SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Skywatcher who wrote (255856)5/16/2002 7:12:36 PM
From: CYBERKEN  Respond to of 769670
 
You are fabricating this line because liberals simply don't have anything to SAY anymore. You elected a corrupt rapist for a president. You failed to STEAL the 2000 election. And you're getting you asses kicked in 2002.

When all else fails, invent propaganda and libel your opponents. Right out of the Clinton book...



To: Skywatcher who wrote (255856)5/16/2002 7:14:55 PM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769670
 
Clinton Paid 'Lip Service' to Terror Attacks, Expert Charges
Matt Pyeatt, CNSNews.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001

newsmax.com

An increasingly bold series of terrorist attacks targeting American interests was met with tough talk from former President Bill Clinton but little action, according to terrorism experts asked to analyze the U.S. response to attacks between 1993 and 2000.
Larry Johnson, formerly with the CIA and the State Department and the current CEO of the Business Exposure Reduction Group, said he believes Clinton's weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

"The Clinton administration paid lip service to the notion of combating terrorism through some money added, but generally kept it as a very low priority," Johnson said.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing

On Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people and injuring thousands. The bomb caused extensive damage to the complex. Osama bin Laden is suspected to have been behind the attacks.

In reacting to the attack, Clinton urged calm.

"I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this," Clinton said.

Clinton assured Americans that he had put forth "the full, full resources of the federal law enforcement agencies - all kinds of agencies, all kinds of access to information - at the service of those who are trying to figure out who did this and why."

He also said he would implement a policy of "continued monitoring."

Clinton said the United States was "absolutely determined to oppose the cowardly cruelty of terrorists, wherever we can."

All Talk, No Action

Despite his rhetoric, Clinton made no changes in policy to prevent additional attacks, Johnson said.

"From the time President Clinton took office until May of 1995, a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39, sat in the National Security Council, in the In Box of one of the officials with no action taken. The significance of PDD 39 is that it was the document defining what the missions and roles were of combating terrorism," Johnson said.

"Despite what happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, the Clinton administration did not finally act on [PDD 39] until after the attack in Oklahoma City," Johnson said, referring to the 1995 attack in which an American, Timothy McVeigh, detonated a bomb outside the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

"The only reason for that is because in the two weeks prior to Oklahoma City, the front page of both Newsweek and Time Magazine carried the question: 'Is President Clinton Relevant?'"

Chuck Pena, senior defense analyst for the Cato Institute, agreed that Clinton's actions after the 1993 attack failed to match his words. But, Pena said, the circumstances were different than they are today.

"[Clinton's] actions were not necessarily 100 percent reflective of his rhetoric, nor were they effective." However, "there are some reasons for some of that. At the time, we were not looking at four or five thousand casualties as a result of a single terrorist act."

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing

On June 25, 1996, terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more.

Shiite militant terrorists with connections to bin Laden are thought to have been responsible for the attacks.

In a televised statement, Clinton addressed the nation with news about the bombing:

"The explosion appears to be the work of terrorists. The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," Clinton said. "America takes care of its own."

Johnson said Clinton did nothing of the sort.

According to Johnson, early indications were that the explosive used in the bombing of the Khobar Towers came out of the Becca Valley in Lebanon. A year later, however, Clinton restored full diplomatic relations with Lebanon including lifting travel restrictions and trade restrictions, Johnson said, "without requiring them to locate, arrest, apprehend or compensate U.S. citizens. He just let it go."

Pena said one must consider that terrorism was not the high-priority issue it is today.

"Part of it reflects, at that time, a certain tolerance for terrorism that was, compared to September 11, pretty small scale. I think the Clinton administration may have been overly cautious about not wanting to respond disproportionately to the terrorist acts that were perpetrated."

1998 Embassy Bombings

On Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 people. More than 5,000 were injured.

The attacks were blamed on bin Laden's terrorist group, al-Qaeda, which by this time had developed into a worldwide network.

On Aug. 20, 1998, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan.

"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today," Clinton said at the time.

He told Americans that U.S. intelligence had uncovered information tying the bin Laden terrorist network to the embassy bombings.

"With compelling evidence that the bin Laden network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act," Clinton said.

"Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups, but countries that persistently host terrorist have no right to safe havens," he added.

Johnson said Clinton's tough talk again yielded no results.

"Clinton was always good about biting his lip, tears welling up in his baggy eyes and talking about, 'We're waging a new war on terrorism,' and yet also during this period he basically cut the heart out of CIA," Johnson said.

2000 USS Cole Bombing

On Oct. 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni port of Aden. The bomb killed 17 U.S. sailors. American officials quickly linked the attack to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Global News Wire reported Clinton's response:

"If, as it now appears, it was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act," he said.

"We will find out who was responsible, and hold them accountable. If their intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail, utterly."

Clinton ordered U.S. Navy ships into the Yemeni region and directed ground forces to step up their security measures.

"They spent a lot of money but it was always a symbolic gesture without the substantive approach," Johnson said.

The Bush administration, according to Johnson, is handling the issue differently since Sept. 11. However, Johnson is waiting to see if Bush will keep his promise to continue the war on terrorism even after the campaign in Afghanistan is over.

"Bush is now drawing the line in the sand and going after the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. The proof will be if he goes after the next terrorist camps, which are in Lebanon. Those are the largest terrorist camps," Johnson said.

Robert Maginnis, vice president of policy at Family Research Council, said, "There seems to be a willingness to confront the adversaries by Bush no matter where they may be and to keep everything on the table.

"This president has been serious. 'We are going to take everything that we have and whatever it takes will be available for the commander on the ground.' But Clinton seemed to have been so hesitant about using the power that was available to him to go after the bad guys. That, I think, sent the wrong sort of signal," Maginnis said.



To: Skywatcher who wrote (255856)5/16/2002 7:16:20 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Morris: Clinton Was Oblivious to Khobar Towers Terror Alert
Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001 6:20 p.m. EST
newsmax.com

Former chief White House political adviser Dick Morris revealed Tuesday that his former boss Bill Clinton cared so little about global terrorism that his own assistant secretary of state had trouble getting him to pay attention to a bomb threat against the Khobar Towers Air Force barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

"In 1996, I got a phone call from Dick Holbrooke," Morris told WABC Radio's Sean Hannity.

"He said, 'We're getting hard intelligence that terrorists are planning another hit on our guys in Riyadh. ... They're in the exact same building they were in when it was hit last time.'"

In June 1996, the Khobar Towers military barracks had been hit by a suicide bomber believed sent by Osama bin Laden, killing 19 American airmen.

Months later, after the barracks had been repaired, U.S. military personnel reoccupied it.

Holbrooke told Morris that the new U.S. Air Force tenants were "sitting ducks in that building," and then added:

"I've been trying to get a hold of the president for two weeks about this and we're getting increasing reports about [the threat]. Can you call him?"

Morris said that when he reached Clinton about Holbrooke's warning, the president began cursing and complained, "You mean they're still in that building? I ordered six weeks ago for them to be dispersed."

Clinton said he would take care of the problem at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs the next day, Morris recalled.

"But he didn't follow it up," the top political strategist noted. "He didn't know whether they were in the buildings or not. He was inaccessible, so the guy who knew [about the threat] couldn't be in touch with him."

Morris told Hannity the oversight was typical of the way the administration worked.

"Clinton was a one-issue-at-a-time guy," he said, adding that the only foreign policy issue that seemed to engage him was Bosnia.

The reference to Bosnia prompted this exchange:

HANNITY: The only time he paid attention to foreign policy was when he had Monica working - who was he speaking to, what Alabama congressman?

MORRIS: Yeah, right. But the - well, he spoke to me on one of those ...

HANNITY: Ahhhwwww!

MORRIS: He did. No, no, I'm in the Starr Report. I'm one of the four conversations [where Clinton had sex with Lewinsky while talking to others on the phone].

Citing another example of Clinton's lax attitude toward terrorism, the former White House political guru noted his boss never visited the World Trade Center after it was bombed in February 1993.

"When the bombing happened, he just issued a statement saying we'll fight them and all that. And then he gave it his Saturday radio address. ... It was never a big priority."

During Clinton's second term, Morris said, he was "terribly, terribly and totally distracted by impeachment. There was no way that he was going to pay enough attention to an issue like terrorism.

"In the second term," Morris said, "we didn't have a president. Now, was it his fault for Monica? Was it the Republicans' fault for impeaching? Was it his fault for not resigning? Who knows.

"But the fact is the United States didn't have a president for two years and that's why."



To: Skywatcher who wrote (255856)5/16/2002 7:19:10 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong – Clinton to Blame

Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2001
newsmax.com

The worst, single most tragic day in the history of America has just passed.
Tuesday more Americans likely died than all the casualties of the Battle of Antietam on Wednesday, Sept. 17, 1862.

Already the media spin on yesterday's events is relentless.

The talking heads are pushing several themes, including:

Now is not the time to point fingers at responsible parties in America, i.e., political figures like Clinton or our own security agencies.

The events of Tuesday are the "worst-case scenario" – the worst is over.

Osama bin Laden is the culprit.
On these points of spin, the first one is baloney. Of course we need to find why our security failed. This is basic.
And unless the big media are consulting a psychic better than the one I use, no one knows what the future days, weeks and months may yield.

This is not the worst-case scenario. A worst-case scenario is a 25-megaton nuclear bomb detonated in New York or a full-scale attack against the U.S.! These should not be ruled out.

These dangers can be avoided, we pray, but only if we stop listening to the media idiots that feed us a diet of blow-dried nonsense. Is Katie Couric going to say how bad she feels for the terrorists who were driven to these cowardly acts?

It is the big media and the hack politicians that led us to this nightmarish day.

Smart to Examine Who Failed Us

We are Americans, so let's get our feet back on the ground and use common sense.

The media say we shouldn't point fingers. (Funny, isn't it, how the media have spent 30 years pointing fingers at Richard Nixon for his alleged crimes, but when one of their liberal favorites is due for some blame, they feed us the mantras like "Let's move on!" and "No time to point fingers!")

Common sense, in fact, dictates that we need to critically examine the people who are to blame for this incident, both the perpetrators (and if you believe Osama bin Laden was the major mastermind behind this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you) and the people we pay to protect us – that is, our national security agencies.

Without question, these agencies failed miserably in preventing this sophisticated, wide-scale and coordinated attack against America.

Intelligence Agencies Failed Miserably

Tuesday I received an e-mail from a recently retired high-ranking CIA official. I will identify him as "Harry":

Here's what Harry said:

"... Reacting effectively and justly to this [attack] makes us hugely dependent on intell [intelligence] capabilities that failed us miserably. This is an enormous liability, which we shall not be able to fix before we have to react. Payback time for the last eight years!"

He continued: "There were clearly enormous failures here. This operation was ingenious in its simplicity, which would have limited the size (number of people, actions) of the operation and hence detectability. But it could not have been that small for at least a dozen men to hijack four carefully chosen aircraft (routes, fuel load) with carefully coordinated timing. And to get through security with knives big enough to subdue four relatively large crews. If the intell and security systems claim that this challenge is simply too hard for them, they have to be replaced, root and branch. Because this challenge is the challenge. It is now pretty self-evident that claims of reform and adjustment [at the intelligence agencies] to new realities that we've heard over the past eight years or so are hollow."

Of course, it's obvious why the media doesn't want any finger pointing.

Guess who ran the U.S. government and was responsible for our national security for the past eight years?

Yes, you got it: Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband.

Clinton Responsible for Unpreparedness

The Clintons were supported vociferously by the media through the worst imaginable scandals.

During that time I was one of the lead reporters opposing the Clintons. I was mocked and vilified by my colleagues for doing so.

I said throughout that period that Bill Clinton's personal corruption was wholesale and mirrored how he was corrupting America's national security.

I wrote articles and said repeatedly that America, sadly, may end up paying a heavy price for Bill Clinton and the major media's complicity.

I don't believe the worst has passed with the incidents of today.

We remain vulnerable and weak.

Brutally, we witnessed our weakness today.

During eight years, Clinton decimated America's military. Our forces were cut almost in half under his stewardship.

Research and development on all new weapons systems were brought almost to a halt as other nations continued to build. Clinton destroyed nearly our entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Monsters like Saddam flourished as Clinton bombed aspirin factories, tent cities in Afghanistan and worthless radar stations in the Iraqi desert.

These are open facts, easily verifiable.

Clinton, the Ever Clever Bastard

But Clinton, the ever clever bastard, was more insidious. Little, systematic changes were undertaken to destroy America's intelligence agencies.

Let me explain. A regular NewsMax reader, "Roger," was a CIA spy in the Mideast.

I met him almost two years ago. Roger wanted to tell me why a gung-ho American quit the CIA in disgust.

Roger said the CIA was not interested in recruiting spies.

Clinton and company knew they could not just tell the CIA to stop recruiting spies. That would look stupid and embarrassing.

So they just changed the rules of how spies are recruited, raising the bar on requirements to such a high degree that the most valuable spies could never meet CIA standards and couldn't work for us.

Previously, I wrote how Clinton effectively stopped the recruitment of Chinese nationals by demanding that only high-ranking embassy officials could be recruited – knowing this is almost impossible. Roger told me that. Roger reminded me again of this today.

He noted that Clinton policies reached their zenith under CIA Director John Deutch and his top assistant, Nora Slatkin. The pair ran Clinton's CIA in the mid-1990s and implemented a "human rights scrub" policy.

Here's how Roger described it in an e-mail Tuesday evening: "Deutch and Nora, Clinton's anti-intelligence plants, implemented a universal 'human rights scrub' of all assets, virtually shutting down operations for 6 months to a year. This was after something happened in Central America (there was an American woman involved who was the common law wife of a commie who went missing there) that got a lot of bad press for the agency.

"After that, each asset had to be certified as being 'clean for human rights violations.'

"What this did was to put off limits, in effect, terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who would have info on these kinds of people."

Roger says the CIA, even under new leadership, has never recovered from the "Human Rights Scrub" policy.

Perhaps that was the intention.

But we, the American people, Congress, and honest media need to examine all of these issues, now and quickly. If we don't, we risk even more grave dangers than those that we just lived through.