Yes, President Clinton really tried to set the record straight (at least as HE believes it to have happened) – however, Mr. Clinton asserted that FOX never asked similar questions of members of the Bush Administration – WRONG…

Please check out the FOX interview of Donald Rumsfeld on March 28, 2004 – remarkably similar questions.

So, once again, Bill Clinton is more concerned about creating a FALSE legacy for his administration than in the TRUTH.

Oh, also Mr. Clinton asserted that the “Path to 9/11” (which, he INCORRECTLY called the “pathway to 9/11”, but who am I to expect ACCURACY from Bill Clinton) was BASED on the 9/11 report – again not ACCURATE… The disclaimer stated, “The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a VARIETY OF SOURCES including the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews. The movie is NOT a documentary.”

Personally, I’m curious how it is that President Clinton can assert (in the FOX interview) that they (his adminstration) had NO EVIDENCE that Osama bin Laden was responsible for ANY of the terrorist attacks – YET President Clinton also stated (in several interviews, regarding the 9/11 attacks) that, “The minute I knew it was a terrorist attack, I knew it was bin Laden.”

Based on WHAT? Did he, or didn’t he have evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorist attacks?

Did he, or did he NOT “CONNECT THE DOTS” between past terrorist attacks and bin Laden?

And what a typical Liberal shirking of responsibility for the lack of results: President Clinton holds that “he tried” (for 8 years) – but accomplished NOTHING – against the Bush Adminstration’s 9 months before 9/11 as affirmation that HIS administration was BETTER at fighting terrorism than is the Bush administration? What utter crap!

Nice try, but no cigar (thankfully).

Mr. Clinton asserted that FOX never asked similar questions of members of the Bush Administration – WRONG… Please check out the FOX interview of Donald Rumsfeld on March 28, 2004 – remarkably similar questions.Clinton was much closer to being right than Wallace was. Wallace claimed he had asked “plenty of questions” of the same type to Bush administration officials. In fact, since 9/11, Wallace had interviewed senior Bush officials 43 times… and only once in all those interviews did Wallace ask such a question. Hardly “plenty of times.”

Furthermore, Wallace went through fully twenty interviews of Bush people without asking ANY hard questions… and another dozen interviews without ANY hard questions… But the very first interview he holds with Clinton, just a few minutes into the interview, he lobs a tremendously politically loaded, absolutely misleading right-wing wet-dream accusation right down Clinton’s throat.

Yeah. Really “fair and balanced.” Nice try, as you say, but no cigar. Claiming that Clinton was the one who was wrong here is at best a half-truth.Oh, also Mr. Clinton asserted that the “Path to 9/11” (which, he INCORRECTLY called the “pathway to 9/11”, but who am I to expect ACCURACY from Bill Clinton)You’re harping on a noun form without any alteration to meaning? That’s a red herring. Please….was BASED on the 9/11 report – again not ACCURATE… The disclaimer stated, “The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a VARIETY OF SOURCES including the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews. The movie is NOT a documentary.”The disclaimer you bring up was heavily revised after widespread criticism. Right up until just before the broadcast, it was billed as “based on the 9/11 commission report.” Clinton was right–ABC did make the claim. That they revised the claim later does not change the fact that they had made the original claim–not to mention the fact that even you quoted, that they still claimed the 9/11 report as a basis for the movie. Clinton’s statement does not exclude other sources, so even in the context of the heavily revised disclaimer, it is still accurate. So what you claim is, at best, a weasel.Personally, I’m curious how it is that President Clinton can assert (in the FOX interview) that they (his adminstration) had NO EVIDENCE that Osama bin Laden was responsible for ANY of the terrorist attacks – YET President Clinton also stated (in several interviews, regarding the 9/11 attacks) that, “The minute I knew it was a terrorist attack, I knew it was bin Laden.”Oh, please. His statements about there being no evidence about the attacks was in reference to the Black Hawk Down incident, and later the Cole bombing, not 9/11. What he said about Somalia was absolutely correct–no one was tracking bin Laden back then, nor did bin Laden have any connection to Somalia. As for the Cole, the finding that al Qaeda was responsible was made after Bush came to office–and Bush did nothing. Had Clinton sent armed teams after bin Laden in October of a presidential election year without a factual finding that al Qaeda was responsible, Republicans would have gone apeshit, calling it an “October Surprise.” What Clinton said was 100% factual and 100% accurate.

Your claim, that Clinton said that his administration “had NO EVIDENCE that Osama bin Laden was responsible for ANY of the terrorist attacks” is untrue–he spoke only of Somalia and the Cole, not of “all” the attacks. You’re either 100% in error here, or you’re lying. If not, I expect you to quote Clinton from the interview where he says what you say he said. In fact, he positively stated that they knew al Qaeda was responsible in ’96 and ’98!! I looked, and I couldn’t find Clinton saying what you said he did. Did I miss it? Or did you, who criticized Clinton for getting a noun form wrong, completely fabricate a quote Clinton never made?

So, now who’s being inaccurate?

Yawn… yet another right-winger smearing Clinton with red herrings, weasels, half-truths and lies. So what’s new? All you’re doing is proving Clinton’s point for him. I gotta tell you, with your poor research (mainly cobbled-together rehashes of badly written right-wing blogs) and knee-jerk out-of-whole-cloth accusations, you right-wingers make it so easy to debate, it’s hardly a challenge.

Ah yes, Clinton’s revisionist rant.

Clinton saw al-Qaeda as a law enforcement issue, and did not see their various attacks as a prelude to war. I do not really fault him for this thinking, since this was the policy toward those kinds of events at the time. But for him to suggest that he did everything he could to get Bin Laden is simply not true:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_play_it_as_it_lie.html

Ah yes, another standard-issue right-wing post.

Make a sweeping, general claim without any substance except for pointing to a link from a right-wing rag written by a die-hard conservative, as if it were (a) self-explanatory and (b) not an biased, extremist smear piece.

Heaven forbid we should not rely on heavily slanted agitprop for our daily bread.

What was it you once told me? Never mind if you don’t trust the source, but just answer to the facts and the rationale presented?

Chris Wallace asked a question I’ve heard many people ask, Democrat and Republican. Did he do enough to stop Bin Laden, who declared war on us in the 1990’s? The honest answer is “no.” What was the need for Clinton to get angry at the question? There was none. And it would have been a lot better for him if he’d stuck to facts. Apparently that wasn’t enough for him. He talked about things that never happened, like making plans that never were made and saying that Republicans accused him of being too obsessed with Bin Laden. Excuse me? I do not ever recall anyone talking about this during his time in office.

The attacks on our interests throughout the 1990’s were dealt with as law-enforcement issues. And I don’t blame Clinton for seeing them individually in this context. But he should have been able to take the several attacks identified as being al Qaida jobs as a case to do much more than he did. In my view, though, the past is past. He missed the opportunities, and later on so did President Bush. Neither presidents had the ability to put the peices together before 9/11. But there’s a big difference. Bush only had 8 months, while Clinton had a number of years. Reportedly as far back as 1997, he got messages similar to the “Bin Laden Determined to Strike…” that Senator Hillary referred to (as an attack on Bush), but he basically shrugged off all advice to go all out against Bin Laden. If anyone thinks Clinton is the victim here, then I don’t know what planet they’re on.

Chris Wallace asked a question I’ve heard many people ask, Democrat and Republican. Did he do enough to stop Bin Laden, who declared war on us in the 1990’s? The honest answer is “no.” What was the need for Clinton to get angry at the question? There was none.Of course there was. Clinton’s record was being impugned, he had taken false criticism and popular fictionalization of things he and his staff never did, and widespread overlooking of things he and his staff did do–he took all that for weeks without comment, and then got ambushed under false pretenses with a bogus claim. Damned right he had a reason to give a heated response.

He talked about things that never happened, like making plans that never were made and saying that Republicans accused him of being too obsessed with Bin Laden. Excuse me? I do not ever recall anyone talking about this during his time in office.Yet another false assertion about Clinton’s statements… why am I not surprised? Clinton did not say the “obsessed” criticisms came while he was in office, he said: “And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say I didn’t do enough claim that I was too obsessed with bin Laden.” It’s true that not too many records exist of conservatives saying this, but they did. Here’s one, from the end of the Clinton administration:”Overall, I give them very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made [bin Laden] stronger.” — Robert Oakley, ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department, to the Washington Post.It is also true that while some conservatives praised Clinton for trying to bomb and kill bin Laden in 1998, just as many (including people like Ashcroft and Specter) castigated him for it, claiming that he was using bin Laden to wag the dog and divert attention from the Lewinsky affair, a “distraction” which the Republicans themselves had worked extremely hard to generate.

As for “making plans that never were made,” back that up with specifics if you want it taken seriously.The attacks on our interests throughout the 1990’s were dealt with as law-enforcement issues.So, law enforcement issues are dealt with by sending in missile strikes?

And I don’t blame Clinton for seeing them individually in this context.What makes you think he saw them individually? Cite your source, please.

But he should have been able to take the several attacks identified as being al Qaida jobs as a case to do much more than he did.Such as? Clinton strongly revamped counter-terrorism and attempted to hunt down and kill bin Laden–and even for that, many Republicans criticized him. You think they’d have criticized him less had he started a war somewhere?

Additionally, the official assessment that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing came when Bush was in office–and Bush did nothing. So, why aren’t you criticizing Bush in equal measure here?

Furthermore, in December 1998, a PDB was given to Clinton titled, “Bin Laden preparing to hijack U.S. aircraft and other attacks.” the Clinton administration reaction: thatNew York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend.They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports.The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process,at all three New York City area airports. — 9/11 Commission report, p. 130

In August 2001, Bush received a similar PDB titled, “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” His reaction? According to his current story, he treated the intelligence warning as “historical,” even though the report concluded: “FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York” (9/11 Commission report, pp. 260-261). Unalarmed, Bush did nothing, except to continue his month-long vacation. No security alerts or intensive screenings like Clinton’s people did–though such measures could have stopped the 9/11 hijackers before they got on the planes!

So which president took terrorism more seriously before 9/11?

Had Clinton missed a warning, had he not reacted, such as Bush did not react, would you have given him a bye?

How do you react to this failure by Bush?

Neither presidents had the ability to put the peices together before 9/11. But there’s a big difference. Bush only had 8 months, while Clinton had a number of years.How could Clinton have pieced together the plot for 9/11? There was no evidence before he left office that could have led to stopping the 9/11 plot.

Bush, on the other hand, had plenty of evidence in his first eight months, which I have put together here and here. He had two warnings from the FBI about two terror suspects training to fly airplanes. He had four PDBs between April and August which warned specifically of bin Laden’s plot. He had some word that al Qaeda might use airplanes in an attack, both in the August 2006 PDB and before.

Bush had plenty of intel, he just didn’t pay attention–and neither did Rice, who, as the head of the NSA, had that responsibility in her job title. The Clinton administration had a policy that it tried to pass on the the Bush administration, called “shaking the trees,” in which all terrorism intel is funneled through the White House counter-terrorism people and the NSA. Had Bush and Rice taken the advice instead of ignoring it, then the two terror suspects learning to fly, in Arizona and Minnesota, would have set off alarms, especially in light of the 8/06 PDB. Rice could simply have ordered FBI field offices to check out flight training schools across the US for terror suspects, and the hijackers would have been arrested a few weeks before they planned to attack. Clinton didn’t have access to such specific information (that terror suspects were training within the US), but the Bush administration did. The defense that Bush and Rice “never saw” such reports is no excuse, as it simply highlights the fact that they weren’t paying enough attention, they weren’t “shaking the trees,” as the Clinton people were.

All of this is substantiated, all of it on the record.

What was it you once told me? Never mind if you don’t trust the source, but just answer to the facts and the rationale presented?I’ve answered yours. Now, you answer mine.

So which president took terrorism more seriously before 9/11?

Bin Laden declared jihad on us in ’96. And you’re telling me Clinton reacted to this action and the several attacks on our interests appropriately during his two terms? Bush had 8 months before 9/11. I do think you’re right. He and his administration were out of tune to Bin Laden. And I’ve already said this before. But you can’t give him MORE blame than Clinton. He has certainly fought terrorism more aggressively than Clinton ever did. You have to see this is true, even if you disagree with his policies.

As for my “sources”. Read Dick Morris’ articles about Clinton’s behavior during the Wallace interview.