Bill's bull?
Ex-advisers: Clinton had no plan to overthrow Taliban,
kill Osama
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Former advisers of Bill Clinton deny he had plan to wipe out Taliban.
WASHINGTON - Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.
"The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks," said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton.
"What I was involved in could in no way be called a full-fledged plan to attack and overthrow the Taliban," he said.
Former advisers of Bill Clinton deny he had plan to wipe out Taliban.
So what "is" the truth Willy? And don't spout to me that it depends on what is "is"!
M. Emmett Townsend
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
But what's the big surprise? He was more interested in getting blow jobs than taking care of our country. Wonderful "john", horrible president.
There's a huge difference between the comparison of Clinton and Bush here:
1. Bush did not lie, he was merely wrong
2. Clinton LIED
Remember:
"I did not have relations with that woman...." uh huh
Slick Willy would rather than tell the truth.......Bush has amemeort that is so faulty it is scary....! Whatveer happened to Ross perot...! He would ahve told the truth, kicked the fecal matter out of anyone & had us back in the black....too bad we were too stupid to elect him!
Now this is a fact you can't deny, and if President Bush is a man of his word, he would get this piece of equipment to our soildiers in a New York minute!
I didn't ask there to be WMD in Iraq in order to send our troops to help free 8,000,000 from a mad man who had killed 100,000's gassing some and shooting the rest into trenches then covered with dirt and sand.
But President Bush, didn't lie, Clinton told the US people on several occasions that Saddam had WMD's before Bush was even President. Hummm so was Slick Willy lying then? or was John F. Kerry? And do you want to bring up Vietnam while you're at it? Guess what JFK... the Liberal Hero started that War...
And what about the WMD's we have found? What you don't know about those?
Read this:
-500 tons...that's right...TONS...make that 1million pounds of yellow cake uranium. It was found at Saddam's nuclear weapons facility (yup...he had one of those too.)
http://boortz.com/nuze/200508/08292005.html#wmd
I'll look up some more info for you but I will make that a Iraqi WMD article.
M. Emmett Townsend
Facts 2) We have been attacked by terrorists since the mid 70's and no one has been able to stop these fundamentalists. These are our modern day pirates... Groups who battle with fear and terror to gain money and/or power. Fear and terror is what terrorists use to push their dispair in the world It seems like Bush and most Republicans rather use the fear to build more fear, rather than use the countries fear and turn it into ONE UNITED NATION with the goal of eliminating terror. We are too divided as a country... this is an undeniable fact!
Fact 3) Clinton tried to find and kill Bin Ladin, but Republicans who were pushing an extra-marital affair to appial to their conservative base, are now trying to pass the buck to Clinton for not doing enough when they were draging his hame and dignity through the mudd for almost 2 years. Even with that heavy burdon of daily news stories on this Ken Star witch hunt... (by some Republicans who had married their mistresses and had numerous affairs) Clinton still managed to take a few good chances at killing Bin Laden. When anyone says that Clinton waited too long to get the people who attacked the U.S.S. Cole because he waited to see the intelligence agency report... they dont seem to remember the fact that this current Bush Administration with Dick Chaney and the other colaboraters for the Iraq War went into Iraq and attacked Iraq without a full investigation on their true envolvment. Now we find that the intelligence was 100% wrong.
So what's better, a President who thinks things through, or one who acts on hand picked intelligence?
It's just too easy to see that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld had a deep relationship with Saddam during the 70's and 80's... interesting to think about. It could be a coincidence... we just dont know. Or maybe we are starting to see through the smoke screen we've been looking through for the past 5 years?
Bush and his Administration does not talk about WMD's for one reason... he knows he would be proved wrong. When our troops get the equipment they need to win Iraq, then I will support the President again, but his empty promises lead me to believe he is not a man of his word.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
Rest of article got to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPLAINED WHEN HE WAS KILLING THOSE PEOPLE!!
It was liberal oprganizations that tried to raise a stink at the time.
Remember that liar with the bull horn ontop the ashes of the 9/11 victims:
We will bring Osama to justice or justice to Osama.
Yet a year later : He (Osama) isn't important anymore, I just don't think about him anymore.
HE STOOD ON TOP OF THE DEAD VICTIMS WHEN HE MADE THAT PROMISE!
Clinton tried to take Osama out
There is no deying
you say otherwise, you will be lying.
The bad thing is that Clinton was criticized for trying to kill Osama as trying to divert attention away from Lewinsky affair.
There was a huge resistence to his anti terror policies. Remember the fight when he put taggets on gunpowder.
Bush did not lie??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fox News and the US Senate, politicians yes, rouge's No!! Clinton yes he was A Rouge.
You may not like Bush, fine, you may say he is Dumb, (but if so then don't try to say he is controlling the Oil prices , if he was dumb he couldn't do that) you may say you don't like his swagger but do not say he lied, he is honest.
He won the election, both of them, and is president, and is doing his best, even if you disagree with him, heck sometimes I disagree with him.... but he is still President.
But "Clinton tried to take Osama out
There is no deying
you say otherwise, you will be lying."
I am not lying when I say he was offered Osama by the Sudanese (they had him in custody) but he said no thanks....
and don't get me started on the fact of his getting Lawinskied while on the phone committing troops to the war in the Balkans... I somehow don't think his mind was on the topic in a focused way unless you mean the Liwinskie topic...
To sum up Clinton he is a great Politician (that's it), and a liar and was a disgrace as president.
You seem to be the only one that has got it right! FIRM evidence that Bin Laden was planned and/or involved in the bombing of the Cole was not available to Clinton until AFTER the election of George W. He did not go any further on that information because the Republicans were at the door, salivating over there impending rise to power, waiting to create their OWN reality which included authorizing a war that was predicated on "invisible WMD's." Clinton did leave a comprehensive plan for dealing with terrorists which Georgie knew about! Which was presented to Condi. Today, she practically accused Clinton of "lying." She said there was no "comprehensive" plan. I guess that it depends upon your definiton of what "comprehensive" is???
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Hahahahahahahahah, Fox news, hahahahahaaha
Emmett, you are a riot!!!!!!!!! Dream on son!!!!!!!
hahaahahahahahahahah
But truth be told. Saddam, 9 days before invading Kuwait, summoned U S ambassador April Glaspie and asked: what will America do if we attack Kuwait.
Her reply: We will not meddle in your squables.
Later and after the seizure of Kuwait, she was asked why she gave permission: We did no think he would take over the WHOLE country.
They wanted him to take the oil fields because he was selling oil below OPEC regs. He took the whole country and we could not show complicity by buying his stolen oil.
Google April Glaspie is you do not believe. Neocons, your faith will be tested.
W : war.
Bill Clinton : Easier to adopt children/tax breaks.
w : Making hundreds of Iraqi orphans.
Bill Clinton : Family leave act/you can take care of family member and not get fired.
W : Separates families when even mom and dad has to go to Iraq.
Bill Clinton : Got a blow job.
W : Did some blow
Bill Clinton :Left a huge treasury surplus.
W : Billions in debt.
I am heartened by the discussions now of creating three states in Iraq. I believe if that can be done, we'll be done a lot sooner.
Bush was right- we had the war won when he made that embarrassing victory display. The war as we know it. But now all we have to do is win all the after-war skirmishes to follow. Which, unfortunately, will be fought in not only Iraq, but around the world, using their type of war, terrorism and ambush.
We'll never know which day we win this war, because there'll be no one to surrender. I guess we'll just wake up one day and realize we have no one trying to kill us. Or my grandkids will.
Our worst enemy right now is naivete. We all, as a nation, need to recognise their tactics. Which, is to bankrupt us and terrorise us. So far they have been horribly effective in the bankrupting part. Think of 911, what was their outlay compared to the billions and billions we have paid and are atill paying. One match and we lose a forest - and a few more million.
Our future now is to play their clandetine game. We have to have intelligence as we have never had it. In the entire world. We have to have awareness in this country. Does the new neighbor seem to lead a normal life, or are his window shades pulled all day with many odd-looking visitors coming? Does some farmer buy lots of fertilizer, but no crops planted?
I hate to be pessimistic, but I think its time to wake up, and stop crying about what might have been IF.
The WTC was attacked in 1993. If he had declared the "war on terror" then, as he should have, the towers might be standing today. The USS Cole should have been in combat, not a sitting duck target for terrorists.
Our former commander-in-chief was doing what comes naturally; lying to cover his ass.
Yep, you pick a winner.
There is no proof of wmd's. The Neocons proclaim there were, just like modern Nazis proclaim the Holocaust never happened.
They seek others with this wmd affliction.
They are about as sick as those pedophiles that say sex with kids should be ok, you cannot convince them otherwise.
There are about as many NAMBLA members as those that think there were wmd's.
Shock treatment will not work on either of them.
How come? He should have done this or that, You were alive then, do you have a copy of the letter you sent him urging him to attack terrorists? Yeah, just as I thought.
In their coverage of the Clinton-Wallace interview, the media largely ignored the substance of former President Clinton's criticism of the Bush administration's efforts to combat terrorism, instead focusing on Clinton's behavior during the interview or the possibility that his reaction was motivated by politics.
And it was amazing that he would lie about so many things even that Reps demanded that he leave Somalia one day after the marines died when in truth they demanded that he counter attack the warlord and make him pay. This Somalia "Blackhawk Down" incident became one of Bin Laden's big recruiting ploys since it proved that Americans had no backbone, were gutless and would not fight. And of course, the Dems want us to repeat that in Iraq so that Bin Laden can recruit more terrorists. The Dems always have it backwards on recruiting since they say that being in Iraq causes more recruits to join the terrorists when the exact reverse is true.
The Dems will keep contending that it is Bush who lies when what they are trying to do is cover up the fact that Clinton and the Dems lie so much. It is the old communist trick of criticizing your enemy for the things that you do while simultaneously claiming that you do the things that your enemy does. The Dems have seen how effective repeated lies can be as eventually they often become what people believe.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Well at least Bush quit taking them month long vacations.
The war has been a godsend to Haliburton. Billions of dollars in no bid contracts.
Commanders cannot fuel up their Humvees from the local gas station @ 80 cents a gallon, they must follow the rules and let Haliburton fuel up their Humvees from the same suppllier and tack on a dollar a gallon to the price for that job.
Haliburton had a huge party for their employees with a Huge Big screen TV and 10 tubs of food and drink. They sent the bill to the taxpayers.
There is a lawsuit over it, some taxpayers object to sponsoring a party, others are worried about Clinton's penis.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clarke/clrk2rice12501mem.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/terrorism/dec2000aqmem.html
Did you read your own material?
If this is a "comprehensive plan" to defeat al-Qaeda, then Richard Clarke wasted a lot of time and money preparing it. This looks like notes and scribbled memos - not a plan.
Isn't this exactly what Condi Rice said it was yesterday in her NY Daily News interview?
Great quote, Charles. That truly is the 'smoking gun' in this whole discussion.
Clarke was a decent guy whose recommendations were never taken by the Clinton administration, but were taken by the Bush administration and acted upon. Clarke remained in the same position with Bush as he had with Clinton and only left when he was passed over for heading up the new Homeland Security Department. Bush also had the same CIA head as Clinton. The difference was that Bush listened to them and accepted their recommendations while Clinton ignored them.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
September 15, 1999: Bipartisan Commission Concludes Terrorist Attack Will Occur on US Soil, Killing Many The first phase of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R), is issued. It concludes: "America will be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and Americans will lose their lives on American soil, possibly in large numbers." [US Commission on National Security, 9/15/1999]
January 31, 2001: Bipartisan Commission Issues Final Report on Terrorism, but Conclusions Are Ignored The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R) is issued. The bipartisan report was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Hart and Rudman personally brief National Security Adviser Rice, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell on their findings. The report has 50 recommendations on how to combat terrorism in the US, but all of them are ignored by the Bush administration. According to Senator Hart, Congress begins to take the commission's suggestions seriously in March and April, and legislation is introduced to implement some of the recommendations. Then, "Frankly, the White House shut it down... The president said 'Please wait, We're going to turn this over to the vice president' ... and so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day." The White House announces in May that it will have Vice President Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism despite the fact that this commission had just studied the issue for 2 1/2 years. Interestingly, both this commission and the Bush administration were already assuming a new cabinet level National Homeland Security Agency would be enacted eventually, even as the public remained unaware of the term and the concept. [Salon, 9/12/2001; Salon, 4/2/2004] Hart is incredulous that neither he nor any of the other members of this commission are ever asked to testify before the 9/11 Commission. [Salon, 4/6/2004]
The 9/11 Commission will later make many of the same recommendations. However, the Commission will barely mention the Hart/Rudman Commision in their final report, except to note that Congress appointed it and failed to follow through on implementing the recommendations. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 107, 479]
May 8, 2001: Cheney Heads Task Force Responding to Domestic Attacks, but No Action Is Taken Before 9/11 Bush entrusts Vice President Cheney to head the new Office of National Preparedness, a part of FEMA. This office is supposed to oversee a "national effort" to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks. Cheney informs the press: "One of our biggest threats as a nation" may include "a terrorist organization overseas. We need to look at this whole area, oftentimes referred to as homeland defense." The focus is on state-funded terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, and neither bin Laden nor al-Qaeda is mentioned. [New York Times, 7/8/2002] Cheney's task force is supposed to report to Congress by October 1, 2001, after a review by the National Security Council. Bush states that he "will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] In July, two senators send draft counterterrorism legislation to Cheney's office, but a day before 9/11, they are told it might be another six months before he gets to it. The task force is just beginning to hire staff a few days before 9/11. Former Senator Gary Hart (D) later implies that this task force is created to prevent Congress from enacting counterterrorism legislation proposed by a bipartisan commission he had co-chaired in January. [Salon, 4/2/2004; Salon, 4/6/2004]
September 6, 2001: Senator Hart Sees No Sense of Urgency from Rice on Terrorism Former Senator Gary Hart (D), one of the two co-chairs of a comprehensive, bipartisan report on terrorism released in January 2001, meets with National Security Adviser Rice to see if the Bush administration is implementing the report's recommendations. He later claims to give her a grave warning. He recalls to tone of her response: "She didn't seem to feel a terrible sense of urgency. Her response was simply 'I'll talk to the vice president about it.' ... Even at this late date, nothing was being done inside the White House." [Salon, 4/2/2004]
All that information seems over-researched now, after the Slade Gorton/Richard Clarke testimony before the 9/11 commission, doesn't it?
Christ, Clinton is no longer in office; let it go. This country is 1.5 trillion dollars in debt and soldiers are dying in an unnecessary war. If you are so pro-Bush (who couldn't be bothered to read a memo with Bin Laden in the title) and pro-war than sign up to fight! Put your money where your poetic whiny mouth is.
P.S.
Free Audrey's Boobs!
I have been in the military, and I have 5 members of my family currently serving 3 of them over there as we speak. My cousin died in an ambush 4 months ago in Afghanistan, he was a medic setting up clinics for the Afghan people.
I will write (actually done already) but it is so long I will post it as a separate article. I'll send you the link in here.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976804791
In the future if you want more lady like comments, try posting things worthy of a gentleman. The cut and paste job above is lazy and considered plagiarism. I guess I don't understand your obsession with Clinton. It sickens me the lack of respect and lack of writing skills that many of you so-called conservatives demonstrate on a daily basis. Only recently I have jumped into the fray because I could no longer stand the abuse your kind gives to others.