Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

How Bill Clinton Dropped the Ball on Bin Laden

Filed under: Middle East

A newly released, previously classified report written by the CIA's internal ombudsman highlights the fact that it was former President Bill Clinton's gross negligence that led to the 9/11 assault on the United States.

Clinton appointed George Tenet to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in July 1997. As summarized by the Associated press, the report emphasizes that:

U.S. spy agencies, which were overseen by Tenet, lacked a comprehensive strategic plan to counter Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. The inspector general concluded that Tenet "by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created." The CIA's analysis of al-Qaida before Sept. 2001 was lacking. No comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden was written after 1993, and no comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001 was assembled. "A number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all," the report found.

In other words, Bill Clinton and his DCI ignored the al-Qaida problem throughout his presidency, and escaped blame only because it burst into flames just after Clinton left office, only a few months after George Bush had taken power. Al Gore should consider himself lucky he lost the election he claims he won; had he become president, Clinton's chickens would have come home to roost. It's to Bush's credit that he did not seek to make political hay with this report, but suppressed it for more than two years.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


Elyas says:

That's a pretty big leap you make there, if we both read the same article. The one you linked to doesn't even mention Clinton, so if you were reading something else, please provide the link.

Clinton could have done more, yes, but I don't think you can put the blame what happened solely on either president's shoulders. If you remember, though, Clinton did launch strategical strikes to try and take out Bin Laden, and maybe he could have devoted more energy to it if a politically-motivated Congress wasn't so obsessed with his private life.


La Russophobe says:

The fact that it doesn't name Clinton as the president during the time period it describes and as the man who appointed Tenant is the WHOLE POINT of this post, you idiot.

Try reading the post moron. From 1993-2000, Bill Clinton was president. It's during that time that NOTHING significant was done by the CIA.

Your comments are offensive, belligerent and totally uninformed. Either that, or blatant dishonest propaganda.


Jonathan says:

911 - The Clinton Legacy


Exocet says:

"Al Gore should consider himself lucky he lost the election he claims he won; had he become president, Clinton's chickens would have come home to roost."

Bush was given a memo "Bin Laden Determined to Attack." He ignored it and continued chopping wood frantically on his ranch. Al Gore would not have been frantically chopping wood somewhere in rural Texas. He would have been in meetings planning extra security for the nation.


Elyas says:

"From 1993-2000, Bill Clinton was president. It's during that time that NOTHING significant was done by the CIA."

"Try reading the post moron."

I read the whole post. It basically takes an objective article and inserts the poster's own partisan politics. Now you try reading the original article.

I don't have a problem with criticizing Clinton for not doing more. But saying NOTHING was done is nothing but politics. The article lists several programs and activities that were going on to monitor Bin Laden/Al Qaeda at the time. It's not that nothing was being done, but there was a systematic failure. Clinton also tried to take Bin Laden out in 1998.

Yes, more could have been done. I'm not arguing against that. But saying "100% of the blame lies with Clinton" is just petty politics and is counterproductive.


La Russophobe says:

EXOCET:

George Bush had been president only a few months when bin Laden attacked. Since no appropriate report was written DURING THE ENTIRE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION for him to read when he took power, there was no way for him to get a complete picture within the short period of time he had to work with. This report is an official finding by the CIA itself that it fell down on the job during the Clinton years, not only under Tenant but before him. Bill Clinton could and should have dealt with bin Laden, but he didn't. As Jonathan properly says, 911 is HIS legacy (so is impeachment and two elections without getting a majority of the popular vote).


La Russophobe says:

ELYAS:

How dare you claim I wrote that "100% of the blame lies with Clinton." There is no such quote in my text. Your propaganda is reprehensible and exposes you as an amazing hypocrite, calling for accuracy whilst perverting the truth.

It might well be that during the few short months he was president, Bush could have done more than he did. But since there was NO INFORMATION waiting for him about bin Laden when he took power from Clinton, because of Clinton's GROSS NEGLIGENCE, it's simply ridiculous to say that his inaction was in any way causal. He had to go from nothing to a response in less than one year while Clinton had eight years.

Clinton and his DCI were primarily responsible for failing to protect us from 911. Since then, Bush has kept the homeland 100% free from further terrorist events. Those are the two key facts. Spew your propaganda as much as you like, it changes nothing.


Elyas says:

Since when is trying to be nonpartisan "propaganda"? I'm not saying Clinton isn't to blame at all. But you're saying there was NO INFORMATION (your caps, not mine), which is factually untrue. There was no COMPREHENSIVE report, according to the article, but there was some intelligence. They had pieces of the puzzle, but neither Bush or Clinton put the puzzle together.

From the article: "Yet the review team led by Inspector General John Helgerson found neither a "single point of failure nor a silver bullet" that would have stopped the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people."

I'm not trying to put the blame solely on your fearless leader, so take it easy. Although I can't believe you're trying to say that Bush had NO INFORMATION on Bin Laden when he came into office, when he was handed a report titled "Bin Laden determined to attack..."

And although I've reminded you twice, you still can't seem to remember that Clinton launched missiles into Afghanistan trying to take Bin Laden out.


Aris Katsaris says:

Speaking as someone who *cheered* when Tenet was thrown out...

Clinton bears the responsibility for appointing Tenet in the three years before 9/11.

Bush bears the responsibility for *keeping* Tenet in that same position for a further 3 years, even after he'd proven his incompetence.

What's the worst mistake, appointing someone that later proves to be incompetent, or keeping someone in the position *after* he's proven to be incompetent?

IMO, the latter is the far worse sin. You're only displaying your bias in the field of American politics when you're only mentioning Clinton here. "Idiot" and "Moron"? I'm returning those characterizations to the sender.

And the name is Tenet, not Tenant.

"George Bush had been president only a few months"

Close to 8 months. Does that count for "few"?

"Since then, Bush has kept the homeland 100% free from further terrorist events."

Certainly, by sacrificing a couple thousand American lives and hundredfold that amount of Iraqi lives in Iraq. But who cares about American lives lost abroad, as long as the "homeland"'s soil remains pure.

And in that amount of time, Iraq has also turned from a secular dictatorship in opposition to Iran, to an islamofascist one subservient to it.

That's Bush's legacy, alongside the abolition of the Habeas Corpus and torture becoming business as usual.


free says:

Do you remember when Bin Laden did his first attack on the WTC with bombs or when he bombed the USS Cole? Or when the Sudanese offered Bin Laden on a plate? http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm What did Clinton do then? Or when he bombed an innocent aspirin factory to get attention off of Monica. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but who is more at fault?


La Russophobe says:

ARIS:

Thanks for the spelling correction!

I think it's rather harsh of you to fault Bush for keeping the DCI in place at least for the first few months of his presidency. It's ridiculous to suggest that he should have acted in a blindly partisan way in regard to this important agency, and it's to his credit that he didn't do so. In fact, it implies he understood the general threats the country was facing and the need to keep an experienced hand on the wheel.

It's also outrageous in the extreme to minimize Bush's achievement in keeping the homeland safe since 911. Undoubtedly Bush made errors in dealing with national security, as any human being would have done, but facts are facts. Clinton allowed the 911 attack to be planned an executed; Bush allowed no such activity.

I doubt there's anybody who's a harsher critic of Bush than me, I find his policy on Russia to be utterly barbaric. But where American lives and terrorism are concerned, it's Clinton who deserves by far the lion's share of the blame, and he hasn't gotten it.


andrew says:

"Bush was given a memo "Bin Laden Determined to Attack." He ignored it and continued chopping wood frantically on his ranch."


Of all the weak spin the Left has used over the years this one has to be the most braindead. A memo in 2001 saying bin Laden wants to attack means nothing because he had already said years earlier that he wanted to kill Americans. AQ had already attacked Americans and it wasn't considered off limits for them to attack the homeland. That he wanted to attack us was nothing new, and the idea that this memo was some revelation of important data is about as disingenuous as is humanly possible.


Adam says:

The point is, the Clinton defenders want to keep bringing up that Clinton left the Bush administration a comprehensive plan to catch Bin Laden and that Bush ignored it.
Here's the point, and read very carefully-Clinton had 8 long years to see to it that HE took out Bin laden and that the next administration shouldn't have to. There never should have been a plan left for Bush because Clinton had so much more time to do it himself it's not even funny. 8 Yeras, liberals, and you all want to just sweep it under the rug, totally ignore it, "Oh, who cares if he had 12 times the amount of time Bush had?"


wow gold says:

publius










wow gold guide says:

Want to go to tibet tour? You can rely on us! We are expert in Tibet Tours. based in Tibet 15 years experience, 600 private groups operated! So join us for your wondrous tibet travel! Are you interested in mysterious Lhasa travel to tibet? Why not take our Lhasa tibet trekking? You can appreciate the holiness of Lhasa tibet tour guide with our well-connected itinerary and leave a memorable recollection over life. These are China Lhasa packages with personal local and private vehicle with driver + hotels + entrance fees and meals as listed for your party based on minimum 2 travelers. Sects and Characteristics, For single person, please email us for new quotations. For any questions, please feel free to contact our customer team with our prompt and personalized travel services.


jordan shoes wholesale says:


sometimes,wholesale shoesis a best way to buy shoes,and u can gain so much discount from
Shoes wholesale,there are so many person like the same style shoes ,so
wholesale designer always try their best to design.in fact,so many youth prefer
wholesale athletic shoes,they enjoy it,because they're so comfortable.


buy wow gold says:

Today, the Microsoft-owned in-game ad agency said that it has signed an exclusive multiyear agreement with Blizzard. Azerothians opposed to seeing in-game ads in their local

world of warcft gold

watering holes need not worry, however, because the deal is limited to Blizzard's Web sites and Battle.net,the game maker's online-gaming hub. Terms of the deal were not announced, but Massive did note that the agreement is applicable to users in the US, Canada, Europe, South Korea, and Australia.

buy wow gold


Massive also said today that it would be extending its aforementioned deal with Activision to encompass an additional 18 games appearing on the Xbox 360 and PC.

cheap wow gold

The agency didn't fully delineate which would fall under this deal, though it did call out Guitar Hero: World Tour, James Bond: Quantum of Solace, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,

buy wow items

as well as games in its Tony Hawk and AMAX Racing franchises.Shortly before Activision and Vivendi announced their deal of the decade,

wow power leveling

the Guitar Hero publisher signed on to receive in-game advertisements from Massive Inc for a number of its Xbox 360 and PC games. A bit more than a year later, Massive is now extending its reach to Activision's new power player, Blizzard Entertainment.

buy wow gold

from our site ,you'll get more surprises!


Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/343