I didn't do the heavy lifting on this, but I would like to share what others have found out about what Clinton said in his interview.
CLINTON: ABC just had a right-wing conservative run their little pathway to 9/11, falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me directly contradicting the 9/11 Commission report. 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, all --
CLINTON: President Bush's neocons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.
Really?
The Folks at The American Thinker spent the the time after the interview to do exhasutive LexisNexis search. The found "absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden or that he did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000." Also "prior to the August '98 US embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by Clinton in American news transcripts, prior to 1998, even though bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1996, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Clinton only said a couple of sentences in his Saturday radio address which followed the bombing on February 26th of '93."
Concerning the bombings in Sudan around the Lewinsky scandal:
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998: 'Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.'
CNN's Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan: 'With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], 'Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America's interests throughout the world.'
The Atanta Journal-Constitution , same day: 'Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,' said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.'
Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998: 'I don't have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took-made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It's probably long overdue.'
There were some detractors:
Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana: 'I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism.'
As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the 'Wag the Dog' comparisons were 'sick': 'Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,' said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.
As for the 'neocons':
Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times: 'For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing... So Thursday's bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states...'
Next
CLINTON: Do you think Mr. Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden? He worked for Ronald Reagan, he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush, he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Read his book and read his factual assertions, not opinions, assertions.
The name of Clarke's book is "Against All Enemies," and if you turn to page 234 of Richard Clarke's book, you can read this, which sort of contradicts Clintons claim that you just heard that Richard Clarke had been demoted and then later fired:"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Secretary Rice had asked me to conduct.
"There was agreement to create a separate senior White House position for critical infrastructure protection and cybersecurity outside the NSC staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC, focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. This is basically Internet. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley."
Clinton also implied in what you just heard that Clarke was demoted prior to 9/11. But if you go to page 239 of Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, you'll read the following. "Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC staff, came to me in early October," that would be after September, "after the time I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to critical--"
These are just the two big ole lies.
I think that he is pathological. I really think that he thinks that these are truths, and the rage that we saw in the interview is Clinton not wanting to believe the truth. There is plenty of blame to go around, but Clinton didn't deal with terrorism during his 8 years.
Here is a bit from Micheal Scheurer, a former CIA analyst. He is no fan of Bush and is against the war in Iraq.
SCHEUER: "Former president seems to be able to deny facts with impunity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men who risked their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."
Interviewer: "Is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"
SCHEUER: There's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is the Bush administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just -- it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them.
How can the former President of the United States say that "at least he tried" to get Osama. He had 8 years to try. Bush had at most 8 months to get Osama. Contrast Clinton and Bush. Has Bush ever acted that way during an interview. Clinton complains that this was a hit job on him and refused to be treated like that. He also said, "I always get these clever little political deals where they ask me one set of questions and the other guys another set, and it always comes from one source." Who is he kidding? Bush, Condi , or Rummy don't get asked hard hitting questions?
Here's Chris Wallace talking to Donald Rumsfeld, March 28th, 2004. Quote: "I understand this is 20/20 hindsight. It's more than an individual manhunt. I mean, what you ended up doing in the end was going after Al-Qaeda where it lived, pre-9/11, should you have been thinking more about that?" "What do you make of Richard Clarke's basic charge that pre-9/11, this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from Al-Qaeda? Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority." Rummy didn't blow a gasket.
Just think of how the media treats Bush. And how they treat Clinton. Clinton has gotten a pass for a long time, and now he sees the tides changing on him. His legacy is falling apart.
