Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Clinton failed to stop bin Laden
USA Today Front Page ^ | 2-11-02 | Susan Page

Posted on 05/19/2002 1:37:38 PM PDT by Kay Soze

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Osama bin Laden was emerging as a terrorist as Bill Clinton was inaugurated as president.

The Saudi exile would be implicated in the first World Trade Center bombing, which occurred a month after Clinton took office. Bin Laden would contribute to the Somali debacle that scarred the president's first use of military force abroad. His al-Qa'eda network would kill more Americans in two bombings in Saudi Arabia and at two U.S. embassies in East Africa, and nearly sink a Navy warship in the final months of Clinton's term.


(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqeda; bushknew; osamabinladen; sept11attacks; terrorwar; worldtradecenter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
Reminder repost-

Clinton in 8 years allowed Osama to bcome stonger while repetedly ingnoring the ever escalating terrorist activities. While only in office for 8 months we now know Bush was already formulating plans to remove Osama and his men.

His liberal psychology precluded him and his staff from seeing and tackling security issues related to terrorist and other threats against the US . Their mindset always will.

And the world community reads news papers and knows that Clinton did not have the necessary components to take any decisive action to ensure US security and treated him accordingly. Contrast the cooperation that Yemen gave Clinton with the total support Yemen has given Bush.

Because of our involvement in Vietnam (given to the US by Pres Johnson and Robert McNamara !), his mistrust of Intelligence and Military establishments , Clinton as a war protestor would not allow any intelligence or military actions take place to reduce or delay the inevitable escalation of terrorist attacks by Osama and others.

He could not lead the nation and drum up support for what need to take place... a war to stop terror.

As a side note: I don’t know if any of you are old enough to recall a man named Mohmar Kadafi the Libyan Dictator.

While Regan was president it was determined that that Kadfii had killed a US servicemen in a Berlin disco bombing and that Kadafi might be behind the Locker bee TWA airplane bombing. Reagan’s response was decisive, quick despite worldwide condemnation he bombed Kadafi’s house! France would not even allow US planes to land for refueling. Reagan did not submit months or proof to the UN and begin begging for Worldwide support for action to stem the escalating tide of terror against the US he acted UNILATERLY.

To this day we have never had another single instance of terror from that man or regime!

1 posted on 05/19/2002 1:37:39 PM PDT by Kay Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Kay Soze
Very interesting. You might expect to read this at a conservative web site, not in a popular newspaper. It looks as if USA Today isn't getting with the program along with the NY Times and the Washington ComPost.

They weren't supposed to be saying things like this. The game plan that the media bosses agreed on was that they would blame it on Bush.

3 posted on 05/19/2002 1:57:10 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
"We did an incredible amount to get things started in dealing with this war on terrorism," former secretary of State Madeleine Albright says.

Incredibly little, that is.

Also, a correction:
France would not even allow US planes to land for refueling.

It's not that France wouldn't allow US planes to land for refueling; they wouldn't even allow overflight of our planes going from England, from whence the attacks were launched, to Libya. As a result, they had to go way the heck out west around Spain/Portugal, significantly complicating the mission.

4 posted on 05/19/2002 2:25:04 PM PDT by DuncanWaring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *TerrorWar
*Index Bump
5 posted on 05/19/2002 2:27:09 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
It's interesting how the Clinton Administration could muster a virtual army of Federal Agents and military personnel complete with tanks and aircraft to totally destroy the lives of 80 men, women and children in Waco, yet couldn't give the Rangers one tank or other badly needed support in Somalia.
6 posted on 05/19/2002 2:28:08 PM PDT by Ajnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
You might expect to read this at a conservative web site, not in a popular newspaper.

Agreed. Interesting indeed.

Another thing that interested me was the fact that time and again, Bill's concern for getting re-elected or hiding his misdeeds or obtaining some other domestic political advantage prevented him from acting on behalf of the interests of the United States. It's one of those things that you know - but when you see it set out, item by item, on a timeline, it really hits you.

7 posted on 05/19/2002 2:38:56 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Politcally Correct Version as published:
Two weeks after the bombings, Clinton ordered Tomahawk cruise missile strikes on a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan and a bin Laden training camp in Afghanistan. Intelligence reports had indicated bin Laden would be meeting there with 200 to 300 al-Qa'eda agents.

Reality:

The night prior to Monica Lewinsky's potentially explosive grand-jury testimony, Team Clinton initiated a vicious, murderous media suppression operation. Taking advantage of circumstance -- terrorist bombings of two US Embassies in Eastern Africa that had occurred two weeks prior, Clinton ordered Tomahawk cruise missile strikes on a what was presented to the fawning media as "a suspected chemical weapons factory" in Sudan and a "major" Bin Laden terrorist organization gathering in Afghanistan.

The Khartoum "chemical weapons" plant was in reality only a simple pharmeceutical plant, producing 60% of Sudan's anti-malarial and veterinary drugs that were desperately needed in that pooest of countries.

By including an African target -- any East African target -- Team Clinton provided a much better tie-in to the embassy bombings, and made the story so much more digestably presentable to the media.

It is difficult to determine how many innocents died from that ejaculatory missile raid, reports from European sources said that about a dozen workers had been killed, and estimates of the indirect deaths from the follow-on lack of malaria and husbandry drugs are very hard to find, ten to hundreds of thousands of Sudanese may have died due to such lacks.

8 posted on 05/19/2002 2:54:47 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Good Find!

Make the World Safe for al-Qaeda Terrorists!

Elect Democrats to Congress in 2002!

9 posted on 05/19/2002 2:55:45 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Clinton the Rapist had plenty of time for fundraising, though.
10 posted on 05/19/2002 2:55:47 PM PDT by RedWhiteBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Still laugh at Sam Kinison's version of why one of the bombs came close to hitting the French Embassy:

"Maybe if the crews wouldn't have been so tired having to fly around France, their aim would have been better."

IMHO, UBL paid off Clinton. Either cash or a sex slave. Why else would he be out of the country
(not that I'm complaining) so much?

11 posted on 05/19/2002 2:56:06 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
* The domestic political situation was complicated. The Cole attack came in the final weeks of a close presidential campaign; some Clinton advisers worried that military strikes would be seen as a ploy to boost Gore, the Democratic nominee. Then the election wouldn't end: The Florida recount stretched for another 5 weeks.

They sacrificed the lives of 3,000 Americans in order to help Gore win the election. One could argue that since 9/11 hadn't yet happened, that that isn't true, but they knew what Al Qaeda was capable of, yet they saw having Gore win the election as a higher priority than protecting the American people from Al Qaeda. This is sickening.

12 posted on 05/19/2002 3:30:47 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze;all
I'll cross-link to this:

Bush and Clinton and 911- some facts...


13 posted on 05/19/2002 3:34:52 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin
Clinton's army of officers was incredibly brave when they broke down a door and kidnapped a small boy. THIS was the measure of his bravery. Somalia was the measure of his cowardice and stupidity.
14 posted on 05/19/2002 4:26:21 PM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: matamoros
In his second term, when bin Laden emerged as the mastermind of plots against Americans, Clinton was enmeshed in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment.

Wait a minute. This is the direct opposite of what Clintoon said when he wagged his finger and lied. He said he did not have time to talk about Monica Lewinsky because he had to get back to work for the American people!

Seems to me that Clintoon's mismanagement of the terrorism problem is proof positive that he was too distracted by the scandal of his own making and should have resigned.

15 posted on 05/19/2002 4:32:42 PM PDT by PackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
"Our boys . . . went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war," bin Laden said in a rare interview, conducted in 1998 by ABC at a mountaintop camp in Afghanistan. "Our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier, and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging."

Liberals can whine and cry about giving peace a chance all they want but it's as simple as this: Your enemy's opinion of you is important. Had he knuckled down in Somalia- 9/11 might not have happened. Bin Laden might've gotten a totally different impression of the US and what the consequences were for attacking us.

Clinton may have been a pansy who was afraid to fight but he was the Commander in Chief and had the reputation of the nation in his hands. He screwed it up. He was afraid to sacrifice the lives of men and women who volunteered for that particular chore and in the end he sacrificed innocent civilians instead. The liberals like to refer to Dubya and the Right as war mongers, but Clinton did more to bring war to this nation than anybody else in modern history. He will be remembered for that in the history books.

16 posted on 05/19/2002 4:32:46 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
"I think Clinton was riveted in on 'the economy, stupid,'

Absolutely not! This man was riveted on sex, drugs or alcohol, pizza, rock 'n roll, and huge piles of money for 8 YEARS!. He was the consumate coward. He was brave enough when he had legions of law enforcement officers, press whores, private detectives, stolen FBI files, the IRS, the INS, NOW, and hosts of fellow gypsies tramps and thieves who did his bidding and ruined and harassed good law abiding concerned citizens. The difference between CLINTON and BUSH is this - and it is why men respect BUSH - If Clinton were mad at you he would have his henchmen beat you up. If BUSH were mad at you he could whup your butt himself. BUSH is a MAN, CLINTON is a sissy and a coward! And his foreign policy consisted of 8 years of running and hiding from evildoers.

17 posted on 05/19/2002 4:38:03 PM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
For the Clinton administration, that was the fundamental problem: Where was bin Laden? If he could be located, Clinton had authorized a military strike against him. But the president's inner circle -- Albright, Berger and Defense Secretary William Cohen among them -- agreed that basic question was never answered with enough certainty to order special operations forces deployed or missiles launched.

But it was the Clinton administration's bragging about tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone calls that caused him to abandon that practice.

18 posted on 05/19/2002 4:53:24 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Great Bump!
19 posted on 05/19/2002 7:17:25 PM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
...Clinton did not have the necessary components to take any decisive action to ensure US security...

And I'm still wondering how he got so decisive when it came to bombing the Serbs who were fighting the KLA who were/are connected to Bin Laden's terrorist network.

Maybe it was because US security wasn't at stake.

20 posted on 05/19/2002 8:22:36 PM PDT by ohmage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson