Here is just a couple of quotes from Clinton officials in response to the Cole attack:
Hat Tip: Coulter's Weekly EditorialAccording to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden", Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:
Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process."
Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
10 comments:
Ah yes, blame Clinton.
Now that I think about it, Clinton should have done just a bit more to strenghten the levees in New Orleans, prevent civil war and genocide in Sudan, disarm Hezbollah, curb the lobbying efforts of Jack Abramoff, broker a peace deal in Kashmir, encourage economic reform in Russia, curb drug use amongst our youth, and find a cure for cancer.
Too bad he was busy running a government that gave us a record economic surplus, preventing genocides in Kosovo and Haiti, and making it easier for lower class families to send their students to college.
Damn it man, will your party accecpt responsibility for ANYTHING???
By the way, is capturing Osama still irrelevant to your party leadership?
Let's see...Clinton had 8 years to deal with bin Laden and he did NOTHING...thank God Bush did take action and took the war to the terrorists instead of continuing to try to appease them letting them get more and more emboldened.
You seem to be confused...it was Nancy Pelosi who said on Tuesday that Osama is irrelevant...she is the leader of your party not mine. Let's get facts straight.
Clinton was preventing genocides in Kosovo? Really? Coulda fooled me and thousands of dead people, too. And why is it ok for HIM to get militarily involved internationally to stop barbarism, but if Bush does it, you leftards jump up and down and scream that Sadam wasn't part of 9/11 so Iraq is not our concern? Clinton gave us no "record economic surplus". He gave us a theoretical future surplus which depended on a lot of completely far-fetched and unreasonable assumptions. (I'm not giving Bush a pass on the current spending; but don't blow smoke up our rears about Clinton's fairy tale surplus)
I must agree with you on Bin Laden. First, though, it's sad that the left is spreading a lot of lies about Bush & the CIA abandoning the search when all they've really done is some internal realigments, not reducing the priority of catching Bin Laden at all. Nonetheless, the fact remains that five years later, the supposedly most advanced military and intelligence community in the world can't catch a guy whose travel and possible locations are severely limited, and whose size and appearance make him stick out like a sore thumb. That's disgraceful. Either we're not nearly as badass as we'd like to think, or for some unknown reason, we really don't want to catch the guy.
Hi Tiger.....
WARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR EAGLE!!! (smiling) What a nail biting game with LSU. I am a huge Auburn Fan...just wanted to jump over and say hi. WOW what a game!!!
I post on the Tigers every Sat.
I'm Sorry I put this on the wrong post....crazy me.
Regarding the Cole: In usual Clinton style he said this years later:
""I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."
But of course everyone, including him, knew that Al Queda had attacked the Cole and he had months left in office to do something... ANYTHING... but he didn't.
A full discussion of that point here:
http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=2401
Tiger...one of the main reasons we haven't caught bin Laden yet is due to the cultural behaviors of the people where he is hiding. They have a cultural tradition of protecting their "guest" regardless of who he is. Those caves are tough enough, but when you have an early warning notice from friendly towns folk...makes it that much tougher.
Suzie...no worries...I responded on the proper post.
Mike...dead on as usual.
Watching the cabinet discuss the response to the Cole attack on the movie was infuriating to say the least. Cohen's quote says it all in terms of liberals' response:
"...did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
How many Americans have to die for it to be sufficient provocation????? That is such an idiotic statement. Apparently many libs don't even think almost 3,000 deaths are sufficient provocation!!!
well, let's see now...sufficient provocation...
In 1987, the USS Stark was bombed by an Iraqi jet's silkworm missile. 47 dead sailors.
And Mr. Reagan's retaliation was...what?
neither party has a corner on the market when it came to inadequate responses to terrorism pre 9/11.
And CT, you write "Clinton had 8 years to deal with bin Laden and he did NOTHING...thank God Bush did take action and took the war to the terrorists..."
don't act as if this was a priority to the White House before 9/11, because you know full well it was not.
Southpaw...I have on other posts and comments laid proper blame on Carter, Reagan, Bush I and George W pre-9-11. However we can see that the libs are not willing to take the proper blame for Clinton's failures by the reaction to "The Path to 9-11."
The difference is after George W had an attack on his watch, he took action and has not wavered despite popular opinion and cut and run libs b/c 9-11 changed him as it did many people who finally understand the threat we face.
Post a Comment