Bill Clinton says he warned Bush of bin Laden threat (!!!!)

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031016/3/1625q.html

Clinton says he warned Bush of bin Laden threat



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

>Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel, 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 defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

And I've seen it from other sources also. Maybe Sandy Berger and Gore.

But within hours the right wing media machine will begin to shift the blame to Clinton.

Couldn't you have brought this up earlier?

...and developed an Anti-Terrorist Plan that they presented and handed over to the Bushies in 2001.

What did the Bushies do with the information? They either ignored it...or they just LIHOP.

When it was mentioned during the time that Americans trusted Whistle Ass as the Great Protector and Chief Warior Against Terrorism it was ignored or dismissed as partisan politics. Now that more and more people see the star of the Carrier Costume Party as a pissant liar who is all bulge and no balls it is likely to be much more effective.

Now the democrats need to tie this to the August 6, 2001 CIA briefing given to Whistle Ass warning of the upcoming huge terrorist attack against the US involving a high profile target and possibly involving hijacked airplanes.

August 6, 2001. Never forget!

Cut me some slack!!!

Bush's response: "Hey! Don't talk about my friend like that!"

"Who cares what you think."

To bad the sheeple don't understand this. The bush administration is not going after terrorists because of 9/11...that's just a cover for getting into Iraq. Notice how Afghanistan and the Taliban are off the media radar screen.

when she explains complex foreign policy measures to Bush.

Hand Puppets! Ha!

She drew pictures in crayon.

People need to send him toys for gifts!

:D

The biggest surprise is that Bush was already coming in with preconceived notions. The agenda was set for Iraq from the very beginning.

camera off of Bush and his world tour, and back to him.

It is probably something Clinton wanted to say for a long time, and he has timed it for now. It is no accident.

and has more up his sleeve to sucker-punch the rethugs on the way to november next year.

I wonder if we'll get any more anonymous WH official press repartee?

:)

Chapter 16: Operation Ignore.

Franken spells it out quite well..saw a Repug talking head the other day trying to blame the terra 9/11 on Clinton...I kept yelling OPERATION IGNORE!! at the TV and my dog barked too..
Bout time the truth came out (thanks Franken)!

Hart-Rudman report, I believe, on terra.

Hart and others tried to pound it into President Shovelhead, but Osama wasn't the flavor of terra he was buying, at that point. They had al Qaeda thrust upon them and used it to their advantage.

I think they were hoping it was Hussein on 9-11, and that they could make a clear connection. I'm sure they were very disappointed there wasn't any connection, so they'd have to trump up some reason to go into Iraq -- fooling even an ignorant populace takes time, effort and money. Rupert Murdoch's media support comes with a price, after all.

will be DEVASTATING.

:evilgrin:

He always likes to go for the throat, but at the RIGHT time. As many ways as I've criticized him (always from the Left) on policies, the guy's tactics were usually just lessons in the use of rhetoric and in the ways of answering a smear in the most deflective of ways.

Remember the debate when Clinton blindsided Bush I by saying something like, "In the 1950s, one man stood up to McCarthy in the senate and called him for what he was. It was Prescott Bush. Your father was RIGHT to stand up to McCarthy for what he was doing to the country. But you are WRONG to use McCarthy's tactics right now to obscure the issues in this campaign!"

A bunch of my college friends and I sitting there watching the debate just went "Wooooooooooooooooooooo" and shook our heads.

The guy's in a different league.

This is like Bill Parcells going up against Jerry Glanville.

the Predator drones that the Clinton administration were arming in the hope of finding and killing OBL.
More BushCo incompetence...

Spy planes grounded before Sept. 11
http://www.ireport.net/qx/1098/Spy.planes.grounded.before.Sept..11

remarks the other day about "not leaving this problem to another president blah blah blah." Big Dog is sick of taking this crap and he's whipping ass and taking names.

He's been gracious enough to Mr. Bush.

As most know, there’s an unwritten rule that ex should never try to upstage the current. But I don’t think its been any coincidence that when WJC starts to get trashed again, directly or indirectly, the ex reemerges with some subtle and some not so subtle remarks of his own.

Repugs have a knack for not being able to just “let it be” in the most idiotic ways.

It’s all Clinton’s fault….again and again and again….

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34765-2003Oct16.html>

Somehow, it always comes back to Bill Clinton.

Gee, looks like we know who was right on THAT one.
Bush, you're an IDIOT!

bush* is the DANGER to the American people and humanity itself! ...Clinton gave bush* the Hart Rudman Report

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/09/03.html

The following is an excerpt from a Crossfire transcript of an exchange between Al Franken and Tucker Carlson. Franken reported something I knew before, but have NEVER heard our illustrious TV media mention. That is, the Bush administration's decision to deep six the Hart Rudman Report on national security, released in January 2001, until Dick Cheney had time to deal with the nation's security.

However, I understand Cheney is the real president and at the time he was too busy with his personal secretive 'energy task force' -- figuring out ways to pad the pockets of Bush donors in the energy sector – to try and take steps that might have prevented 9/11.

FRANKEN: Tucker, you remember that -- the Hart-Rudman Commission?

CARLSON: Yes.

FRANKEN: Yes.

And remember, they warned in February of 2001 that a catastrophic terrorist attack was coming? And remember what the president did? Nothing. He appointed...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: That's part of your conspiracy theory, Al. But the fact is...

FRANKEN: No, no, no, that's not a conspiracy theory. That's a fact.

CARLSON: Well, it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, that the president sort of knew this would happen, but didn't do anything.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: No, no, I didn't say that. I said that Hart is a good candidate because he is someone who warned us in February of 2001. And they appointed -- Cheney -- Bush appointed Cheney to do a task force. They had a terrorist task force. It didn't meet once.

CARLSON: Is that right?

FRANKEN: Yes.



You will notice Tucker uses what is becoming the right's favorite defense when confronted with the ineptness of the Bush administration, that is, paint any accusation as the product of conspiracy nuts. Unfortunately for Tucker and more unfortunately for our country, Franken’s conspiracy theory is backed up by the facts.

From the Columbia Journalism Review :

Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker. On May 5, the administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was forming its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to report in October. ‘The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring,’ says Gingrich.

From Salon :

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

The Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically recommended that the issue of terrorism was such a threat it needed far more than FEMA's attention.

Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. "Frankly, the White House shut it down," Hart says. "The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day."

"We predicted it," Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999."

From the Washington Post :

On May 8, Bush announced a new Office of National Preparedness for terrorism at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. At the same time, he proposed to cut FEMA's budget by $200 million. Bush said that day that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and "I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place.

Cheney was given the assignment of protecting us from terrorism and did nothing. Bush did nothing. Rice did nothing. Rumsfeld did nothing. They were warned by Hart and Rudman, diverted attention from the report, tossed it down a deep hole, cynically assigned it to Cheney –- and did nothing!

more....

FROM MAY 2001
<snip>
"Anxious that the United States is not prepared for a terrorist attack on its soil, the U.S. Senate is hearing testimonies from top administration officials this week to explore how the country can defend itself against potential assaults.""The United States is very likely to suffer, on our soil, an attack by a weapon of mass destruction, by a terrorist group or cell," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told reporters before the hearings began. "It should come as no surprise this nation is not prepared for such an attack."
<snip>
read on
http://www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/010510WMDhearings/

and the link that doesn't work anymore, oh my!?

41. CNN.com - Transcripts
... Talks About Anti- Terrorism Measures; Biden, Hagel on ... McCain Talks About Anti-Terrorism Legislation; The ... August 26, 2001. • Rangel, McInnis, Dreier Debate ...
www.cnni.co.uk/TRANSCRIPTS/le.html - 69k - Cached


good luck with these links
Republican and pentagon CRITISISM of the Hart Rudman report

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2001/hartrud/hartrud.pdf

permission denied, bizarre link re-directs

Terrorism: Near East Groups and State Sponsors 2001 (Congressional Research Service, September 10, 2001)

http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/paraterr.htm 2000

• Combating Terrorism: Federal Response to a Biological Weapons Attack Hearing before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, 23 July 2001

But then you find this, where Powell emphasizes terrorists on the run in April, 2001

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/2557.htm
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Remarks at roll out of annual report
Washington, DC
April 30, 2001
"The results are clear: state sponsors of terrorism are increasingly isolated; terrorist groups are under growing pressure; terrorists are being brought to justice. We will not let up. But we must also be aware of the nature of the threat before us. Terrorism is a persistent disease. Many of you have heard me speak of the positive side of globalization, but terrorism shows the dark side as it exploits the easing of travel restrictions, the improvements of communication or the internationalization of banking and finance, making it easier for terrorists to do some of their work."

and then 7 days before 9/11 and the anthrax nightmare, the defense department meets to discuss you know what....

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_09/alia/a1090406.htm
04 September 2001
<snip>
Defense Department Report, September 4: Biological Warfare
(U.S. is meeting biological treaty obligations, official says)
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is studying the feasibility of developing a new modified strain of anthrax to determine its potential threat to the U.S. armed forces and the American people, says Victoria Clarke, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.
In all instances, the United States has been in compliance with the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the Pentagon spokeswoman said. The United States, which unilaterally renounced use of biological and toxin weapons in 1969, is a signatory to the BWC and has ratified the treaty.
"This administration has made clear: one of its priorities is to work against the threat of biological warfare," Clarke said at a September 4 Defense Department briefing.
The purpose of the anthrax research is to ensure that the United States possess an effective vaccine in the event a biological weapon is used against U.S. armed forces, she said.
She said that in 1997 a professional scientific journal, "Vaccine," reported on a modified anthrax strain that the Russians were developing. The United States has a vaccine against most known strains of anthrax, but became concerned by the article and wanted to be prepared for any potential surprises, she said.
In the early part of this year the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) started "to look into the feasibility -- in doing all the legal consultations ... to look into how we could develop that modified anthrax strain so we could test our vaccines against it," Clarke said.
However, she said there is no work going on now on the modified anthrax vaccine. The BWC treaty does provide for some testing of a defensive nature, she said.
"We've said pretty consistently that we're very concerned about the threat of offensive biological weapons -- of the proliferation of materials and technology that could enhance the proliferation of chemical and biological warfare," she said.
"All of the work is consistent with U.S. treaty obligations. All of the work is thoroughly briefed and gone through a heavy consultation process, both interagency and the appropriate legal reviews and the appropriate congressional briefings," she said.
At a research facility in Nevada, the Pentagon wanted to determine how easy it would be to obtain available materials commercially to make biological weapons, but the facility tested only simulants -- which are benign substances with characteristics similar to germs used in weapons, she said. The research facility did not build biological weapons, she said.
<snip>

Even with the big and little dogs barking and the hand puppets and all. LOL. :D
Now if Clinton would have handed him a story about a little goat, he would have been all ears.

and everybody else who read Newsweek when he left office. He said that one thing that really worried him was the possibility of a terrorist attack in the US. He said it kept him awake at night. I believe bin Laden was mentioned, but I'm not sure. I'll see if I can find the interview.

See what you learn by reading the news, George?

more about what he saw as the "biggest security threat" to our country while he was in office. Seems to me, he AND Bush should have taken more steps to remove the "biggest" threat.

Franken's book yet? It's all laid out pretty well there.

I do recall that Clinton admin sent fired missiles at a camp where they thought OBL was. This was probably a good start, but unfortunately, it did not stop or deter OBL. Can you breifly state what else, aside from planning and warning Bush, that they actully did?

That is the main thing. If it happens when you are in charge, then you are responsible. You can blame someone else but especially if you drop the ball its your FAULT!! I remember thinking when bush was elected that perhaps he wouldn't do too much damage since presidents tended to maintain continuity and some status quo. Obviously bush's arrogance was showing even then-Clinton knew nothing and bush would be the anti-Cinton. And he certainly is! Its always discouraging that the press and people haven't caught on to him but I am certain history will show what a total failure he is and the long term damage he has done to our country.

I don't think it is accurate to say "they prevented anything from happening on their watch," given the Cole tragedy. Unfortunately both Bush and Clinton's admin had something happen on their watch.

failure of a president, just as history is beginning to vindicate the venerable Mr. Carter!:-)

and see how many pages of info has been redacted about steps taken during the Clinton administration.

It appears that most of the actions taken were CIA, possibly Special Ops, human intelligence.

This is the exact reason that Bush could not handle the WOT as a primarily Special Ops/Police/CIA action. The American people need to see visible evidence of something being done.

that the Clinton admin did enough to address the what he called the "biggest" threat? I am not saying he did nothing (see post above). I just believe he and his admin should have done more. Perhaps, if all the facts come out my view would change.

what did it say before you edited it?

The information was redacted, who knows?

I believe that he did what he could. Clearly it was not successful as we did not eliminate OBL or take him into custody, but obviously that is easier said that done since we still have not eliminated OBL.

I believe that the information was relayed to the Bush team. I believe the Bush policy was Anything But Clinton, as evidenced by the policy towards both North Korea and I/P.

I believe that anyone in the general public who makes a statement about what Clinton did or didn't do has no idea what they're talking about because the information is classified.

Here's a couple links for you...

Bill Press: Don't blame it on Bill Clinton
CNN.com - October 18, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress


Steve Ricchetti: Don't Put The Blame On Clinton
WashingtonPost.com - February 22, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45352-2003Feb21.html

general public knows everything is misguided because there is classified information about what Clinton did which we may never know.

On edit: sorry Bridget I looked at the thread incorrectly and thought you were responding to me.

Check the upper right corner of posts to see who is responding to who.

And welcome to DU.

Sorry, I should play closer attention.

Thanks for the welcome but I feel guilty accepting. I've been here since 2001 but lost the password to my old username a month or so ago.

Seeing as OBL launched no attacks on American soil during Clinton's tenure, what precisely more could they have done? Waive the 22nd Amendment and get re-elected so Clinton could continue his streak of days in office without hijacked airliners flying into skyscrapers?

I love people like you who think Clinton could just wave his hand and obliterate OBL and Al-Queda, especially when confronted by the hostile Congress of 1998-2000, who took every occasion to howl about any national defense initiative Clinton undertook. I think, given the circumstances, Clinton and his administration did a damn fine job protecting this country.

This may be simple, but it's an equation even rabid, frothing wingnuts can understand:

Clinton: no hijacked airliners flown into NYC skyscrapers
Dubya: Well, er, um....

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that wishes that amendment didn't exist.:shrug:

should have done, even in the absence of an attack on our soil?

As to any "howl" from congress "about any national defense initiative undertook," do you really think that is a good justification for not taking need action against what he saw as the "biggest threat" to our security? Given that it was his second term all the more reason he and his admin should have delt with any howling and done what was needed. Once they learned the missles they fired at OBL's camp did not hit their mark, they should have implimented other means to emliminate the "biggest threat."

"even in the absence of an attack on our soil"....there's your answer right there. See, the standard I'm applying is: Were there any hijacked airliners flown into skyscrapers in a major US city during your tenure in office? Applying that standard, Clinton passes with flying colors, no?

Look, EVERY president could do more, in hindsight, but you have to consider the innate restraints on what the President can actually implement in our system of government. Clinton's particular dilemma in 1998-2000 was that he was faced with craven GOP opportunists in Congress who politicized each and every counter-terrorism action the administration carried out and attempted to portray these actions as "wagging the dog", especially during the impeachment debacle. The effect may have been that Clinton and his advisers may not have felt politically secure in persuing overseas operations in the face of the GOP onslaught. What would you have had Clinton done? Take out an hour of prime time and explain to the already jaded US public that this goat-herder in the mountains was the most prominent threat to the US? But, of course, I'm sure you were howling for OBL's head back in the late 90's, right?

The simple fact is that the Clinton White House took decisive actions to deal with OBL. Once the term in office was complete, they handed off the necessary information and briefing to the incoming adminstration, which proceeded to disgrace this nation by sitting on the information for 8 months. Only until it was too late did the * administration take terrorism seriously.

*edit: misspelled "dilemma"

Most of us are aware of the Clinton administration's efforts & how they were ignored or subverted by the Bush regime.

90%?

90%.

EXCERPT...

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.

CONTINUED...

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=388706§ion=news&fromEmail=true

...even Bill knew THAT one...

I wonder why not? Why isn't this a headline on the main Yahoo news? What does this have to do with Asia, or did I miss something?

I well remember having a bit of a chuckle about Clinton's "hysteria" on this topic on many occasions, most notably when raising a glass to salute the new year of 2000. Of course, the fact that I could enjoy raising a glass and partying down in Vegas was due to the fact that Clinton had alerted the world and caused so many terrorists to be foiled before the party. But we all laughed. The terrorists did not seem quite believable then. There were claims that Clinton was nutty on the subject of bombing bin Laden and stories of aspirin factories being wrongfully attacked and all the rest of it -- even in the liberal press. Certainly, if it was in the newspapers and on TV, out there for the public to hear about, it should have been front and center on Gee Dubya's desk.

Apparently the Whistle Ass realized that we would keep laughing as long as we were kept safe, so he shrugged off the Aug. 6, 2001 memo and the rest of the warnings, not even mentioning a hint to the FAA. There is no justice under heaven, is all I can say on this matter.


i feel quite bad about how i laughed at clinton back in the day

He said he was in Australia when he heard the terrible news and he knew immediately that bin Laden was responsible. He then proceeded to explain, clearly and consisely, the threat we faced from from him and why. I thought, at the time, how much better and safer I would feel if he only were still in office. Letterman, apparently, felt the same and said words to that effect. The audience burst into applause.
:scared:

He is the most dangerous of all men. Like Caligula, Tiberius, Marcos, Baby Doc, and the rest.

He is a foolish man, a sociopath, a serial liar, yet imbued apparently with Hitler's Charisma and perhaps Hitler's Bullying.

(lucky for us they dare not yet go into full Nazi/Soviet mode for a little while)

I just don't see it. When I hear him speak, I cringe, he is so lame and inept. It is just beyond me why others don't see this.:shrug:

some pet swine has to write a book a month to blame 9-11 on the previous administration. The truth must stay buried and what better way then to blame someone least responsible? The thing we should be arguing here is not who to blame, Shrub is, but how did they get away with it? I'd think people would suspect something wrong by now.

an explanation from this rogue administration. The American news media isn't helping, by underreporting the truth, but these guys are so brazen, that it baffles me how they have remained in office.:crazy: