Topic: Bill Clinton: terror and political maneuvering

[Briareos]

If you're in the US at least you probably have an idea what I'm talking about.  This weekend former President Clinton had an interview and this happened:

Clinton, Wallace battle in Fox interview

By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former
President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by
Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.
ADVERTISEMENT

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.

Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'"

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.

Clinton said he "worked hard" to try to kill bin Laden.

"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," he said.

He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

The interview was taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference.

On NBC's "Meet the Press," also taped Friday and aired Sunday, Clinton told interviewer Tim Russert that the biggest problem confronting the world today is "the illusion that our differences matter more than our common humanity."

"That's what's driving the terrorism," he said. "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have — and some women — who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."

(ref)
Note: the USS Cole incident happened  under Clinton's watch, and Clarke was actually one of Clinton's people.  As for that matter did the '93 WTC bombing, and two attack on foreign soil by al-Qaida.  Response: wasting 1.2 million dollar a piece Tomahawk Cruise Missiles (weapons data), which were in such short supply they initiated a program to switch the reserve nuclear ones warhead to conventional, on bombing an Aspirin factory and a few misses into Afghanistan camps.

What we're really seeing here is political maneuvering by the Left to appear to be more credible in dealing with the War on Terrorism.  Something they realize they need to do to gain momentum for the 2006 Senatorial Races, and eventually the 2008 election, which may include Hillary.  Try to go on the offensive with their standard tactics so to speak.  Which includes playing victim, as to the so called attacks I'm pretty sure you'd be hard to find any evidence of those simply because there has been no reason for anyone to have given a rats about Clinton recently prior this battery of interviews.  Let's however drudge up context:
Basic going over of Gorelick memo, which is one of the more responsible things for the 9/11 attack not having been stopped.
Why everything the 9/11 Comission, which was head by Gorelick, shouldn't be taken as gospel.
The media's record even right after 9/11 on this issue.
and just because:
Link1 Link2 Link3

So what's your take on all this?

[Moshman^]

Since I naturally hate lefties, I agree.

[mintrubble]

First of all you can't wage war on "terror".  It is an idea & you can't blow up ideas.  You could in theory fight a war on terrorists (see the difference), but you'd have to find them first. 

By the way, they're NOT in Iraq.  I think we're all pretty clear on that by this point. 

Clinton was a good Politican & an above average President.  Yes, he was lucky to be in office during an ecenomic upswing; but at least he had the sense to save the money (as opposed to say blowing it on tax breaks for millionaires & an unwinable war).

[Moshman^]

*laugh
Clinton was joke a lier. By far the worst president in the history of the universe.
And BTW those millionaires are the people who sustain the American economy, who bust their ass for their dreams. People who use their children as an excuse to get section 8 benefits, and buy crack with their food stamps don;t deserve tax breaks, they need their children in foster homes, and them to get off their ass and get a job. My mom was like this when I was young so I have first hand experience.

[Briareos]

Unwinable war is it?  Like Vietnam perhaps?  Afterall those nasty Viet Cong, that ceased to exist as fighting force after the Tet Offensive was squashed, were so unbeatable.  Nevermind the NVA, which was crippled so badly by the US military they spent several years recovering after we’d left before even thinking of journeying south again.  Not to mention their resolve, which was such there are reports that they would have surrendered if certain groups back home hadn’t made it clear they just had to bide their time.  Your kind lost Vietnam to the Communists and are directly responsible for the slaughter and torture of all the countless civilians that followed the North’s invasion.  I’ll never understand why you want to do the same to Iraq.

Clinton or Carter got us into this war by not stepping up if you want to place blame on the US side.  Carter allow Iran to fall starting the mess, and Clinton pulling out of Mogidishu after the Black Hawk Down incident directly inspired Osama Bin Laden to start planning what eventually culminated into the 9/11 attack.

The terrorists use IEDs alone because they’re overmatched in the extreme.  Otherwise the IED would be a signal to begin an ambush, instead of being used alone, nevermind that a lot of IEDs don’t manage to serve their function, for various reasons.  Despite the numerous threats by Osama of worse attacks, they haven’t managed to pull off anything, no doubt thanks to how things are being handled.  These are not however people you can turn your back on.  As big a mistake as Rumsfeld made in not using enough troops and not following through with the existing plan has proved to be, pulling out now would utterly dwarf it.  While this is no Operation Just Cause it is not unwinable.  If you think wars are won in a single battle your haven't been paying attention to the history of warfare following Napolean's revolution.

The percentage of the US GDP being spent on this war is absurdly low for wartime standing, btw. 

Newt Gingrich was a good Politician & an above average House Speaker.  Yes, he was lucky to be in office during an economic upswing; but at least he had the sense to save the money.

There, fixed it for you.  Clinton had nothing to do with it.