We live in a nation of laws, we abide by those laws, if we fail to do so we are no different than the terrorists. We don't assasinate people, we don't usurp people's rights, we are supposed to uphold the law both nationally and internationally. If we fail to act legally what is to stop the rest of the world from doing the same? The Clinton administration followed the law, in doing so they admittedly allowed a small player to become a much larger one. But that happened because it was an administration that followed the law, if it hadn't followed the law and simply acted on 'what might happen' or 'probably did happen' then what would difference us from the Nazis, the Baath party or the Khmer Rouge?
I haven't read the book but from that link I can already tell you it is a print version of "The O'Reilly Factor" usually aired on the Fox network. The problem with shows and books like that is that they use a little bit of factual information and turn it into something that is not in order to push an agenda. Usually this is done in the name of patriotism and under the guise of righteousness. It often works well because the people this type of material caters to don't take the time to inform themselves on the matter, they have heard a little of it before somewhere, what the author says 'feels right' so it must be true. I won't take the time to read the book but I will dissect the post in question for you.
"President Clinton had more than a dozen opportunities during his two terms to either capture or kill al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden but either refused or was too consumed by scandal to act, a new book claims."
President Clinton refused to act against Bin Laden because during his first term Bin Laden had committed no crime against the US. Again we are a nation of laws, we abide by them, until he (Bin Laden) commits a crime against this nation, this nation is powerless to do anything, however obvious it might be that in time he will do something. That is the law.
As for being too consumed by scandal the Lewinsky issue (which by the way in my view is between Monica, Bill and his wife. What the man does in his personal life in none of anybody's business. If he had for instance tapped into Monica's phone then that would be a real scandal a violation of constitutional rights/privacy something that he was sworn to uphold. He did nothing of the sort, he had an affair and what he does in that department is between a man and his wife.) was over in 1997, by that time Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and the scandal did not break until 1998. Attempting to mix something that happen at the tail end of his presidency's second term with something that started with his predecessor Mr. Bush Sr. sending troops into Somalia is ludicrous. However those of us who wont take the time to inform themselves do remember that something happen in Somalia and that there was a scandal with Bill Clinton involved, this man says the one prevented the president from resolving the other it must be correct. Since they don't remember the fact that there were 7 years between one and the other and wont research it this type of journalism prevails, we see it everyday in the O'Reilly Factor, it is unreal how much BS that man can dish out and even more unbelievable that people just take his word without ever doing any fact finding of their own, if they did they would see that things are all mixed up and blown out of proportion. And always without exception there is an agenda behind it.
"Former Wall Street Journal editorial writer and author Richard Miniter also says ... that the former commander in chief was most responsible for the rise of the world's foremost terrorist mastermind."
This completely ignores Bin Ladens own words, Osama said in no uncertain terms that the hatred towards the US was something that was developed over decades of US supported Israeli imperialism. The thousands of Palestinian people being murdered by the Israelis and the fact that not only did the US turn a blind eye to that but in effect made it possible by sending them the weapons and the subsidies so that Israel could in fact behave in this manner. Bush and then Clinton were simply the current encarnation of decades old US policies in the area, as hateful as he may think they are, he regarded them as minor players. To him the enemy was the US.
If you want to read the CNN interview in 1997
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/binlad ... vw-cnn.pdf
"Miniter said Clinton was hampered by "ideology," in that he didn't believe assassinating bin Laden was morally right."
And this is something that somehow is bad? lol don't know were to begin... we have morals, we have laws to make sure people abide by those morals, we have prisons for those that don't, in some States we even execute those that don't abide by our moral laws. Yet here we have it being presented as something to be condemmed, unreal.
"Miniter said although Clinton eventually signed an order approving bin Laden's assassination, "there were so many bureaucratic restrictions on those orders they were, in fact, meaningless." "
I don't know about this, although I seriously doubt that an order for assasination was ever given. I would need to read about it to be able to comment. It is more likely that an order to capture Bin Laden was given and within that order a statement exonerating those involved in the operation if the attempt resulted in Bin Laden's death. However, I don't know that.
" "Here's the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban, fighting bin Laden, and seriously trying to get him," he said, "but when it comes time for the CIA to brief Clinton [in Washington] about it, they get a scolding: 'How dare you go after him.'" "
If that ever actually happened and this man has proof of it Mr. Clinton not only committed treason, but deserves the death penalty. Now, if we submitted him to countless hours of examination because he had an affair, what are the odds that we would look the other way for treason? In my opinion he might as well have said that Mr. Clinton was secretly impregnated by Bin Laden, and the bastard child of that encounter is being raised by black Nazis of Jewish descent in a South African mine two miles underground.
The only other possibility that comes to mind is that whatever it was that the CIA was proposing at the time was illegal, unconstitutional and violated international agreements, if that was the case the President would've been right on scolding the CIA officer for proposing such a thing. The author in that case would be taking editorial liberties to confound the readers. In my opinion doing so should be a crime, anybody actively engaged in character assasination should be imprisoned.
The next five paragraphs is simply old rhetoric with a new name, just to get you going, you find that it rings true, you've heard similar things before, it must be true. It contains no misinformation simply slant on something we all know to be true, he just re-directed it by adding Clinton's name.
"In his book, Miniter also recounts how bin Laden was responsible for the shooting down of U.S. Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993, and how the nation of Sudan offered, on several occasions, to capture bin Laden, who was living in the country at the time."
That is probably based in truth, but if it is (and I'm not saying it is not) it was indirectly. A more accurate picture of what Bin Laden had done and how he was seen at the time (in hindsight) was given by the "New Yorker" in January of 2000 almost two years before 9-11. I'll paste the relevant part to that time frame below.
-------------
Yet David Long, a former official in the State Department who is considered an expert both on the Saudis and on terrorism, said, "Is Osama bin Laden the exclusive font of terrorist evil? No. This is an informal brotherhood we are seeing now, whose members can draw on each other; it's not a clear, sterling network. Bin Laden's organization"—an umbrella group called al-Qaeda, or "the base"—"is not a terrorist organization in the traditional sense. It's more a clearing house from which other groups elicit funds, training, and logistical support. It's a chameleon, an amoeba, which constantly changes shape according to the whims of its leadership, and that leadership is Osama bin Laden. It's highly personalized." Long went on, "Bin Laden is a facilitator—a practitioner of the most ancient way of doing things in the Middle East. He does not have the brilliant, top-of-the-art international structure of Abu Nidal"—the Palestinian terrorist of the nineteen-seventies and mid-eighties. "If you were to kill Osama tomorrow, the Osama organization would disappear, but all the networks would still be there." Long believes that the more serious threat bin Laden poses to the interests of the United States lies in his ability to destabilize friendly Arab governments, such as Saudi Arabia's, whose support is geopolitically crucial to us. (In fact, bin Laden very likely sees his battle with the House of Saud as his most important struggle; from his perspective, the United States is of secondary concern.)
Other United States officials agree, and warn that bin Laden has given financial backing to anti-government groups in Egypt (where he has underwritten some of the activities of the Gama'a al-Islamiya and al-Jihad), Algeria, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines. He has supported Islamic fighters not only in Afghanistan but also in Chechnya, Kosovo, Kashmir, Bosnia, and Tajikistan. But even though these groups may enjoy his patronage, he does not control them, and they are everything that his own organization is not: they are well structured, and most have long histories and specific (and often legitimate) complaints and concerns.
In May of 1996, under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia, the Sudanese government asked bin Laden to leave, and he returned to Afghanistan permanently, accompanied by two military-transport planes carrying some of his wealth, more than a hundred of his Afghan Arab fighters, and his four wives. Between two and three thousand of his other loyalists fanned out into Europe and across East Africa. "It was like sending Lenin back to Russia," an American diplomat said to me. "At least in the Sudan we could indirectly monitor some of his activities."
When bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan,
-------------------
As you can see he had done nothing that the US could do anything against (not legally) he was funding legitimate organizations. They in turn would funnel funds to terrorist organizations but Bin Laden can't be hold accountable for the actions of other, specially when he did not control them, not at the time.
"Following a meeting with CIA officials in March 1996, Sudanese officials "offered to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to us," Miniter said. But Clinton officials deemed the offer "not credible," so no deal was ever reached."
The implications are woefully inaccurate and entirely out of context. At the time the Secretary of State was Warren Christopher, his replacement Madeleine Albright said that the reason for not accepting Sudan's offer was two fold first, the nation (Sudan) was a terrorist sponsoring nation itself. In offering Bin Laden to the US what they wanted to do was eliminate a man that was rapidly getting out of hand and not face the consequences internally but be able to re-direct the anger from his followers towards the US. Secondly and I quote "In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system. I don't think that was our first choice." Now, President Clinton admitted that the refusal to accept the Sudanese offer was his administration's "biggest mistake". However, that was in hindsight, at the time it was supporting a terrorist state against an individual who was a terrorist in the making, he choose not to follow that route. At the time it appeared to be the right thing to do, with the benefit of hindsight we can clearly see that was not the case.
Not sure if this has helped, the intent was not to convince you that Clinton is incapable of making mistakes, he is human and therefor fallible. The intent was to point out that the author of that book is pandering to those that wont do the research and simply accept what is given to them because it sounds good and/or allows them to place the blame in somebody that for whatever reason they dislike. So, all this is a long winded way of saying check the facts, often a predigested version is slanted and has an agenda.
Saludos,
Eli
FAQ
Search
Members
Groups
Register
User Control Panel
Log in to check your private messages.
Login
podéis criticar a nuestro jefe de estado.
