• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

An angry Clinton on Fox

I saw the interview too, and I'm also not that familiar with this aspect of Clinton's presidency. He sure did get angry though. :)
 
Wow, that was one angry Clinton.

Is it my imagination or was he being a little bit physically intimidating to that Wallace guy? Leaning forward, getting in his face, tapping his hand on the guy's leg. I thought he was going to lunge forward and grab Wallace by the lapels.

I'll give him this, though: He's articulate. I know I couldn't have talked for that long on national TV, while being that angry, without stumbling over half of my words and making a hash of it.

I got the distinct impression that this had been bubbling beneath the surface for a long time, waiting for an appropriate place to let it out. I guess Fox was the right place.
 
Clinton was saying that he TRIED to kill Bin Laden during his presidency which was pre- 9/11 and yes, he failed but not for want of TRYING. On the other hand Bush didn't even TRY to get Bin Laden until post 9/11. He's implying Bush did not TRY for the first 8 months of his Presidency and didn't listen to intelligence and so did nothing to TRY and stop 9/11 in spite of reports from intelligence sources.

Clinton did try and kill bin Leden but missed. This is accurate.
 
Last edited:
SteveGrenard said:
On the other hand Bush didn't even try to get Bin Laden until post 9/11.
Click to expand...
Do we know that Bush advised persons to cease previous efforts to get Bin Laden, or that he didn't increase or emhpasize the efforts? I don't think "didn't even try" fits, the various disgust at CIA on lack of support for their efforts considered.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Do we know that Bush advised persons to cease previous efforts to get Bin Laden, or that he didn't increase or emhpasize the efforts? I don't think "didn't even try" fits, the various disgust at CIA on lack of support for their efforts considered.

DR
Click to expand...

Rember "we are not the worlds policemen"?

Also wasn't the Bin Laden group in the CIA recently dismanteled?
 
Clinton tried to get Bin Laden. Clinton fired three Cruise missles in his 1 attack. Clinton fired on a "chemical" weapons plant in Sudan, an Al Qeida training facility and a third location. The Chemical weapons plant was an aspirin factory. Osama Bin Laden had moved from the training camp hours before hand. Wasn't even close.

Clinton had other opportunities. In one instance Osama was with a prince from the UAE. So Clinton decided not to kill Bin Laden for public relations with UAE.

Clinton complained that the FBI and CIA didn't certify Bin Laden was behind the attacks. The FBI director Louid Freeh, complained Clinton got in the way of an investigation into Kubar towers in 1996. John Clark complained of the Ambassador got in the way in the USS Cole.
 
What would have been the fallout if Clinton had killed bin Laden when OBL was in the UAE?

What would have been the outcry?

It is the eternal dilemma of the decision-makers:

Act now to avoid the potential for terrible future acts, but be condemned for acting unilaterally and without justification, or act after the futre acts and be condemned for not acting sooner.


[Aside]Am I the only one who thinks Bill Clinton is sounding more and more like Gary Busey? Meaning actual sound, not content.[/Aside]
 
Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."
 
Clinton was pretty accurate here. In point of fact, most every attempt Clinton launched against OBL in the 1990's was opposed by the same Fox News reporters and right wingers on the Hill that are now saying he didn't do enough. Remember when he bombed the chemical factory, at that time he was accused of "wagging the dog" by the right wing, but we now know from R. Clarke's book that this was a legit target and to give away more info would have hurt national intelligence.

What we do know about Bush is that when he came to office, he agreed that there would be no retaliation for the Cole bombing - he seemed to buy the logic that OBL was not directly involved. Secondly, he scaled back the CIA's efforts to investigate Al Qaeda. And finally, he patently ignored the CIA white paper "OBL Determined to Strike in the U.S." just before the attack happened. Even folks in his own administration have confirmed this.

One might cynically suppose that Bush's close financial and family ties to the Saudi royal family and to the Bin Laden Group itself - not to mention direct support for Al Qaeda during the cold war on the part of Reagan and his administration - might have mitigated his desire to go after OBL. I won't make that suggestion here, but I'm also willing to take Clinton at his word that he tried to get the guy.
 
Garrette said:
What would have been the fallout if Clinton had killed bin Laden when OBL was in the UAE?
Click to expand...

OBL was in one of his training camps. Pre-strike imagery indicated the presence an official UAE aircraft at the camp and HUMIT suggested it was a minor emir on a hunting trip with OBL. This was decided to be outside the political assumptions for the mission, which was canceled.
 
Dragonrock said:
Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."
Click to expand...


Or, saying: We're going to fight terrorism by invading Iraq.
 
BTW, Clinton was dead-wrong about the "right-wing" criticism over "wag-the-dog". The House leadship came out with statements of support. Their were only two Rs (Sen. Lott and a Rep. Coats) and one RINO (Sen. Specter) that came out with heavily qualified criticism. It was CBS, CNN and ABC that played wag-the-dog.

Clinton was also wrong about his silly FNC consipary theory. Wallace asked the same question when he interviewed Rumsfeld a few years back. It was kind of funny accusing Wallace of "getting his bones," since Wallace obviously already has the flagship Sunday morning news program for both FOX and FNC.
 
Cylinder said:
BTW, Clinton was dead-wrong about the "right-wing" criticism over "wag-the-dog". The House leadship came out with statements of support. Their were only two Rs (Sen. Lott and a Rep. Coats) and one RINO (Sen. Specter) that came out with heavily qualified criticism. It was CBS, CNN and ABC that played wag-the-dog.

Clinton was also wrong about his silly FNC consipary theory. Wallace asked the same question when he interviewed Rumsfeld a few years back. It was kind of funny accusing Wallace of "getting his bones," since Wallace obviously already has the flagship Sunday morning news program for both FOX and FNC.
Click to expand...

May be he was "dead" wrong...though here are some additional Senators who seem to be calling for quick withdrawl from Somalia at least:


GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993


"I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. "

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993


"Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home."


GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993


"I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . "

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:


"All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now."

Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ...
 
One might cynically suppose that Bush's close financial and family ties to the Saudi royal family and to the Bin Laden Group itself - not to mention direct support for Al Qaeda during the cold war on the part of Reagan and his administration - might have mitigated his desire to go after OBL. I won't make that suggestion here, but I'm also willing to take Clinton at his word that he tried to get the guy.
Click to expand...

No comment:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
headscratcher4 said:
Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ...
Click to expand...

No it was "being the worlds policeman" that they where against before they found out that they had some strong missperceptions on september 11, 2001. They of course argue that the world changed and not their perceptions of it(this seems pretty silly)
 
The real point Clinton was trying to make was not whether he should have done more to catch OBL. That can be debated ad nauseum (but at least he did something). Clinton was complaining about "reporters" like Chris Wallace who constantly question his efforts to deal with OBL, yet hardly ever question Bush administration officials about their failure to deal with OBL before 9/11 (or after 9/11, for that matter).

As the Media Matters article noted, these are some of the questions Chris Wallace and his predecessor have failed to ask Bush administration officials, despite having had the opportunity to do so in 43 separate interviews on Fox News Sunday:

Why did the White House not respond more forcefully to the August 6 CIA memo warning of an impending bin Laden strike against the United States?

Why did the Bush administration demote Richard Clarke?

Why didn't the Bush administration do anything in response to the bombing of the USS Cole?

Why did Bush not heed the CIA's call for more troops to help catch bin Laden at Tora Bora?

Whether it is due to ideological bias, Clinton-bashing, or piss-poor journalism (probably all three, IMHO), there is a strong case that the FNS crowd has given the Bush administration a pass on these issue. That was Clinton's real beef with Wallace: That he was cowtowing to the bias of his viewers, his employers, and himself, instead of being a truly "fair and balanced" journalist.
 
Possible inaccuracies aside (which I don't know enough to talk about), it is so obvious that Clinton actually had an idea what was going on from hands on experience, compared to Bush who always speaks in general and vague terms.

Night and day difference.
 
I haven't seen the video yet, but if the descriptions I've read are accurate regarding him wagging his finger at Wallace, then he screwed up royally. Remember the last time he famously waved his finger around? It was when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

And he really didn't need to act defensively, either, or blame Bush. He could have just said, look, we screwed up, we faced a lot of different threats and didn't prioritize that one enough, but we can only know that for sure in hindsight. And most people will accept that because most people felt the same way at the time. But the defensiveness makes him look like he's got something to hide (Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pants doesn't help much with that perception either).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom