You know how you can tell Bill Clinton is lying?

[Sarge]

His lips move

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=388817

Clinton warned Bush of bin Laden threat

Wed October 15, 2003 10:27 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.

Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the September 11 attacks.

Time magazine reported last year that a plan for the United States to launch attacks against the al-Qaeda network languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved only a week before the September 11 attacks.

But the White House disputed parts of that story, which was published by the magazine in August 2002.

"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition," a White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at the time.

The White House was clearly irritated by the report, which appeared to suggest that the Bush administration might not have done all it could to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."

Clinton said that after bin Laden, the next security priority would have been the absence of a Middle East peace agreement, followed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."

Clinton's vice president Al Gore, who ran against Bush in the 2000 election, did not make the threat from al Qaeda a major focus of the presidential campaign, which both candidates kept focused mainly on domestic topics.

Let's see...........let bin laden go after having him gift wrapped by the Sudenese. India and Pakistan..........The only reason that happened was the fact that clinton let china gain/steal almost all of our rocket/nuclear tech, which had a domino effect. India felt threatened by China's sprint ahead in technology and thus commenced catching up. Pakistan likewise felt threatened by india's build up and started catching up to them. Now they both have nukes.

Thanks Bill

[JimboDaMan]

Maybe I'm just slow.

Clinton: "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

Bush spokesman: "The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition"

I don't see any discrepancy between those statements.

[Art]

Jimbo,

The discrepency is that Clinton said he found Bin Laden the No. 1 threat, but did absolutely NOTHING about it. Just pay attention to that man's actions. Not his words. At least if you want to know what happened.

[flashback]

First of all, Jimbo is saying that Bush's statement doesn't contradict what Clinton says, and Jimbo is absolutely right.

The discrepency is that Clinton said he found Bin Laden the No. 1 threat, but did absolutely NOTHING about it.

Second, this is absolutely untrue. I know you guys don't like Clinton, but sheesh. He was criticized in the '90s for over-reacting to OBL, presumably lending OBL fame and credibility in the Muslim world.

Al Franken tells the entire story, which, I've just learned, also appeared in TIME at some point. But maybe the reason the Bushies are going with "The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition" is because they wouldn't hear Clinton's plan to deal with OBL until months after the actual transition was over.

[fansince62]

right on ART!

[luckydevil]

Wow, Al Franken, yeah that guy is really objective

[Art]

Flashback,

You are woefully under informed my friend.

You know it was Clinton who refused to allow us to kill or capture Bin Laden don't you? You know there were numerous chances that Clinton failed to act upon, don't you? For the biggest threat to the security of the U.S., it seems to me you'd have to show ONE thing Clinton did to counter him. Please.

Can you please show the criticism of Clinton overreacting to Bin Laden in the 90s as well. Hurry.

[Kilmer17]

Please show me where Clinton was criticized for OVERreacting to OBL.

[flashback]

Sorry, guys, I'm at work.

Luckily, this only took 5 seconds. :\

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/27news.html

[Sarge]

Well, to be fair, a number of folks did dog clinton for sending cruise missles into empty training camps in afganistan and taking out the asprin factory in Sudan. Of course, the dogging was well deserved.

[JackC]

I don't doubt Clinton warned Bush about OBL. Bush probably never heard of him or wasn't paying attention.

If I was a Bush fan (clearly not) I wouldn't be bragging about truth telling given the terrible record of this administration and reality. I would like to thank god we get to correct the mistake of putting Dubya in office in just over a year!

[@DCGoldPants]

meanwhile we still don't have Saddam or Bin Laden....American's are getting ambushed every day and it looks like Al Queda is regrouping.

I feel safer.

[JackC]

Looks like flashback may have some knowledge after all!

Air Sarge,

It appears that the Clinton attacks might have removed all of those hundreds and hundreds WOMD's !

Let's dog the cease fire that let OBL out of Tora Bora or the unwise attack and occupation of Iraq while we supposed to be fighting a war on terror!

Nevermind it's a lost cause.

[Kilmer17]

Salon?????

I stand corrected. I thought you meant some legitmate source or opposing politico criticized him.

[Sarge]

Fact is, clinton could have cared less about bin laden, and it showed. Now that it is at the top of the pubics radar, he has to keep chiming in with the, "I never worked so hard on anything in all my life", or " I tried, I tried sooooo hard to tell Bush, and he just didn't listen" Anyone with half a brain sees this as a lame asses attempt to help "The Legacy". Too bad for him it's already written. I wish he would just go golf like other ex-presidents

[Sarge]

Let's dog the cease fire that let OBL out of Tora Bora or the unwise attack and occupation of Iraq while we supposed to be fighting a war on terror!

I'll dog the cease fire JackC. I don't believe that we, as a nation, quite realize what we are up against with these clowns. It is a battle to the end between ideologies. We should have no mercy, no ceasefires and no surreders until it is over. Bin Laden is under that mountain in Tora Bora you know.

[flashback]

Kilmer, you're a reasonable man and you give me hope for the future of this country.

Art, you're a fanatical idealogue, but you're right, I am woefully underinformed. I'll try to keep my contributions limited to things that I actually remember or have researched. And I remember Clinton being criticized for over-reacting to Osama Bin Laden.

[Kilmer17]

I guess my point is what did he DO that he was criticized for? I dont remember him doing anything at all to address Bin Laden.

[flashback]

Here's another article. I have no idea who this guy is, but his footnotes seem to check out.

http://www.nthposition.com/politics_boys.html#note_21

[gbear]

Well there is this from a Republican sight (though it's one I hadn't heard of) in 2001:

http://www.republicanbay.com/news/Binladin-executive-order.asp

That makes reference to the fact that Clinton had passed what may have been illegal orders:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_400240.html

Of course, who here thinks trying to assinate Bin LAden would have been wrong now?

Of course it is also worth noting that the Cole bombing investigation continued into Bush's term. He had 8 months where we were fairly sure OBL was the guy behind that. That's even if he maintains Clinton never told him.

Finally, this timeline from USA Today talks references the heat he took for the missle strike.

http://districtattorney.virtualave.net/clinton_osama.htm

It also talks about the attempted assasinations that never came about.

It might also be worth noting that Clinton tripled the anti terrorism budget according to that article.

In the rush of the right to condem everything Clinton did, the right seems to forget that criticising everything Clinton did is what the Right did while he was in office. Thus, when he did something he was criticised for it. Now in hindisght, he's criticised for not doing enough. That's fine, but don't pretend the right didn't stand against everything he did do at the time as you now say he didn't go far enough.

Simple truth: Bush and the rest of the right were in a rush to undo all Clinton foreign policy. In doing so, everything he was for Bush was reflexivly against. That's why Bush didn't imidiately take up the anti OBL crusade. IN fairness to Bush though, who would have thought 9-11 was coming?

[Kilmer17]

So what did he DO, not talk about, but DO.

[gbear]

He launched missles where intel said OBL would be. He got blasted.

He authorized assasination attempts. He got criticised.

He tripled anti terrorism busget...well he didn't get blasted for that. He sure as heck doesn't get any credit for it though. In hindsight though, that's pretty remarkable considering it was pre 9-11 enviroment. With no more cold war, and no publicly perceived threat...it's an accomplishment. Let's face it, we are much more aware of terrorism today than we were before 9-11.

Alright, his other attempts weren't successful (like the attempted assasinations). Still, Bush hasn't exactly brought home the bacon yet either. Bush even has the public on his side for throwing more resources at the problem and accepting losses after 9-11.

[Kilmer17]

Bottom line. He was offered Bin Laden 4 times on a platter by the Sudan. He turned them down.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Bottom line. He was offered Bin Laden 4 times on a platter by the Sudan. He turned them down.

Don't you think Reagan is guilty of the same lack of judgement?

[Kilmer17]

If Reagan was offered him on a platter, I would agree. I think Bush 41 should have done more as well. I think his policies were a miserable failure dealing with the threat of terror.