After interviewing President Clinton and receiving the "blast" of indignation, Chris Wallace then interviewed Michael Scheuer. Scheuer spent 22 years in the CIA and was head of is Bin Laden unit from 1966 to 1999. Wallace wanted to find out if Clinton had been truthful in his responses.
Wallace asked Scheuer why Bin Laden was not killed or captured inspite of many opportunities..
Scheuer replied that Clinton was correct when he said he got closer than anyone to the head of Al-Qaeda "But, of course, he always refused to pull the trigger".
Scheuer said that Clinton always seemed to have an excuse why not, such as "one time (when) they were afraid to have shrapnel hit a mosque when they killed bin Laden."
Another time, Clinton's team just had to warn the United Arab Emirates to recall princes who were on a hunting trip with Bin Laden. Scheuer said:
"Richard Clarke called the emirates and warned them they should get out of that area, which cost us the chance to kill him."
As to the Clinton claim that he "worked hard to try to kill" the Al-Qaeda leader and "authorized the finding for the CIA to kill him," Scheuer said "we were never authorized, while I was chief of operations, to kill Osama bin Laden. In fact, Richard Clarke definitely told us we had no authorization to kill bin Laden."
Scheuer then said:
"Mr. Richard Clarke, Mr. Sandy Berger (and) President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Osama bin Laden" and that "for him (Clinton) to get on television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir."
According to the man charged with finding bin Laden: "Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him."
Scheuer also noted that the CIA was unable to provide such opportunities in the first 8 months of the Bush administration.
Best regards, Ben
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Having just waved Monica Lewinsky's cocktail dress, you might try to remember that everything Clinton did internationally was lambasted by Republiconazis like you as an attempt to "wag the dog" and deflect attention from an impeachment the primary function of which was to cripple his presidency.
Stephen M. Getting back to the question that Clinton was asked. How could Bush have prevented 9/11 attacks after 9/11?? Does he have a time machine?
I concede that Bush has not gotten him either but that does not excuse the inaction's of his predecessor. The two arguments are separate and distinct. However Clinton is the one who joined the two when he tried to shift blame to Bush. The question to Clinton was why didn't HE do more. He didn't answer except to blame others.
Bush gave an order to get Bin Laden and has allowed his people to make the decision to shoot when the opportunity presents itself. Bush knows that he cannot interject himself in the minute to minute management of such an endeavor. In fact, no one in Bush's administration had any control over such things. Control was exercised at the CentCom level until Rumsfeld forced it farther down the chain after Franks took too long to make a decision on shooting Taliban head Mullah Omar.
On the other hand, Clinton and several others in his administration retained direct control in that nothing could be done without their approval of the precise action to be taken at the time. There never was any authorization by president Clinton to kill bin Laden and Scheuer made that perfectly clear.
Berger could say "no" and he did so on at least one occasion. But no one could say "yes" except Clinton. Albright had to have a vote before "yes" could be said and there were probably others like Clarke. That is not an administration committed to killing Bin Laden, just one trying its best to prevent anyone from doing it.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
If Clinton was actually too distracted, he could have delegated the effort to someone knowledgeable like Richard Clarke. That he chose not to do so and retain direct control speaks volumes and does not relieve him of responsibility in any way.
Besides, he certainly is not distracted at present and yet has chosen to lie repeatedly about the matter only to be caught by Scheuer. How stupid can you get?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Lying to a grand jury is a crime and it matters not why or over what. If a president will lie over such a minor issue, imagine what he would do over a big one.
One could make the same argument about Nixon. But Nixon had to leave because his party told him to go. That Clinton's entire Party defended him to a man tells much about the Dems.
I agree that there was no outcry about not getting bin Laden. But again, I don't believe that in any way mitigates his failure to do what he should have done. Then to now lie about it shows most clearly what sort of person he is. He did not have to lie so openly and brazenly on nationwide TV, but then he is Bill Clinton and that is what he has been doing for many years. Hard to break such a habit.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
As for Bush re WMD's, he did not lie to Congress. The intelligence committees heard the same intelligence, repeat the same intelligence used by the White House. The comments of all the Democrats were just as clear as those of Bush as to the existence of WMD. The entire Clinton administration said the same before Bush was in office. In fact, the UN Security Council said the same thing.
The only outrage I have is against those who are trying to rewrite history.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
but Bush and company have not even bothered to claim they were after Bin Laden and the Al Quaida until after 9/11. Nor have they made any attempt to provide any documentation that they were after the terrorists until after 9/11.
They have now spent 5 years blaming it all on Clinton.
Do you suppose it would ba a good ideal to announce to the whole owrld that you are lookind for someone.
Wallace asked a question. Clinton started blaming Bush.
There is not now and will not be any evidence that Bush & Co. deveoted any time or resources to Bin Laden until after 9/11. You know that.
Soo0 how much time will they need to create this "evidence"
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Did you give up when you found out Clinton lied to a grand jury. How about when North Korea admitted to having nukes after Clinton had negotiated that they would never do that? How about when Sandy Berger stuffed his socks and shirt full of highly classified documents in order to steal them? Are you an apologist for Clinton or the Dems?
I am no apologist for Bush. He does things I like and things I dislike. I have actually never liked voting for him, but the Democrat was a far worse alternative both times.
What could I possibly have to give up? Nothing.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Clinton lied to the "grand inquisition" is more like it; But he did lie more importantly.
There he lost my respect. Yet I can't help but wonder why the holy crusade to crush him? Years of wasted money and special prosecutors, ruined lives. Yet, nothing. Since then scandal after scandal from the Republicans are always swepted under the table by right wingers and the piccadillos of Mr. Clinton compared to Casanova's.
Stuffing your socks with your own notes, does not compare with sending little boys nasty instant meesages asking them to strip. Enron was real, Whitewater was not,
Bosnia was a sucess, Iraq is not; North Korea, well it's okay if Bush does nothing about a N Korea that really has WMD's, and invades one that does not, Iraq? I don't forget Clinton blew it on the genocide in Rwanda, at the end I suppose you can't serve two masters.
Respectfully,
Nelson :-
Berger did not steal his own notes. He stole highly, repeat highly classified documents out of a storage vault in order to protect Bill. That is a federal crime. That you would consider it nothing in comparison to instant messages is consistent with Democrat lack of values.
And there were many more scandals from Clinton than from Bush. The Whitewater thing was a real swamp what with Troopergate and the other coverups, but the Reno squashed most of that and prevented any investigations. It was almost a full time job for her to protect both Bill and Hillary (travelgate, documents disappearing, etc). Have you compared Hillary to Laura lately?
Bosnia was a walk in the park. Two weeks of bombing and Serbia gives in. Don't forget, we are still in Bosnia after how many years?
Enron had nothing to do with Bush, but may have been connected to Clinton. The crimes involved occurred before Bush took office.
Bush has never lied about anything, IMHO, but Clinton is such an inveterate liar that he had to do it repeatedly on nationwide TV again, and for what reason? To get mad at Chris Wallace? But I am sure that was OK with all his loyalists.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
I'm no author like you but I must agree with this article! Clinton's "failure to pull the trigger" was so inept it has cost many lives. It makes me think about Bush senior leaving Saddam in power when Schwartzcoff asked if they should go after him. Boy that was a Clintonesque scew up huh? Or would that be Bushesque since Bush was first? I don't know, but your the author...
I have always wondered about Bush senior's decision. He was able to garner support from arab states to kick Saddam's forces out of Kuwait, but I doubt that they agreed to have him kick Saddam out of Iraq. We were heavily dependent on Saudi support during that war, something which was not true for Bush junior's Iraq war.
As a career military officer I would have rather taken on Saddam in the Persian Gulf War, but then I know nothing about all the agreements and such with other countries and allies.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"