Clinton, Character, and 9/11

Accuracy in Media ^ | February 26, 2004 | By Sean Grindlay

[Jim Robinson]

Did the CIA and FBI do everything they could have done to prevent September 11? Was Iraq behind the attacks? Did Saddam Hussein possess weapons of mass destruction?

Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie tackled these and other heated questions at a luncheon held on February 11 by Accuracy in Media. Mylroie also discussed her book Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror (Regan Books, 2003).

Much of the discussion dealt with the policies of former President Bill Clinton, for whom Mylroie served as an advisor on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign. Mylroie reported that her former boss had taken a tough stance toward Iraq on the campaign trail; once he took office, however, Clinton suddenly developed an aversion to dealing with what Mylroie called "the unfinished business of the Gulf War."

The response to the bombing of the World Trade Center in February of 1993 demonstrated the weakness of the Clinton administration's policies on terrorism, Mylroie said. The New York FBI suspected that Iraq had played a major role in the bombing, citing the sophistication of the attack plan and the suspicious ease with which the alleged perpetrators had been captured. Most intelligence officials, however, promoted the theory that state-sponsored terrorism had given way to attacks by "loose networks" of terrorists such as al Qaeda, with the WTC bombing being a case in point.

[MeekOneGOP]

[ysoitanly]

On a semi-related note, a Clinton must-read is "Madame Hillary", which chronicles their continuing corruption and unrelenting lust for absolute power, while hating this country and everything it stands for. We must do EVERYTHING to keep them out of power, once and for all!

[gitmo]

Terrorism requires a strong response. Mild mannered responses encourage further terrorism.

[FairOpinion]

"One of the main problems with 1990s counterterrorism efforts, Mylroie argued, was that the U.S. too often treated terrorism as an issue of law enforcement rather than one of national security. As such, the issue was left to prosecutors, who were concerned only with convicting individual terrorists, neglecting the question of whether their actions might have been coordinated by a foreign government. "

===

THIS is a key statement, because Kerry wants to use the same approach, which has already been proven, in a devastating way, that it doesn't work.

"On Thursday, Bush criticized Kerry without naming him, saying the nation would be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks under a Democratic administration and asserting that his opponents "view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved with law enforcement and indictments."

After Sept. 11, 2001, Bush said, "It is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers."

Kerry lays out his strategy to fight terror
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~1986027,00.html

[TADSLOS]

In 1995 his son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, who had been in charge of Iraq's unconventional weapons program, defected to Jordan. He revealed-and Iraq subsequently confirmed-that Iraq's weapons programs were much larger than the government had previously admitted, and that they included biological and nuclear weapons.

A fact prompting numerous comments of concern by the Clinton administration and the Democrats in Congress at the time, but conveniently ignored by the media today. Dead men tell (no more) tales.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

But Jim, Hillary's telling us that Internationalism and our policies combatting terrorism in the 1990's were very effective. I'm not sure whom to believe here... </scarcasm>

[mountaineer]

Yet Hillary says Bush should be thanking her beloved spouse for the fine job the military have done in Iraq, thread here. But for x42's refusal to deal with terrorists between 1993-2001, I seriously doubt we'd be in Afghanistan or Iraq right now. Thanks so much, Bill.

[Peach]

The book The New Jackals, written in 1999, pre 9/11, details how Ramzi Yousef was connected to Iraq. He is currently in prison for the first WTC bombing.

[JDoutrider]

I welcome the day when I can stand in line to wizz on his eternal resting place BUMP

[JOE6PAK]

*****Posted by Jim Robinson!!!!*******

Can't we get a siren and lights like Drudge?

[olde north church]

I saw Ms. Mylroie several times before and thought her ideas to be quite provocative. She put forth one hypothesis regarding Iraq, the Kuwaiti Occupation and stolen IDs, that piqued my interest. I would have never guessed her to have any link to Clinton.

[Mel Gibson]

There was absolutely never any doubt in my mind that the Second War in Iraq was simply a continuation of the First War. When you first strike at a King (Saddam Hussein), you have to kill him. There was never any doubt that the U.S. would eventually have to either kill him or remove him from power down the road at some point in time.

It's far better for the terrorist jackals to go to Iraq and have the U.S. Military deal with them than for those same terrorist jackals to be in this country doing their jihad on innocent civilians.

Thank you for your post as always.

[freekitty]

Clinton and character don't belong in the same sentence; however, Clinton and 9/11 do.

[Coroner]

Dont forget to thank the sinkemperor for cutting our navy and air force in half not to mention using up all of our guided munitions without replacing them.

[NYC GOP Chick]

THIS is a key statement, because Kerry wants to use the same approach, which has already been proven, in a devastating way, that it doesn't work.

"On Thursday, Bush criticized Kerry without naming him, saying the nation would be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks under a Democratic administration and asserting that his opponents "view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved with law enforcement and indictments."

After Sept. 11, 2001, Bush said, "It is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers."

Bush gets it -- and to me, this is the most compelling reason to vote for him. Our national security and even our very survival are just too precious and vulnerable to trust to a 'rat.

After the first WTC bombing (the 11th anniversary was 2 days ago, btw), I was very upset that it was treated as a criminal matter, something to be tried in court after a mugging case and before a bodega robbery.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Clinton and character don't belong in the same sentence; however, Clinton and 9/11 do.

Actually, I consider the two terrorist attacks on my neighborhood -- 2/26/93 and 9/11/01 -- to be the bookends of Clintigula's presidency and, ultimately, his legacy.

The anemic manner in which he dealt (or, rather, chose not to deal) with the first bombing led to the second, more devastating attack.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

Remember the Lost and Suffering on September 11, 2001

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33

---

.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629

.

[WFTR]

Mylroie reported that her former boss had taken a tough stance toward Iraq on the campaign trail; once he took office, however, Clinton suddenly developed an aversion to dealing with what Mylroie called "the unfinished business of the Gulf War."

I think Clinton liked dealing with Iraq to some extent. I think he liked the idea of launching an occasional missile at something. I think he liked ordering our planes to bomb radar installations that violated the "no-fly" zones by painting American aircraft. Clinton and Saddam both liked to sit in their houses, smoking cigars, and pretending to "get tough" with their enemies. Liberals claim that they don't like bloodshed, but they didn't mind bloodshed when Clinton was doing it. They simply don't like the use of force when it accomplishes something worthwhile. They hate President Bush's use of force because he's accomplishing something.

[nutmeg]

bttt