Skip to comments.The Clinton Plan That Wasn't
Posted on 08/07/2002 2:27:26 AM PDT by Republican_Strategist
Over the weekend a story in Time Magazine made splashes when it hurled accusations that the Clinton Administration had developed some sort of plan that it handed over to the Bush administration that would have been the blueprint for attacking Al Qaeda. Quickly, it story has spread like wildfire and the liberal media has already been trumpeting it while denouncing Bush for not acting on it.
This came to a surprise to many people considering that following 9-11, as note by popular conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton didnt talk about any such plan in the wake of the attack and surely would have staged a press conference highlighting any such plan. There was also no mention of it by other Clinton officials like Sandy Berger.
What we know is that the story was not the result of some pile of papers called the "Clinton Plan to get Al Qaeda." It was the result of Clinton officials feeding Time Magazine in hopes of covering up facts that the Clinton administration had been absolutely reckless and careless in dealing with the terrorist threat that Osama Bin Laden posed.
Conservative radio personality, Sean Hannity, on his nightly show on Fox News has pointed to the failure of the Clinton Administration to take up what can only be described as a golden opportunity that Sudan offered. A former Clinton supporter and fundraiser, Mansoor Ijaz, has made it clear in a series of editorials in major newspapers that the offer was presented and rejected by Clinton. Hannity went on to suggest was the reason that democrats leaked the story was to deflect from that.
I don't want to sound too self-serving or anything, but I have somewhat of a different theory so to speak about how exactly this came into play. On Friday, I had sent a link to my web site to Democrats.com by posting it on their online forum. It was removed, as was I within a short period of time. Now you must be wondering: what was the site and what does it have to do with any of this?
Well, Democrats.com is operated by former members of the Clinton Administration and it supposedly the largest community of online democrats. I posted a link to my web site on their and my web site is "Clintons Bin Laden-gate - Mother of all Scandals." I developed it to highlight what I thought Clintons worst we had ever seen and I built my case against Clinton.
On my site I build my case centering on Clinton allowing Bin Laden to attack us 6 separate times without adequately responding or going after Bin Laden. More to the point, Clinton turned up at least three offers by foreign governments to have Bin Laden handed over just to be brief about it. Fred Barnes pointed out that after Bin Laden was exiled from Sudan, he flew in a plane to Afghanistan and Clinton could have easily taken him out then.
Also key, is an Associated Press story that brought forth some very interesting facts. Bill Clinton, in December 2000 was presented an operation by the Pentagon after the whereabouts of Bin Laden had been determined. Bill Clinton refused to green light the operation. And furthermore, Sandy Berger said that wasnt the first time! He made it perfectly clear that was one of many occasions where they had located Bin Laden, but Clinton didnt take action.
It my belief that the former members of the Clinton Administration were fearful of the web site and they took it upon themselves to formulate a strategy to combat startling facts about how Clinton failed America and was culpable for 9/11 and they did that by feeding some scraps to Time and the information was printed almost word for word.
They were able to turn Clarke and his power point presentation that lasted, 15 minutes or so, that included a few suggestions about what to do, into some sort of comprehensive plan that was Bill Clinton developed and in lieu of the fact that he turned down an operation at the end of his tenure, it seems even more ludicrous. If Clinton toadies were not busy having orgasms, perhaps they would understand a Bush official said this so called plan never existed.
I also found it interesting that the Time story portrayed it as a valiant effort by the Clinton administration to help the incoming Bush Team. After all, Bill Clinton refused to allow the transition to take place and forced Bush to take up donations and set up an office in Virginia. Additionally the Clinton Administration in the spirit of friendship left the White House in chaos. Staffers cut phone lines, damaged keyboards, trashed the White House, and committed other types of vandalism.
Bill Clinton in fact seemed more interested in aiding the democrats with their frivolous accusations that constituted pure demagoguery through executive orders like one that made a dramatic change in the arsenic standard. It was no time before hypocrites like Daschle were accusing Bush of putting arsenic in our water for keeping the same standard we had for 8 years under Clinton while distracting Bush from focusing on his transition.
The other half of Clinton's final moments in office were spent doing public services by awarding pardons that bypassed the Justice Department all together to people like Marc Rich, who was a fugitive hiding out in Switzerland.
Now, more to the point, the Time piece painted a picture that the Bush Administration sat on the so called plan for 8 months and it was too late. The reality is that Bush officials went to work and they finally did what Clinton should have done and developed a comprehensive plan. They were not going to simply roll back Al Qaeda over 3 to 5 years, they were going to eliminate Al Qaeda. And Bush approved of the plan his team came up with shortly before 9/11.
Its funny to see the Time piece noted Bush was getting briefings all during his stay at is ranch for a month while democrats liked saying it was a vacation and imply Bush did nothing. What's humorous is the Aug. 6th briefing was mistakenly called a warning when in fact it wasn't. So Bush is reviewing intelligence given to Clinton in 1998 and that was taking fire while now we know it was being given to the President as part of his ongoing effort to formulate a plan and take the fight to Al Qaeda.
And the suggestions Clarke made that are supposed to be some fantasy plan Clinton handed to Bush included measures Clinton failed to implement, but the liberal media doesnt point it out. Such as aiding the Northern Alliance.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. had for years during the Clinton Administration made efforts to get information on Clintons foreign policy in Afghanistan. He said Clinton had directed supoort and funding to the Taliban through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as such information is on my web site. More to the point, he urged Clinton to back the Northern allaince in 1999 after the Taliban had overextended themselves and were very vulnerable.
Clinton instead has a ceasefire put in place. Then Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sent them money and military equipment. As a result the Taliban was able to regain its strength. The Associated Press back in June reported that in 1999 a senior member of the Taliban had approached the Clinton Administration about removing the Taliban because of its support for Al Qaeda and would have handed over Bin Laden.
In the end it was all about revisiting history and covering up damning facts about Clinton ineptitude and lack of action engaging Al Qaeda. Dick Morris said that terrorism was last on Clintons list and Clinton himself said that his biggest mistake was his refusal to take Sudan's offer as quoted by the Sunday Times of London. Not only is he culpable for 9/11, he sat idly as Bin Laden carried out 6 terrorist attacks on America claiming 290 people and injuring well over 6,300. That's Clinton's legacy.
|Tuesday, August 06, 2002
Washington Journal Entire Program
Morning Newspaper Articles, Open Phones & Hotline; Massimo Calabresi, TIME Magazine, Washington Correspondent
Considering how grumpy people have been about airport security and other precautions, after experiencing Sept 11th, it would have been a very tough row to hoe for Clinton to have introduced such precautions or start a war in Afghanistan in the absence of a WTC type attack.
He's words not deeds. Propaganda.
Nailed it - right on its head.
Couple that with the sorry state of American public education and you can see the longer-term future for the United States ... a whole lot of non-critical thinking a'goin on!!!
PS...Anybody know what this is?
Yeah, me too. I hate the fact that I hate another human, but I can't not hate the Clintons, as well as their propaganda services that are supposed to be non-partisan and anyone else who blindly supports them. Fortunately, FR is like a big support group.
"Hi. My name is "GBA" and I hate Clinton."
The triggers for the Clinton contingencies were never tripped. John Huang, Kathleen Willey, Whitewater, Mark Rich, etc. never reached critical mass so the B1s and Tomahawks were never launched.
Hell, if Bubbas poll numbers had ever dipped below 50% Liechtenstein could have become the worlds largest divot.
Excellent point that I haven't seen mentioned with respect to Time's propaganda piece. Bottom line - Bill Clinton and Al Gore were and are the two most serious domestic threats to the security of Americans.
Just a photo-op gone bad that was quickly covered up by the media.
Remember when the photographer got a picture of Hitlery coming back from the bathroom with about 3 feet of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of one shoe and dragging behind? She sued the photographer for "metal anguish".