 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
Ok, Bill Clinton was not terrorism's greatest foe. But why?
Here is a recent book documenting Clinton's active suppression of activities to arrest Osama bin Laden. Why was Clinton so adverse to going after this man?
http://www.opinionjournalbookstore....&key=0895260743
"Years before the public knew about bin Laden, Bill Clinton did. Bin Laden first attacked Americans during Clinton’s presidential transition in December 1992. He struck again at the World Trade Center in February 1993. Over the next eight years the archterrorist’s attacks would escalate killing hundreds and wounding thousands—while Clinton did his best to stymie the FBI and CIA and refused to wage a real war on terror.
Why?
The answer is here in investigative reporter Richard Miniter’s stunning exposé that includes exclusive interviews with both of Clinton’s National Security Advisors, Clinton’s counter-terrorism czar, his first CIA director, his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense, top CIA and FBI agents, lawmakers from both parties and foreign intelligence officials from France, Sudan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as on the-scene coverage from Sudan, Egypt, and elsewhere.
In Losing bin Laden you’ll learn:
The new evidence that Clinton knew about Sudan’s offers to arrest bin Laden—and why he ignored them
The never before told story of the Saudi government attempt to assassinate bin Laden
Why Bill Clinton refused to meet with his first director of Central Intelligence
Drawn from secret Sudanese intelligence files, the never-before-told story of Bin Laden’s role in shooting down America’s Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia—and how Clinton manipulated the news media to keep the worst off America’s TV screens
How Clinton ignored intelligence and offers of cooperation against bin Laden from Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance
How Bill Clinton scuttled a secret offer from the United Arab Emirates to arrest bin Laden
The 1993 World Trade Center attack—why Clinton refused to believe it had been bombed; why the CIA was kept out of the investigation; and how one of the FBI’s most trusted informants was actually a double agent working for bin Laden
Why the CIA never funded bin Laden—despite the liberal myths
How Clinton ignored Yemen’s pleas for help in arresting bin Laden—in 1993
The untold story of a respected Congressman who repeatedly warned Clinton officials about bin Laden in 1993—and why he was ignored
Revealed for the first time: how Clinton and a Democratic Senator stopped the CIA from hiring Arabic translators—while phone intercepts from bin Laden remained untranslated
How the Predator spy plane—which spotted bin Laden three times—was grounded by bureaucratic infighting.
Plus much more, including, appendices of secret documents and photos, as well as the established links between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Losing bin Laden is a dramatic, page-turning read, a riveting account of a terror war that bin Laden openly declared, but that Clinton left largely unfought. With a pounding narrative, up-close characters and detailed scenes, it takes you inside the Oval Office, the White House Situation Room and within some of the deadliest terrorist cells that America has ever faced. If Clinton had fought back, the attacks on September 11, 2001 might never have happened.
Losing bin Laden is a story—and one hell of a lesson—that the reader will never forget.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:30
|
|
quote:
Drawn from secret Sudanese intelligence files |
This book relies on reliable sources, I see?
quote:
The new evidence that Clinton knew about Sudan’s offers to arrest bin Laden—and why he ignored them
|
Again, such an accurate source!
quote:
lawmakers from both parties and foreign intelligence officials from France, Sudan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as on the-scene coverage from Sudan, Egypt, and elsewhere. |
yep, this guy relies on only the best...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
I've never been much of a Clinton fan (except during elections -- regardless of what you think of him, the guy was an amazing campaigner), so I wouldn't reflexively dismiss this. But it's worth noting that most of the press I could turn up on this book stemmed from the usual right-wing suspects: The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, syndicated colunmist Robert Novak, Townhall.com, etc. (curiously, Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review hasn't weighed in yet, but I'm sure it won't be long). All of these sources have turned Clinton-hating into a cottage industry, if not an art form; the Washington Times and Novak in particular have taken it even further, repeating as fact every spurious, even ludicrous, piece on info that casts aspersions on Bill and/or Hilary. Until I see some info on this book from a source that doesn't reflexively spew venom anytime anybody says "Clinton," I'd have a hard time taking it seriously.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by donegeal
Of course you won't see left-wing media jump on board unless this stuff is proven true. If left wing papers/mags started supporting this stuff, it would seriously hurt the Democrates chance of a presidential victory come next November. And it would certianly discredit any chance that Hilary has in '08.
This is actually making me think of stuff I was thinking about last night... I guess I'll start another thread though as it is only loosely based on this stuff.... |
Actually, the left wing press would be a good measure; they hated Clinton almost as much as the Right did (it was only a fantasy of the Right that Clinton was ever a leftist). If this story is valid, I could easily imagine The Nation, In These Times, or Counterpunch supporting it.
But I actually meant the mainstream press; they, too, were happy to jump on anti-Clinton stories from time to time, but showed more restraint and prudence that the froth-at-the-mouth crowd.
Basically, if the story is valid, somebody will say so other than those folks who have a serious economic incentive to keep bashing Clinton. That's all I'm waiting for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
And does the last paragraph of the book read anything like
"All hail the great G W Bush for leading us into the War Against Terror. Don't forget to vote Republican for the people who are making America safe. Recommend this book to your friends because I, the author, need the money."
by any chance?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I am not surpised one bit. Bill Clinton was not good when it came to intelligence and also using the millitary,(after he cut it), to go out on more peacekeeping missions to several spots all over the world and lower moral in the millitary due to this.
If Bill Clinton had taken the terrorist threat serousily, maybe 9-11 would not have happened. But I remember the early 90's and no one really did take terrorist seriously and that they would dare to attack the US mainland. So I am not just blaming Clinton. I dont know what it is, but politicans always seem to ignore pending crisis, and what for it too blow up and cause a major diaster before they act. With most problems people seem to always wait for the diaster to come, instead of taking action now to prevent a looming crisis.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Sure he made cuts... but did those cuts inevitably hurt us? I doubt it. In fact, by balancing the budget and getting rid of the deficits, I think the benefits to the economy outweighed any possible, and undocumented, negative effects of the military cuts.
There are a lot of things that Clinton deserves bashing on, but this isn't oen of them. |
I am saying that I think the millitary was asked to do too much after the cuts, not the cuts themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
The one thing that I can bash Clinton for that is military-related is the further privatization of the military that he propagated. |
One thing I dont like about Clinton is the following:
1.) From what I have read, he did not put much attention on millitary and intelligence matters, and rather do other things.
2.)Also he should have learn some self controll, all those affairs did is distract him. Even if the impeacement thing did not happened, what if someone tried to blackmail him?
Also I dont have a problem with any domestic policy he made expect for the universal health care, I am scared of the though of the government running yet anther program and screwing it up. Also with the fact that many countries with free health care have long wait time to get anything done.
But back to millitary and intelligence stuff, since that is what this thread is about. Again everyone, even republicans did not see terrorism as a threat and if Clinton acted with millitary force against terrorist, he most likely get that he trying to distract us stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
Any book that repeats the conservative lie about how Clinton ignored the offer by Sudan to turn bin Laden over to us can't be trusted.
The truth is, Sudan never offered to do such a thing. What they offered to do was turn bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia provided the US stop its sanctions against Suden for supporting terrorism and engaging in genocide and slavery in Southern Sudan. Personally, had Clinton actually turned down that offer, we should all be ashamed to sacrifice millions to purchase a little saftey for ourselves. It was moot, however, because Saudi Arabia refused to take bin Laden!
There were two other problems. In order to satisfy Congressional Republicans, Clinton appointed Louis Freah to head the FBI. Freeh hated Clinton with a passion and was not a terribly cooperative FBI Director. He should have been fired, but Clinton was trying to make nicy nice with the Republicans. Fereh was more interested in drugs than terrorism, despite the growing evidence that there was a new and growing danger to the US.
Second problem was that the Republicans were so insanely antagonistic towards Clinton that they had the FBI investigating almost every aspect of his life. 250 agents were on the various Clinton cases, sepdning millions of dollars to come up with . . . nothing. Maybe instead of invetigating the president they could have been returning the phone calls from flight schools. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
He didn't meet with the CIA director for the first two years in office.
Is this normal? |
That is anther thing I dont like about Clinton.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2003 14:44
If Clinton had fought back, hundreds more Americans would have died. If Clinton had given more flexibility to intelligence, as well as foreign policy, we wouldnt be where we are today.
|