August 23, 2007

Did Clinton Lie About Targeting Bin Laden?

It appears that Bill Clinton may have exaggerated his record when it came to strategizing against Osama bin Laden. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball take a look at the Inspector General's report of the pre-9/11 intelligence failures at the CIA and find an interesting nugget. Despite Clinton's angry assertion to Chris Wallace in last year's controversial Fox interview, he never gave the CIA an assassination order regarding bin Laden (h/t: CQ reader Mark):

The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)

I've written before that pursuing partisan blame for 9/11 is a waste of time. It gets in the way of determining where failures occurred and developing the proper approaches to avoid them in the future. The truth is that the issues that created these failures stretched back for years, probably decades in terms of interpretation of intelligence law.

However, it gets difficult to remember that when former presidents essentially lie about their roles on national television. Given Clinton's unique history, this prevarication and self-aggrandizement comes as no surprise, but it is still pretty disappointing. It leaves the historical record muddied, right up to the point when independent investigations reveal the truth. Worse, his shouted fabrications contribute to the partisan atmosphere.

One has to sympathize with CIA officials who had read the classified report in 2005, but were unable to respond to his exaggeration in 2006. He once gave the same kind of finger-waggling tirade to the nation, which turned out as false as his Wallace interview. It's a sad reflection on a man who somehow cannot bring himself to tell the truth, even when his nation needs it.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/11917

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Clinton Lie About Targeting Bin Laden?:

» To Slick Willie it depends on what you mean by “Kill” from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
Capt Ed notes that Newsweek (ugh) has apparently caught Slick in another (I’ve lost count) lie. “It appears that Bill Clinton may have exaggerated his record when it came to strategizing against Osama bin Laden. Newsweek’s Michael Isi... [Read More]

» Did Clinton Lie? Is The Pope Catholic? from Liberty Pundit
How do you know if Bill Clinton is lying? His lips are moving: The report also criticized int… ... [Read More]

» Clinton-Appointed CIA Chief Failed To Protect US from Rhymes With Right
Remember -- at the time 9/11 happened, George Bush had been President of the United States for less than 8 months -- George Tenet had been CIA director for over 4 years, having been appointed by Bill Clinton. The former... [Read More]

» Clinton authorized “killing” of OBL? Not so fast from Sister Toldjah
Remember that interview Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace did with Bill Clinton last September, in which an enraged, defensive, red-faced Clinton wagged his finger at Wallace, claimed he was there as part of a conservative set up, and attempted to ... [Read More]

» CIA Report Unmasks Another Clinton Lie from Hang Right Politics
The Captain asks “Did Clinton Lie…” The recent CIA report contains contradictory information regarding the ‘kill order’ on Osama Bin Laden. Bill Clinton did not order an assassination of Bin Laden as he claimed in the Fox... [Read More]

» Billy Boy Caught In A Lie, Again… from "7.62mm Justice" ™
Remember these words? “What did I do? What did I do?” … “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.” Tu... [Read More]

» Clinton Caught In Yet Another Lie from CALIFORNIA YANKEE
Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, weigh in on the scathing CIA Inspector's General Report the CIA didn't want us to see. Buried on page three of the web exclusive is a passage which shows that Slick Willie lied during his September 2006 en... [Read More]

» Another Smear/Lie On Bill Clinton Is Circulating from Seeing the Forest
In 1998 President Clinton launched a major attack on al Queda and tried to kill Osama bin Laden:The United States launched cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday against centres allegedly linked with the terrorist bombings of two Ame... [Read More]

» Newsweek: Clinton Claim Of Bin Laden Kill Order Not True from Ed Driscoll.com
Sitting in for Dennis Miller and interviewing Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Andrew Breitbart notes:In a famous interview on Fox News last September, Bill Clinton told Chris Wallace he authorized a finding for the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. "We contract... [Read More]

Comments (85)

Posted by hnav | August 22, 2007 11:10 PM

The Clinton deceit is never surprising.

I would like to add, this has sincere importance in today's political realm, because Hillary (the co-partner in that corrupt Administration), is running today for a return to the White House.

Bill's lies and failures are only bound to be repeated is He and Hillary Rodham get another opportunity to recreate such inept, negligent, folly.

Posted by torabora | August 22, 2007 11:11 PM

amen

Posted by ordi | August 22, 2007 11:26 PM

Clinton Lied - Bin Laden didn't Die

Posted by RD | August 22, 2007 11:30 PM

On Sept 8, 2002 the New York Times ran an article by Patrick E. Tyler called "Feeling Secure, U.S. Failed to Grasp bin Laden Threat" In it he asserted that " In June 1998, Saudi Arabia, with the blessing of the Clinton administration, had pressed Mullah Omar to turn over Mr. bin Laden for trial in the kingdom, Prince Turki says.

The Taliban leader agreed during a June 1998 meeting in Kandahar, and negotiations began to use Muslim law to expel him. But an American cruise missile attack against Mr. bin Laden made him famous. When Prince Turki returned in September, Mullah Omar had reversed himself, and rebuked Saudi Arabia." There are three more short paragraphs with some more details but the way I see this there was no need for the missile attack as he (bin Laden) was going to turned over.
On Sunday,Sept. 8, 2002 the SF Gate printed essentially the same article by Patrick E. Tyler titled "9-11-01 Looking Back, Looking Ahead A Nation remembers U.S. government failed to heed warning of attacks, Middle East terrorists and flawed intelligence system." Strangely it was essentially the same article except the 5 short paragraphs about bin Laden were missing. Why? I believe that it was this evidence that Sandy the Burglar was after. Prince Turki (although I don't know it is the same Prince Turki) is no longer in this country, I think.

Posted by docweasel | August 22, 2007 11:40 PM

Wait a minute, are you trying to say Clenis is a liar?

My world is shattered. The last of my heroes tarnished.

Posted by JD Bryant | August 22, 2007 11:45 PM

Hillary knew that he lied to Wallace. She claims that America got a 2 for 1 when they were in the White House so she is as guilty as him.

Posted by Ed Kohler | August 23, 2007 12:13 AM

Wait a minute. Is Osama still alive six years after 9/11?

Posted by Hugh Baumont | August 23, 2007 2:19 AM

Ma Clinton should have to answer for her husband.

She should also clue us in as to the whereabouts of the Asian donors who fled the country after so generously donating to her husbands campaign.

I'm sure a concerned media awaits breathlessly to press her on the questions.

While Hillary plots to take the "o" out of "country", Sandy Burger awaits the call for his Secretary of State position.

Posted by skeptical | August 23, 2007 2:43 AM

It's still pretty pathetic that three quarters of a trillion dollars hasn't brought bin Laden to justice, and that we're supposed to be celebrating because al-Maliki and al-Duri had a conversation that didn't end in bloodshed. Like most people, I'm a heck of a lot more troubled by the bad responses to bin Laden after 9/11 than before. Hint: he's still ain't in Iraq. And despite the President's view of Pearl Harbor, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, bin Laden attacked us in our largest and most populous city, and did so without a single Iraqi. I'd say the shame should be handed around in more equal proportions than Captain Ed indicates.

Anybody catch George Will on the winds of September?

Posted by docjim505 | August 23, 2007 3:25 AM

Slick Willie told a(nother) fib? Are we surprised? The man couldn't lie straight in bed.

But his complete lack of honesty aside, I think there's a lesson to be learned here about how CIA (or any bureaucracy) responds to less-than-clear directives. It may be that Clinton thought CIA understood that they could and should kill OBL if they had the chance (I doubt he thought much about it, being more concerned with lining up campaign donors, ducking Ken Starr, and getting his whistle blown by Monica). For their part, CIA doubtless didn't want to risk being dragged up before the Congress and have to testify about a New York Times expose about their attempts to assassinate foreign citizens in contravention of Jimmuh's famous presidential directive making assassinations illegal. I'd wager that, in an uncertain legal atmosphere, CIA simply played it safe (Besides, if YOU were at CIA, would YOU trust Slick Willie to cover your butt and say, "Yeah, I told them to do it"?).

The moral of the story: the president and other executives have got to issue clear guidance. Yes, that means going on record and possibly taking a hit if things go badly. But this is the price you pay for playing in the big leagues.

Posted by C. Owen Johnson | August 23, 2007 4:18 AM

"The truth is that the issues that created these failures stretched back for years, probably decades in terms of interpretation of intelligence law."

Speaking as retired intelligence professional, I can assert that these failures did not stretch back for years. They started with the Clinton administration. Part of that is possibly a historical accident -- depending on how one views the effect the Soviet collapse had on the 1992 election -- but most of it was Clinton himself. The point about inflaming destructive partisan passions is well taken, but glossing over historical realities in a probably vain attempt to quell them is not very productive either.

Posted by swabjockey05 | August 23, 2007 4:25 AM

Dr J. Is right on. So is the Captain. Perfect.

None of us should blame Clinton for not taking out OBL. Even if he "knew" OBL was probably going to attack us again. IMO it's unrealistic to blame him given the atmosphere prior to 9-11.

But as CE pointed out, it is incredibly disappointing to see "Pres" Clinton shouting and wagging his finger as he lies to our faces...again. Never thought I'd say this (being a CDS survivor) but I think I actually feel sorry for him...(?)

Posted by Sissy Willis | August 23, 2007 4:42 AM

A sad reflection too on those of our fellow Americans who continue to give this tragically flawed former president a pass.

Posted by Shaprshooter | August 23, 2007 4:47 AM

"Hint: he's still ain't in Iraq. And despite the President's view of Pearl Harbor, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, bin Laden attacked us in our largest and most populous city, and did so without a single Iraqi."

Hint: by that logic, if they were from California, we should nuke LA.

Hint#2: UN Resolutions

Hint#3: Base of operations

Hint#4: Iraq in our rear without a base of operations.

Posted by quickjustice | August 23, 2007 4:54 AM

Bill Clinton lie? I'm shocked, shocked!

Posted by Neo | August 23, 2007 5:17 AM

You mean to say that Bill Clinton, spouse of Democratic Preidential nominee candidate Hiliary Clinton, lies about things other than sex ?

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 23, 2007 6:09 AM

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/08/21/a-further-indictment-against-t/

...
Tenet is right.
The 911 Commission is right.

The people who blew it are the members of Congress who (sit down and hear drum roll as you prep for the shock) cut the funds for the pre-911 war on Al Queda, and ran from the fight by adding layer upon layer of conditions for taking action rather than (as Speaker Pelosi would later say) not hold anything back. They held back, intelligence community (all 16 agencies) decayed, and we were left virtually unprotected.

Before 911, there were between 4 and 40 members of the CIA watching UBL and all of Al Queda's thousands of operatives. Is that Tenet's fault? Sure, to the degree that he should have tasked every available resource he had, yep. Oh....he did. Ok, well then who should have given him (the CIA) more resources? CONGRESS. Did Congress? Did Sen Kerry, Sen Edwards, Sen Biden, Sen Dodd...wait a sec...I'm seeing a pattern.

People who saw the intel on Al Queda, heard Tenet and others beg for more money, more leaders, more assets, and gave them satellites instead...those same people never got held to account, and instead they're among the loudest voices demanding accountability.

And when we look at intelligence failures re Iraq (failure to secure WMD stockpiles, failure to form any conclusions re Saddam/AQ relationship, and more...these same people saw intelligence on Saddam for years. They'd heard testimony re Al Queda for years, and rather than do what the 911 Commission said they should have done, rather then being held to account, they've done the same as Tenet:

They loudly declare they bear "some" responsibility, then point fingers at others as bearing more.

Now, I don't expect a Senator/wannabePresident to hold a press conference and say, "MAN, did I ever drop the ball. I should've done this or that." No. I do (perhaps foolishly) expect the American people to ask, "What did your Congressman and Senators know, when did they know it, and did they do anything?" Three simple questions obfuscated by the DC bureaucratic culture of distraction, the professionalism of career politicians who are all lawyers first....and lawmakers last.

Tenet's right. Blame him, blame everyone, but don't stop. We shouldn't stop and ignore or excuse or nuisance the failures of the members of Congress who saw the intel, heard the needs, and did nothing, did the wrong things, and/or at least didn't do their jobs. If a person take an oath to defend the Constitution, and then they're told there's a threat to the US, but they fubar it, then they've violated their oaths.

It's time to hold Congressional liars to account.

Posted by docjim505 | August 23, 2007 6:14 AM

swabjockey,

I simply cannot bring myself to feel sorry for him. It is clear to me that the man is totally vain and self-absorbed; "It's all about me and f*** everybody else." Witness his reaction to Wallace: red-faced, petulant anger that anybody would DARE to question the Great William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, who did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to get bin Laden. "It isn't MY fault that we didn't get him". He's not an even especially clever liar; he'll tell lies even though it is easy for anybody who cares to find out the truth. He's gotten a pass from the MSM in large part because of the (D) after his name but also because people just sort of accept that he's a liar and are tired of trying to get to the truth where he's concerned. I'm reminded of the character Mimi in Dashiel Hammett's "The Thin Man":

(paraphrase) "Most people, when you catch them lying to you, will finally tell you the truth or just shut up. Not Mimi. She tells you a lie and, when she gets caught, just tells you another and another and another until you finally find yourself believing her because you're tired of DISbelieving her."

Clinton is a serial liar and a disgusting human being. No, I don't feel sorry for him at all.

Posted by dhunter | August 23, 2007 6:29 AM

Ironic that Hitlery dare be for a pre-mature withdrawl from Iraq after the botched job those two did for 8 years. After all she, Monicas' boyfriend, and Monica should be be well aware of the cost of premature withdrawls.

Posted by docjim505 | August 23, 2007 6:53 AM

Scott Malensek has a great point: in the flurry about how much responsibility is borne by Bush, Clinton, Tenent, Burglar, or anybody else, some very key people get to skate:

Congress.

And it's not just on 9-11. They're skating on Iraq and the military. Even while they hold press conferences and indignantly wave their fingers in the air about not enough troops (or too many; depends on what day of the week it is) or not enough body armor or not enough armored vehicles or whatever, nobody asks them, "Well, don't YOU control appropriations?" If the military isn't big enough to do the job that is demanded of it (with Congress' blessing, I might add), then why aren't they budgetting to add a few more divisions to the Army and Marine Corps, or a few more fighter wings to the Air Force, or a few more carriers to the Navy? The various members of the defense and intelligence committees get briefings all the time about our military situation and the threats we face (or would, if they bothered to show up). But when the s*** hits the fan, they get to skate because it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault. "We didn't know. Nobody told us." Oversight indeed!

It's great to be a member of Congress: you get to have exactly as much responsibility and accountability as you want, and only when you want it.

I wonder how much body armor - or how many battalions of troops - we could afford if we saved all the pork barrel money that Congress wastes every year?

On a somewhat related note, I've read that al-AP did a story claiming that US police departments don't have enough ammo because of the Iraq War. Typically shoddy AP reporting, of course, but one disturbing fact was brought to light: most US military small arms ammo is made in ONE plant. If an enemy could damage or destroy it... Well, do I have to paint a picture? One would think that Congress would do something about this, or better still would NOT have let us get into this fix. But I guess Bridges to Nowhere are more important than making damned sure that our troops always have plenty of ammo.

Posted by Sassenach | August 23, 2007 7:03 AM

"and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden."

I thought that was a typo when I first saw the article. Looking again, I realize it's appropriate in context -- Clinton has quite a track record of using the finger "wave" to signal a "waiver" for himself.

Posted by ff11 | August 23, 2007 7:03 AM

Forget all the cruise missiles Clinton Launched against Bin Laden. Forget the repeated attacks all over the world.

The fact that he tried to operate within the law, rather than violate the constitution PROVES that he lied and he secretly worshipped Bin Laden.

Posted by Scott | August 23, 2007 7:05 AM

A part of the story that is completely ignored is that Bush has never, like never attempted to make political hay from Clinton's incompetence and lies. Congress demanded that the report be declassified, not the Executive branch.

The fact that Clinton (either one of them) has lied, is lying, or will lie again, gets scant attention in the news. All of the attention on the report so far is that Tenet was a politician, not an intelligence director. Like other Clinton problems, the problem is conveniently shuffled off on someone else, such as Tenet. The fact that he appears to have been incompetent only makes it easier to blame him.

If there was justice, Clinton would be held responsible for the screwups of his appointees. Bush is responsible for the screwups of Katrina by his proxy Brown. Bush is responsible for the various justice department screwups by his proxy Gonzales.

Fine. I have no problem with that. But Clinton will not be held responsible for any screwups by his appointees. Sandy Berger still walks free.

Posted by ff11 | August 23, 2007 7:06 AM

Forget all the cruise missiles Clinton Launched against Bin Laden. Forget the repeated attacks all over the world.

The fact that he tried to operate within the law, rather than violate the constitution PROVES that he lied and he secretly worshipped Bin Laden.

Luckily Bush cared about Bin Laden, and as his first official act, had him neutralized ... Oh, wait ... nevermind!

Posted by Dale Michaud aka TexasDude | August 23, 2007 7:17 AM

Uhhh ... Bin Laden has NO rights under the United States Constitution.

But, hey, why let facts get in the way?

Posted by patrick neid | August 23, 2007 7:21 AM

"I've written before that pursuing partisan blame for 9/11 is a waste of time. It gets in the way of determining where failures occurred and developing the proper approaches to avoid them in the future. The truth is that the issues that created these failures stretched back for years, probably decades in terms of interpretation of intelligence law."

Bitch slapping Clinton is not partisan blame. It is simply revealing the true facts of his administration. He purposely set out to avoid confronting terrorism by criminalizing it. By putting it basically in the criminal justice system his hands were conveniently tied. As a rogue attorney he knew this. Jamie Gorelick springs to mind.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956

.........."Ms. White was then the lead prosecutor in cases related to the Trade Center bombing. Ms. Gorelick explicitly references United States v. Yousef and United States v. Rahman--cases that might have greatly expanded our pre-9/11 understanding of al Qaeda had investigators been given a freer hand. The memo is a clear indication that there was pressure then for more intelligence sharing. Ms. Gorelick's response is an unequivocal "no":
"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation".
In case anyone was in doubt, Janet Reno herself affirmed the policy several months later in a July 19, 1995, memo that we have unearthed. In it, the then-Attorney General instructs all U.S. Attorneys about avoiding "the appearance" of overlap between intelligence-related activities and law-enforcement operations.
Recall, too, that during the time of Ms. Gorelick's 1995 memo, the issue causing the most tension between the Reno-Gorelick Justice Department and Director Freeh's FBI was not counterterrorism but widely reported allegations of contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign from foreign sources, involving the likes of John Huang and Charlie Trie. Mr. Trie later told investigators that between 1994 and 1996 he raised some $1.2 million, much of it from foreign sources, whose identities were hidden by straw donors.
From any reasonably objective point of view, the Gorelick memo has to count as by far the biggest news so far out of the 9/11 hearings. The Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung."

Now more than ever he needs to be exposed, what with Hillary getting the dem nomination. Her crew is basically the same one that was in Bill's administration. They will once again play to the canard that it was/is our fault that radical Islam exists and if we only change our behavior burkas will only be optional rather than mandatory.

Posted by ff11 | August 23, 2007 7:23 AM

Bin Laden's rights are completely irrelevant. We have already established that Clinton tried to get him.

Do you admit that Clinton launched multiple attacks against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, or do YOU let facts get in the way?

Posted by Carl | August 23, 2007 7:30 AM

Bill Clinton exaggerating his record?!? Say it isn't so!!! I can't imagine Bill Clinton exaggerating anything! He's as honest as the day is long...ooops...look at the time.


The above disclaimer was for the benefit of the sarcasm-impaired.

Posted by Scott | August 23, 2007 7:32 AM

ff11, I don't remember "multiple attacks." I remember a single missile, basically bombing an aspirin factory at a time when no one was there. It was a retaliatory strike against a plant that was perhaps working for OBL, but OBL did not regularly check in at the office there. I think they killed the night watchman, or something like that. Try links like this one:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

Posted by Carl | August 23, 2007 7:32 AM

Bill Clinton exaggerating his record?!? Say it isn't so!!! I can't imagine Bill Clinton exaggerating anything! He's as honest as the day is long...ooops...look at the time.

{*that was an example of sarcasm}
The above disclaimer was for the benefit of the sarcasm-impaired.

Posted by Carl | August 23, 2007 7:32 AM

Bill Clinton exaggerating his record?!? Say it isn't so!!! I can't imagine Bill Clinton exaggerating anything! He's as honest as the day is long...ooops...look at the time.

{*that was an example of sarcasm}
The above disclaimer was for the benefit of the sarcasm-impaired.

Posted by MarkD | August 23, 2007 7:34 AM

There are way too many lawyers involved. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

In retrospect, maybe we should have gotten an order of protection against Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. That would have saved us. No?

The legal beagles managed to screw up the ROE for the military pretty well, too.

Like the Captain said, when the guys doing the investigation/after action reporting are part of the problem, don't look for useful solutions. It's CYA first, and then maybe the rest of you chumps might get some answers excuses.

Posted by Tom Shipley | August 23, 2007 7:42 AM

However, it gets difficult to remember that when former presidents essentially lie about their roles on national television.

Wasn't the raid on the aspirin factory meant to kill bin Laden?

The one that Republicans were all up in arms over?

Posted by ff11 | August 23, 2007 7:46 AM

While it's all well and good to blame Clinton for all of Bush's screw-ups, would you mind telling me how it's Clinton's fault that the CIA charter placed certain restrictions on it, or that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act placed further restrictions on the government?

Posted by amr | August 23, 2007 7:52 AM

I also do not like the partisan blame game. However, my problem is that the partisan game has been basically on one side. Mr. Bush has refrained from attacking the Clinton Administration, including his administration’s refusal to severely prosecute Mr. Burger or forced the release of confidential prosecutor’s investigations of Clinton era cabinet members and associates who were placed on trial. And what has that gotten him. Mr. Clinton and initially Mr. Carter have been making speeches attacking this President’s foreign policy at home and in foreign countries; a break with over 200 years of presidential history concerning ex-presidents political conduct. And members of Mr. Clinton’s former presidential staff have been in the forefront of that attack also.

The ABC news report last fall showed that President Clinton did not/would not give the order to kill bin Laden when he was located and being observed by our agents because of the possible killing of supposed innocents; but now it is clearer that Mr. Clinton was lying about having even a policy clearly permitting the killing of bin Laden.

Although I voted for Mr. Clinton the first time, thinking as with Mr. Truman he would grow in office, I soured on his capabilities in short order; but I did not believe that he would lie about this aspect of the pre 9-11 attempt to find, kill or capture bin Laden. After all of his statements and his reaction during his FOX appearance concerning this issue, he has absolutely no creditability with me. While for reasons of character and integrity, I have not considered voting for Mrs. Clinton, unless the Republican nominated someone on the fringe of the party, I’m not sure I could ever vote for her now; I don’t want Mr. Clinton even close to the stings of power again - think George Wallace and his wife in 1967 serving in his stead as governor in Alabama when he could not constitutionally run for office.

Posted by Tom Shipley | August 23, 2007 7:52 AM

This is the blogosphere at its worst.

Captain, the article you cite says "Clinton appeared to have been referring to..." Then goes on to make a case for Clinton lying based on that document.

Then you jump on the bandwagon and say Clinton lied. Now all the talkbackers are abuzz... "Clinton lied AGAIN!"

Well, didn't he authorize the attack on what turned out to be a Sudanese asprin factory because he thought bin Laden would be there? Doesn't that mean he would have had to authorize our military to kill him?

Cap'n, do you still stand by your assertion that Clinton lied?

Posted by ff11 | August 23, 2007 7:57 AM

One sided?

The talking points have been unambiguous. For the last 6 years, any unwelcome outcome of a Bush administration action has been blamed on Clinton. He doesn't have to do it himself when he has you people doing the work for him!

Posted by Micah | August 23, 2007 7:59 AM

Cap'n,
The 'Scheuer' you had in your quote block... whodat? Michael?
Enquiring minds wanna know.

FF11,
you're funny. We're you aware in 1998? Those "multiple attacks against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda" came the very day before or the VERY stinking day that he was scheduled to testify about the paula jones/monica thingy. wag. the. dog.

Posted by Ginger | August 23, 2007 8:02 AM

Who will ask Hillary the big Question? Will Bill continue his pattern of lies, deception, and less than decent behavior if you win the White House? What will you as our President do about this? Remember nothing is off base to the GOP Candidates

Posted by Rana Quijotesca | August 23, 2007 8:04 AM

If the text that you are citing is correct, then it appears that Clinton did what he should in regards to bin Laden. He set policy on a macro-level to catch bin Laden, and from that point the ball was in the CIA's court to establish specific strategies for capturing the terrorist leader. It would be a similar situation if I were to blame Bush for specific strategic blunders in Iraq, rather than blame him for policy problems.

Posted by Ginger | August 23, 2007 8:04 AM

Who will ask Hillary the big Question? Will Bill continue his pattern of lies, deception, and less than decent behavior if you win the White House? What will you as our President do about this? Remember nothing is off base to the GOP Candidates

Posted by Tom Shipley | August 23, 2007 8:05 AM

Actually, it wasn't Sudan where they thought bin Laden was, but a camp in Afhganastan... which they bombed.

Also, Republican and Democratic leaders backed Clinton's actions, but there were some who claimed these attacks were to distract from Lewsinsky (and, I see Micah is continuing this theory today...)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,556906,00.html

But it does in fact seem that Clinton did authorize the killing of bin Laden.

Posted by Scott | August 23, 2007 8:07 AM

ff11,

re: "....he has you people doing the work for him!.

The horror. Imagine people exercising their freedom to comment on the actions of a wayward President. No wonder Bush wanted to trash the Constitution and tap everyone's phones. I mean, everyone except the minions under the control of Rove's mental mind control beams.

Posted by J | August 23, 2007 8:08 AM

The Clintons have perfected the art of lying, denying and blaming others for their actions - this frightening behavior is now totally integrated in their being. The press loves them, judges love them, and far too many Americans are immune to their unstable behavior. Those who love the Clintons will never bring themselves to admit the damage the Clintons have done to our judiciary, military and intelligence agencies.

To think we might have to go through this again is absolutely horrifying.

Posted by Captain Ed | August 23, 2007 8:10 AM

No,he authorized the hit on the Sudanese aspirin factory because the CIA thought they were producing chemical weapons for al-Qaeda. The cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan at the same time were to take out AQ training camps. This was in retaliation for the embassy bombings. Osama had fled Sudan in 1996. It's a huge stretch to say that we attempted to assassinate OBL with cruise missiles, and completely ignorant to argue that Clinton thought he was in a Sudanese aspirin factory.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

Posted by quickjustice | August 23, 2007 8:13 AM

Clinton tried to get Bin Laden? I seem to remember Clinton admitting that Sudan offered the U.S. Bin Laden, but that Clinton refused to accept the offer because his Justice Department lawyers wouldn't let him.

In other words, because Clinton's lawyers thought they couldn't make a criminal case, Bin Laden escaped.

Posted by J | August 23, 2007 8:14 AM

The Clintons have perfected the art of lying, denying and blaming others for their actions - this frightening behavior is now totally integrated in their being. The press loves them, judges love them, and far too many Americans are immune to their unstable behavior. Those who love the Clintons will never bring themselves to admit the damage the Clintons have done to our judiciary, military and intelligence agencies.

To think we might have to go through this again is absolutely horrifying.

Posted by Micah | August 23, 2007 8:23 AM

Tom,
Facts is as facts does.
You're saying firing two cruise missiles, at two different parts of the world, at the same time he is scheduled to testify to the grand jury about paula jones and monica, is NOT a distraction? Who has their head in the sand?
Whether or not it was intentionally to distract, it still distracted. And, since I was aware at the time, this took place MONTHS after the US embassy bombings, not a couple days/weeks after.
And, bin Laden was warned the missile was coming before it was fired, thanks to madam albright letting pakistan know we were firing over their airspace.
I have to wonder if you would have gladly taken monica's place under the desk, since you can not attribute ANY deception to 'depends on what is is' slickmeister. DUH.

Posted by Bennett | August 23, 2007 8:23 AM

I don't know if it would have mattered, killing bin Laden back in the 90s. Getting rid of him back then might have removed the most visible symbol of AQ but it wouldn't have destroyed the organization, because of people like al-Zawahari and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And 9/11 would have probably happened anyway. If Clinton and his administration failed, it was in not understanding the bigger picture, how AQ operates in pursuing its agenda.

It is humorous, thought, seeing Clinton trying to convince everyone that he was as bloodthirsty as Bush was accused of being after he made the "wanted: dead or alive" comment.

Posted by Rovin | August 23, 2007 8:51 AM

You would think that with all the failings that the Clinton Administration took part in, (including a Carter mentality of marginalizing our military and intell), and taking the tack of regulating these attacks as criminal acts rather than acts of war against this nation, and you find the weakness that continues in the democratic party. And they still persist on putting their political ambitions ahead of our safety and security.

Can we really comprehend a "Clinton-2" leadership and feel safe?

Posted by David M | August 23, 2007 10:16 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by Peach | August 23, 2007 10:28 AM

No wonder the Democrats decided to gamble the lives of americans and politicize 9-11, it's really no depart from their decades of gambling with the lives American pre-9/11.

Posted by BoWowBoy | August 23, 2007 10:46 AM

Clinton lied to the American people on television before (waving that finger and looking right into the camera ........... a sign that he has a pathology for it) .........no reason he wouldn't lie on this issue either.

btw ...........if you lie ...........you'll steal.

Posted by ff11 | August 23, 2007 11:10 AM

Okay Micah, I'm clear now:

"Clinton never did anything about Bin Laden ... except for when he did. But we won't count those times. He was wagging the dog, you see! It would have been okay if it was us, but not him. So you see, he never did anything about Al-Qaeda, even though he did."

By the way,

Captain, the Sudanese hit was to take out Al-Qaeda infrastructure. The Afghan hits were to take out Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda operatives, and they almost succeeded, except that our "allies", the Pakistanis tipped him off and we barely missed him.

quickjustice, the Sudanese offered to turn Bin Laden over to THE SAUDIS (who, fearing their own internal instability would have no part of this deal). They NEVER suggested that they would be willing to turn him over to the US.

Micah, it was not 2 cruise missiles, but 75 in Afghanistan alone and at 6 different locations. But you have a valid point: it doesn't count because after all, he is Clinton.

Posted by skeptical | August 23, 2007 11:37 AM

See, Tom Shipley, it doesn't matter what Slick Willie did if he did it with a cigar. And it isn't attacking his predecessor if he dispatches his VP and cabinet to do it; and it isn't lying if your intelligence officers say the drones couldn't possibly carry anything lethal, or the aluminum tubes aren't suitable for refining atomic materials, or there's no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, etc., etc., if you wrap yourself in a big enough flag and promise tax cuts.

See, the Clintons are the serial liars. Case closed. Bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan was just a fig leaf, and not a big enough one at that.

And that's why we have to go after Iraq, because the Japanese would follow us home, and if you keep escalating your commitments, history will remember you as spreading democracy, especially if you get to (re)write the history. See, because honesty is about commitment, and the bigger your commitment, the more honest you are.

Posted by CJW | August 23, 2007 11:38 AM

Clinton thought bin Laden was such a threat that he missed him and drove him underground (maybe literally, maybe not).

And Clinton thought bin Laden was such a threat that he never emphasized that to Gore in the 2000 presidential election. That issue never came up as an issue, let alone a real important threat issue, in the 2000 presidential election that Gore tried to steal after he conceded.

But, I know we are just piling on the last administration because the real damage wasn't done on their watch but less than eight months in to the current administration's watch. tic

Posted by RD | August 23, 2007 11:56 AM

There was no need for the millions of dollars of cruise missiles (which also as I remember shorted our supply of these expensive weapons) on a not only failed but counter-productive "wag the dog" because negotiations were underway at the time to turn bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia (according to that impeccable newspaper of record the New York Times) for trial. It was this "wag the dog" attack on the eve of the Monica trial which instead put the kibosh on bin Laden being turned over.
http:www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/intern.../08ATTA.html?pagewanted=print&position=botto
also see:
WORLD November 1, 2003:'Clinton did not have the will to respond' by Mindy Belz which was an interview of Richard Miniter on how the Clinton White House passed up opportunities to seize Osama bin Laden

Posted by RD | August 23, 2007 12:01 PM

There was no need for the millions of dollars of cruise missiles (which also as I remember shorted our supply of these expensive weapons) on a not only failed but counter-productive "wag the dog" because negotiations were underway at the time to turn bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia (according to that impeccable newspaper of record the New York Times) for trial. It was this "wag the dog" attack on the eve of the Monica trial which instead put the kibosh on bin Laden being turned over.
http:www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/intern.../08ATTA.html?pagewanted=print&position=botto
also see:
WORLD November 1, 2003:'Clinton did not have the will to respond' by Mindy Belz which was an interview of Richard Miniter on how the Clinton White House passed up opportunities to seize Osama bin Laden

Posted by Tim | August 23, 2007 12:03 PM

You people have the worst President ever in the US and you still focus your attention on Bill Clinton?

Do you know how much of a mental patient that makes you appear to normal Americans?

And ask any random American...I'll bet 9 times out of 10 they still wish Bill was President instead of the retard you all elected.

You righties are are amazing...anything, ANYTHING to distract from your Danerously Failed President. Pathetic. Your leader led us into a blind canyon with no easy solution. That's not leadership...that's Stupidity. Dangerous Stupidity.

Posted by Tim | August 23, 2007 12:04 PM

You people have the worst President ever in the US and you still focus your attention on Bill Clinton?

Do you know how much of a mental patient that makes you appear to normal Americans?

And ask any random American...I'll bet 9 times out of 10 they still wish Bill was President instead of the retard you all elected.

You righties are are amazing...anything, ANYTHING to distract from your Danerously Failed President. Pathetic. Your leader led us into a blind canyon with no easy solution. That's not leadership...that's Stupidity. Dangerous Stupidity.

Posted by RD | August 23, 2007 12:07 PM

There was no need for the millions of dollars of cruise missiles (which also as I remember shorted our supply of these expensive weapons) on a not only failed but counter-productive "wag the dog" because negotiations were underway at the time to turn bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia (according to that impeccable newspaper of record the New York Times) for trial. It was this "wag the dog" attack on the eve of the Monica trial which instead put the kibosh on bin Laden being turned over.
http:www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/intern.../08ATTA.html?pagewanted=print&position=botto
also see:
WORLD November 1, 2003:'Clinton did not have the will to respond' by Mindy Belz which was an interview of Richard Miniter on how the Clinton White House passed up opportunities to seize Osama bin Laden

Posted by Tim | August 23, 2007 12:11 PM

You people have the worst President ever in the US and you still focus your attention on Bill Clinton?

Do you know how much of a mental patient that makes you appear to normal Americans?

And ask any random American...I'll bet 9 times out of 10 they still wish Bill was President instead of the retard you all elected.

You righties are are amazing...anything, ANYTHING to distract from your Danerously Failed President. Pathetic. Your leader led us into a blind canyon with no easy solution. That's not leadership...that's Stupidity. Dangerous Stupidity.

Posted by Tim | August 23, 2007 12:11 PM

You people have the worst President ever in the US and you still focus your attention on Bill Clinton?

Do you know how much of a mental patient that makes you appear to normal Americans?

And ask any random American...I'll bet 9 times out of 10 they still wish Bill was President instead of the retard you all elected.

You righties are are amazing...anything, ANYTHING to distract from your Danerously Failed President. Pathetic. Your leader led us into a blind canyon with no easy solution. That's not leadership...that's Stupidity. Dangerous Stupidity.

Posted by RD | August 23, 2007 12:14 PM

There was no need for the millions of dollars of cruise missiles (which also as I remember shorted our supply of these expensive weapons) on a not only failed but counter-productive "wag the dog" because negotiations were underway at the time to turn bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia (according to that impeccable newspaper of record the New York Times) for trial. It was this "wag the dog" attack on the eve of the Monica trial which instead put the kibosh on bin Laden being turned over.
http:www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/intern.../08ATTA.html?pagewanted=print&position=botto
also see:
WORLD November 1, 2003:'Clinton did not have the will to respond' by Mindy Belz which was an interview of Richard Miniter on how the Clinton White House passed up opportunities to seize Osama bin Laden

Posted by TombZ | August 23, 2007 12:20 PM

Two points:

1) Most of us were asleep on our feet through the 1990's. The party was too much fun to shut down due to any serious matters that needed to be addressed.

2)I eagerly await Mr. Clinton's rebuttal to this news. If one comes, it should be interesting.

Posted by TombZ | August 23, 2007 12:32 PM

Two comments:

1) Most of us were asleep on our feet through the 1990's. The party was too much fun to shut down due to any serious matters that needed to be addressed.

2)I eagerly await Mr. Clinton's rebuttal to this news. If one comes, it should be interesting.

Posted by Neo | August 23, 2007 12:59 PM

As we all know the Clinton legacy dictates that lying is ok as long as it is about sex.

So .. where is the sex ?

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | August 23, 2007 1:00 PM

I see the trolls have infested this site as well as others. The CIA report has nothing to do with the Bush administration so any mention of it is just to change the subject which trolls are prone to do. I fail to see the problem. Clinton is a proven liar. You only spectulate that Bush lies. History and documents will continue to show that Clinton failed in his duty as President. However, Bush has kept his oath of office. Think otherwise? Prove it in court.

Posted by RD | August 23, 2007 1:01 PM

I do apolgize for the multiple postings-my computer keeps telling me that the page is unavailable. Please someone ask Hillary what she thinks of Sandy Berger's raid on the secret records in our National Archives and whether he would have a position of any kind in her administration should she become the first FEMALE President of the US. (shudder) Do not settle for anything less than a forthcoming answer (if she is capable of giving such)
I also believe we have heard former President Clinton's response from several posters on this thread...he tends to do things by proxie, witness that endless round of spinners we were fed during the Monica fiasco.

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | August 23, 2007 1:02 PM

I see the trolls have infested this site as well as others. The CIA report has nothing to do with the Bush administration so any mention of it is just to change the subject which trolls are prone to do. I fail to see the problem. Clinton is a proven liar. You only spectulate that Bush lies. History and documents will continue to show that Clinton failed in his duty as President. However, Bush has kept his oath of office. Think otherwise? Prove it in court.

Posted by Neo | August 23, 2007 1:04 PM

As we all know the Clinton legacy dictates that lying is ok as long as it is about sex.

So .. where is the sex ?

Posted by RD | August 23, 2007 1:04 PM

I do apolgize for the multiple postings-my computer keeps telling me that the page is unavailable. Please someone ask Hillary what she thinks of Sandy Berger's raid on the secret records in our National Archives and whether he would have a position of any kind in her administration should she become the first FEMALE President of the US. (shudder) Do not settle for anything less than a forthcoming answer (if she is capable of giving such)
I also believe we have heard former President Clinton's response from several posters on this thread...he tends to do things by proxie, witness that endless round of spinners we were fed during the Monica fiasco.

Posted by Tom Shipley | August 23, 2007 1:26 PM

The cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan at the same time were to take out AQ training camps.

They had intelligence that bin Laden was going to have dinner there the night they struck. The strike was meant to kill him. It's not a stretch to say it was an assassination attempt.

What is a stretch is to assume the late 1999 MON is the only action Clinton took against bin Laden, and calling him a liar because of that. That's the stretch.

But, I get it. You're a blog. It's good to rile up the masses with baseless charges.

Posted by Neo | August 23, 2007 1:45 PM

You people have the worst President ever in the US and you still focus your attention on Bill Clinton?

Sorry, Jimmy Carter was the worst.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 23, 2007 5:02 PM

Has anyone ever seen Tom Shipley and Bill Clinton in the same room at the same time?

Posted by Ray | August 23, 2007 5:13 PM

"We contracted with people to kill him."

Apparently, he contracted with the wrong people.

"The strike was meant to kill him."

Not according to CNN: "U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden...

...U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen said the goal of the strikes was to disrupt and attempt to destroy the suspected training and support facilities used to train "hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorists."

"We recognize these strikes will not eliminate the problem," Cohen said. "But our message is clear. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists and no limit to our resolve to defend American citizens and our interests -- our ideals of democracy and law -- against these cowardly attacks."
Link

The strikes were against terrorist training camps and support facilities. It wasn't an attack on bin Laden himself.

Posted by Ray | August 23, 2007 5:31 PM

"Posted by Neo | August 23, 2007 1:45 PM
So .. where is the sex ?"

Well, Clinton f*&ked up the attacks, didn't he? After all, he knew where bin Laden was, according to Tom anyways, and still missed the target. He also blew up an aspirin factory which would have released tons of deadly chemicals into the environment and killed untold numbers of civilians had any chemical weapons been manufactured and stored there, as he claimed. You don't just bomb a chemical weapons factory without regard as to where those chemicals will go once the containment system is destroyed, unless you're not worried about the civilian population. That doesn't show very good planing by the Clinton administration now, does it?

Posted by ernie | August 23, 2007 7:20 PM

"I've written before that pursuing partisan blame for 9/11 is a waste of time. It gets in the way of determining where failures occurred and developing the proper approaches to avoid them in the future."

If Bill Clinton did not authorize anyone to go after Bin Laden then there is no failure in the system. The system blew off the threat and moved along to something else that the Administration wanted to focus on.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 23, 2007 7:30 PM

Ray said:

"Link

The strikes were against terrorist training camps and support facilities. It wasn't an attack on bin Laden himself."

Dang, Ray, you know you aren't supposed to support your arguments by quoting CNN. That will make some of the peoples' heads here explode! Right, Tom?

Posted by Nicholas | August 23, 2007 9:37 PM

Clinton's measured act of war against UBL was documented in news media all over the world at the time as an attempt to get UBL and a distraction from his legal problem. One can not believe much of the ridiculously partisan and utter non-objective "Fox News" broadcasts as anything less than partisan propaganda.

The interview with Clinton was remarkable in that it shows how Fox operates to spread delusion and now they are trying to curry up favor for a more insane war against Iran.

Perhaps the CIA report is also politicized.

Posted by viking01 | August 23, 2007 9:45 PM

It is interesting logic when the Left suggests "intelligence" sources of where Bin Laden was having dinner sufficiently excuses a Clinton yet intelligence sources used by Bush 43 before 9/11 and before prosecution of the current Gulf War are somehow not allowable. That incorporates nearly as many double standards as N.O.W. cows campaigning for a Kennedy.

Before his flame out poor Tim hadn't realized that the ones fitted with wraparound sleeves by the men in white coats generally are the ones busy calling others crazy.

Posted by The Yell | August 24, 2007 4:20 AM

So Bush is a failure because he hasn't killed bin Laden and keeps deferring guilt to other Administrations; while Clinton is a great man because he tried to kill bin Laden and did better than other Administrations anyhow.

I'm glad the Left has cleared everything up for us.

Posted by swabjockey05 | August 24, 2007 6:59 AM

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 23, 2007 5:02 PM

Has anyone ever seen Tom Shipley and Bill Clinton in the same room at the same time?

Don't know...don't care. But if it ever happend, wonder which one was on his hands and knees...?

Posted by cj | August 26, 2007 10:48 PM

Read "Legacy of Ashes," a history of the CIA. While flawed, it is good background, and provides much information on presidential interaction with the CIA. Is a good jumping-off point for further research into facts, not opinions.

There *are* documents that have be declassified. There *is* a history of incompetence in the CIA. There are various reasons (i.e., personal human flaws, beauracracy, inattentive oversight, etc.)for failure.

Educate yourself. Use this as a starting point. Put pressure on your elected representatives to perform oversight.

Post a comment