Bill: At least I tried

"I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for Bin Laden.

What the hell is a full scall attack search?But is there were such a thing,I'm sure there are Generals around who could verify this plan. We will probably be told later that only he and Hill drew up the plans.

But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we [only] got after 9/11.

Again - I'm sure the ambassador at the time could confirm this, unless Clintigula called the President of Uzbekistan hisself, permission was denied and he didnt brief the JSOS.

The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible."

It's everybodies elses fault, isnt it Slick? The sycophants on his team will be scrambling in the next few days to make sure everyone is on the same page with these doozies.

It said it was after the interview, so it probably won't be heard.

Clinton will end up with a pretty big section in Bartlett's.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

I did not inhale

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

"It was a real sort of Southern deal. I had AstroTurf in the back. You don't want to know why, but I did."

And now, to sum it up,

I tried and I failed

Ever been in the downtown area of a big city and seen the guy that walks along the sidewalk screaming and hollering to himself wildly about something? He's all crazy-bugeyed and gesturing like mad about something. Basically, he's nutz and you look at him and steer clear.

Chris Wallace on FOX is interviewing that guy.......

I just saw excerpts, he had THE EXACT look in his eye when he said;"I did not have sex with that woman...". Hey Bill, you really need to find the truth in your soul before it is too late. Unless it is too late already.

Clinton National Security team relaxing, having fun, on The Path to 9/11.

What? No papers in Sandy's pants and socks?

Bill's efforts to 'stop bin laden' were no more sincere than teddy kennedy's efforts to save mary jo kopechne.

Both at hot air specialists in the liberal jihad against america.

"Puts the Blame on Bush for Clinton not getting Bin Laden?"

Or is that; "Puts the Blame on Bush for Clinton not getting Laid(en)?"

Bill Clinton has a history of losing his temper when he's embarrassed, when he wants to avoid answering tough questions, and when he's caught in a lie.

Exploding into an indignant rage is a Bill Clinton defensive tactic specialty, to change the subject, to throw his opponent off-stride. What he says during these theatrical moments is always a part of his deception.

Way back in Clinton's first presidential debate:
" That night in a debate, Jerry Brown accused Clinton of funneling money to his wife's law firm. Clinton exploded. He called it a "lying accusation" and said Brown wasn't fit to "be on the same platform with my wife."
(This explosion rescued Clinton from having to respond to Brown's allegation.)

Red-faced, snarling, finger-pointing Clinton, "I did not have sex with that woman....Ms Lewinsky"

"I tried, I tried", just the latest opportunity for Clinton to clear his record, and how clever of him! He manages to demonize "neo-cons" at the same time.

Your # 10 graphic is magnificent!!

Check out The Ace of Spades Headquarters for the rest of this excellent post:

Wow.

The man simply lies. It is a breathtakingly stupid and mendacious claim that rightwingers, as he calls us, actually opposed his weak single effort to get bin Ladin. Throughout the late nineties, I was apopleptic we weren't doing anything at all about bin Ladin. We wanted more action. Not less.

The pretext for this lie is that rightwingers, myself included, did in fact "question the timing" of his one attempt to kill bin Ladin. It occurred, coindentally enough, during the Lewinsky furor. On the eve of some testimony; can't remember which, and it really doesn't matter.

Conservatives did not object to this attack. We were enraged, however, that the man refused to attack bin Ladin at all until he was motivated to action by a threat to his own political safety. We were not angry he'd attacked bin Ladin; we were angry he hadn't attacked bin Ladin before (or after, actually; anyone remember a subsequent attack?).

We were angry that the man had let bin Ladin attack us with impunity for years until he saw it as a good move politically to finally launch a poorly-timed cruise missile at bin Ladin. He was animated to action not to save American lives, but to save his own f*****g political life.

We strongly suspected he had any number of chances to kill bin Ladin before this. It turns out we were one-hundred percent right:

Mr. Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day… [W]e had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act…

It is absurd to even suggest that Republicans' beef with Clinton's feckless and vascillating anti-Al Qaeda efforts was that we craved even more fecklessness and vascillation.

Who the hell does this narcisstic sociopath think he's fooling? Does he really imagine he can sell the American people on the proposition that Republicans were actually less committed to dropping bombs on "brown people" than he was?

Let's say hypothetically this lying bastard is telling the truth. Let's say the Republicans really did want his candyass efforts to kill bin Ladin to be even more candyassed. What the hell is the Commander in Chief, then, doing bowing to political pressure to let a sworn enemy of the United States and mass-murderer of (then) hundreds of American lives live his life unmolested?

Is Clinton really claiming he let bin Ladin go on to murder three thousand people because he was afraid what Tom DeLay might say about him?

True fact: Clinton fought the Serbian War without an authorization for the use of military force from Congress and furthermore in direct violation of the War Powers Act. (Which is a law I think should usually be ignored; I point this out just to note Clinton knew how to go to war unilaterally when he wanted to.)

He can do all that to defend KLA terrorists in Serbia but he can't lift a finger to kill bin Ladin for fear of Rush Limbaugh mocking him?

Fact: Clinton didn't take any action against bin Ladin -- and I include that jackassed cruise missile strike, delayed to make sure all people were out of the target at the time of detonation, so as to make sure no innocent lives (or any lives, for that matter) where taken -- because he knew that such action could cause unrest in the Middle East, which could drive up the price of oil, which would dampen the US economy, which would, finally, lower his approval rating, the only thing the selfish sonofabitch ever gave a good goddamn about.

Either that, or he's the peace-at-any-cost bong-smoking hippie pussy we always suspected he was.

The man let bin Ladin go. The man let bin Ladin plot and scheme and recruit and ultimately murder 3000 innocent civilians. And he blames his negligence and malfeasance on the Republicans?

I didn't realize that Tom DeLay's position as House Majority Whip also made him Commander in Chief. I'll have to make that notation in my Con Law books for future reference.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read the whole thing.

I saw an excerpt from this interview on Special Report yesterday. From what I saw, Slick Willie is good and pissed off in this interview. It will be well worth watching Fox Nes Sunday tomorrow to see the whole thing.

I've put forth more effort sitting on the can.

WRT the results, the more logical comparison to you sitting on the can would be Clinton doing an interview.

;-)

Well that settles it! Bill had a PLAN. He had a PLAN, dammit! He WANTED to get rid of the Taliban and al Qaeda! So why are we all being so mean to him?

/sarcasm off

But the devil is in the details: HE didn't have a plan; the Pentagon had a PLAN.......just like they do for ever other country in the world.

He didn't have a BATTLE PLAN for anything.

This man is unstable.

After the segment, Clinton got in Wallace's face and told Wallace he would not get away with his line of questioning.

I would have loved to have been Wallace at that point!

Let's ASK Richard Clarke:

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

If only he had been "tried"- instead of given a pass- by the Senate.

That's some good stuff. My sentiments exactly.

It's time to face the facts that Slick had the capability to get bin Laden, he had the grounds, he knew exactly where the SOB was on numerous occasions, but he just didn't want to go there. His Nobel Peace Prize campaign would have gone down the drain. He was too busy sucking up to Arafat and meddling with the Israeli elections to even think about al Qaeda as an actual threat to the U.S. I think he just really didn't believe his own advisors that these guys living in mud huts in Afghanistan had the ability to do anything like 9/11.