[Davea8]

The radical right claims Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism, and that is why we were attacked on 9/11.

As usual, the facts are just the opposite of what the right says . . .

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/rites.htm

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

October 18, 2001 -

"So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. "

( http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html )

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

Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill


The truth is that Clinton pushed for an anti-terrorism bill that included some of the same provisions the Patriot Act contains, and the REPUBLICANS watered it down and weakened it!

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," Clinton said.

"But while the president pushed for quick legislation, **Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.**

"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

"Sen. **Orrin Hatch**, R-Utah was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. **Orrin Hatch**, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, ***"These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."***

"The bill also makes it a federal crime to use the United States as a base of organization for acts of overseas terrorism."

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

But Republicans droped from the bill a provision, backed by the Clinton administration, that would have made it easier to wiretap phones of suspected terrorists. Such wiretapping is already permitted in organized crime probes.

"The compromise bill also removed Democratic provisions that would have lengthened the statute of limitations on illegally making a bomb, silencer, or sawed-off shotgun. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, argued in favor of the excised measures, noting that law enforcement has five years to track an arsonist down."

"But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the provision was unnecessary. "Anyone who uses a bomb ... or illegal weapon under this act will be persecuted under the criminal code"

"The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted."

"But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."

****The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.****

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/17/antiterro ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/15/anti.terrorism/index.html

[Goranhammer]

Ah, so Clinton is better because he's a man of words and Bush is a man of action.

You know, all the liberals shoot themselves in the foot. You have some that say 9/11 was a direct result of Bush's killings of innocent people and his foreign affairs. Then you have the same people saying that 9/11 was years in the making, when Clinton is in office (which raised a few CIA conspiracy theories).

Is it a wonder why I don't believe any of them?

[Davea8]

No, as usual you put the Pub Spin to it and got it all wrong. The point is simply that the neocon, right-wing-extremist position that Clinton didn't do anything about terrorism but left it all for Bush to handle, -is merely another lie. And in fact, Clinton's bill had several of the provisions of the Patriot Act, but then the Republican Congress opposed it and watered it down. Now they try to spin their opposition to it into it being Clinton's "failure".

The right-wing lying machine never rests! On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.

[Goranhammer]

If we had a Democratic Congress, and the roles were reversed, would you still bitch?

There could be many factors as to why certain things happened. First of all, a Republican Congress is not likely to vote in favor of international policies. Freezing financial assets from international organizations? That's a waste of time.

Bush's version of the Patriot Act was alot more Americo-centric than Clinton's as well. He seemed to think he could stretch his arm to reach across the Atlantic and directly govern everything deemed terrorism.

But there is one part of Clinton's bill I absolutely loved.

The compromise bill will limit the number of appeals by death-row inmates and make the death penalty available in some international terrorism cases and in cases where a federal employee is killed because of his work.

That's one thing I agree with Clinton 110% on.

I just think that if Clinton wasn't as inclined to spend money like Martha Stewart at a White Sale, Congress would have heard him out more than they did.

[Davea8]

GH, the point is that the Republican position that Clinton did nothing about terrorism is a LIE. Are you saying you agree? You seem to, because you reference Clinton's bill.

[Hansmeister]

Bill Clinton's bill was predominately aimed at domestic terrorist groups, in particular right-wing militia groups which Clinton blamed (falsely) for the Oklahoma City bombing, not against foreign groups. Those provisions that applied to foreign terrorists did not meet with much opposition, it was the rather loose standards at defining which domestic groups are terrorists which riled republicans, who saw this as an attempt to intimidate republicans instead of going after terrorist threats.

As far as Bill Press,

Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Which of course was a pretty pathetic effort. You need boots on the ground to have any chance at success, but Clinton was too risk-averse to commit forces.

So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

More a sign of impotence, than of action. Particularly since most of their assets flow through hawalas, not through banks.

Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently. Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.

The only thing they were not allowed to do was to simply go into Afghanistan to get him, that would have involved risk of US casualties.

As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over.

Why didn't we simply send in some of the thousands of commandos we already had? Because we couldn't send in US troops under Clinton's policy.

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan.

Too bad Osama was never in Uzbekistan. What were we doing preparing for three years?

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.

He left out one crucial fact: Sudan offered to turn him over into US custody as well. Three times they offered him, three times the Clinton administration refused to take him. Gee, I wonder how that fact slipped out of the article.

[Tex]

I would liken Bill Clinton's "gestures" to combat terrorism to those of Jimma Carter's handwringing attempts to end the Iran hostage crisis. The one time he was able to muster enough "gumption" to attempt a military solution, it failed miserably, because he "hamstrung" the military with limitations, and the knowledge that he lacked the genuine commitment to let them do their job.

Even Ayatollah Khomeini knew that Reagan would not take "half-measures", when the lives of Americans were at stake...note that the hostages were released on Reagan's first day as Commander-In-Chief.

[Davea8]

Hans, it would be more helpful if you would research your ideas rather than spamming the forum with made-up falshoods.



The radical right claims Clinton did nothing to combat international terrorism, and that is why we were attacked on 9/11.

As usual, the facts are just the opposite of what the right says . . .

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/rites.htm

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

October 18, 2001 -

"So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. "

( http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html )




And from the News Hour with Jim Lehrer ...

JIM LEHRER: On some of the policy issues, are you satisfied that you and the Clinton administration did everything you could about Osama bin Laden and possible terrorism from al-Qaida while were you in office?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Absolutely. It's obviously something that we have all reviewed in our heads, but I think that we made very clear the danger of terrorism. President Clinton spoke about it early and often and developed a whole set of policies which made it possible to look at the financial trail of the terrorists to try to establish and give a greater budget to the CIA and FBI created an Osama bin Laden part of the CIA. We also foiled a lot of attempts -- the dogs that didn't bark. I think the most famous is over the millennium at Los Angeles Airport. I do think... and the other part that I think people forget. Before 9/11, things were quite different. When we reacted to the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and launched 75 Cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden's camps and came very close to getting him and attacked a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, people thought we had overreacted. It was the opposite. I think we did everything we could.

JIM LEHRER: But now the suggestion is you under reacted as you know.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think that we actually did the right thing. We consumed all the intelligence we had. We hit at Osama bin Laden when we thought we could find him and now there are 8,000 U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. They have been... after they bombed everything, they've been there more than two years and they haven't found Osama bin Laden. So I think it's a very hard job and I think we did everything we could.

JIM LEHRER: Do you have any regrets that you did not do more about Saddam Hussein and Iraq under your watch?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: No, I think we actually did a lot of... kept him in a strategic box. We bombed very much if you remember all the maps always in terms of North and South -- covers a great portion of Iraq. I think we had him in the box. I have said that I agree with the "why" of what President Bush has done because I said the same things about Saddam Hussein that he has said, but I didn't understand the "why now." While he was a threat, I didn't think he was a imminent threat and I question the "what next," which clearly is an issue at this point. I think we did what we could. We did not plan to invade Iraq, but we did want to see regime change from inside and we had him in a strategic box.


Sorry guy, but you're wrong.

[Hansmeister]

Blah, blah, blah. This is the only thing you get from the Clintonistas. A whole lotta talk and no action. As far as "researching my ideas", I have been working in Special Ops for thirteen years. The first time I heard of Osama Bin Laden was in 1993, during my second tour in Somalia. I've been following his growth in power throughout the '90s. On 9-11 I realized immediately that it had to have been OBL. I have probably already forgotten more about the threat from terrorism than everyone else in this forum will ever learn. Sorry, but your foaming-at-the-mouth-Bush-hatred makes you incapable of actually analyzing the situation.

[Todd D.]

I'm not a mod, but for the sake my own sanity, please don't reply to posts by reposting what you said in your original topic. It's just hard on the eyes.

[| I, CWAS |]

www.[No advertising]

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing WERE caught and punished. The blind Mullah ring-leader was already in jail, and was retried for the attack. His helpers were caught and tried, and they were sentenced to life in prison.
After the first 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
The perpretrators of the bombings in Saudi Arabia WERE caught, most likely with CIA help. Saudi Arabia had them beheaded. What else do you want?




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

In 1996 President Clinton pushed hard for anti-terrorism legislation and the Republican controlled Congress pushed just as hard to frustrate his efforts. See CNN.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/


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

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
The perpretrators of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings WERE captured, and are now in jail for life.
Also, when President Clinton learned that Osam Bin Laden was having a top-level Al Qaeda leadership meeting in Afghanistan he ordered the site bombed and came VERY CLOSE to preventing the bombing of the World Trade Centers on 9/11/2001. And the response of the Republican leadership and the entire mainstream media was. "Bill Clinton, don't you dare try to distract us by "wagging the dog"! What America needs to attend to is the stain on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, not some far away terrorist."
There were lots and lots of terrorist attempts that most Americans don't know about that were thwarted. An attempt to blow up the Holland Tunnel, an attempt to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel, an attempt on the life of the Pope, an attempt to blow up the L.A.X airport. Two attempts over the Millennium weekend to plant bombs in cites in the Northeast and the Northwest of the United States, and lot of people who did terrorist acts, the first World Trade Centre bombing, Pan Am 103, the CIA terrorist murders, were actually captured and brought to justice.
Cole bombing - After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton's Vice President had been able to keep Bill Clinton's promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today. But proof that the USS Cole bombing was the work of Al Qaeda didn't come to light until February 2001. Who was President at that time?
Why didn't the Bush people punish Al Qaeda when they got proof that the group was behind the Cole bombings? Short answer: they were working on a deal with the Taliban regarding an oil pipeline that would run through Afghanistan and produce tremendous profits for all involved.

See the non-partisan http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
and THIS about the false stories about Bill Clinton's draft record:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp

[Hansmeister]

Oh, the ridiculous "oil pipeline through Afghanistan" conspiracy gambit. C'mon, this is pretty pathetic.