Did President Clinton have 3 chances to nab Bin Laden?
January 5, 2002 7:56 PM   Subscribe

Did President Clinton have 3 chances to nab Bin Laden? This question is being addressed by the Sunday Times of London, according to Matt Drudge. Is the Times simply crying over spilt milk, or will this end up being our former president's lasting legacy?
posted by insomnyuk (24 comments total)
 
The only people that believe this garbage are the hooligans and they will believe anything anyway if it comes from certain people.

Geez, the GOP big-game-plan of demonizing Bill Clinton didn't work for 8 years and it's not going to work now.Their identical plan to demonize Tom Daschle is also going in the dumper.

Sucks to be them.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 8:35 PM on January 5, 2002


Commenting generally, he said: "I don't believe that the fight against terrorism was the number one goal of the Clinton administration. I believe there were some lost opportunities."

Sure, and it was the No. 1 goal of George W. Bush before Sept. 11.
posted by raysmj at 8:36 PM on January 5, 2002


Hehehe... While I agree that the "demonize Bill Clinton" gambit will fail WRT Osama, I believe that Mr. Clinton's legacy is already well established.

It is a stained, blue dress.

That being said, I can't see what can be gained by continuing to go after Bill Clinton. He is no longer President, right? Can someone explain who would think this plan can produce any gains?
posted by hadashi at 8:48 PM on January 5, 2002


I think the game plan for the GOP/right-wing-conspirators/Clintons Haters is that by demonizing President Clinton, they kill two birds with one stone: 1. Give Clinton's legacy (good economy for eight years) a negetive spin; 2. Stop Hillary's presidential ambitions -- if she were to have them. For these reasons, and simply because "he got away with it," they will never let up. Ever.
posted by Rastafari at 9:02 PM on January 5, 2002


Hadashi "Can someone explain who would think this plan can produce any gains?"

I second Rastafari's sentiments and add that it's also a smokescreen. From a Clintonbasher's perspective it is perhaps educating the public. Many still honestly believe that Clinton was evil incarnate and have accumulated not a small amount of evidence that would convince the ignorant masses. They wish to further this cause in the interests of doing what's right. As if stuping an intern is the worst thing that's ever happened near the oval office. Puh-leeze.

The rest of us know that the mud one side of the fence throws at the other is simply to keep people looking at the mud on the other side of the fence. No politician is a saint. GWBush is no exception. If the spin doctors can keep people looking back in confusion, they think we'll forget to look forward with suspicion. Avoid the issues by attacking character, or the lack thereof. I never voted Clinton into office cuz I thought he was a saint. I voted him in there cuz I knew he wasn't. And I didn't vote for Shrub cuz I knew he was pretending to be a saint. If I wanted to be ruled by saints, I'd move to Vatican City.

So again, I submit, Clinton bashing is a smokescreen. And has been for almost a decade.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:30 PM on January 5, 2002


I can't believe she didn't have that dress cleaned
posted by tomplus2 at 9:33 PM on January 5, 2002


Bill Clinton is the strongest argument I've seen against need based scholarships. He treated women badly. He compromised United States security in return for campaign funding.
posted by Real9 at 9:45 PM on January 5, 2002


He compromised United States security in return for campaign funding.

Yeah, the Bushes only start wars in exchange for it (see War, Gulf).
posted by owillis at 9:52 PM on January 5, 2002


Ah damn, I've been trolled by Real9. Won't happen again.
posted by owillis at 9:55 PM on January 5, 2002


Bob Hanssen had his wife, Bonnie (yes, the one he wrote the sex stories about -- and more) convinced that Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign was financed by stolen Russian gold. It was only later that the VRWC unanimously agreed it was actually China's People's Liberation Army who ran the Billster by remote control, but who cares? These things are interchangeable, like K'NEX.

As far as this story is concerned, it should be no surprise that various of bin Laden's hosts and hangers-on would have sold him out for money or a laundry list of considerations. That doesn't mean (especially in 1996!) that we should automatically have accepted any such offer, if the price were too high. Even now there are fringe moon-howlers who don't think there's enough evidence to speak loudly at the man. Then, the legal framework for charging him in the 1993 bombing was nonexistent, and evidence scarce. It would have been much better (for us) had he been taken by the Saudis and executed, but they wanted him even less than we did.

Basically, this is like an onion article along the lines of: MAN TORMENTED BY 20/20 HINDSIGHT.

The Sunday Times article is available here. {cypherpunks/cypherpunks}. Besides, look how Clinton was ripped into for what he did do.
posted by dhartung at 10:16 PM on January 5, 2002


Ah damn, I've been trolled by Real9. Won't happen again.

It seems to be his life's work here judging from his
I John Ashcroft user page.
posted by y2karl at 11:07 PM on January 5, 2002


Sure, and it was the No. 1 goal of George W. Bush before Sept. 11.

I will not repeat owillis' mistake, raysmj. Nice try though :)
posted by insomnyuk at 11:13 PM on January 5, 2002


isomnyuk: How was that a troll, exactly? Is that what you meant? More an eye-roll at the pure, silly partisanship of Richard Shelby and nothing aimed at you. If anything, the comment was too obvious. Wow.
posted by raysmj at 11:24 PM on January 5, 2002


Raysmj: I just almost responded to the idea that somehow Bush is responsible for Clinton's actions, or that his actions somehow negate Clinton's.

I guess I took it the wrong way.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:03 AM on January 6, 2002


Detailed Washington Post articles on the history of Clinton era operations aimed at bin Laden:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62725-2001Dec18.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3616-2001Dec19.html

...just in case you want more credible info than the third hand overheard dinner conversations Drudge is trumpeting.
posted by NortonDC at 12:10 AM on January 6, 2002


I've been playing a little game lately. I'll randomly flip on my radio during Rush Limbaugh and time how long it takes him to make a reference to Clinton. It has never taken longer than 3 minutes and is often under a minute. Astounding how deep the obsession runs.
posted by RavinDave at 2:31 AM on January 6, 2002


It's "The Sunday Times" - there's no London in it.

(And I should know better than you (cypherpubnks/sypherpunks) :o)
posted by andrew cooke at 3:16 AM on January 6, 2002


I've been playing a little game lately. I'll randomly flip on my radio during Rush Limbaugh and time how long it takes him to make a reference to Clinton. It has never taken longer than 3 minutes and is often under a minute. Astounding how deep the obsession runs.

I remember the day Bill Clinton was first elected president. The venom was already flowing: he was resented before he even took office. My suspicion is that 12 years of Republicans in office had led some to believe they had an entitlement; that turned out to be false, and they were stripped of power, power by proxy, and any feeling of importance. Could have been anyone besides Clinton. Any Democratic president would have been treated the same.
posted by Mo Nickels at 8:38 AM on January 6, 2002


Bill Clinton is the strongest argument I've seen against need based scholarships. [sic]

It's funny how this statement illustrates the real issue republicans have with Clinton. Clinton was born in poverty, as what some might refer to as white trash, and this helped shape his liberal identity. Republicans hate this, as his rise shatters the hold of a ruling class that protects the wealthy.

Contrast Clinton, who really worked his way up to being president and had a concern for those not born into money, with Bush, who had it all handed to him (following his coke-and-booze party phase) and whose efforts for the poor have been photo ops. The embrace of someone like Bush by the republicans demonstrates just how demoralized they were following Clinton's successful (despite their best efforts) presidency.

As the divide grows between rich and poor, and as corporate influence continues to render our government ineffective, it will be interesting to see whether we start talking about the very real issue of class in this country. It's kind of quiet now, but it feels like it's starting to happen.
posted by troybob at 11:09 AM on January 6, 2002


That being said, I can't see what can be gained by continuing to go after Bill Clinton. He is no longer President, right?

Yeah, the Bushes only start wars in exchange for it (see War, Gulf).

I can't see what can be gained by continuing to go after George Bush (the elder). He is no longer President, right?
posted by Danelope at 11:22 AM on January 6, 2002


I think Paul Krugman put his finger on it in this past Friday's New York Times, troybob. As for Real9, well...
(mefi/mefi fired a blank but metafilter/metafilter got me in)
posted by y2karl at 11:25 AM on January 6, 2002


I think Minority Report is a full and complete answer to this article.
posted by Ptrin at 11:36 AM on January 6, 2002


does Drudge blame Clinton for the early passing of Buddy as well? i can't believe people actually take that guy seriously.
posted by tsarfan at 1:06 PM on January 6, 2002


{homer}Heh heh heh...cigars.{/homer}
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:48 PM on January 6, 2002


« Older Does anybody really know what time it is?   |   Akebono's sumo retirement ceremony Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments