Lots of Republicans like to knock Bill Clinton. After all, what else are they to do? It was a conservative addiction during the 1990s, and I understand how hard it is to quit anything cold turkey.
But the evidence is much to the contrary:
1) Mentioned the most on Clinton's "failures" is the 1993 WTC attack. And doesn't that look bad? Except when you keep in mind that it was 38 days into Clinton's first term. Wouldn't it, thus, mean that Bush, Sr.'s lack of terrorism intelligence is to blame? Those directly responsible, though, are currently behind bars.
2) During the Clinton Administration, there were plenty of terrorist threats. Plots to kill the Pope. Plots to blow up 12 U.S. airliners. Plots against the FBI, the UN, the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., and other places. But they were thwarted, and, thus, his successes were ignored. "Oops."
3) The Clinton Administration tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, and doubled counterterrorism funding overall. ("By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him." - Barton Gellman, "Washington Post") Clinton proposed additional antiterrorism funding in 1996, but GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch retorted that Clinton "would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding." After the Oklahoma City bombing the year prior, the GOP rejected Clinton's proposed expansion of intelligence agencies' wiretap authority to combat terrorism. GOP Rep. Newt Gingrich was opposed to it.
4) After Clinton struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan with Tomahawk missiled in 1998, Gingrich replied, "The President did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." On Sep. 13, 2001, however, Gingrich derided this same moment, calling it "inadequate" and a "Clinton policy" failure on FOX News.
5) After the embassy bombings, Clinton issued an executive order authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The executive order prohibiting the assassination of heads of state clearly did not apply to bin Laden, as he was not a head of state, but FOX News regularly derided Clinton, saying that the CIA was not authorized to assassinate bin Laden. Clearly untrue.
6) After the USS Cole bombing in October 2000, Clinton moved to destroy Al Qaeda, but not through a hasty retaliation against a sovereign nation. After all, even Bush said this was a "different kind of war," even if he merely fought it the same way as his predecessors did. This is where Richard Clarke comes in. He developed a plan by December 2000, which amounted to, as a senior Bush administration official told "Time" in August 2002, "everything we've done since 9/11." Yup, that's right. Clarke drew up a plan to break up Al Qaeda cells, attack financial support for the organization, freeze its assets, stop fake charities, give aid to governments threatened by Al Qaeda, scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate training camps, bulk up support for the Northern Alliance, and put special forces in Afghanistan.
But where did Clinton go wrong? His successor, our current President Bush, was to be inaugurated the following month, and Clinton did not want to start a war at the end of his term and then hand it over to Bush hastily. Instead, he trusted Bush would implement his plan, and Clinton Administration official briefed the incoming administration officials on the seriousness of Al-Qaeda and what they had planned. Condoleezza Rice, apparently, was so impressed with Clarke that she asked him to remain the head of counterterrorism efforts.
Clarke briefed this same message to Dick Cheney in February 2000, who, in contrast to Dr. Rice, was unimpressed. According to "Time," outgoing Clinton officials thought "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." The Bush Administration, in contrast, were obsessed with constructing a "missile shield" and Rumsfeld was more interested in restructuring the existing military forces.
7) On February 15, 2001, a commission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman warned of impending "mass casulty terrorism" and recommended the creation of a "National Homeland Security Agency." The Bush Administration ignored this report until after 9/11.
8) In mid-July 2001, an FBI agent reported suspicion over Middle Eastern students at a flight school. Richard Clarke and CIA Director George Tenet were concerned over increasing "chatter" over possible terrorist activity. They attempted to schedule a meeting to the Principals Committee--Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell, and Rumsfeld--for August, but too many were on vacation. In fact, Bush spent 42% of his first seven months in either Camp David or his ranch in Crawford, Texas. On September 4, 2001, the Principals Committee met and decided to advise Bush to adopt Clarke's December 2000 plan ("the war on terror") with a "phased-in approach." Thus, when Bush Administration officials claim that they were planning to get Al Qaeda before 9/11, they weren't lying; but the amount of time wasted shows that they did not take it seriously until 7 days before 9/11. The Principals Committee did not meet with Bush on this plan before 9/11.
9) On September 9, 2001, Congress proposed a $600 million boost for antiterrorism programs. The money was to come from the missile defense shield funding. The Bush Administration threatened a veto.
10) Acting FBI director, Thomas J. Pickard met with AG John Ashcroft to request $58 million for new field agents, translators, and intelligence analysts to fight terrorism. On September 10, 2001, he received his response: a flat out rejection.
So, you see folks, the Bush Administration should not be commended for its behavior. In fact, considering the actions of Clinton and Clinton-era officials, such as Richard Clarke and CIA Director George Tenet, if Gore had become president, maybe things would have been different. Maybe.
So what does this mean overall? Partisan politics have too much to do with the American political arena, and it is both parties' faults. If the "war on terror" had been implemented by Clinton, as planned, then the Democrats would be more supportive of it. Of course, not that they aren't more supportive now; their opposition has been on Iraq, not Afghanistan, and Iraq had nothing to do with the "war on terror." But we do know what would have happened had Clinton implemented any form of antiterrorism; the GOP-led Congress would have fought it tooth-and-nail. In fact, that's precisely what they did in the 1990s.
I wrote this thread not to point fingers at the GOP as much as how sick and tired I am of the relentless Clinton bashing that comes from Republicans. FOX News is the worst thing that has ever happened to this nation. Their "fair and balanced" lying has poisoned this nation, ever since it hired "fair and balanced" GOP operative, Roger Ailes in 1996 (and he still heads it today). Most of the lies about liberals that exist today are because of this network. But, hey, what a way to lie about liberals, when you constantly accuse liberalism of doing the same thing to them? It's nothing short of Machiavellian.
There's a book I'd suggest (and, for all you plagiarism fiends, it is also the source of what I wrote above). It's Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." I'm hearing the neocons groan now, but he, at least, cites his sources better than Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity (in fact, he points out how both blatantly lied and misled people on their footnotes/charts/graphs). But here's a bold challenge for all who disagree with this: come up with proof. And, of course, cite your sources. I don't want you to plagiarize either.
What do y'all think?
Melon
But the evidence is much to the contrary:
1) Mentioned the most on Clinton's "failures" is the 1993 WTC attack. And doesn't that look bad? Except when you keep in mind that it was 38 days into Clinton's first term. Wouldn't it, thus, mean that Bush, Sr.'s lack of terrorism intelligence is to blame? Those directly responsible, though, are currently behind bars.
2) During the Clinton Administration, there were plenty of terrorist threats. Plots to kill the Pope. Plots to blow up 12 U.S. airliners. Plots against the FBI, the UN, the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., and other places. But they were thwarted, and, thus, his successes were ignored. "Oops."
3) The Clinton Administration tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, and doubled counterterrorism funding overall. ("By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him." - Barton Gellman, "Washington Post") Clinton proposed additional antiterrorism funding in 1996, but GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch retorted that Clinton "would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding." After the Oklahoma City bombing the year prior, the GOP rejected Clinton's proposed expansion of intelligence agencies' wiretap authority to combat terrorism. GOP Rep. Newt Gingrich was opposed to it.
4) After Clinton struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan with Tomahawk missiled in 1998, Gingrich replied, "The President did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." On Sep. 13, 2001, however, Gingrich derided this same moment, calling it "inadequate" and a "Clinton policy" failure on FOX News.
5) After the embassy bombings, Clinton issued an executive order authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The executive order prohibiting the assassination of heads of state clearly did not apply to bin Laden, as he was not a head of state, but FOX News regularly derided Clinton, saying that the CIA was not authorized to assassinate bin Laden. Clearly untrue.
6) After the USS Cole bombing in October 2000, Clinton moved to destroy Al Qaeda, but not through a hasty retaliation against a sovereign nation. After all, even Bush said this was a "different kind of war," even if he merely fought it the same way as his predecessors did. This is where Richard Clarke comes in. He developed a plan by December 2000, which amounted to, as a senior Bush administration official told "Time" in August 2002, "everything we've done since 9/11." Yup, that's right. Clarke drew up a plan to break up Al Qaeda cells, attack financial support for the organization, freeze its assets, stop fake charities, give aid to governments threatened by Al Qaeda, scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate training camps, bulk up support for the Northern Alliance, and put special forces in Afghanistan.
But where did Clinton go wrong? His successor, our current President Bush, was to be inaugurated the following month, and Clinton did not want to start a war at the end of his term and then hand it over to Bush hastily. Instead, he trusted Bush would implement his plan, and Clinton Administration official briefed the incoming administration officials on the seriousness of Al-Qaeda and what they had planned. Condoleezza Rice, apparently, was so impressed with Clarke that she asked him to remain the head of counterterrorism efforts.
Clarke briefed this same message to Dick Cheney in February 2000, who, in contrast to Dr. Rice, was unimpressed. According to "Time," outgoing Clinton officials thought "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." The Bush Administration, in contrast, were obsessed with constructing a "missile shield" and Rumsfeld was more interested in restructuring the existing military forces.
7) On February 15, 2001, a commission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman warned of impending "mass casulty terrorism" and recommended the creation of a "National Homeland Security Agency." The Bush Administration ignored this report until after 9/11.
8) In mid-July 2001, an FBI agent reported suspicion over Middle Eastern students at a flight school. Richard Clarke and CIA Director George Tenet were concerned over increasing "chatter" over possible terrorist activity. They attempted to schedule a meeting to the Principals Committee--Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell, and Rumsfeld--for August, but too many were on vacation. In fact, Bush spent 42% of his first seven months in either Camp David or his ranch in Crawford, Texas. On September 4, 2001, the Principals Committee met and decided to advise Bush to adopt Clarke's December 2000 plan ("the war on terror") with a "phased-in approach." Thus, when Bush Administration officials claim that they were planning to get Al Qaeda before 9/11, they weren't lying; but the amount of time wasted shows that they did not take it seriously until 7 days before 9/11. The Principals Committee did not meet with Bush on this plan before 9/11.
9) On September 9, 2001, Congress proposed a $600 million boost for antiterrorism programs. The money was to come from the missile defense shield funding. The Bush Administration threatened a veto.
10) Acting FBI director, Thomas J. Pickard met with AG John Ashcroft to request $58 million for new field agents, translators, and intelligence analysts to fight terrorism. On September 10, 2001, he received his response: a flat out rejection.
So, you see folks, the Bush Administration should not be commended for its behavior. In fact, considering the actions of Clinton and Clinton-era officials, such as Richard Clarke and CIA Director George Tenet, if Gore had become president, maybe things would have been different. Maybe.
So what does this mean overall? Partisan politics have too much to do with the American political arena, and it is both parties' faults. If the "war on terror" had been implemented by Clinton, as planned, then the Democrats would be more supportive of it. Of course, not that they aren't more supportive now; their opposition has been on Iraq, not Afghanistan, and Iraq had nothing to do with the "war on terror." But we do know what would have happened had Clinton implemented any form of antiterrorism; the GOP-led Congress would have fought it tooth-and-nail. In fact, that's precisely what they did in the 1990s.
I wrote this thread not to point fingers at the GOP as much as how sick and tired I am of the relentless Clinton bashing that comes from Republicans. FOX News is the worst thing that has ever happened to this nation. Their "fair and balanced" lying has poisoned this nation, ever since it hired "fair and balanced" GOP operative, Roger Ailes in 1996 (and he still heads it today). Most of the lies about liberals that exist today are because of this network. But, hey, what a way to lie about liberals, when you constantly accuse liberalism of doing the same thing to them? It's nothing short of Machiavellian.
There's a book I'd suggest (and, for all you plagiarism fiends, it is also the source of what I wrote above). It's Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." I'm hearing the neocons groan now, but he, at least, cites his sources better than Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity (in fact, he points out how both blatantly lied and misled people on their footnotes/charts/graphs). But here's a bold challenge for all who disagree with this: come up with proof. And, of course, cite your sources. I don't want you to plagiarize either.
What do y'all think?
Melon
Last edited:
