9/11 Commissioner: Clinton screwed up

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    ** What do you have to say now, democratic whiners? Looks like the 9/11 commission is now saying what I've said for quite some time now. **

    9/11 Commissioner former Navy Secretary John Lehman said Monday that President Bill Clinton's decision not to accept Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996 was probably the biggest blunder in the war on terrorism.

    Reacting to NewsMax.com's audiotape of Mr. Clinton admitting he turned down the Sudanese, Secretary Lehman told radio host Sean Hannity, "[Clinton's comments offer] a very good insight into the overall policy during the Clinton administration, which was essentially dominated by lawyers [who treated bin Laden] as a law enforcement, not a foreign policy or a prevention issue."

    Asked if it was "wrong to conclude that the biggest mistake we made was not taking Osama when we had an opportunity," Lehman told Hannity, "Yes, that's certainly true."

    "There were many ways in which [bin Laden] could have been apprehended," he added.

    Reacting to comments from 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, who said yesterday that if the U.S. had nabbed bin Laden while he was in Sudan, "the whole story might have been different," Secretary Lehman told Hannity, "I do agree with that."

    The former Reagan administration official said, however, that it was a mistake to focus entirely on the 9/11 mastermind, because al-Qaida is "raising a whole generation of young Arab children and youth to hate America."

    "Getting Osama probably would have disrupted the planning [for 9/11]," Lehman said, "but it wasn't just Osama."

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/5/181623.shtml
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I'd have to agree. Here's a question though, purely hypothetical.

    What kind of shit would clinton have gotten from the republican side for dealing with a terrorist supporting nation? ;)
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I can only speak for myself. I would have supported him completely. How did the republicans act in '98 when Clinton ordered the bombing campaign in Iraq? Removing terrorists from the gene pool is always a good thing, whether lead by democrats or republicans.
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I remember hearing 'wag the dog' alot. I'm sure that with the vitriolic hatred that some of the top republicans held for clinton that something would have come up.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    But the question is, what DID come up when he invaded Iraq. Were there as many cheapshots at Clinton, or was there a bit of support?
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Here's an article from 1998 regarding republican support for Clinton regarding the use of force against Iraq. I'm sure there were some dopes that spoke out against him at the time, but most supported his decision. A few questioned the timing but that was more critical of his affair with Lewinsky than it was speaking out against the decision to bomb targets in Iraq. How many of these reports have we read about the democrats supporting Bush?

    New Gingrich said ""In matters of international relations, the United States is one nation."

    "I'm worried that Saddam Hussein, not understanding America, might be confused by the difference between headlines and the national will,"

    "We as a people are unified in our opposition to terrorism, and we are unified in our opposition to Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction,"

    Gingrich told reporters following the meeting with Berger and Lott that there should be no mistake about the "American nation's commitment" to preventing Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Republicans are "prepared to be supportive" of measures to prevent that from happening, he said.

    Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) offered his support to the White House January 26 "if the President does it right.

    "If there are sustained and serious air operations," McCain said, "then I would be one of the first to defend his actions. The attacks would exact a price for Saddam's behavior, to the point where he and his supporters will figure that it is not in their interest to continue defying" the sanctions.

    http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/congress/archive/1998/january/uc1128.htm
     
  7. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    While I don't doubt that there were supporters, there were also detractors, many of whom made their retorts after the effect.

    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/17/981217-bill-con.htm

    INTRO: MANY CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS ARE QUESTIONING PRESIDENT
    CLINTON'S CREDIBILITY IN THE WAKE OF THE U-S MILITARY ATTACKS ON
    IRAQ. THE AIRSTRIKES BEGAN ON THE EVE OF THE SCHEDULED
    IMPEACHMENT VOTE IN THE U-S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ANGERING
    SOME OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WHO ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF USING THE
    ATTACK ON IRAQ TO DELAY THE IMPEACHMENT VOTE. AS NATIONAL
    CORRESPONDENT JIM MALONE REPORTS, THE LEVEL OF TRUST BETWEEN THE
    PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS APPEARS TO BE AT AN
    ALL-TIME LOW.

    TEXT: IN THE WAKE OF THE ATTACK ON IRAQ, THE CREDIBILITY GAP
    BETWEEN CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS AND PRESIDENT CLINTON SEEMS TO
    BE WIDENING. DANA ROHRABACHER IS A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM
    CALIFORNIA.

    /// ROHRABACHER ACT. ///

    WE DO NOT EVEN TRUST HIM WHEN HE ORDERS THE AMERICAN
    MILITARY INTO ACTION. WE BELIEVE HE IS A SHAMELESS LIAR
    AND IT IS TIME FOR HIM TO STEP DOWN.

    /// END ACT. ///

    SOME REPUBLICANS NOW SEE POLITICAL MOTIVES IN EVERYTHING THE
    PRESIDENT DOES, AND THAT COULD POISON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WHITE
    HOUSE AND CONGRESS FOR THE REST OF MR. CLINTON'S TERM, ASSUMING
    HE SURVIVES AN EXPECTED IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE.

    THIS IS UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA POLITICAL SCIENTIST LARRY SABATO.

    /// SABATO ACT. ///

    WE ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
    PRESIDENT'S MISSTATEMENTS AND UNTRUTHS CONNECTED TO THE
    SCANDALS. NOW, A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE AMERICAN
    PEOPLE, AT LEAST A THIRD (ACCORDING TO MOST POLLS), DO
    NOT BELIEVE HIM AND ARE NOT INCLINED TO BELIEVE HIM ON
    ANYTHING. AND THAT PERCENTAGE IS ACTUALLY HIGHER AMONG
    THE GOVERNING CLASS, THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN OFFICE OR
    CLOSE TO POWER.

    /// END ACT. ///

    THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY LEADER IN THE U-S SENATE, TRENT LOTT
    (MISSISSIPPI) EVEN TOOK THE UNUSUAL STEP OF WITHHOLDING HIS
    SUPPORT FOR THE IRAQ BOMBINGS, SAYING THE TIMING OF THE ATTACK
    WAS SUSPECT.

    AT THE WHITE HOUSE, PRESIDENT CLINTON SOUGHT TO REASSURE THE
    PUBLIC THE ATTACK AGAINST BAGHDAD WAS NOT PART OF A POLITICAL
    STRATEGY AIMED AT SIDETRACKING THE IMPEACHMENT EFFORT IN
    CONGRESS.

    /// CLINTON ACT. ///

    THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. THAT WHAT I DID WAS THE RIGHT
    THING FOR THE COUNTRY. I DO NOT THINK THAT ANY SERIOUS
    PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THAT ANY PRESIDENT WOULD DO SUCH A
    THING.

    /// END ACT. ///

    THIS GROWING WILLINGNESS BY REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS TO QUESTION
    THE MOTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ABROAD IS THE LATEST
    EXAMPLE OF THE DETERIORATING BIPARTISANSHIP IN OFFICIAL
    WASHINGTON.

    /// OPT /// IT IS A TREND WHICH BEGAN DURING THE DIVISIVE
    DEBATES OVER THE VIETNAM WAR IN THE 1960'S AND BLOSSOMED DURING
    THE WATERGATE SCANDAL IN THE 1970'S AND THE IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL
    OF THE 1980'S.

    POLITICAL ANALYST STUART ROTHENBERG SAYS AMERICAN PRESIDENTS CAN
    NO LONGER AUTOMATICALLY COUNT ON BIPARTISAN SUPPORT WHEN DEALING
    WITH A CRISIS OVERSEAS.

    /// ROTHENBERG ACT. ///

    IT USED TO BE SAID THAT POLITICS STOPPED AT THE WATER'S
    EDGE, AND THAT WAS A REFERENCE TO WHEN FOREIGN POLICY
    WAS INVOLVED THERE WERE NO REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATS OR
    LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES, BUT JUST AMERICANS. AND I
    THINK THAT SINCE VIETNAM (WAR) WE HAVE SEEN EROSION OF
    THAT BIPARTISANSHIP AND MOST RECENTLY, SENATOR (TRENT)
    LOTT'S CRITICAL COMMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S DECISIONS, I
    THINK, EMPHASIZE THAT EROSION AND POINT OUT THAT
    PARTISAN POLITICS NO LONGER STOPS AT THE WATER'S EDGE
    AND NOW INVOLVES IMPORTANT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES AS
    WELL.
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    The difference being, they were questioning his timing during the Lewinsky fiasco. You don't see them condemning his actions against Iraq. You don't see them claiming that he shouldn't have taken action without sufficient proof. You don't see them claiming it was about oil. You don't see them claiming he lied and mislead america to further his political agenda.
     
  9. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I gotcha :cof:
     
  10. zarquiekia
    Offline

    zarquiekia Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    That is a lie! Clinton made a grave error. The shortterm of his error is Osama will be captured or killed.

    The biggest blunder is going to war with Iraq! That blunder will have longevity and will have the most powerful deadly consequences to the United States Of America. Open your eyes! Iraqis are showing you they are not going to lie down and give their country to a false dream of democracy. Democracy is not what Bush and his evil regime have in mind for Iraq!

    You want to know my source! Read your bible!
     

Share This Page