Former President Bill Clinton will be seen on Sunday in an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News. Some snippets of the interview have been aired as a promo for the show and in them Clinton contradicts earlier assertions and he demonstrates anger at the attack on his legacy. This is obviously the Bill Clinton "Rewriting History and Damage Control Tour" in response to ABC's movie The Path to 9/11. With all the protesting taking place one would have to wonder why so much attention is being paid to this if it is not true. I seem to remember then President Clinton being as angry and adamant about not having sex with that woman. Turns out he was covering up a lie at that time.
In one of the clips for the interview Clinton asserts that he tried and he came the closest to getting bin Laden which, he states, is more than anyone has done since. I have to agree that, in part, he is right. Clinton did come closer than anyone to getting bin Laden because Sudan offered him to the administration. Sandy Berger said that the offer was never made (maybe it was on those papers he stole from the National Archives) and Media Matters has taken Sean Hannity to task for repeating these allegations. The truth is, however, that several administration officials reported they did not take Sudan up on the offer because they did not believe it to be a serious one. As Richard Miniter, the author of Losing bin Laden stated, even an offer that is not serious, is an offer. Clinton himself admitted that he was offered bin Laden in a speech when he says they did not take him because they did not think they had anything to hold him on.
They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
Unfortunately, the words here do match the words in the 9/11 Report. In that report it is said that the Clinton officials believed that killing an individual that was an imminent threat to the US would be viewed as self defense, not an assassination:
Senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration agreed that, under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense, not an assassination. As former National Security Adviser Berger explained, if we wanted to kill Bin Ladin with cruise missiles, why would we not want to kill him with covert action? Clarke’s recollection is the same.
If bin Laden was an imminent threat worthy of killing, why could we not hold him? He must have done something to be an imminent threat. Bin Laden was also picked up on video by a predator drone. The drone was armed and could have taken him out and yet the order to kill him was not given despite the assertions in the 9/11 Report cited above. This video shows that the administration was seeking bin Laden but the fact that he is alive shows they did not do anything once they found him. This was one of the questions the 9/11 Commission had to tackle, and that is, if we found him why did we not get him? Clinton was closer then, than anyone has been and still he did not pull the trigger. Bill Clinton might have come closer to having the chance of getting bin Laden than anyone else since but he did not take anywhere near the actions that those who followed him have taken to get the top terrorist.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - tom g
I suggest you look at the PBS frontline piece about Bin Laden, the one they did before 911 occurred. I am so amazed how boondoggled people can be by this administration and just why do you suppose the Bush Administration fought tooth in nail to prevent a 911 commission?
The outlandish incompetence of this administration is clear, However I do agree that Clinton was distracted by scandal after scandal, but that is all the republicans seem to care about, dragging the country into the mud to get power and once they have it they can't govern. History my friend will remember this period of politic trumping the needs of the nation.
2 - Peach
More excuses for Bush's failure to do ANYTHING in his eight months in office BEFORE al Qaeda attacked; since then, he has groveled at the feet of the Saudi financiers. Had Bush continued the monitoring the Clinton administration had in place, there might not have been a 9/11. Bush has had FIVE YERAS since, and still nothing but American lives lost in his PERSONAL vendetta.
3 - junyo
The clearest evidence of Bush's incompetence is the fact that he assumed that the Clinton administration was capable of any kind of competent security policy, or that they'd be held accountable for the lack thereof. With a consistent record of almost a decade of ignoring threats, foreign deployments who's success ranged from the ineffectual to the disasterous, sucking up to terrorists like Arafat, and taking a ringside seat to genocide, why would anyone assume that Clinton had left the national security house in order?
4 - Big Dog
I recall that the Bush administration was opposed to members of the Clinton administration sitting on the Commission. It was supposed to be a neutral Commission. I also recall that they siad it had been studied in other venues.
I do not believe the assertion that Bush did nothing . According to Clarke, he continued the policies of the previous administration and was working to get the bad guys. As I stated, the Bush administration is not blameless but it is unreasonable to expect him to have accomplished in eight months what Clinton did not in Eight years, especially given Clinton's admission that he came the closest. He should have pulled the trigger.
5 - JP
"With all the protesting taking place one would have to wonder why so much attention is being paid to this if it is not true."
BULL-CAKA. The reason for the protest is that when presented as a documentary, it is likely that the "Path" could be taken as accurate--or at least ingested on a subconscious level.
It's the same reason people get up in arms when Bush makes a comment off-handedly implying links between Saddam and 9/11--he claims that he's never stated there was a link, yet 35% of the U.S. population believes there was. As you said accurately, "Say it enough and people will begin to believe it."
The truth, sadly, is somewhere in the middle. Bush did squelch FBI investigations into the Bin Ladens, that's been documented. Clinton had to pull back on an attack in 1999 because Bin Laden was camping with royals of the UAE. In both cases, the opposition uses these arguments to assert that the opponent did nothing, when the fact is that placing "blame" on either to the exclusion of the other is dubious at best, partisan at worst.
Clinton could have done more. Same with Bush. Let's move forward.
6 - Ryan Nagy
Reaching back 8 years to attack Clinton - in a election year - is a a cheap political ploy intended to distract people from the failures of the Bush administration. I am sorry that you are cheapening yourself, and our country by wading around in this cesspool. You make some good points at times, big dog, but this post is certainly not one of them.
7 - Big Dog
I will remind you Ryan, the Clinton folks are making the big deal. I merely point out that Clinton is telling lies while defending his legacy. I agree with JP, and I stated in the post, there is enough blame to go around.
I also agree it is time to move on but as long as Clinton and his peeps try to rewrite history, I, and others, will be here to point it out.
8 - Jules Siegel
You've sliced your reasoning as thin as you can and it still adds up to less than zero. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. He was warned repeatedly about Bin Laden and warned about an imminent attack, but he did absolutely nothing. He never even had a security meeting on the issue.
I remember very well how the Republicans ridiculed Clinton for his "obsession" with Bin Ladin, for "wagging the dog." Now they want to claim that he wasn't doing anything because he was distracted by Monica Lewinsky (or is it that he was distracted by Starr's Star Chamber persecution?). First he's doing too much. Now he didn't do enough? How childish can you get?
Bush failed to look for Bin Laden before 9/11. Then he failed to look for him after 9/11. He wasn't interested. Remember that statement?
You're playing political propaganda games. George W. Bush is an utter failure. He has accomplished exactly nothing when it comes to terrorism. Actually, he's done worse. He has encouraged terrorism by invading Iraq and making a complete mess of it.
Apply the same standards to Bush that you do to Clinton. Otherwise, you should clearly label your blog a donation to the Republican Party.
9 - bob k
i much prefer the "den of thieves" as you so nicely call our ex-president to the "den of thugs" in this current incompetent, corrupt and anti-US constitution cabal. i still fail to understand this lame, twisted, flabby thinking supporting the republicans and bush. isn't it enough they trashed our economy, created a nest to train terrorists throughout the world and attack our constitution in an attempt to gain power? no, in order to distract us from the real issues of the horrors of this administration now you must go back 8 years to search for a democratic villain.
i never cared about clinton either way until bush. i then realized dramatically the difference between an intelligent, articulate and sincerely concerned president and the ignorant, disturbing and downright idiotic president we have been saddled with over the last 5 (seems like 50) years. if the right really was so morally superior as they claimed when they practically destroyed the country going after clinton they would have dragged bush out before some open committees - under oath - and without chaney, to truly answer the hard questions about the corruption he has headed.
10 - Big Dog
It is nice to see you read from the Dems talking points memo. The economy is stronger than it was at any time during the Clinton administration.
As for the Constitution, nearly every action has been in accordance with the Constitution and US code. The SCOTUS knocked down the detainees and that is all. All of the surveillance is allowed under our law but the left is too ignorant or obsessed to see that.
Clinton became obsessed with bin Laden after his latest scandal. He found him or had him offerred many times but DID NOT GET HIM.
I find it strange that anyone would have the audacity to say that my piece was a Republican donation. I am the one who said there is blame on both administrations (as the Path also pointed out). You are the ones trying to absolve Bubba of all blame when I clearly point out the lies and inconsitencies in his stories.
I will also say that I believe LTC Buzz Patterson before I believe any of the folks that have protested. He was not caught lying, or stealing documents from the National Archives.
11 - zendadi
Firstly, the U.S. has peaked as a superpower. We have overextended our military resources and are going into deeper consumer and federal debt. Our singular attitude of "we are the best" is our Achilles heel. Our in-fighting reflects a divided society in which 50/50 is the common split, regardless of the issue.
All this board reflects is more polarization, i.e. more of the same.
Soak it up America because as history will tell, you are following the path of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Visigoths, the Roman Catholic Church, the Spanish Empire, the English and French Empires, Moors, and any other oligarchy, monarchy, or "democracy."
With this current path, our hubris will be our downfall: that is inevitable.
BTW, maybe viewing problems from different perspectives might help, y'know "put the shoe on the other foot," maybe an applicable cliche. Or maybe that nice kindergarten rule of "sharing" and "knowing your limits."
The polarizers are forcing the rest of society to devolve, and part of me hopes that evolution will simply take you out because if it doesn't, you will take us all with you.
/zendadi
12 - serket
Former President Clinton was also on "Meet the Press" today.
At least I tried. That's the difference between me and some, including all the right wingers. They ridicule me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. SO I tried and failed
I am willing to give him some slack as nobody in the government knew about the 9-11 plot or it could have been prevented. However, it is really annoying when he calls conservatives "right-wingers."
The drone was armed and could have taken him out and yet the order to kill him was not given despite the assertions in the 9/11 Report cited above.
I had thought the drone wasn't armed. A CNN article says the right thing, assuming it is the same drone:
The video, taken from an unarmed and unmanned surveillance aircraft over Tarnak Farm in Afghanistan in the fall of 2000, shows a tall man dressed in a white robe.
13 - serket
A CNN article says the right thing, assuming it is the same drone:
This sentence should have been: A CNN article says the same thing, assuming it is the right drone:
14 - amy
And some of you people believe Bush needs psychiatric help? That man is totally paranoid!
15 - Sally Demar
The Republican cartel, obsessed with the opportunity to blast Clinton out of the water via Monica, had little time for terrorism or anything else. Could Bill Clinton, as president, get the cooperation of congress, the senate, or anyone other than a minor office functionary? You know the answer. The Republicans rubbed themselves with glee when the "little blue dress" was discovered. C'mon guys, get real.
16 - IgnatiusReilly
"he demonstrates anger at the attack on his legacy."
I saw the piece this morning and that's not what he demonstrated anger about. Considering you couldn't get passed the second sentence without misinformation, I stopped reading.
17 - Jules Siegel
What you call "lies and inconsistencies" are base on right wing interpretations of Clinton's statements. He never said that Somali offered Bin Laden up. He said that they gave signs of wanting to talk.
Do you have any item you've posted where you've analyzed Bush's lies and inconsistencies? If this is such an even-handed piece, where are the specific criticisms of Bush and his policies?
18 - Anti-Jules
Jules, he did say it. Speech on Long Island. He's either lying now, or was lying then.
19 - JustOneMan
See in the Chris Wallace interview clearlr shows Clinton in his "I did not have sex with that women" mode. Ironically, he tries to accuse Wallace of ambushing him...wasnt Clinton the one who attacked the "left wing" ABC (did anyone not laugh when he said that.
Just like the President - Hillary stated when Billy was getting BJ's from a fat chick its all part of a "right wing" conspiracy....those noecons (code word for a Jew in the Whitehouse) have been out to get him for years....
He is doing a great job in clarifying his legacy with interviews like this...needless to say he is doing a great job assuring future generations will know what a scum bag this guy really is...
Bill keep up the good work!
20 - Jet in Columbus
Id rather have a mna in the White House that knows how to use his dick than one that doesn't seem to have one.
I'd rather not be internationally embarrassed by a man who stutters, stammers, and is wearing a cocky grin while being unable to complete a sentence with a dozen Uhs... uhhhs... and um... that is, IF he completes it at all,,through press conferences and interviews either.
...but that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus
21 - Conservative
Notice that Clinton says (if I am correct here, pretty sure) that three things about the Path to 9-11 are contradicted by the 9-11 Report. He did NOT say that they weren't true.
This is a guy that doesn't have any control over what he says anymore, probably never did. He just talks, lies, whatever. He's weak. Imagine what it must have been like for people in our CIA or military or FBI during that administration; 10 of our people get killed, and you don't know if the Clinton administration will have the guts to do something about it.
There are always 'regional factors' involved, always some legal reason, always an excuse. Clinton says he 'tried', and failed, as if he has the right to be given credit for some great failed effort. No way. Forget about bin Laden in Somalia, take a look at how Clinton abandoned those Rangers. That's the way he handles every crisis, he is more worried about politics than he is about actually winning whatever conflict we are in.
That's why, whatever you can say about immigration or spending, I'm glad George Bush is in office. Clinton was weak, and it cost lives. This why he hates that Path to 9-11.
22 - JustOneMan
Gee...so you are saying the only thing that matters to you is that we have a good public speaker in the white house...the Libs are really lowering the bar in this election cycle....
Clinton is washed up...the Dems are better off keeping him out of the public eye....middle of the roaders dont belive him the more he talks the better the Right looks....keep up the good work Bill...
23 - JustOneMan
Gee...so you are saying the only thing that matters to you is that we have a good public speaker in the white house...the Libs are really lowering the bar in this election cycle....
Clinton is washed up...the Dems are better off keeping him out of the public eye....middle of the roaders dont belive him the more he talks the better the Right looks....keep up the good work Bill...
....But that is only my opinion!
Justoneman
24 - Jet in Columbus
Obviously you didn't see the interview he did on NBC at 1PM today, not a single um, uh or stutter.
and the man spoke intelligently without a teleprompter for 20 minutes...
which is more than you'll ever see out of Bush
I'm won't convince you
you won't ocnvince me
fuck it
...but of course that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus
25 - Mohjho
Why did the Bush administration fail to act after the Cole attack?
answer: incompetence
Actually Clinton merely pointed out that they at least tried but failed to kill bin Laden. Bush failed to see the threat and we paid for his ignorance.
Keep working on those talking points Big Dog