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

Skip to comments.

Bill Clinton's War On Terrorism
Washington Times | October 3, 2001

Posted on 10/04/2001 7:15:45 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

Back in August 1998, as he prepared to inform the nation that he'd lied when he said he'd never had sex with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton was suddenly faced with a much more serious crisis. Terrorists had just killed more than 300 people in bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. So, Mr. Clinton took time out from his meetings with lawyers and spin-control specialists and declared that he was really — really — mad about terrorism. "No matter how long it takes . . . or where it takes us, we will pursue terrorists until the cases are solved and justice is done," Mr. Clinton declared.

Several weeks later, Mr. Clinton decided to take action — sort of — getting the military to fire 75 cruise missiles at suspected terrorist training camps run by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan (bin Laden escaped unharmed) and destroying the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which the Clinton administration said was really a nerve gas factory. "But it turns out somebody goofed," William Safire of the New York Times subsequently wrote. "The plant really was making medicine, and we are now quietly paying the Sudanese compensation."

Today, more than three years and 6,000 deaths later, Americans are paying dearly for Mr. Clinton's Clouseau-like war on terrorism. And, now, in the wake of the horrific events of Sept. 11, even Clinton administration officials who were supposedly in charge of this campaign against terrorism have come out of the closet to admit they did a pretty lousy job. "Clearly, not enough was done," said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general, to the Boston Globe. "We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this." Mrs. Gorelick said that, even though Mr. Clinton doubled the size of the FBI's counterterrorism budget, the bureau was so slow to hire agents to fight terrorism that the money was never used.

"In hindsight, [the administration´s effort] wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that," acknowledged Nancy Soderberg, a senior National Security Council aide.

Sen. John Kerry, a staunch ally of the administration, says that "it is entirely possible" that the Lewinsky scandal was "a distraction" for Mr. Clinton, which may have undermined U.S. efforts to target bin Laden's terror network. The terrifying events of Sept. 11 might have happened regardless of Mr. Clinton's legal and personal problems. But it is undoubtedly true that much of the time Mr. Clinton spent fighting to save his own political hide would have been far better spent fighting the bin Ladens of the world.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 10/04/2001 7:15:45 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Klinton was so hard on terrorist, he pardoned Puerto Rican terrorist before leaving office.

That was a brutal blow against terrorism if I have ever seen one.

2 posted on 10/04/2001 7:22:25 AM PDT by lormand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
For the record...

Clinton declared war on terrorism...he just never fought back

So he had his opportunity for greatness, and just blew it. Maybe Monica gave him that advice

3 posted on 10/04/2001 7:23:00 AM PDT by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Sen. John Kerry, a staunch ally of the administration, says that "it is entirely possible" that the Lewinsky scandal was "a distraction" for Mr. Clinton, which may have undermined U.S. efforts to target bin Laden's terror network.

Yeah, 9/11 was all Monica's fault... or Ken Starr's fault... or the vast right wing conspiracy's fault... It was never, ever Bozo's fault. If only all those other people hadn't "distracted" him, he could've been the hero of the century.

Excuse me while I throw up my breakfast.

4 posted on 10/04/2001 7:24:12 AM PDT by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Lot's of talk about WHAT BUBBA ALMOST ACCOMPLISHED, but where's the heat!! Remember how the liberal clymers tore former President Bush for NOT taking out Saddam! I am SO freakin sick and tired of hearing ALL THOSE A**holes going easy on bubba.
5 posted on 10/04/2001 7:25:34 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
"We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this."

Yeah, it's called a TOTALLY INADEQUATE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

6 posted on 10/04/2001 7:29:37 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
wait a minute here....I thought Clinton was the master of compartmentalization???
7 posted on 10/04/2001 7:30:44 AM PDT by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen,snopercod,Mahone,JeanS
Link to The Fruits of Negligence - The Clinton Administration's Security Legacy Posted on October 2nd by Freeper, Mahone

Here was my "lucky" guess at Reply 7:

The writer misses the essential "liberal" mind.

To the socialist, the socialist is NEVER at fault; and instead, the fault is ALWAYS external.

The "liberal" mind at work:

"'President' Clinton was pre-occupied by the personal attacks having nothing to do with his responsibilities, but which, out of his care for the American people, he took upon himself to address, thus being robbed of what otherwise would have been his attention to the nation's business."

"Clearly" the vast right-wing Taliban-Republican conspirators are to blame.

And sure enough, now comes Sen. John Kerry, a staunch ally of the administration, says that "it is entirely possible" that the Lewinsky scandal was "a distraction" for Mr. Clinton...


8 posted on 10/04/2001 7:32:24 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Where are all the people who think that we should not be harping on Clinton, that he really didn't cause anything to happen on 9-11?
9 posted on 10/04/2001 7:36:35 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher,snopercod
He was

firm

committed

determined

resolute

going about the nation's business

moving foward

leading the charge

A real "President."

But when we look back, there was nobody but the Clinton Dog Pound salvating over the pieces he would toss them, and they, themselves.

10 posted on 10/04/2001 7:37:13 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: verb
Bump.
11 posted on 10/04/2001 7:39:06 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
To hear John Kerry put it, we should have left clinton with his Lewinsky and everything would have turned out all right. What a remarkable, statesman-like statement.
12 posted on 10/04/2001 7:40:08 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this." Mrs. Gorelick said that, even though Mr. Clinton doubled the size of the FBI's counterterrorism budget

Indeed.

They threw money at it.

The interest stuck, but the principal didn't.

13 posted on 10/04/2001 7:41:21 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
clinton CYA-ing BUMP
14 posted on 10/04/2001 7:48:50 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Several weeks later, Mr. Clinton decided to take action - sort of - getting the military to fire 75 cruise missiles at suspected terrorist training camps

I have heard these referred to as the Monica missiles and being the event that brought Osama a lot more followers.

15 posted on 10/04/2001 7:55:49 AM PDT by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
The lame excuse that his dalliance with Monica was "personal" and did not effect his offical duties is just a load of hockey pucks! He was derelict in his duties and the spinners are now getting face time to spin the facts but he was called a "scum bag" and like a piece of offal in a cess pool, the truth has surfaced.
16 posted on 10/04/2001 7:56:20 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
I am tired of democrats saying that the Lewinsky matter may have distracted Clinton. Implicit in this logic is that it is the FAULT of those who made a big deal out of this "private matter" (perjury/obsturction of justice)....First they told us that he was the smartest president ever, that he was a multi-task master who could work 20 hour days and be on top of every detail, now they tell us that those mean old busy bodies distracted him by making such a big deal out of his lying to grand juries, lying to the American people, and spending so much time covering his a**, leaving him no time to protect his fellow citizens.
17 posted on 10/04/2001 8:00:31 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Good post. All of this has to be brought to light.......
18 posted on 10/04/2001 8:00:40 AM PDT by b4its2late
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Sen. John Kerry, a staunch ally of the administration, says that "it is entirely possible" that the Lewinsky scandal was "a distraction" for Mr. Clinton, which may have undermined U.S. efforts to target bin Laden's terror network.

Okay, I'll be the one to say it.......didn't they tell us it was just about sex?

The headline above the picture of the WTC at the moment of impact should have been :

WE KNOW WHAT 'IS' IS

19 posted on 10/04/2001 8:08:25 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
To the socialist, the socialist is NEVER at fault; and instead, the fault is ALWAYS external.

I am getting real tired of posting this. Let's go over it one more time.

They are not 'socialists'. Neither are they 'progressives' or 'leftists' or liberals or any other such bullshit playnice newspeak.

They are correctly and properly referred to as hardcore, unrepentant 'neo-Stalinists'.

Everybody got it? Good.

I could REALLY use some help down here in the language war.

20 posted on 10/04/2001 8:13:46 AM PDT by martin gibson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 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