For Mike McKelvy, re: Bush tougher on terrorism than Clinton

[Glenn Zelniker]

As promised, I'll try to provide some evidence that the
Clinton administration had comprehensive plans, monies, and
infrastructure to combat terrorism in place that was
subsequently gutted by Bush admin.

Key points: Rumsfeld was hell-bent on spending money and
attention on missile defense. Ashcroft was interested in
allocating resources to combatting drugs and pornography.
Bush admin was distrustful of anything pertaining to Clinton
admin.

In brief, this is an administration that was far more
interested in playing politics than protecting the USA from
terrorism.

-------------------------------------

http://tinyurl.com/3fddw

At the key briefing, Mr Clarke presented proposals to "roll
back" al-Qaida which closely resemble the measures taken
after September 11. Its financial network would be broken up
and its assets frozen. Vulnerable countries like Uzbekistan,
Yemen and the Philippines would be given aid to help them
stamp out terrorist cells.

Crucially, the US would go after Bin Laden in his Afghan
lair. Plans would be drawn up for combined air and special
forces operations, while support would be channelled to the
Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban and its
al-Qaida allies.

Mr Clarke, who stayed on in his job as White House
counter-terrorism tsar, repeated his briefing for vice
president Dick Cheney in February. However, the proposals
got lost in the clumsy transition process, turf wars between
departments and the separate agendas of senior members of
the Bush administration.

It was, the Time article argues, "a systematic collapse in
the ability of Washington's national security apparatus to
handle the terrorist threat".

-------------------------------------------


http://tinyurl.com/yvnh4

...under Attorney General John Ashcroft, the department was
being prodded back into its old law-and-order mind-set:
violent crime, drugs, child porn. Counterterrorism, which
had become a priority of the Clintonites (not that they did
a better job of nailing bin Laden), seemed to be getting
less attention. When FBI officials sought to add hundreds
more counterintelligence agents, they got shot down even as
Ashcroft began, quietly, to take a privately chartered jet
for his own security reasons.

The attorney general was hardly alone in seeming to
de-emphasize terror in the young Bush administration. Over
at the Pentagon, new Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
elected not to relaunch a Predator drone that had been
tracking bin Laden, among other actions. In self- absorbed
Washington, the Phoenix memo, which never resulted in
arrests, landed in two units at FBI headquarters but didn’t
make it to senior levels. Nor did the memo get transmitted
to the CIA, which has long had a difficult relationship with
the FBI—and whose director, George Tenet, one of the few
Clinton holdovers, was issuing so many warnings that bin
Laden was “the most immediate” threat to Americans he was
hardly heeded any longer.

or later ...

By the end of the Clinton administration, the then
national-security adviser Sandy Berger had become “totally
preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack, a
colleague recalls. True, the Clintonites had failed to act
decisively against Al Qaeda, but by the end they were
certain of the danger it posed. When, in January 2001,
Berger gave Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin
Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: “You
will be spending more time on this issue than on any other.”
Rice was alarmed by what she heard, and asked for a strategy
review. But the effort was marginalized and scarcely
mentioned in ensuing months as the administration committed
itself to other priorities, like national missile defense
(NMD) and Iraq.

Of course, there were always other signs of this
difference in emphasis and failed interpretation. Richard
Clarke -- Clinton's point-man at NSC for counter-terrorism
-- was the only person kept on by Bush at NSC. George Tenet
-- the only principal hold-over from Clinton's watch -- was
apparently the only one who had a clear view of how critical
an issue al Qaida was. Then there was the veto threat from
the President in September when Senate Democrats tried to
trim $1.3 billion in Missile Defense funding and shift $600
million of it to counter-terrorism (In fairness, that was
basically a fight over NMD. But that in itself makes the
point about priorities.)

------------------------------------------


http://tinyurl.com/26uas

In the last months of the Clinton administration, as early
as November 2000, the security council had determined that
al-Qaida was responsible for the Oct. 12 bombing of the
destroyer USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors. Bush first
linked al-Qaida to the Cole bombing publicly in his speech
to Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"This was a failure in the Bush administration to
recognize the nature of terrorism and its impact on the
United States," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief
of counterterrorism operations and analysis. "Everybody felt
that it was a chronic phenomenon, it would continue and the
best we could hope was to contain it."
One official argued that the lack of regular meetings
devoted to terrorism among Bush's upper-echelon advisers did
not mean inadequate attention was paid to the subject. More
work was done by lower-level council staffers, who regularly
briefed the principals individually, even if the principals
didn't meet frequently on the issue, this official said.
Crowley, who worked under Clinton, argued that
senior-level meetings are necessary for important work to be
done.
"You really get the pull of the best information that
each agency has when you bring together the principals with
the purpose of making decisions and teeing up
recommendations to the president," Crowley said. "It's the
only way that you overcome those bureaucratic barriers."
Rice has described the work of the council's
Counterterrorism Security Group, directed by Special
Assistant Richard Clarke, which met several times each week
during July and August. By Aug. 6, Bush received a briefing
report with the heading, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the
United States." The report discussed the possibility of
traditional airline hijackings.
"To say that the principals never talked about it
before Sept. 4 is wrong," another official said. "There were
lots of conversations on the margins at meetings or informal
meetings. But the first formal meeting was to review the
draft policy."


--------------------------------------------

http://tinyurl.com/yurrn


One of the real myths is that Bush is a great commander in
chief who has built up our armed forces (even as he's
slashed veterans' benefits). Not so. Bush inherited a great
military from Clinton. That's not my opinion. It's Dick
Cheney's, who said in an August 2000 forum at the Southern
Center for International Studies right here in Atlanta: "A
commander in chief leads the military built by those who
came before him. There is little that he or his defense
secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy.
It is all the work of previous administrations." (Thanks to
Al Franken for digging up that quote for his book, Lies and
the Lying Liars who Tell Them.)

The truth about Clinton and bin Laden? Even before the
October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, Clinton's top
anti-terrorism people were assembling a plan to get bin
Laden. They took the threat very seriously. And, let's not
forget -- Clinton launched the cruise missiles at bin
Laden's Afghanistan redoubt, almost killing the terrorist
leader. That's a lot closer to writing bin Laden's epitaph
than anything Bush has done.

Efforts were redoubled after the Cole bombing, and
Clinton's anti-terrorism boss, Richard Clarke, authored a
plan for military ops to take out bin Laden and smash
al-Qaeda. But, as noted recently in one of the few daily
newspapers that still has guts, the Minneapolis
Star-Tribune, "Because Clinton was to leave office in a few
weeks, he decided against handing Bush a war in progress as
he worked to put a new administration together."

What happened is that Clarke turned over the plan to
Condoleezza Rice -- and the Bushies did almost nothing about
it or about the tons of intelligence that made it very clear
bin Laden was about to attack.

"The first high-level discussion took place on Sept. 4,
2001, just a week before the attacks," the Star-Trib
commented. "The actions taken by the Bush administration
following Sept. 11 closely parallel actions recommended in
Clarke's 9-month-old plan. Who ignored the threat?"

George Bush did.

-----------------------------------------------

More tomorrow.

GZ

[Michael McKelvy]

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
...
> As promised, I'll try to provide some evidence that the
> Clinton administration had comprehensive plans, monies, and
> infrastructure to combat terrorism in place that was
> subsequently gutted by Bush admin.
>
> Key points: Rumsfeld was hell-bent on spending money and
> attention on missile defense. Ashcroft was interested in
> allocating resources to combatting drugs and pornography.
> Bush admin was distrustful of anything pertaining to Clinton
> admin.
>
> In brief, this is an administration that was far more
> interested in playing politics than protecting the USA from
> terrorism.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3fddw
>
> At the key briefing, Mr Clarke presented proposals to "roll
> back" al-Qaida which closely resemble the measures taken
> after September 11. Its financial network would be broken up
> and its assets frozen. Vulnerable countries like Uzbekistan,
> Yemen and the Philippines would be given aid to help them
> stamp out terrorist cells.
>
> Crucially, the US would go after Bin Laden in his Afghan
> lair. Plans would be drawn up for combined air and special
> forces operations, while support would be channelled to the
> Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban and its
> al-Qaida allies.
>
> Mr Clarke, who stayed on in his job as White House
> counter-terrorism tsar, repeated his briefing for vice
> president Dick Cheney in February. However, the proposals
> got lost in the clumsy transition process, turf wars between
> departments and the separate agendas of senior members of
> the Bush administration.
>
> It was, the Time article argues, "a systematic collapse in
> the ability of Washington's national security apparatus to
> handle the terrorist threat".
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yvnh4
>
> ..under Attorney General John Ashcroft, the department was
> being prodded back into its old law-and-order mind-set:
> violent crime, drugs, child porn. Counterterrorism, which
> had become a priority of the Clintonites (not that they did
> a better job of nailing bin Laden), seemed to be getting
> less attention. When FBI officials sought to add hundreds
> more counterintelligence agents, they got shot down even as
> Ashcroft began, quietly, to take a privately chartered jet
> for his own security reasons.
>
> The attorney general was hardly alone in seeming to
> de-emphasize terror in the young Bush administration. Over
> at the Pentagon, new Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
> elected not to relaunch a Predator drone that had been
> tracking bin Laden, among other actions. In self- absorbed
> Washington, the Phoenix memo, which never resulted in
> arrests, landed in two units at FBI headquarters but didn’t
> make it to senior levels. Nor did the memo get transmitted
> to the CIA, which has long had a difficult relationship with
> the FBI—and whose director, George Tenet, one of the few
> Clinton holdovers, was issuing so many warnings that bin
> Laden was “the most immediate” threat to Americans he was
> hardly heeded any longer.
>
> or later ...
>
> By the end of the Clinton administration, the then
> national-security adviser Sandy Berger had become “totally
> preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack, a
> colleague recalls. True, the Clintonites had failed to act
> decisively against Al Qaeda, but by the end they were
> certain of the danger it posed. When, in January 2001,
> Berger gave Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin
> Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: “You
> will be spending more time on this issue than on any other.”
> Rice was alarmed by what she heard, and asked for a strategy
> review. But the effort was marginalized and scarcely
> mentioned in ensuing months as the administration committed
> itself to other priorities, like national missile defense
> (NMD) and Iraq.
>
> Of course, there were always other signs of this
> difference in emphasis and failed interpretation. Richard
> Clarke -- Clinton's point-man at NSC for counter-terrorism
> -- was the only person kept on by Bush at NSC. George Tenet
> -- the only principal hold-over from Clinton's watch -- was
> apparently the only one who had a clear view of how critical
> an issue al Qaida was. Then there was the veto threat from
> the President in September when Senate Democrats tried to
> trim $1.3 billion in Missile Defense funding and shift $600
> million of it to counter-terrorism (In fairness, that was
> basically a fight over NMD. But that in itself makes the
> point about priorities.)
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26uas
>
> In the last months of the Clinton administration, as early
> as November 2000, the security council had determined that
> al-Qaida was responsible for the Oct. 12 bombing of the
> destroyer USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors. Bush first
> linked al-Qaida to the Cole bombing publicly in his speech
> to Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks.
> "This was a failure in the Bush administration to
> recognize the nature of terrorism and its impact on the
> United States," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief
> of counterterrorism operations and analysis. "Everybody felt
> that it was a chronic phenomenon, it would continue and the
> best we could hope was to contain it."
> One official argued that the lack of regular meetings
> devoted to terrorism among Bush's upper-echelon advisers did
> not mean inadequate attention was paid to the subject. More
> work was done by lower-level council staffers, who regularly
> briefed the principals individually, even if the principals
> didn't meet frequently on the issue, this official said.
> Crowley, who worked under Clinton, argued that
> senior-level meetings are necessary for important work to be
> done.
> "You really get the pull of the best information that
> each agency has when you bring together the principals with
> the purpose of making decisions and teeing up
> recommendations to the president," Crowley said. "It's the
> only way that you overcome those bureaucratic barriers."
> Rice has described the work of the council's
> Counterterrorism Security Group, directed by Special
> Assistant Richard Clarke, which met several times each week
> during July and August. By Aug. 6, Bush received a briefing
> report with the heading, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the
> United States." The report discussed the possibility of
> traditional airline hijackings.
> "To say that the principals never talked about it
> before Sept. 4 is wrong," another official said. "There were
> lots of conversations on the margins at meetings or informal
> meetings. But the first formal meeting was to review the
> draft policy."
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yurrn
>
>
> One of the real myths is that Bush is a great commander in
> chief who has built up our armed forces (even as he's
> slashed veterans' benefits). Not so. Bush inherited a great
> military from Clinton. That's not my opinion. It's Dick
> Cheney's, who said in an August 2000 forum at the Southern
> Center for International Studies right here in Atlanta: "A
> commander in chief leads the military built by those who
> came before him. There is little that he or his defense
> secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy.
> It is all the work of previous administrations." (Thanks to
> Al Franken for digging up that quote for his book, Lies and
> the Lying Liars who Tell Them.)
>
> The truth about Clinton and bin Laden? Even before the
> October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, Clinton's top
> anti-terrorism people were assembling a plan to get bin
> Laden. They took the threat very seriously. And, let's not
> forget -- Clinton launched the cruise missiles at bin
> Laden's Afghanistan redoubt, almost killing the terrorist
> leader. That's a lot closer to writing bin Laden's epitaph
> than anything Bush has done.
>
> Efforts were redoubled after the Cole bombing, and
> Clinton's anti-terrorism boss, Richard Clarke, authored a
> plan for military ops to take out bin Laden and smash
> al-Qaeda. But, as noted recently in one of the few daily
> newspapers that still has guts, the Minneapolis
> Star-Tribune, "Because Clinton was to leave office in a few
> weeks, he decided against handing Bush a war in progress as
> he worked to put a new administration together."
>
> What happened is that Clarke turned over the plan to
> Condoleezza Rice -- and the Bushies did almost nothing about
> it or about the tons of intelligence that made it very clear
> bin Laden was about to attack.
>
> "The first high-level discussion took place on Sept. 4,
> 2001, just a week before the attacks," the Star-Trib
> commented. "The actions taken by the Bush administration
> following Sept. 11 closely parallel actions recommended in
> Clarke's 9-month-old plan. Who ignored the threat?"
>
> George Bush did.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> More tomorrow.
>
> GZ
>
I'm not really interested in after the fact spin.

Dick Morris has gone on record as saying Clinton didn't give a **** about
fighting terroism.

If Clinton was interested why did he turn down Bin Laden when he was offered
up on a silver platter?

Why didn't he take any action when our planes were being shot at over the
no-fly zone?

Trying to put a positive light on corrupt and ineffectual administration is
not going to fly.

As far as history is concerned, I think it will show that it was the Clinton
administration that was responisble for the WTC attacks of 9/11.

Then of course there's the terroist activities of Janet Reno and Waco.

[ScottW]

There is a lot political spin in this. But the facts are clear that the
transition
period between administrations, particularly when the party in charge
changes, is not as smooth as we would all like to think.
This info provides no indication that the Bush transition was any
different than any other.

To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
be a pure political interpretation. I can see as much blame to rest
with the outgoing administration as well.
Further, the one player that seems to have no excuse
is George Tenet. He was present throughout the transition.

ScottW

[Glenn Zelniker]

ScottW wrote:

> There is a lot political spin in this. But the facts are clear that the
> transition
> period between administrations, particularly when the party in charge
> changes, is not as smooth as we would all like to think.
> This info provides no indication that the Bush transition was any
> different than any other.

True indeed, and a reasonable interpretation of the matter
at hand.

> To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
> be a pure political interpretation. I can see as much blame to rest
> with the outgoing administration as well.

And this is a reasonable interpretation if your political
leanings are more akin to those of the incoming
administration. We all filter information through our own
ideological biases and come to our own conclusions. That's
why I see it one way and you the other.

I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
them. To deny that is to deny the obvious. But we're at a
dangerous point in time *right now* and I think it would
behoove partisans to quit pointing at the Clintons and
realize that *this* administration has very strong ties to
the country that spawned most of the "evil-doers." And
furthermore, these family ties and financial entanglements
led to gaping holes in our intelligence gathering and led to
a reluctance to be proactive when necessary. I think history
will bear out that Bush and company were quite deceitful to
the American people with regard to what they knew prior to
9/11 and how they behaved subsequently.

None of this minimizes the tragedy of what happened, but I
think it helps explain how we got to this point and provides
a realistic assessment of what we can expect in the near future.

> Further, the one player that seems to have no excuse
> is George Tenet. He was present throughout the transition.

I also believe history will be kind to Tenet. He's a
convenient scapegoat. My (admittedly biased -- I can't help
it) reading is that he may have run a loose ship but that he
presented the intelligence with plenty of warning about its
viability and recommendations commensurate with its
attendant uncertainty. It looks pretty obvious to me that
Bush and Company were pretty determined to go to war and put
their own spin on the information in order to suit their
agenda.

YMMV

GZ

[Michael McKelvy]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:L7YWb.15797$IF1.6628@fed1read01...
>
>
> There is a lot political spin in this. But the facts are clear that the
> transition
> period between administrations, particularly when the party in charge
> changes, is not as smooth as we would all like to think.
> This info provides no indication that the Bush transition was any
> different than any other.
>

Actually, if you remember back, it was more dificult because of the delay
due to the Democrats trying to steal the election and all the court cases,
etc..



> To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
> be a pure political interpretation.

Of course, but that's what Democrats do. They can absolutely not stand to
lose. Most of the time they can't win fairly.

I can see as much blame to rest
> with the outgoing administration as well.

Well, yeah, they stole the silverware.

> Further, the one player that seems to have no excuse
> is George Tenet. He was present throughout the transition.
>
> ScottW
>
I'm not sure yet who we can blame other than the massive size of the
agencies involved and the interagency rivalry that has been going for
decades between local and Federal agencies and between different Federal
agencies.

The whole thing has been a cluster **** for years.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > There is a lot political spin in this. But the facts are clear that the
> > transition
> > period between administrations, particularly when the party in charge
> > changes, is not as smooth as we would all like to think.
> > This info provides no indication that the Bush transition was any
> > different than any other.
>
> True indeed, and a reasonable interpretation of the matter
> at hand.
>
> > To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
> > be a pure political interpretation. I can see as much blame to rest
> > with the outgoing administration as well.
>
> And this is a reasonable interpretation if your political
> leanings are more akin to those of the incoming
> administration. We all filter information through our own
> ideological biases and come to our own conclusions. That's
> why I see it one way and you the other.
>

Somewhere in there is some objective truth.

> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.

It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about taking
Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.

But we're at a
> dangerous point in time *right now* and I think it would
> behoove partisans to quit pointing at the Clintons and
> realize that *this* administration has very strong ties to
> the country that spawned most of the "evil-doers." And
> furthermore, these family ties and financial entanglements

Now whose biases are showing?

> led to gaping holes in our intelligence gathering and led to
> a reluctance to be proactive when necessary

You of course have absolutely no proof of this.

I think history
> will bear out that Bush and company were quite deceitful to
> the American people with regard to what they knew prior to
> 9/11 and how they behaved subsequently.
>
Zero proof again.

> None of this minimizes the tragedy of what happened, but I
> think it helps explain how we got to this point and provides
> a realistic assessment of what we can expect in the near future.
>
You really should be in politics if you're not. You could work for Daschle
without any training at all.

> > Further, the one player that seems to have no excuse
> > is George Tenet. He was present throughout the transition.
>
> I also believe history will be kind to Tenet. He's a
> convenient scapegoat. My (admittedly biased -- I can't help
> it) reading is that he may have run a loose ship but that he
> presented the intelligence with plenty of warning about its
> viability and recommendations commensurate with its
> attendant uncertainty.

Of course the fact that the Left has been systematic in trying to dismantle
our intelligence gathering capability and our defense for years wouldn't
have anything to do with it.

looks pretty obvious to me that
> Bush and Company were pretty determined to go to war and put
> their own spin on the information in order to suit their
> agenda.
>
> YMMV
>
The truth certainly varies from your interpretation of it.

> GZ
>

[dave weil]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
>> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
>> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
>
>It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about taking
>Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.

When was this?

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
> >
> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
taking
> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
>
> When was this?

I don't recall the year(s) but it was reported by Monsoor Ijaz.

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
> >
> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
taking
> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
>
> When was this?

While Clinton diddled


Andrew Sullivan

Salon, January 6, 2002



While Clinton diddled The record doesn't lie. The former president had
repeated warnings and wake-up calls, but he failed to protect the country
against the growing danger of Islamic terrorism. Part 1 of a debate.
Jan. 9, 2002 | To raise the question of former President Bill Clinton's
record on terrorism in the wake of Sept. 11 is to invite a chorus of
disapproval. For bringing the subject up, you will be accused of
pathological "Clinton hatred," a vendetta, and so on and so forth. Whatever.
Let's just go to the tape, shall we? What follows is a chronology of Bill
Clinton's response to terrorism, as reported and compiled by major news
organizations, in particular the Washington Post, the New York Times, the
Sunday Times and the New Yorker. I cite nothing here that isn't already in
the public record. Any defense of Clinton has to deal with these facts. So
deal with them.

Clinton got his warning about Islamist terrorism very early on. Almost as
soon as he got into office, terrorists struck at the World Trade Center in
New York. Six people were killed and hundreds injured. Although the
investigation found links to Osama bin Laden and a burgeoning network of
Islamist terrorists, no commensurate response from the United States was
unearthed by any of the major newspapers investigating the record. Was the
danger conveyed to the president? "Clinton was aware of the threat and
sometimes he would mention it," Leon Panetta told the New York Times. The
president preferred to focus on the economy. "In retrospect, the wake-up
call should have been the 1993 World Trade Center bombing," Michael Sheehan,
counter-terrorism coordinator at the Clinton State Department, conceded to
the New York Times. Some immigration laws were tightened marginally. But
that was it. Why wasn't the threat taken more seriously? According to George
Stephanopoulos, the White House ignored the implications of the first WTC
attack because "it wasn't a successful bombing." Clinton never even paid a
visit to the site.

If six dead and hundreds more injured were not enough to galvanize the new
commander in chief, neither was the murder of 18 American soldiers in
Somalia shortly afterward. The State Department confirmed that bin Laden had
helped train the terrorists who killed these soldiers and dragged the body
of one through the streets of Mogadishu. Clinton did nothing to retaliate
after the incident, blamed Gen. Colin Powell privately for the mess and,
indeed, according to administration sources, learned from the fracas only
the importance of staying out of dangerous foreign entanglements. For his
part, bin Laden learned that the United States was not serious about
countering the public murder of its own soldiers abroad or civilians at
home.

By the end of Clinton's first term, the government began to stir. The CIA
finally set up a special unit to monitor al-Qaida. In the years since 1993,
the network had gained traction and organization in its African client state
of Sudan. Then the administration got an amazingly lucky break. The Sudanese
government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States, just as it
had handed over Carlos the Jackal to the French in 1994. The Sudanese also
offered to provide the United States with a massive intelligence file on
al-Qaida's operations in Sudan and around the world. Astonishingly, the
Clinton administration turned the offer down. They argued that there was no
solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States. This was despite
the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties
to the first WTC bombing, the murders in Mogadishu and the 1992 bombing of a
hotel in Aden, Yemen. For all this, the administration still viewed al-Qaida
as a matter for domestic civil and criminal law enforcement. Instead of
seizing the terrorist, the administration wanted Saudi Arabia or some other
third party to seize him. The Saudis demurred. "In the end they said, 'Just
ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,'" a Sudanese
negotiator told the Washington Post. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and
they said, 'Let him.'" The administration didn't even use the negotiations
with the Sudanese to disable bin Laden's financial assets in the Sudan. He
was able to transfer them to his new base, where he used them essentially to
buy the Taliban regime.

Within a month, al-Qaida struck again in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American
soldiers with a 5,000-pound bomb. Even senior Clinton officials concede that
allowing bin Laden to go free was a massive mistake. "Had we been able to
roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," a
"U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in
counterterrorism," told the Washington Post last October. "We probably never
would have seen a Sept. 11." Read that sentence again: We probably never
would have seen a Sept. 11. That's from someone working in the Clinton
administration.

There's the bottom line for you Dave and Glenn, the trail leads right to
Bubba Clinton. Again.

Only we all lose because of it.

History will be much kinder to Dubya than it will be to Bubba.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:44:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
>> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
>> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
>> >
>> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
>taking
>> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
>>
>> When was this?
>
>I don't recall the year(s) but it was reported by Monsoor Ijaz.

Specifics please.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:20:55 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
>> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
>> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
>> >
>> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
>taking
>> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
>>
>> When was this?
>
>While Clinton diddled
>
>
>Andrew Sullivan
>
>Salon, January 6, 2002

Thank you.

I think this is the link that you were looking for as well:

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Thanks for providing this information.

So, if you're going to be tough on Clinton regarding this, I hope that
you're willing to be as tough on Bush regarding *his* intelligence and
his decisions.

Don't forget that I've always maintained that Clinton bears a lot of
responsibility with triggering the WTC tragedy by his bombing of bin
Laden's camp (and you can say that at least he made the effort,
right)?

[Jacob Kramer]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:10:46 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
>be a pure political interpretation.

How about putting _no_ blame on the current administration?

--

Jacob Kramer

[Glenn Zelniker]

Jacob Kramer wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:10:46 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
> >be a pure political interpretation.
>
> How about putting _no_ blame on the current administration?

Nicely put, Jacob!

GZ

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:10:46 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
> >be a pure political interpretation.
>
> How about putting _no_ blame on the current administration?
>
> --
>
> Jacob Kramer

Depends on what you mean by blame.

If you mean that Bush cooked up a scheme to go to war, then I've seen no
credible evidence to back that up.

If you mean there was something that could ahve been don to stop 9/11 and
want to blame it on Bush then you have to also include Clinton. Most of the
blame has to go to Clinton.

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
Michael McKelvy > wrote:
>
>Then of course there's the terroist activities of Janet Reno and Waco.
>

Don't get me started on Ruby Ridge and
Waco! The actions of the ATF(Gestapo), directed
by Reno and the Clinton Admin, were in such
conflict with the principles of the Constitution
of this country, that it is sickening.


Joe

[Joe Duffy]

>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
>> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
>> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
>> >
>> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
>taking
>> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
>>
>> When was this?
>

Are you really this ignorant of world
affairs?



Joe

[dave weil]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:46:07 GMT, (Joe
Duffy) wrote:

>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
>>> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
>>> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
>>> >
>>> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
>>taking
>>> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
>>>
>>> When was this?
>>
>
> Are you really this ignorant of world
> affairs?

I was unaware of this accusation. Is that a crime? Are you saying that
one shouldn't admit to not knowing something? Does that make them
stupid, or willfully ignorant?

I suppose I should do what a lot of posters on RAO do and pretend to
know everything. Because when one admits that they don't know
something, harpies like you pop up like so many weeds.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:44:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
> >> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
> >> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
> >> >
> >> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
> >taking
> >> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
> >>
> >> When was this?
> >
> >I don't recall the year(s) but it was reported by Monsoor Ijaz.
>
> Specifics please.

This has been brought up before. I believe it was
at a time when ObL was in Sudan, mid to late 90's




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Socky said:

> > >> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about taking
> > >> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
> > >>
> > >> When was this?
> > >
> > >I don't recall the year(s) but it was reported by Monsoor Ijaz.
> >
> > Specifics please.
>
> This has been brought up before. I believe it was
> at a time when ObL was in Sudan, mid to late 90's

Was it before or after the first major crime that was said to be his
doing? The embassy bombings, maybe?

And what price was to be paid for his capture?






This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:44:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
> >> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
> >> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
> >> >
> >> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
> >taking
> >> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
> >>
> >> When was this?
> >
> >I don't recall the year(s) but it was reported by Monsoor Ijaz.
>
> Specifics please.

It's right here in this thread posted 7:37 PM yesterday.

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:20:55 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I think that *both* administrations are guilty of turning a
> >> >> blind eye to the evil deeds committed by the hands that feed
> >> >> them. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
> >> >
> >> >It's pretty obvious that the Clinton administration did nothing about
> >taking
> >> >Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up.
> >>
> >> When was this?
> >
> >While Clinton diddled
> >
> >
> >Andrew Sullivan
> >
> >Salon, January 6, 2002
>
> Thank you.
>
> I think this is the link that you were looking for as well:
>
>
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.
htm
>
> Thanks for providing this information.
>
> So, if you're going to be tough on Clinton regarding this, I hope that
> you're willing to be as tough on Bush regarding *his* intelligence and
> his decisions.
>
> Don't forget that I've always maintained that Clinton bears a lot of
> responsibility with triggering the WTC tragedy by his bombing of bin
> Laden's camp (and you can say that at least he made the effort,
> right)?

Clinton used a fly swatter on a hornets nest.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Le Artiste" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
> >> >To place the full blame on the incoming administration seems to
> >> >be a pure political interpretation.
> >>
> >> How about putting _no_ blame on the current administration?
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jacob Kramer
> >
> >Depends on what you mean by blame.
> >
> >If you mean that Bush cooked up a scheme to go to war, then I've seen no
> >credible evidence to back that up.
> >
> >If you mean there was something that could ahve been don to stop 9/11 and
> >want to blame it on Bush then you have to also include Clinton. Most of
the
> >blame has to go to Clinton.
>
> This is fascinating. Please go on..
>
>
Been there, done that.

He could have taken Bin Laden when he was offered by the Sudanese (IIRC).

> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Michael McKelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> PD said:
>
> > >> >blame has to go to Clinton.
>
> > >> This is fascinating. Please go on..
>
> > >He could have taken Bin Laden when he was offered by the Sudanese
(IIRC).
> >
> > Please, do go on..
>
> Yes, see if Mikey can lay out the full details of whatever deal was
> offered. How much was bin laden worth before 9/11, before the attack
> on the USS Cole, and before the embassy bombings in Nigeria?
>
>
>
Try Vanity Fair Jan 2002 issue.
>

[Glenn Zelniker]

On 2004-02-17 21:56:42 -0500, "Michael McKelvy" >
said:

[snip a couple hundred lines of ample evidence Bush & crew screwed the
pooch re: 9/11]

> I notice you abaondoned this lie very quickly.
>
> What a shock. :-0


Mike,

Grow the **** up, OK? Your style of argumentation seems to consist of the
following:

1. Repost everything your opponent just wrote.
2. Mangle the formatting beyond recognition.
3. Interject something like "your lying because your to stupid too no
better" at or near the end.

In short, arguing with you is pointless because you do nothing but negate,
out-of-hand, whatever has been said by your adversary. How about
contributing something of substance, perhaps your own analysis, rather than
spewing gainsay whenever confronted with a fact you find uncomfortable? As
it stands, you come off like a kneejerk reactionary neanderthal who can, at
best, come up with a few grunts in autonomic opposition to anything that
smells liberal.

An excellent example of a thoughtful, reasoned response would be Art
Sackman's exhaustive, informative reply to my posting on eminent domain.
Why don't you try your hand at some thinking of your own?

GZ

[Arny Krueger]

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message

>
> Grow the **** up, OK?

Show us how, Glenn. Start out by talking like a man, not some cheap-ass punk
kid.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-02-17 21:56:42 -0500, "Michael McKelvy" >
> said:
>
> [snip a couple hundred lines of ample evidence Bush & crew screwed the
> pooch re: 9/11]
>
> > I notice you abaondoned this lie very quickly.
> >
> > What a shock. :-0
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Grow the **** up, OK? Your style of argumentation seems to consist of the
> following:
>
> 1. Repost everything your opponent just wrote.

Like I'm the only one.

> 2. Mangle the formatting beyond recognition.

It looks fine on my computer.

> 3. Interject something like "your lying because your to stupid too no
> better" at or near the end.
>
I posted a list of the failures of the Clinton administration.

> In short, arguing with you is pointless because you do nothing but negate,
> out-of-hand, whatever has been said by your adversary.

I posted a list of the Clinton failures on terrorism.

How about
> contributing something of substance, perhaps your own analysis, rather
than
> spewing gainsay whenever confronted with a fact you find uncomfortable?

I gave you the facts, what should I have added? I don't make things up like
the left is wont to do.

As
> it stands, you come off like a kneejerk reactionary neanderthal who can,
at
> best, come up with a few grunts in autonomic opposition to anything that
> smells liberal.
>
Ah, the ad hominem attack. A trademark of the left. demonstrating that
your argument was completely with out merit seems to provoke that sort of
thing from you guys.

> An excellent example of a thoughtful, reasoned response would be Art
> Sackman's exhaustive, informative reply to my posting on eminent domain.
> Why don't you try your hand at some thinking of your own?
>
> GZ

Why not try sticking to the facts and winning or losing on their merit? You
claimed Clinton was tougher on Terrorism than Bush which is absurd on it's
face, but rather than give that as a reply, I showed you a list of facts
that demonstrated the list of failures. Failing to take Bin Ladin into
custody when offered, chief among them.