Watch Clinton Explode :)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Yes, but Clinton was our first and last President that gave a rat's ass about counterterrorism.

Why was OBL not killed or captured when the CIA had real time footage of him at an al-Qaeda camp in the fall of 2000?

[Jon Miller]

Did you not read the interview?

JM

[civman2000]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I know what was said. If you want to get to the nut cutting, everyone after Oliver North made mistakes. He told people way back in the day what was going to happen.


Not hindsight. Not second guessing.

Uh, what does Oliver North have to do with anything?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Did you not read the interview?

JM

I must have missed it in all the bile about a right wing conspiracy to ditort his record. Where was the incident discussed?

[Jon Miller]

The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would’ve had to send a few hundred Special Forces in in helicopters and refuel at night.

He wasn't going to send in a couple people who wouldn't make it out alive.

Jon Miller

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Meh.


I tire mightily of this. Clinton for all his failings I beleive was indeed interested in getting OBL. On the other hand, the extent to which he would place his nuts on the line is in keeping with his rule by what the polls say. That being said I don't fault him as neither party was especially serious about terrorism. In fact the party not in the the office of president (the repugs) much less so than the admin. Same holds today with the Dems being the silly party.

Why this is news however befuddles me. This is simply to establish Clintons legacy, a big who cares, as it does little to advance public interest. If the point is to absolve Clinton of any responsibility of the run up to 9/11 and place it squarely on Bush, what does that serve? Bush got his second term like it or not, this changes nothing other than to make Bubba and his sycophants feel martyrdom may improve his historical standing. (How many times is that whining gonna have to be heard?)

[SlowwHand]

North testified as far back as the Iran-Contra hearings about Bin Laden.

Iran-Contra Affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Iran-Contra Affair (also called the Iran-Contra Matter and Iran-gate) was one of the largest political scandals in the United States during the 1980s. [1] It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla organization in Nicaragua. [2]

After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[3] But a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. [4]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
He wasn't going to send in a couple people who wouldn't make it out alive.

Why would you bother with that when you had real time intel where he was and access to missiles?

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
In Canada, you couldn't have a foreign business there without the corporate headquarters being there.

...

wha?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Although I really should give up on this topic because I could care less. I was trying to recollect somethings circa 1998. I tried hard to remember what the GOP uproar was about during the 1998 Afghan crusie missile bombings. I really tried to remember if there was a hue and cry from the politicos saying it was wag the dog moments. (And truthfully I couldn't recall correctly one way or the other) And while there was some of that, it seemed almost exclusively a function of news media trying to make something of a point that wasn't even being embraced by the members of the hill. I did a simple "1998 sudan missile GOP response" google and came across this PBS Jim Lehrer interview.

Quite a bit different than what Clinton was espousing. Now I'm sure the likes of Limbaugh and co. were all agog with taking the cheap shot.

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, some congressional views of the U.S. actions today from two Democrats, Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia, and Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana; and two Republicans, Sen. Rod Grams of Minnesota, and Sen. John Kyl of Arizona. Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana may also be joining us shortly. First, beginning with you, Sen. Robb, do you support the U.S. Actions today?

Congressional support

SEN. CHARLES ROBB, (D) Virginia: Absolutely. I think it was the right thing to do. I think timing was right, and I think it sends a very important message to the rest of the world that we have counter-terrorist capability that has global reach and that we are not going to sit idly by while our interest or particularly our citizens are attacked by terrorists, that there is a price to pay, and in this particular case, we had hard intelligence, not only about past activities but about what was going on today and what was about to happen, that those who might put our interest at risk ought to consider the consequences.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Kyl, the right thing to do?

SEN. JOHN KYL, (R) Arizona: Yes, I support the president's action, both because of the connection of Osama bin Laden to past terrorist activities, as well as the threats that he has made against Americans around the world in the future.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Hamilton, your view.

REP. LEE HAMILTON, (D) Indiana: I support it. America is the target. Americans are the target. It's a deadly form of terrorism. The evidence here is strong and compelling of the linkage between Osama bin Laden and these actions that took place in East Africa. The United States now is moving to a new phase in its effort against terrorism, and that means, in part, military action of a preemptive kind to go after the source of terrorism.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Grams, how do you feel about it?

SEN. ROD GRAMS, (R) Minnesota: Well, I agree as well, and I think we needed to send a very strong and very clear message to terrorists around the world that Americans will not stand for this type of terrorist activity or terrorist threats, either the ones on the embassies in Africa recently, or any planned threats in the future. So I very strongly support this, and I think these raids were carried out, I hope, very successfully.

JIM LEHRER: And do you believe that they will be effective—in other words, that they will result in a reduction of terrorism or possible terrorism by these groups?

SEN. ROD GRAMS: Well, I think we can look at what happened when such a retaliatory attack was done on Gaddafi in Libya. We haven't heard much from him since, and I hope that this same type of message is sent to Mr. bin Laden, that the United States will not tolerate this--when any American citizen is threatened anywhere in the world, that we have a very long reach, and we have a very long memory, and that we will retaliate with this type of a strike any time American lives are threatened or when any Americans are killed.

An increase in attacks?
JIM LEHRER: Sen. Robb, some people have suggested that just the opposite might happen, that this might trigger even worse terrorist attacks against the United States, because they would be so angry about these attacks today. How do you read that?

SEN. CHARLES ROBB: Well, there's no question that we're going to have to be especially watchful and take extra precautions, and we're doing that. Additional security measures have been instituted, some upgrading of security is taking place as we speak, but some of these things are going to happen anyhow, and the question is whether or not we do something preemptive that, number one, and it's designed—I don't know how much has come out yet—but certainly after all the intelligence is shared, and I think more of it will be with respect to the kind of target that we're going after, particularly in Afghanistan in the camps, we're going to put an end to at least the ability of some of those who would conduct these terrorist activities to conduct that terrorism. And I think that we send a message not only to Osama bin Laden but to other terrorists that they don't have automatic sanctuary just because they're outside of the reach of our normal legal or judicial process.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Hamilton, the Senator is right there, is he not? I mean, there's more than bin Laden's people in that—particularly in that Afghanistan terrorist complex, correct?

REP. LEE HAMILTON: Yes. I think one of the reasons we struck today, as the president indicated, was that there was a meeting of terrorists in Afghanistan. We knew they were meeting; we knew where they were meeting; and we thought this was an opportune time. Osama bin Laden—

JIM LEHRER: Excuse me. To interrupt, was the motive to try to do away with these people at the meeting? Was this an attempt to kill the people at the meeting?

REP. LEE HAMILTON: I think it was an attempt to go basically after the infrastructure, but we knew there were high-ranking terrorists there, and we went after them, and the infrastructure there. I don't think we went after personalities, but the fact that you had a meeting of importance taking place there made it a target of great interest to us.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Kyl, the Pentagon and other U.S. officials have declined to go into any details about this attack. They won't even say whether they were conducted by bombers, or whether they were conducted by Cruise missiles from U.S. ships. How do you feel about that?

SEN. JOHN KYL: I think it's appropriate that discussions of the operations await the conclusion of the strikes in the operations because there could be additional actions necessary to be taken. You wouldn't want to jeopardize either the operation or the people involved in conducting those operations. So the secretary is correct in not discussing the specifics of the operation at this time.

Based upon actions we've taken in the past, including the retaliation for the threat on—the attempt on the life of President George Bush, one can assume that cruise missiles were used, and I think there's a fairly good understanding of the kind of weapons that we had available to us in the region, and the kind that would be necessary to strike in this particular kind of case. But in terms of the other details of the operation, I think the secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are absolutely correct in reporting that information until they can assess the damage and until it's appropriate to release information about the conclusion of the operations.

JIM LEHRER: As a practical matter, Senator, most Cruise missiles are launched by ships, are they not, rather than by bombers?

SEN. JOHN KYL: That's correct. They could be launched either way—by surface to vessel or by submarine. In the past, I think you're correct, most of them have been launched by surface ship.

JIM LEHRER: And Senator Robb, that's most likely what happened in this case, is it not?

SEN. CHARLES ROBB: Again, I'm going to accept the guidelines that the Pentagon has put out at this point. I suspect a rather significant after-action report. At this point we have some live pictures in terms of what happened just outside of Khartoum at the chemical weapons, or at least the precursor manufacturing facility. We don't have much in the way of after-action report in terms of what happened to the camps, and I think because of the possibility of the need to follow up, I don't think we want to speculate too much on exactly how it was carried out.

A question of timing
JIM LEHRER: Now, Sen. Grams, one of your colleagues, Sen. Coats, who may join us here in a few moments, a Republican from Indiana, suggested today at a news conference and a couple of other interviews that—he questioned the timing of this, the possibility that the president was trying to distract from his own problems, and that's the reason he ordered these strikes today. Do you have a view on that?

SEN. ROD GRAMS: I think it's a shame that these questions even come up, but I think it shows to the extent that the office of the president has been damaged, that people even question these type of motives of the president's order to strike, and so I think this all comes down, and, you know, with these questions being raised here on Capitol Hill, and I think across the country, I think it shows exactly how much damage has been done to the office of the president, because, again, when people begin to question their leader, they begin to question the decisions that their leader makes, and, again, when this happens, we support the president.

I think this was an appropriate response. But I think in the back of many people's minds you're going to have these questions that are going to come to the surface, and I know I've talked to many reporters today, and in just about every interview the reporters asked that very question. And I think it just goes back to the controversy that still surrounds the White House today.

JIM LEHRER: Did it leap to you—to the back of your mind, Senator?

SEN. ROD GRAMS: Yes, it did. I had this question, and although, you know, I just kind of thought about it, because of the movie "Wag the Dog" and—

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

SEN. ROD GRAMS: --other things that have come up, but, you know, my first thought was, of course, that I supported the president's action, and I thought this was a very appropriate response. But then again in reflection I think that comes to the surface of many people's minds, and of course that was just reiterated by many of the calls that I had today.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Hamilton, you've been asked this question before today—before right now today, as well, have you not?

REP. LEE HAMILTON: Sure. It's a fair question. I think we should address it. You know, early this morning I was reading in the paper and listening to the news the president was being attacked because he was incapacitated, because he was distracted, he could not act. A few hours later the criticism flips 180 degrees, and it is a criticism of the president for acting because he was under political domestic pressure.

I think the relevant question is not the politics. The relevant question is: Did the president act in the American national interest? I think he did. I really cannot remember a time when an American president in past years took aggressive military action when the charge was not made by someone of domestic politics.

I don't think any American president that I have known sends young men and women into places of danger for domestic political purposes. They do it because it is their judgment that the American national interest requires it. That doesn't make it the right judgment all the time, but it is the basis on which American presidents, Republican and Democrat, have always acted.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Kyl, what's your view of this?

SEN. JOHN KYL: My view is that the intelligence community and the military planned this action, and recommended it to the president. It wasn't his idea initially, but he did the right thing in authorizing it. That's why I support the action. I've been critical of this president certainly in the past for being indecisive in foreign affairs and military affairs. If his domestic political difficulties gave him more courage to say yes to this operation, then all the better, but the bottom line is that Lee Hamilton is right. It was the right thing to do, and whatever the reasons, it needed to be done, and I think we'd ought to also thank the same people the president thanked, the intelligence agency and officers who've understood the information necessary to put the operation together, the FBI agents, who have been so good in making a case that Osama bin Laden is connected to the bombings in the African embassies, and the military people, of course, who have conducted these strikes.

A hurtful action?
JIM LEHRER: Sen. Robb, what about Sen. Gramm's point, though, that just the fact that people are asking these questions about an action like this that the president took hurts us?

SEN. CHARLES ROBB: Well, I think the thing to remember here is that by acting, we demonstrated to the international community that we would not be mobilized by domestic considerations, and I think that that was probably an important message to send at this particular time, because there were people that were suggesting that because of whatever was happening here at home, that we might not be able to respond to a true emergency, and you know that any time a president, particularly when he acts in his capacity as commander in chief, is going to be subjected to some criticism. And if you go ahead and act and recognize that this down side may exist in terms of commentary or whatever the case may be, I think you send an important reassuring message.

I would also like to suggest that there were many that participated in this process, including some of our allies with important intelligence contributions to the effort, it was a joint effort. I think once more of the information about why the decision was made and when it was made becomes public, I think there will be a reaffirmation of confidence the people have in this particular process. But it would have been, I believe, very, very dangerous to suggest that the United States was somehow not going to act because it might be construed as being political.

JIM LEHRER: Just a quick thing before we go, Sen. Robb, I've just been informed that the Sudanese government has taken possession of our empty embassy in Khartoum. What's your reaction to that?

SEN. CHARLES ROBB: I think—

JIM LEHRER: I've just been corrected. Not the Sudanese government hasn't occupied it; a mob of Sudanese people have.

SEN. CHARLES ROBB: Well, that's not an entirely unexpected reaction, particularly in a country that has been the recipient of U.S. munitions, however delivered without the benefit of the entire U.S. explanation. Again, the early commentary from their public television—or from their television station was hardly supportive of the U.S. position in this case—

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

SEN. CHARLES ROBB: So I think that's not all that surprising.

JIM LEHRER: No surprise, Sen. Grams?

SEN. ROD GRAMS: No surprise, really. I think the leadership of Sudan is probably whipping up this kind of anti-American sentiment, and this is probably, you know, one of the offshoots of that, but I think this was something that you could expect, that their leadership would take this type of activity to disgrace or to whip up anti-American sentiment.

JIM LEHRER: And more to come. And gentlemen, thank you all four very much.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This one too. Seems the GOP was by and large behind him and in fact at times urging harder line responses.

So why the crocodile tears saying the right wingers were hypocritical and unsupportive of these actions. If anything they were saying more needed to be done.

Tough Response Appeals to Clinton Critics


Sen. Orrin Hatch announcing his support of President Clinton's decision to strike against terrorist facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan. (AP)


By Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 21, 1998; Page A17

President Clinton won warm support for ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

A few senators, however, noted that the timing of the attack raised the question of whether Clinton had ordered it to deflect attention from his personal affairs. Others suggested the scandal may be preventing the president from paying attention to critical international problems.

But most lawmakers from both parties were quick to rally behind Clinton in a deluge of public statements and appearances yesterday, a marked contrast to the relatively sparse and chilly reception that greeted his Monday statement on the Lewinsky matter.

"I think the president did exactly the right thing," House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."

Gingrich said he was told "very precise details" of the attack before it occurred, and praised Clinton's aides for being "sensitive to making sure we were not blindsided in this." Other congressional leaders, several of whom were on vacation or difficult to locate, said the White House had made an effort to notify them before the attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) praised Clinton for doing "the right thing at the right time to protect vital U.S. interests against terrorist attacks," and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said the United States "should respond forcefully when U.S. lives are at stake."

It was clear from several lawmakers' statements that support for Clinton was not just a knee-jerk reaction, but also a response made easier because of former GOP senator and current Defense Secretary William S. Cohen. "I have enough confidence in [Cohen] to believe that he would not be involved in anything orchestrated for domestic political purposes," Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) said.

Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing," Gingrich said. "It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind."

To underscore this view, Rich Galen, one of Gingrich's top advisers, sent an e-mail to conservative radio talk show hosts entitled "Wag the Dog," after a recent movie of the same name in which White House spin doctors concoct an international crisis to draw attention away from a president's sexual indiscretions.

"Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation's interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves."

Gingrich made the same point himself during a conference call with House Republicans late yesterday, telling colleagues that while none of them has to mute criticism about the Lewinsky matter, "on this topic I think it's very useful and I think it sends a powerful signal to the world" that the GOP stand with Clinton.

But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier in the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation." Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000, noted "there is a cloud over this presidency."

And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."

Told of these criticisms, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, branded them "preposterous," and noted that Osama bin Laden, suspected of bankrolling the installations that were bombed, "is one bad mother."

"Even if that [a diversion] were an element, what in the hell does it do to us around the world for leading American officials to even suggest that?" Biden asked. "It is not very sound judgment to speak in terms of motivation other than national security at this moment."

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who in recent days has been very critical of Clinton on the Lewinsky matter, also supported the bombing raids, noting, "In the past I was worried that this administration didn't take this threat seriously enough, and didn't take Osama bin Laden seriously enough; I'm going to support him, wish him well and back him up."

And urge him on, a view supported bluntly by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.). "If anything, this was somewhat overdue, and I'm not talking days, but months and years. This needs to be the first punch we land. We need to land more," Goss added, warning that "now that we have struck back, it is sure to inflame them even more. All Americans need to understand that."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stressed the importance of a strong U.S. role in foreign affairs, and criticized the administration for ignoring problems other than bin Laden, including Iraq dragging its feet on arms inspections, "North Korea building nuclear weapons," a stalled Mideast peace process, and "thousands of people being ethnically cleansed in Kosovo.

"This administration for the last seven months has neglected compelling national security threats besides this," said McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee. "I cannot say that they've been neglected because of Monica Lewinsky, but I can say unequivocally that they have been neglected."

The bad guys in the above were Sen. Spector (who Dems seem to love for his RINO status in other words no freind of the right wing conspiracy), Coats and asshat Ashcroft (who of all the afore mentioned deserves ridicule). But the hard righties of Hatch, Gingrich, McCain and Lott were fairly commplimentary if not calling for more of the same.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
This one too. Seems the GOP was by and large behind him and in fact at times urging harder line responses.

So why the crocodile tears saying the right wingers were hypocritical and unsupportive of these actions. If anything they were saying more needed to be done.

Paranoid visions of a vast Right wing conspiracy.

[SlowwHand]

Was this Bill?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, man...I just imagined an exploding cigar...

me too.

:vomit:

[Velociryx]

Paranoid visions of a vast Right wing conspiracy......

....to help offset the paranoid visions of the "Organized Left" and the "Librul Media Conspiracy"



-=Vel=-