« A Test of Our Own | Home | Unplanned Parenthood … Unplanned Death »
The Clinton Administration: Attempting to Rewrite History
By Matt Margolis | September 14, 2003
Former members of the Clinton administration have been desperately trying to rewrite history to wash the blood off their hands for their inaction against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
It’s quite sad, when you see how they lie through there teeth. Albright, talking to TIME Magazine in an interview with J.F.O. McAllister on the eve of the publication of her new book of memoirs “Madame Secretary” had many ridiculous and false things to say regarding the differences of the Clinton and Bush Administrations on handling terrorism:
Q: Unlike other memoirs, Madame Secretary has hardly a hint of score settling. If you didn’t want to set the record straight, why did you write it?
A: The day-to-day making of policy is arguing all the time. You’re trying to get the right approach and the right answer, and there are moments that aren’t very pleasant. But in the end, you look at the overall product. Any differences we had [in the Clinton Administration] were so minimal compared to what I see in the Bush Administration, I thought: It’s just not worth it.
Unfortunately for her, history recorded a very different story of just how the Clinton Administration handled terrorism compared to the Bush Administration.
Clinton ignored lots of intelligence, and several offers by Muslim countries, like Sudan, to get bin Laden. Clinton’s reaction to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 demonstrated his lack of concern for terrorism, even his acknowledgment that it was terrorism. The CIA was kept out of the investigation for crying out loud. Clinton also kept the CIA from hiring desperately needed Arabic translators, leaving phone intercepts from bin Laden untranslated. Clinton had plenty opportunity to respond appropriately to terrorism - yet he didn’t do a thing.
Q: Did you neglect the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and leave it for the Bush Administration to clean up?
A: President Clinton focused on terrorism from the start. The CIA set up a special bin Laden division, and the President authorized the use of lethal force against him. We struck his camp in 1998 after the embassy bombings, and we came close. President Bush has been in Afghanistan with 8,000 troops, and they still haven’t found him.
A meaningless strike did occur. However, the State Departments actually stopped the process of obtaining the two ringleaders of the embassy bombings, who were sitting in a hail cell in Khartoum, Sudan, waiting to be taken into U.S. custody. As RIchard Miniter explained in his book “Losing Bin Laden” that requests were denied by the State Department to allow agents to go to Sudan. Because “the U.S. government doesn’t do business with terrorists, and Sudan was considered a terrorist state.” The Sudanese government, holding the suspects for the United States were unable to “wait any longer for the Clinton Administration to come to its sense and take custody of [the suspects] Abbas and Suliman.” A terrible Clinton Administration failure.
Of course, Albright has also said back in February that she couldn’t explain why Bill Clinton also had turned down deals from the Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden. Clinton even admitted in a speech to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002 that he turned down the opportunity to get him:
“And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.”
Then of course was the attack on the USS Cole. Planned and executed by Al Qaeda - retaliation was opposed by Albright herself, as detailed by Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden:
[Clinton administration counter-terrorism czar] Richard Clarke attended a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and others. Several others were in the room, including Leon Fuerth, Gore’s national security advisor; Jim Steinberg, the deputy National Security Advisor; and Michael Sheehan, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism. An American warship had been attacked without warning in a “friendly” harbor and, at the time, no one knew if the ship’s pumps could keep it afloat for the night. Now they had to decide what to do about it.
…
Clarke had no doubts about whom to punish. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had compiled thick binders of bin Laden and Taliban targets in Afghanistan, complete with satellite photographs and GPS bomb coordinates … the Pentagon’s “target decks.” The detailed plan was “to level” every bin Laden training camp and compound in Afghanistan as well as key Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. “Let’s blow them up,” Clarke said. . . . Around the table, Clarke heard only objections … not a mandate for action.
….
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike … but for diplomatic reasons. “We’re desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians,” Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, “bombing Muslims wouldn’t be helpful at this time.”
….
Clarke remembers other objections from the State Department. “State noted that we had been bombing Iraq and Serbia and were getting the reputation internationally as a mad bomber nation that could only address its problems that, “It would be irresponsible,” a spokeswoman for Albright told the author, for the Secretary of to consider the diplomatic impact of a missile strike that might try but would quite likely fail to kill bin Laden.Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been gong on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internally.
…
In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke’s retaliation plan by a margin of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.
Amazing. This is what Albright calls comparable policy to that of the Bush Administration? The interview continues:
Q: Should the U.S. have invaded Iraq?
A: I always believed Saddam has the kind of record that justifies taking action. I didn’t see Saddam as an imminent threat, which is where I parted company with them … I think the whole thing has been mishandled.
To use Albright’s own words against her again, I refer to a transcript of a Town Hall Meeting on Iraq from February 18, 1998:
In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people. In fact, he is a repeat offender, having used them both in the battle and against his people.
As President Clinton made clear in his strong speech yesterday at the Pentagon, the United States will not allow this to happen. Iraq must permit UN inspectors to do their jobs, as the Security Council has directed. If this does not occur, we must be, and we are, prepared to use military force. [emphasis mine]
Our problem, and the world’s problem, is with Iraq’s leaders. Today those leaders have a choice: they can allow UN inspections to proceed on the world’s terms, or they can invite serious military strikes on ours. [emphasis mine]
So we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq? Saddam apparently could not be trusted in 1998, but was deserving of our trust during George W. Bush’s administration?
Q: Has the war made the problem of terrorism better or worse?
A: The Administration immediately tied Sept. 11 to Saddam. They said, basically, that Saddam and Iraq were a hotbed of terrorism. While I had many criticisms of Saddam, that’s not the way I saw it. But now Iraq is in fact a breeding ground for terrorists.
The Bush Administration had every right to believe such a connection. Such a connection was established also in Richard Miniter’s book. Mansoor Ijaz also wrote in February of this year:
“According to confessions obtained from al Qaeda subordinates arrested in the region in recent months, Ansar [an Iraqi terrorist operation of Muslim extremists, with many members trained by Al Qaeda] operates with the military and financial resources of Saddam’s intelligence directorate, the Mukhabarat. The terror group, resident geographically in an ungovernable region along the Iran-Iraq border, is now capable of becoming an al Qaeda pop-up biochemical-weapons lab for the production and distribution of poisons whose recipes and formulas are provided by its state sponsors.”
Iraq continues to deny any involvement in training al Qaeda operatives, and Pakistani intelligence very effectively, and quickly, suppressed evidence of these clandestine meetings after September 11. But erasing the fingerprints cannot change the irrefutable fact that Ricin and other chemicals first found in al Qaeda’s Afghan safe houses after years of covert collaborations with Iraq inside Pakistan and Afghanistan are now being repeatedly uncovered in al Qaeda affiliated terror cells throughout Europe.
Enough is enough with the claims that there is/was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Alright’s stupidity continues in the interview:
Q: What should the U.S. do next?
A: Frankly, if there was a President Gore, we wouldn’t be in this particular mess. But we are, and we cannot fail. I very much hope there will be a U.N. resolution that makes clear the U.S. has military command but that would set up a U.N. high representative to coordinate the political and humanitarian things the U.N. does very well.
What mess is Albright referring to? Not retaliating against the terrorists who killed Americans during the Clinton years? Turning down multiple offers to get bin Laden himself. Not giving the CIA and FBI the resources necessary to fight terrorism? If Gore was elected president, we’d be in a bigger mess. We probably would have handled Afghanistan diplomatically. Terror cells here and abroad would never have been dismantled. Thousands of terrorists would still be at large planning attacks. Saddam Hussein would still be in power, building more weapons of mass destruction.
The only mess we are in is the one Bill Clinton and his administration, including Albright, left for the Bush Administration to handle. Her futile attempts to wash the blood of the hands of the Clinton Administration are proof of lows those with ties to Clinton will go to rewrite history
Topics: Thoughts |
Related Posts:
September 14th, 2003 at 3:35 pm
Unfortunately, for the Socialist scum of the Klintoonian Era, just about every idiotic move they made has been documented. They will NOT be allowed to whitewash their traitorous, deadly actions and revise their history.
Good job of bringing out some of Madeline Not-too-bright’s lies and revisionist history.
September 14th, 2003 at 4:17 pm
You are a sad misinformed liar Matt.
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Mansoot “opened up channels”, where the hell did he get authority to do diddly squat? If I called up W and offered him Osama and he hung up on me I would have the same exact case you are trying to bring against Clinton. Anathema and Newsmax lies.
September 14th, 2003 at 7:19 pm
Um Yeah–if anything they were “unofficial” channels
September 14th, 2003 at 9:20 pm
Madeline Alb-wrong ought to shut her trap.
September 14th, 2003 at 9:32 pm
Thanks for the link UY.
Glad you think so too.
September 14th, 2003 at 10:28 pm
Im glad you find it so amusing ms heather, but very few people know I called up W and offered him Osama’s head on a platter but sadly he hung up on me thereby causing 9/11.
September 16th, 2003 at 4:14 pm
Had YEARS to get him UY, but didn’t. He considered it a “legal” matter–no risk to national security (ha) Look where it got us.
And of course, it would’ve hurt the economy and his precious “legacy” had we started the WoT during his presidency
September 16th, 2003 at 7:26 pm
Mansoor works for Fauxnews now, guess he was well rewarded for lying. Beyond that if Clinton would tried anything im sure the Wag the Dog crying would be deafining.
September 16th, 2003 at 7:31 pm
Ijaz only works as a commmentator for FNC. He’s affiliated with Benadoor Assoc.
September 16th, 2003 at 10:36 pm
HEAVY POLITICAL STUFF.
MattMargolis.com: The Blog Sunday, September 14, 2003 The Clinton Administration: Attempting to Rewrite History Former members of the Clinton administration have been desperately trying to rewrite history to wash the blood off their hands for their ina…
September 16th, 2003 at 11:51 pm
ms heather
Bush had 2 years to get him after Clinton supposedly had all the info he was considering “legal” or not. But Commander Codpiece didn’t do dick either?
And now he has congressional approval and thousands of men and he still can’t find his ass?
what up with that?
September 17th, 2003 at 2:40 pm
So Mmm Bop, if Mansoor is just out to bad mouth the Klintoons, then why did he help them raise $900,000 for the ‘96 election? Why did Mansoor host the Hildebeast’s 50th birthday party?
Oh, and Sutcliffe, you barking Moonbat, there IS a difference between having to find a man hiding in some of the most treacherous terrain on Earth, and not asking another country to PICK HIM UP AT HOME. The Sudanese were willing to arrest him for us in 1996, all we had to do was take custody.
As for the “legal” evidence ‘argument’, if that is why BJ Klintoon did not want bin Laden arrested, why did he have drug cartel members kidnapped from Colombia in 1996, with no more direct evidence of their crimes on the US then we had on bent Ladel?
September 17th, 2003 at 3:31 pm
Eric I really dont care. Let me guess he helped out at a party that raised money for the Clintons, if that? I have not seen anything evidence stating the Sudanese were going to do this. Even then how goddamn stupid are you? He did not have any authority or influence its complete bullshit and even if he was friends with the Clintons he sold them out to get in bed with fauxnews.
September 17th, 2003 at 3:50 pm
Actually Bopper, Mansoor Ijaz wrote a $250,000 check for Klintoon’s ‘96 campaign. Ijaz is one the people who brought the Muslim vote to the Dims, raising another $250,000 from Muslim groups for BJ and the Hildebeast. As for the “unofficial diplomacy” of Mansoor, that was the THIRD time the Sudanese tried to give the US Bin Laden. The FIRST timewas in response to a Klintoon Administration letter explaining how the Sudanese could get off his shitlist. The SECOND time was when the Sudanese Foreign Minister suggested to the US Ambassador to the Sudan that the US should take Bin Laden, and the Sudanese would catch him for us. By the by, Klintoon’s Administration ordered our diplomats out of Sudan, thus forcing the CIA to stop tracking Bin Laden there, since their cover was gone.
As for Ijaz’s influence inside the Klintoon White House, how do you know Sutcliffe? Did the unsubscribed pain medication you took give you visions of the inside of the Klintoon white House?
Why did Ijaz get calls from Klintoon’s NSA advisor on secure White House phone lines? Why did he recieve personal letters from Klintoon?
Typical Moonbat Asshattery, Sutcliffe. You opened your gob with no evidence to support your position.
Try reading ‘Losing Bin Laden’ for some facts. But you won’t. The book is obviously part of the VRWC to discredit Klintoon, right Sutcliffe?
September 17th, 2003 at 10:36 pm
Got a link Sivula? How about a link thats not Newsmax? You want me to check out a Clinton smear job for facts? Are you out of your mind?
September 18th, 2003 at 1:57 am
I could run a lexis serach if you’d like UY–which topic?
September 18th, 2003 at 9:41 am
Just stuff about Ijiaz, How the hell could he be in with the Sudanese Government in 97 and offer up bin laden when he supposedly left Sudan before that time. Also he was supposedly a Successful Investment banker while befriending the Clintons and being a top fundraiser. Smells like bullshit to me.
September 18th, 2003 at 3:02 pm
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1711/17110360.htm
http://www.mansoorijaz.com/
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/nov/28inter.htm
http://www.vitrade.com/who_is_who/ijaz/ijaz_970428.htm
If you look at the Man’s bio, specifically his education, you’ve gotta admit, he’s brilliant
September 18th, 2003 at 5:00 pm
Impressive, But still nada about his supposed contacts in the Sudanese government. Sorry but there is no way he had any legitemacy to make a offer like that and then saying Clinton let Bin Laden get away is bullshit.
September 18th, 2003 at 6:06 pm
UY–most of the things dealing with Sudan come from his own testamony.
Just after a quick search, here’s stuff:
http://www.vitrade.com/who_is_who/ijaz/ijaz_970429.htm (cites WaPo)
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/354.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64828-2002Jun29¬Found=true
September 18th, 2003 at 6:34 pm
Jaws still not one microscopic bit of evidence that Ijiaz could offer up Bin Laden, sorry.
September 18th, 2003 at 10:01 pm
I’ll let someone else do that research, as I’ve got other things to do (schoolwork)
September 18th, 2003 at 10:16 pm
Sutcliffe, Ijaz NEVER said that he had Bin Laden to deliver. He was carrying a message from the Sudanese Intelligence (Exterior Intelligence) and Interior (Interior Intelligence) Ministries to Klintoon, offering all their info on Bin Laden, his orginazation, am
nd offering to help capture or track Bin Laden for the US. The Klintoon ‘Adminstration’ did nothing. The message Ijaz carried was the third NO STRINGS ATTACHED offer from Sudan to the US concerning Bin Laden. The fourth NO STRINGS ATTACHED offer about Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda from Sudan came in 1998, about 2 weeks after the Embassy Bombings. The Sudanese had caught two of Bin Laden’s money couriers, who had paid for the bombers’ supplies and vehicles. Under questiong from the Sudanese Interior Ministry, they confessed and revealed much of Al-Qaeda’s bases and structure. The Sudanese contacted the FBI directly this time, who were interested in taking these two men and their info back to America. But Klintoon’s State Department refused to allow the FBI into Sudan. The Sudanese let the men go, since they had committed no crime against Sudan directly.
The Author of ‘Losing Bin Laden’ thourghly documents both of these events in his book. Considering that he was the first to interview several people about these things, I doubt there is info about it on the internet.
September 19th, 2003 at 1:35 am
I will believe anything as long as Clinton is at the root of it. Did you know there is new book coming out that definitively proves that none other than Bill Clinton tempted Eve with the Apple, thus evicting us from the Garden of Eden.
CLINTON!!!
Also, the buzz on the street is that Clinton spread the word around that Saddam had WMDs and that Saddam was responsible for 9-11… just so Bush would invade Iraq and then look like a fool when we all found out that there weren’t any WMD’s or link to 9-11.
CLINTON!!!!
The blood of American soldiers is on his hands!!!
Also– studies now show that Clinton caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs… MORE TO COME…
September 19th, 2003 at 2:56 am
Cole, you are correct in saying that Clinton claimed Iraq had WMD that hadn’t been accounted for by the time his adminstration ended. (I guess I missed the point in time when Iraq confirmed what happened to their WMD program.)
September 19th, 2003 at 11:20 am
And you are basing this on someone from where Regenery, wrote? Bullshit it still shows nothing showing that he could of gotten him.
September 19th, 2003 at 11:44 am
Cole–
I think many would be happy if CLinton took a vacation from trying to be in the spotlight all the time…
September 19th, 2003 at 6:49 pm
Reoublicans are big fans of long vacations look at Dumbya he has spent exactly how much of his term on vacation?
September 19th, 2003 at 9:24 pm
Matt wrote “The Bush Administration had every right to believe such a connection. Such a connection was established also in Richard Miniter’s book. Mansoor Ijaz also wrote in February of this year”
Well, Matt, in case you have missed it, Bush, Condi, and Rummy have all admitted this week that they have seen no evidence to suggest a link between Saddam and 9-11. So it looks like Mr. Ijaz is full of shit. Do you feel played? You should… That’s not what they were saying before.
Hey, what about the fact that they have decided not to release David Kay’s WMD report — indefinitely mind you– due to the fact there is no evidence of WMDs?
How about the fact that nearly 70% of Americans do not want Congress to pass the $87 Bil Iraq package? So much for reining in spending.
The house made of bullshit is finally crumbling.
September 21st, 2003 at 5:46 pm
Bush said “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties,” but also “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.”
What does this mean exactly? It essentially means that they have no evidence that suggests Saddam was directly involved in the planning of 9-11… However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest a connection between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda.
If you have problems with $87 billion going towards the war on terror, then that is your problem. It’s a shame you don’t support our military and war on terror, but that’s something you have to live with.
September 21st, 2003 at 10:43 pm
Matt it could just mean either a)Bush is a liar or b) He doesnt remember what he says one day from the next.
September 23rd, 2003 at 7:32 pm
So Stinky,
Bin-Laden is supposedly in Pakistan. Should we invade Pakistan to get him?
There’s a big difference between a government (Sudan) offering to give us bin-Laden and a not so friendly government (Pakistan) denying his presence in their country. (and surely not looking for him)
September 26th, 2003 at 12:51 pm
UY, sometimes you say the most ridiculous things I wonder if you’re joking or if you are actually serious. Because if you are genuinely believing the things you say, you have to be a moron.
September 26th, 2003 at 4:59 pm
Well Matt Bush is a liar, hate to burst your bubble. Considering his comments on reading a goddamn newspaper and the roughly three books on his speech gaffes I would definitely say he lacks a certain competence normally expected of those in the Oval Office.
September 26th, 2003 at 5:08 pm
Every intolerant liberal loves believing believing Bush is stupid and a liar. However, they never hold their own to the same level of scrutiny. Have you ever listen to Ted Kennedy give a speech? He’s one of the worst public speakers I’ve ever heard. Far worse than Bush.
September 26th, 2003 at 10:31 pm
And Ted Kennedy is not President, if Bush only were Governor of Texas we would not have a problem. But clearly he is not qualified to be in the Oval Office.
September 28th, 2003 at 2:32 pm
Hey Um, for a guy who can barely spell and can’t punctuate, you’ve got some balls knocking our President, who graduated with a Masters. Oh, yeah. His daddy bought that for him.
Still curious, what do you line the tinfoil helmet with? Chamois? Muslin?
September 28th, 2003 at 10:44 pm
Bush would be in jail or dead in the gutter if it wasn’t for his connections. Im suprise you support him since he never pulled himself by his boot straps.
September 29th, 2003 at 1:50 pm
Of course, UY, if Bush was so obviously unqualifed, and things were so much better during the Clinton years, why didn’t Al Gore win in a landslide?
Yeah - I thought so. Google awaits you UY.
September 29th, 2003 at 11:13 pm
500k votes wasnt enough of a landslide?
September 30th, 2003 at 12:07 am
Do you even understand what… errr, wait, I forgot who I was talking to.
October 27th, 2004 at 7:30 am
In your free time, check some helpful info in the field of phentermine
- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
May 2nd, 2005 at 2:05 pm
The Clintons will be trying to re-write history for years to come. They are the most vile team to ever occupy the White House. Hello North Korea! You must be so glad the Clintons trusted you with your power plant!!!
September 19th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Take Clinton Off Of Katrina Relief
I guess it’s hardly surprising that Bill Clinton would take advantage of his new role in the Katrina relief efforts to bash the Bush administration… I think there is one simple way to respond to this: Take Clinton off of…
February 15th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
First of all…Clinton didn’t pass up Osama…the deal was that Sudan would extradite him to Saudi Arabia and then the US would get him from there…but the Saudi’s didn’t want to work with Sudan or the US so the deal fell through. So if it’s anyone’s fault for him getting away it’s Sudan for “releasing” him…
August 27th, 2006 at 4:05 am
huge facial cumshots
Idinax33000i
August 27th, 2006 at 8:04 am
mature lesbian sex
Idinax33000i
August 27th, 2006 at 9:03 am
boy pissing
cr00topcheg
September 13th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
amateur deep throat slap happy deep throat
zd00linkar
October 5th, 2006 at 7:00 am
p-e-n-i-s e-n-l-a-r-g-e-m-e-n-t
p-e-n-i-s e-n-l-a-r-g-e-m-e-n-t
November 4th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!