Bill Clinton - Terrorisms greatest foe!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jack_www


That is anther thing I dont like about Clinton.

Do you actually believe that?

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Sava
Do you actually believe that?

First off when clinton came into office I was a kid and at the time did not pay much attention to politics. I have heard this in the news all over the place, so assume it was true, if it not show me that is wrong please.

[DanS]

What they offered to do was turn bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia provided the US stop its sanctions against Suden for supporting terrorism and engaging in genocide and slavery in Southern Sudan.

I don't think anything in this sentence after "provided" is true. There were no serious negotiations about what was needed.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jack_www


First off when clinton came into office I was a kid and at the time did not pay much attention to politics. I have heard this in the news all over the place, so assume it was true, if it not show me that is wrong please.

I can't point to a news story... but assertions need to be proven true before I believe them. I was only 12 when Clinton was first elected, so I can't recall. I seriously doubt the legitimacy of that rumor. And even if by some miracle it is true, I would think that Clinton met with his NSA who would have met with the CIA director.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't think anything in this sentence after "provided" is true. There were no serious negotiations about what was needed.

Clinton Ignored the offer so yes, how could their have been serious negotiations?

[DanS]

I don't think "ignored" is quite the right way of describing it. It was more the Saudis who were cool to the idea.

You could certainly say that Clinton's foreign policy was not robust, however. He never took the initiative.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't think "ignored" is quite the right way of describing it. It was more the Saudis who were cool to the idea.

Well then I should say he was not very interested in the offer.

[Sava]

And who knows what the Saudi's would have wanted... for all we know, they were asking for the immediately withdrawl of all US forces...

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Sava
And who knows what the Saudi's would have wanted... for all we know, they were asking for the immediately withdrawl of all US forces...

He could have asked. Besides the Saudi's asked for US troops during the Gulf War, so why would they ask them to leave?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't think anything in this sentence after "provided" is true. There were no serious negotiations about what was needed.

We didn't negotiate. Those were Sudan's conditions when they made the "offer."

[Sava]

so why would they ask them to leave?

the second Saddam's ass was kicked, they wanted us out...

[Dis]

don't be dissing Clinton man.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I've never been much of a Clinton fan (except during elections -- regardless of what you think of him, the guy was an amazing campaigner), so I wouldn't reflexively dismiss this. But it's worth noting that most of the press I could turn up on this book stemmed from the usual right-wing suspects: The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, syndicated colunmist Robert Novak, Townhall.com, etc. (curiously, Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review hasn't weighed in yet, but I'm sure it won't be long). All of these sources have turned Clinton-hating into a cottage industry, if not an art form; the Washington Times and Novak in particular have taken it even further, repeating as fact every spurious, even ludicrous, piece on info that casts aspersions on Bill and/or Hilary. Until I see some info on this book from a source that doesn't reflexively spew venom anytime anybody says "Clinton," I'd have a hard time taking it seriously.

Actually most of this stuff has come out before, on Frontline among other places. I can't speak to the spin that the book places on things, but the incidents mentioned mostly have been out there in the public eye for a while.

As for Clinton, his main sin was always his lack of knowledge / interest in security and foreign affairs, which combined with his failure to delegate led to a drift in U.S. foreign policy throughout his administration. It was a very good time to reposition the U.S. geopolitically, but we found ourselves instead holding all the same lines that we were holding during papa Bush's administration, including bizarre cold war stuff that should have been on the way out during papa Bush's time. Some of the weakness the U.S. has shown during the current administration can be directly related to these facts. We were weakened by holding on to Cold War alliances and security guarantees that sent our power all over the globe willy nilly, and by lulling the world to sleep by our general inaction, which made the contrast extreme when Bush II took over and started shaking things up.

Clinton was afraid to appoint people with real stature to the security / foreign policy posts, IMO because he was afraid of being upstaged by a Kissinger type of personality. He was also frankly not all that interested in foreign policy save the sort of European multilateralism that is almost like domestic policy. He was careful to at least appear strong, but was more interested in portraying strength than in formulating long term policies and prosecuting them until the objectives were obtained. His actions in Somalia, Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan are all good examples of this.

One thing to keep in mind when choosing a president is that this office has almost all of the power over foreign affairs and security, and shares power with congress over everything else in a manner that requires cooperation or yields only gridlock. The economy is something that any president has very little power over. So vote for the best president on security and foreign policy, and use your votes for senate and congress to take care of domestic policy concerns.

[Berzerker]

But it's worth noting that most of the press I could turn up on this book stemmed from the usual right-wing suspects:

Ah, so if you write a book we should judge your work based on which media outlets give it publicity? Obviously these media outlets have an axe to grind, but that doesn't mean the author loses credibility.

Sava, O'Reilly didn't defend Clinton, he asked the author for a brief synopsis and asked questions to delve into the kind of proof he has.

Chegitz -

Any book that repeats the conservative lie about how Clinton ignored the offer by Sudan to turn bin Laden over to us can't be trusted.

Any critic who didn't read the book and makes assumptions about what the author says can't be trusted He said Clinton (and he quotes Sandy Berger et al) wanted to wait until after the election of '96 to consider the Sudan's offer because Clinton didn't want to appear to be dealing with a nation that had just been put on a list of terrorist nations and the author actually quotes Clinton's people. The author has documents from the Sudanese general who offered to hand OBL over to Clinton... Now, what was Clinton's explanation? Did he deny the Sudan made the offer? NOOOOO! Clinton said he and his people concluded they lacked the legal authority!!! Hell, even Clinton admitted the offer existed.