PDA

View Full Version : Clinton, Bush, And Bin Laden


jku
10-16-2003, 07:37 PM
FROM REUTERS:
I remember Bush was really pushing that boondoggle Missle Defense Shield before 9/11. Trying to give yet another payback to the bloated military industry. I wonder if a President Gore would have taken Bin Laden more seriously and prevented 9/ll. Thoughts anyone?

Clinton warned Bush of bin Laden threat
Wed October 15, 2003 10:27 PM ET

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

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

The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the September 11 attacks.

Time magazine reported last year that a plan for the United States to launch attacks against the al-Qaeda network languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved only a week before the September 11 attacks.

But the White House disputed parts of that story, which was published by the magazine in August 2002.

"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition," a White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at the time.

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.

At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."

Clinton said that after bin Laden, the next security priority would have been the absence of a Middle East peace agreement, followed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."

Clinton's vice president Al Gore, who ran against Bush in the 2000 election, did not make the threat from al Qaeda a major focus of the presidential campaign, which both candidates kept focused mainly on domestic topics.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=388817

dakotagopher
10-22-2003, 12:30 AM
Clinton's been spewing statements like this ever since 9/11. He's trying to revise history.........bin laden was never very high on his priority list while he was in office, based on an aggregate review of his speeches, press briefings & policy goals for his entire second term. this has been reviewed considerably since 9/11, how Clinton dropped the ball, but I suspect we'll be hearing a lot about how it was all Bush's fault as we near the election.....

I voted for Clinton, and regret it bitterly. I believe history will show him to be one of the worst presidents ever, especially w/respect to foreign policy. Everybody loved him so much while he was in office, as he basked in the glow of an economy he didn't play a role in creating (though to his credit, he did do a good job of re-apointing Bush Sr.'s economic gurus to keep the economy humming along).

It really annoys me how Clinton's been trying to spin his administrations' flubbing of the terror issues. I think as he moves a few years beyond his presidnecy, he's starting to see the results of the seeds his policy has sown........and he doesn't want to be remembered as the president that exposed our flanks.

And of course, the obvious question: if Osama was so high on his priority list, why didn't he take up the Egyptians up on their offer to hand him over? (going by memory here - i believe it was the egyptians?).

Answer: he lacked the political will to make the tough decision & risk annoying the Islamic extremists. Bush Jr, on the other hand, seems to be willing to make the tough choice, but I suspect that is only due to 9/11.

Were it not for 9/11, Bush jr. would probably be poking his head in the sand just like clinton did for the prior 8 years.

A note on missle shields: they're an expensive insurance policy. horribly costly, but nowhere near the cost of losing, say, Seattle to a N Korean nuke. My opinion is we're much more vulnerable to the nuclear "landmine" attack.

The base theories of deterrance and containment are dead in our new world, BUT the shield is not worth the cost.