For all of Richard Clarke’s efforts to slander the Bush Administration in his efforts to maximize his book sales, the center of blame rests with Clarke’s former boss — whether the Democrats like it or not.
From Neal Boortz:
CLINTON STOPPED CIA FROM KILLING BIN LADENThis has been out there for awhile, but the 9-11 commission is finally confirming it as fact. This should tell you everything you need to know about the Clinton administration and their policy of terrorist appeasement for 8 years.
Announcing some of its preliminary findings yesterday, the commission confirmed that President Clinton ordered the CIA to take Osama Bin Laden alive or not at all. The following statement read at yesterday’s session says it all: “CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try and capture Bin Laden.” A former CIA station chief said “We always talked about how much easier it would have been to try to kill him.” A former CIA official told NBC News last week that White House orders to spare Bin Laden’s life cut the chances of getting him in half. Once again, they viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem, worrying about Bin Laden’s rights instead of just unleashing the CIA to exterminate him.
If this commission wants to lay blame for policy failures that led to 9/11, then they need to do it where it belongs, with the Clinton administration and Richard Clarke.
Related: According to this transcript from 2002, Clarke’s story was a far cry from his current accusations that Bush did little to nothing in terms of pre-9/11 counterterrorism.
Also, Larry Elder comments:
Gleeful over Clarke’s current slam against the Bush administration, the president’s critics overlook key Clarke admissions. First, despite feeling “intimidated” by the perceived presidential wish to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11, Clarke said the president never asked him to “make it up.” And Clarke admits that, he, too, thought Saddam possessed WMD. “Everybody did,” said Clarke.So where does this leave us?
The 9/11 commission intends to issue their final report this July. Expect a finding of enough blame to go around. This we know: The Clinton administration had eight years to go after terrorists, and the Bush administration had eight months. We also know that the planning for 9/11 began under Clinton’s watch.
After the successful toppling of the Afghanistan and Iraq governments, a fearful Moammar Kadafi of Libya admitted and then renounced his WMD. This led to the unraveling of the nuclear network between Libya, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. North Korea, after balking, now appears willing to engage in non-proliferation talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States. The movement toward democracy in Iraq emboldens dissidents in Syria and Iran. An ABC News poll found that while 39 percent of Iraqis oppose the invasion, 48 percent approve! And 71 percent of Iraqis expect their lives to improve within a year’s time.
If only Americans felt that optimistic.
4 Responses to “The 9/11 Blame Game”
Comments are closed.
Democrats: The Republicans did it!
Republicans: The Democrats did it!
Me: Same shit, different election. Spare me.
DC, is it that hard for you to step back from your partisanship and acknowledge that BOTH parties fucked up royally? Ya, the Clinton administration should have done more, but so should the Bush administration.
I have no party affiliation.
For all of the left’s efforts to smear Bush and blame him solely for 9/11, the truth hurts. Had Clinton taken out OBL when he had the opportunity, 9/11/01 would have been another ordinary day and Al Gore would be President now.
Politics had nothing to do with the Clinton administration’s gross negligence toward terrorists. By defining terrorism as a police matter instead of a national security matter, Clinton blew it.
However, you have partial agreement here that the time for pointing fingers is past. I’m more concerned about the survival of Western civilization — which the Islamists want to destroy. And whomever the President might be come January 2005 had better take a survivalist view of terrorism and toss out the failed “law enforcement” approach.
When you get right down to it, it’s either us or them.
How many months do you have to wait until Bush became responsible for his own people? Are we there yet?
Clinton didn’t blame Bush the 1st when the first World Trade Center attacks happened. That was less than 8 months in office. Bush was once the head of the CIA and he didn’t get the intel he needed to stop them. No one blamed him.
http://www.the7thfire.com/bush15.htm
On killing Osama, sounds like a good idea now but if Cliton had taken any actions against, well anyone, it would of been called “Wagging the dog.”
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html
Really who made Osama a leader and terrorist? (Think Afganistan early 80s) Who was president/vice president at the time?
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html
Then the first Gulf war and putting troops in the holy land. Brilliant that.
http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html
If you go farther back I’m sure the British and the Ottamans can take their share as well.
The West lit the fuse, oil fueled it and we ignored it.