ever admits error – seems to be part of their genetic makeup. This constant back and forth finger pointing between left and right, as to who was at fault is foolish at best. It was the terrorists that were responsible, we were merely asleep at the switch.
We (the US gvmt) ought to be talking about what needs to be done to prevent this kind of crap from happening. Will that happen? Hell no, theres poo to fling instead. Grab your dookey throwing stick and join the party.
All presidents lie. Many of them steal. Is that all we should judge them on?
Slartibartfast
I’m finding it awfully amusing that burnplant’s spewing how this is nothing but a right-wing echo chamber, right before letting us have it with material that a quick trip to snopes would have him delete entirely. So far, most of his contribution has been in the area of amusement.
burnplant
Please provide the snopes link that discredits anything in my posts, Slartibartfast.
CadillaqJaq
Incriminating memo? Shit, there’s no “there” there… except in the deteriorated brain cells of the Clinton supporters who accepted so many of his lies that any truth today is accepted as just another lie… pitiful bastards. Who needs ’em?
Terry
Burnpants- You must think that no one will check your so-called sources for the sheer idiotic assertions that you post here. Above you state that the Repubs “gutted” Clinton’s anti-terrorist legislative proposals. Pure crap!! The Dems are the ones that took out the additional wiretap authorizations included in the proposals…and get a load of what Clinton claims that the legislation he actually signed into law does:
“We significantly increased security at our airports, and the FAA created a new government and industry panel to review airline security. After the TWA crash, I ordered new measures to increase the security of air travel.”
Burnpants, I suggest you take your crack-filled head and body someplace else where you will find morons and addlepated fools similar to yourself, and therefore more likely to believe the pure crap you attempt to recycle from Democrat Underground and similar sites.
burnplant
You are a liar, Terry.
From AP 1996:
Hatch blasts ‘phony’ issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president’s call for “the very best ideas” for fighting terrorism.
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.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.
Slartibartfast
Well, maybe not snopes. But the Millenium bomber thing is easily, EASILY debunked using readily available resources. Not that I’m the only person who’s ever done that, but I appear to be (at this moment, at least) nearly as lazy when it comes to fact checking as…you, for example.
Ricky
Okay, folks, the GOP is responsible for the budgets of the mid-90s.
Thanks, for handing over credit for the economy.
Trolls are soooo stupid.
Terry
Burnpants – Your lies grow with each new post. You may not be aware of it, but the World Trade Towers were not brought down because of the absence of a “marker” admixed with an explosive and brought on a plane; airplanes were intentionally crashed into the structures, thereby bringing them down. Not only did the Dems oppose the additional wiretap authority back in the 1990s, they want such authorities as were added by the Patriot Act REMOVED…this mind you AFTER September 11!! So please stop trying to peddle the bullshit line that Clinton was prevented by the Repubs from taking tough anti terrorist actions.
You need to get off the crack, Burnpants.
burnplant
“Well, maybe not snopes. But the Millenium bomber thing is easily, EASILY debunked using readily available resources.”
Thanks for fessing up that you are full of shit, Slarti, more than I can say for your comrades here. By the way, what about the Millenium bomber are you debunking, sans source of course? That he or it didn’t exist?
Terry, I thought about taking out the ‘marker’ paragraph, but opted for the whole story – I agree it’s a non-issue but at least it was something. I knew you would avoid the meat of the story (just like a freeper) but the point is the Republicans, led by Oral Hatch, held up, foot dragged and generally ridiculed and de-prioritized terrorism (just like little Bushy for 233 days!).
I can handle you lying to me, but doesn’t it hurt to lie to yourself?
Slartibartfast
Might want to work on that reading comprehension a bit. The answers to your questions were all pretty obvious.
That you missed them, though, is unsurprising.
burnplant
Ricky –
I don’t believe I dissed the Republican congress on the economy, and maybe the magic combo to getting a country that works is a Republican controlled Congress and a Democratic President. I’m willing to give it a shot, how about you?
Slartibartfast
I guess I can see how you’d be easily confused by my failure to point out to you what you said, and why exactly it’s wrong.
“Uh, he had all the agencies on high alert and captured the millenium bomber in 1999.”
Wrong because Ressam was not apprehended by an agency on high alert. He was nabbed during a routine Customs inquiry at a point of entry into the US from Canada. He was apprehended not because they were on high alert, but because the Customs officers thought he was trying to smuggle drugs.
I hope that clears things up for you.
burnplant
Didn’t see your link, Slarti.
The Seattle Times story gives an outline of what happened, but there were several agents involved since it was the last car of the day (I read the Times story rather than the link to your site).
Maybe all the agents involved at the border had no idea what they were supposed to be looking for and got lucky, maybe not. But the point is Clinton had his agencies on “alert” and either caught them or got lucky. Bush sat on his ass and went on vacation and got 3000 dead.
Maybe Bush used up all his luck in his first 55 years of life and he’s on a downslide? But he’s still a piece of shit who didn’t do anything.
burnplant
No, Slarti, re-read the Times story – after they found powder they thought they had drugs (white powder, gee, I wonder why) but the story gives no indication, other than hunch, of why they stopped him.
Could be 100% hunch, 100% luck, Hunch/with alert awareness, a comibnation?
If you need to jump to a conclusion about a good thing happening to protect your ineffective frat boy king, I guess that’s your choice. I just think it’s a poor one.
Slartibartfast
Why, you’re right! The article doesn’t say. It does, however, say that Ressam looked mighty suspicious:
“The driver was fidgeting, jittery, sweating. His hands disappeared from sight as he began rummaging around the car’s console. That made Dean nervous.”
So, maybe not a resounding refutation. But the article sure doesn’t make the case for “high alert”. It doesn’t even really mention it at all. And if these guys were even briefed on the terrorist threat, it’s not reflected by their actions.
Now, if you’ve got some information to support the “increased alert” point, please do cough up. If they really expected a terrorist to enter the US anywhere in the area, these inspectors would likely have been backed up with other government agents. Not noted anywhere in the article, or in any article I can find.
So, where does this idea of “high alert” foiling the millenium bomber come from? Not from anything I can discover about the case. Your assertion; the weight of evidence is on you.
But this probably isn’t going to help much.
Nor is this.
Slartibartfast
Oops, last link should be to here.
HH
“Clinton: doing something, but too little = BAD
Bush: doing nothing at all = GENIUS”
Er, no. Clinton doing something that didn’t accomplish anything (the “millennium plot” meme was exposed for the hogwash it is today in the Seattle Times) and doing it the wrong way when he had eight years to do it, not to mention multiple opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden, and did nothing = Bad.
Bush reforming the failed policies of Clinton on terrorism in a 7 month period and planning to take out the Taliban as late as Sep. 4 = Good. It’s only too bad the transition didn’t start earlier or Bush wasn’t inaugurated earlier.
burnplant
“Bush reforming the failed policies of Clinton on terrorism in a 7 month period and planning to take out the Taliban as late as Sep. 4 = Good. It’s only too bad the transition didn’t start earlier or Bush wasn’t inaugurated earlier”
Bush himself says he wasn’t doing anything about Osama in Woodwards book, and Condi had nothing about Taliban or Al Queda planned in a speach that day. All they had was a meeting planned that had to do with missile defense.
HH, does that stand for Hugs Hannity? Jeez, get real.
burnplant
Slarti,
If anything the account of the customs agent you linked to shows that the Times writer has been watching waaay too much Law and Order –
Like I said, maybe it was all dumb luck, maybe not. But as I said above, dumb luck is more than Bush was even trying for. Look at dimwits like HH above.
This is an admin that professed no knowledge until a few weeks ago when the spotlight came calling. Now Bush was all over it, even being the instigator of the PDB memo (that the CIA says is not the case). Which is it, total suprise or super secret plan that no one knows about except HH?
I’ll continue to look at your links more when I get home, and if I can’t find anything to refute you will get the “You’re right” but I think I’ve already it may have been dumb luck: Clinton’s dumb luck.
Keiser
For eight years the Clinton administration fought hard to counter terrorism, and while we didn’t accomplish all that we hoped, we had some important successes.”
Response from Roger Cressey, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, and Gayle Smith, special assistant to the president for African affairs from 1998-2001, to Richard Miniter’s book “Losing Bin Laden,” “which includes a number of erroneous allegations about the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism record, many of which
were then published in this newspaper.”
The FALSE Claim That Clinton Did Nothing to Stop Terrorism or Capture Those Who
Performed Terrorist Acts
Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist
attacks against Americans.
Status: False.
Clinton Administration Counter Terrorism Initiative
I. Actions Already Announced by the President
(1) Pass the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995
(2) Provide more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism
(3) Conduct terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country within the next 60
days
(4) Direct GSA to replace the federal building in Oklahoma City.
(5) Direct the FBI Director, the Attorney General, and the National Security Adviser to prepare a
Presidential Decision Directive authorizing any and all further steps necessary to combat foreign
and domestic terrorism.
II. New Legislative Proposals
(1) INVESTIGATIONS
(2) PROSECUTION
(3) PENALTIES
“The Clinton Wars” Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton’s Efforts to Fight Terrorism
“…that details how the Republican Congress and former FBI Director Louis Freeh (who allied
himself with the anti-Clinton forces) undercut Clinton’s efforts to fight terrorism. The excerpt
also touches upon how after the impeachment trial, pseudo-scandal mongering by the media —
including the New York Times — helped deflect public attention from President Clinton’s
struggle with terrorism.”
The Moscow Summit and Nuclear Terrorism
June 7, 2000
“The headlines surrounding the Moscow summit meeting between President Clinton and Russian
President Vladimir Putin focused primarily on the growing but inconclusive dialogue over
mounting a defense against ballistic missiles launched from rogue states. Only scant media
attention has been paid to concrete agreements related to the threat of nuclear terrorism.”
FBI reorganises to combat terror
November 12, 1999
“The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a
greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests.”
President Clinton’s Speech on Terrorist Attacks
August 20, 1998
“Our target was terror. Our mission was clear — to strike at the network of radical groups
affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier
of international terrorism in the world today.”
Responding to Terrorism
1997 Annual Defense Report
“Combating terrorism requires patience, courage, imagination, and restraint. Perspective is
essential. Overreaction and bombast play into terrorist hands. Good intelligence, a professional
security force, and a measured response are necessary. Most important for any democracy in its
struggle against terrorism is a public that is informed and engaged, and understands the nature of
the threat, its potential cost, and why the fight against terrorism is its fight too. It is how well the
United States meets this challenge that will determine the winners, the losers, and the price paid
by each.”
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996
“But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their
stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.”
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES
October, 1996
“Washington — The counter-terrorism measures signed into law by President Clinton October 9
constitute a broad-based strategy ranging from increased security at federal buildings to tighter
scrutiny of aircraft cargo.”
Clinton, Peres sign counter-terrorism accord
April, 1996
“The United States will supply Israel with $100 million in equipment, training and aid under a
counter-terrorism accord signed Tuesday at the White House by President Clinton and Israeli
Prime Minister Shimon Peres.”
FACT SHEET – Counter-Terrorism
The White House’s Position on Terrorism
“To all my fellow Americans … I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to
purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil. They are forces that threaten our
common peace, our freedom, our way of life.”
President Bill Clinton
State Fair Arena, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma April 23, 1995
=-=-=-=–=-=
A partial list of the actions taken by the Clinton administration against terrorism:
http://www.thefence.com/pages/ourfence/message.asp?forumid=323&messageid=34444&threadi
d=34444
Clinton’s successes against terrorism vs. brick walls he ran up against:
April 24, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the “counter-terrorism”
proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday evening threatened to repeat the mistakes of the
past and erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our
freedom and liberty.
http://www.aclu.org/ news/n042495.html
April 18, 1996 Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law
enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism . . . The measure, which the Senate passed
overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House’s proposal.
The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.
http:/ /www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/ index.html
July 30, 1996 Paris — A Fact Sheet from the July 30 ministerial meeting of the P-8 (the
industrialized nations of the world plus Russia) notes that President Clinton for three years has
led an international campaign to combat terrorism in concert with the P-8 as well as with allies in
the Middle East and elsewhere . . . Following is the official text of the Fact Sheet.
http:// http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/p8_facta. htm
July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing
anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess . . . But while the president pushed for quick
legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed
anti-terrorism measures . . . Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his
proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which
both parties agree.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/ clinton.terrorism/
August 25, 1998 The August 20 bombing of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist bases in Afghanistan
and the alleged bin Laden-funded chemical weapons production facility in Khartoum, was a
decisive and appropriate U.S. response to the atrocities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and
President Bill Clinton should be commended.
http://www. washingtoninstitute.org/media/schenker. htm
March 21, 2000 US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he would take up with Pakistan
military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf the issue of terrorism in the Kashmir valley.
http://www. indiainfo.com/news/2000/03/21/ clin
March 22, 2000 Clinton is pushing General Musharraf to use his influence with Afghanistan’s
leaders the Taliban to bring Bin Laden to trial . . . Even if Musharraf could convince the Taliban
to give Bin Laden up, there is an abundance of anger, frustration and weapons in the region, left
over from the Afghan war, when thousands of extremists came together to bring a superpower to
its knees . . . That militant network has built up in this region over two decades of conflict. The
president believes America must get deeply involved in South Asia to crack the terrorist problem,
a process Clinton continues throughout this week.
http://www.kdka.com/now/ story/0,1597,1747
http://www. washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&node=&
contentId=A8734-2002Jan19
http:// http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/ A62725-2001Dec18
http://www.cnn. com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/ pentagon.budget/
http://www.cnn. com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index. html
http://www9.cnn.com/US/9607/ 30/clinton.terrorism/
http://www. fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2. htm
http://online.securityfocus. com/news/201
http://www.prospect. org/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23. html
http://www.washingtonpost. com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&
contentId=A61219-2001Oct2
More:
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/21newsd.html
Terrorism experts question U.S. air strikes
Clinton’s military gambit may embolden terrorist backer Osama bin Laden and his followers.
BY HARRY JAFFE , JEFF STEIN AND LORI LEIBOVICH | The bombing of six supposed
terrorist sites in Afghanistan and the Sudan Thursday by U.S. forces may have given some
Americans a sense of revenge — and temporarily diverted some public attention from President
Clinton’s deepening sex scandal — but a number of foreign policy experts believe it will serve
only to embolden Middle East radicals bent on further terrorist acts against the United States.
“We’re not doing much more than making ourselves feel good,” says Bernard Reich, professor of
international affairs at George Washington University. “It could very well have the reverse effect,
especially in Sudan, where there are plenty of wonderful people that want good relations with the
United States.”
Thursday’s attacks were directed against targets associated with Osama bin Laden, a wealthy
Saudi Arabian who’s been financing terrorist attacks since the early 1980s
…
What happened in the 233 days of the Bush administration?
And don’t forget how GW stopped ongoing terrorist investigations:
FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to ‘back off’ on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian. co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00. html
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political
reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US
before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the
catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The
intelligence agencies had been told to “back off” from investigations involving other members of
the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear
weapons by Pakistan.
“There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.”
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness
reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin
Laden as their “black sheep”.
Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton’s actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to
the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~
only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:
Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered
commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper
Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON — They went to great pains not to sound as though they were
telling the president “We told you so.”
But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense
Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between
frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the
recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.
Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman,
R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report
by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced
in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic
terrorism — which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying — while
assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.
Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the
commission’s suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. “Frankly, the White House
shut it down,” Hart says. “The president said ‘Please wait, we’re going to turn this over to the vice
president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.’ And so Congress moved on
to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.”
“We predicted it,” Hart says of Tuesday’s horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on
American soil, possibly in large numbers — that’s a quote (from the commission’s Phase One
Report) from the fall of 1999. ”
http://www.salon.com/politics/ feature/2001/09/12/bush/
The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/ depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm
Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: “The federal government should consider aviation security as a
national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The
Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and
that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”
In fact, all their attention was directed to a meaningless attack on Iraq.
16
You can read what Kevin actually said, in context, here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003672.php
dave
I almost felt sorry for Ezra when he expressed shock that a well-known moronic brownshirt fuck like yourself would openly lie.
Ah, sweet ignorance of youth! Everyone else knows much, much better.
Best to Unka Karl, asshole.
Slartibartfast
“Like I said, maybe it was all dumb luck, maybe not. But as I said above, dumb luck is more than Bush was even trying for.”
I’m going to frame that remark. Were you being obtuse accidentally, or was it deliberate?
HH
“Bush himself says he wasn’t doing anything about Osama in Woodwards book…”
As exposed in the testimony last week, this is a total distortion of what Bush was saying, carried along gleefully by the left wing press.
“…and Condi had nothing about Taliban or Al Queda planned in a speach that day. All they had was a meeting planned that had to do with missile defense.”
Sounds much like the 2000 foreign policy paper where missile defense had a higher priority than bin Laden, al Qaeda got no mention, and the primary Taliban worry was drugs.
As for the Gore commission, as reported in the Boston Globe soon after Sep. 11, it was dropped like a bad habit after donations by the airlines to Clinton/Gore ’96. Stop posting that Salon bullshit already.
HH
“Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist
attacks against Americans.”
This is very sloppy work by Snopes, which is knocking down a straw man. No one is claiming didn’t treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter. The problem is his lack of effective pre-emptive action, his lack of action after the Cole, his lack of action when given chances to capture or kill bin Laden because of “world opinion,” etc.
HH
Nice to see dave demonstrating the debate capabilities of your average Pandagon reader.