Clinton Caught In Yet Another Lie
Clinton knows he did not do enough to get bin Laden
By California Yankee Posted in National Security — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, weigh in on the scathing CIA Inspector's General Report the CIA didn't want us to see.
Buried on page three of the web exclusive is a passage which shows that Slick Willie lied during his September 2006 encounter with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. As I'm sure you remember, during an interview, Clinton erupted in anger, became unhinged, pointed his finger at Wallace, and boldly asserted:
What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.
Isikoff and Hosenball write the IG report criticized intelligence problems when Clinton was president, "detailing political and legal 'constraints' agency officials felt in the late 1990s." Then they mention Clinton's 2006 temper tantrum and explain Clinton's prevarication:
Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)[Emphasis added]
So now we can see why Clinton went nuts when asked if he did enough to get Osama bin Laden - he knows he did not do enough.
Read on.
In case you want to review the whole sorry Clinton meltdown, a YouTube video of the Wallace interview can be watched below and the FoxNews transcript is available here. My post refuting Clinton's Clarke Defense is here. A post about Chris Wallace's reaction to Clinton's temper tantrum is here.
No matter how many times I watch that video, it always make me think of Clinton getting on national television, pointing his finger at the camera and saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."
« Boeing v. Airbus — Comments (7) | "From Hell's Heart, I Stab At Thee!" — Comments (6) »
Clinton Caught In Yet Another Lie 66 Comments (0 topical, 66 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is Calvin Coolidge, only Coolidge never got impeached or any of the other ethical lapses. Calvin Coolidge also ruled over an economy that was buzzing throughout his term. This was also an economy spurned on by out of control speculation. This out of control speculation also eventually led to disaster. No one remembers Coolidge as much of a President and he had no personal problems to speak of. In fifty years, no one is going to think much of Clinton's economic policy because there was none. No one is going to give him any credit for an economy spurred on by internet stocks with no earnings that were worth more than companies like Sears and GM.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Some people just don't know a good President when they see one, I guess. If Red Staters can't even remember well our second to last conservative President, well, that's a shame.
Will Hillary be asked about the discrepancy between the CIA's findings and her husband's own declaration? Of course not.
Move along -- the media thinks there's nothing to see here.
I'm no fan of Hillary but why should she have to answer questions about some interview her husband had?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Ordinarily, it probably wouldn't matter. But, in this case, she's using her own experiences as first lady as her resume. In some sense, she's running on her husband's record -- in which she basically insinuates that she was the co-president, of sorts.
In other words, she's not merely a Senator embarking on the beginning of her second term. Rather, she's somebody who's spent 8 years in the White House, etc. etc.
And, FTR, I don't think it's at all unfair of her to do this. By all accounts, she was a very actively involved first lady.
But you have to take the bad with the good, I think. She can't lay claim whatever credit is out there from her husband's presidency without assuming some of the weight of the other aspects of his legacy.
And this is one of them.
Let me put it to you this way, if Dick Cheney were running for president, would it be fair for questions to be asked of him about things said by President Bush as it relates to a current issue like terrorism?
Of course it would. Would the media ask it of him? Of course they would.
Will they ask Hillary about this discrepancy? I'm not holding my breath. But it would be entirely fair -- precisely because she's largely running on her husband's legacy and her part in it.
The Vice-President has an actual role in the government. He is given the appropriate security clearances and is actively involved in our foreign policy apparatus.
What is the evidence that Hillary was involved in the foreign policy decisions of the Clinton White House?
And, ftr, good luck trying to explain how Clinton "lied" in this case.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Like I said, the point is that she's running on that particular experience. Whether she actually had anything to do with foreign policy during those 8 years is beside the point.
But she can't expect to ride the wave of whatever goodwill exists from that presidency and, at the same time, shun any responsibility for the blackmarks.
As for whether or not he lied, it's yet another he-said/she-said. In this case, WJC is saying that he gave the CIA the authority to kill OBL. The CIA's Inspector General (not to mention Michael Scheuer) is saying that they had no such order.
Unfortunately for him, WJC already has a credibility problem. But, as I said, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Democrats get passes on these sorts of things by the press.
If the Clintons were Republicans, the press would be all over them for contradicting at least two CIA sources, one of whom is the IG -- and rightly so.
The best defense is a good offense. How can anyone even believe one word out of this guy's mouth? How can anyone actually even consider Hillary for office? I just don't get that. They are pathological liars.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
This is Bill Clinton lying here, not Hillary! Clinton.
Was just a fiction of the vast right wing conspiracy - remember? So lying does seem to be an integral part of Hillary!'s DNA.
She has been forced to tell a whopper of a lie to herself about her marriage, for example.
Leave her marriage out of it.
As an individual voter, the state of a candidate's marriage matters to me. As a guest on a website, posting about it may indeed be uncalled for. I'll let others decide whether it is or not, but your input is noted.
Does Hilliary not feature Bill in her campaign? Did she not start referring to herself as H. CLINTON, instead of as H. RODHAM Clinton,as soon as she started campaigning?
Sounds to me as if she doesn't want her marriage left out of it.
Do what you want I guess. Make yourself look like a pathetic CDSer who has no legitimate arguments against Senator Clinton, by using guilt by association to use her husband's antics against her.
Whatever.
I think the marriage, including the Presidential partnership that America was promised during the Clinton campaign and got during the Clinton presidency, is absolutely fair game. She clearly helped shape policy, especially health care. To let her bat her eyes and get away with the "shucks, I was just in the kitchen and redecorating" doesn't cut it, in my view.
To have multiple affairs is to lie. To ignore multiple affairs is to lie, even if it is to yourself.
Her role as First Lady was unprecedented, and warrants scrutiny and discussion. Having said that, if I ever need any HTML help, my position could change (H/T to BrooksRob).
What's a CDSer, by the way?
Hillary would have much more public support had she divorced Bill years ago. Only a fool or a political opportunist would stay with a multiple time cheater/liar.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
How was Hillary Clinton's role as First Lady unprecedented? I suspect Edith Wilson might have something to say about that.
Secondly Hillary Clinton was not involved in foreign policy and I think at least a little evidence to support the idea that Bill divulge high classified information to someone without the proper security clearances, is warranted.
Her role in the health care fiasco is fair game. Trying to tie her to every bad thing that Bill did, is not.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Would have been misplaced down Berger's pants a long time ago.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
"How was Hillary Clinton's role as First Lady unprecedented?"
By her husband explicitly stating during the campaign that, in essence, it would be a co-presidency. Her role in health care "reform" also comes to mind.
"Secondly Hillary Clinton was not involved in foreign policy and I think at least a little evidence to support the idea that Bill divulge high classified information to someone without the proper security clearances, is warranted."
His phone conversation to a congressman about military matters while being serviced by "that woman" comes to mind. Unless "that woman" had security clearance.
"Her role in the health care fiasco is fair game. Trying to tie her to every bad thing that Bill did, is not."
Either she was "in the kitchen, baking cookies, standing by (her) man like some little Tammy Wynette", which stretches the imagination, or she wasn't and was involved in Bill's administration to a level far beyond any previous First Lady, Mrs. Wilson included.
During the election I look forward to finding out exactly what her role was - unless, of course, she has something to hide. So
is not going to be possible. When every post has to have some reference to Clinton's sexual exploits, it is plain to see that rational discussion can not be had.
There is a sea of difference between baking cookies and standing by her man and being in the Sit Room.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
You said that you did not believe Bill Clinton would divulge secret info to his wife. I mentioned that he was so cavalier about security, he spoke to a congressman about military matters while being serviced by Lewinsky. Do you deny this? Do you not think it is relevant to the discussion?
What is plain to see is your inability to rebut the fact that Bill Clinton was a liar and was sloppy, and that it is highly likely he involved his wife at every level of his administration. In my view, the burden of proof is on you to convince us that she was NOT highly involved.
There is indeed a world of difference between baking cookies and being in the Sit Room. On which end of that spectrum do you think Hillary's involvement in Bill's presidency lies? Or would that require taking a stance on this issue?
If you choose to sniff, take your ball and go home, that's your business.
I mentioned that he was so cavalier about security, he spoke to a congressman about military matters while being serviced by Lewinsky.
What did he say? What were the national security secrets he divulged?
In my view, the burden of proof is on you to convince us that she was NOT highly involved.
Of course that is your view. This allows you to believe whatever you like without the bother of having actual evidence to support those beliefs.
That is the same logic that the BushLied gang uses. In their view, it is up to his defenders to prove he DIDN'T lie.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
"What did he say? What were the national security secrets he divulged?"
You're right - nothing at all. The fact that he would do something like that says nothing about his character or his opinion of the military or security or anything. My bad. I seem to remember that his advisor and confidante Dick Morris had a slightly more serious lapse, but what's a little pillow talk - right?
Since you can't bring yourself to answer any of the other points I brought up, I'll regard it as an oversight and try one more time, from the top:
With in the kitchen baking cookies as a one on a scale of ten, and being in the Sit Room a ten on a scale of ten, what is your assessment of Hillary Clinton's overall involvement in her husband's administration?
You're right - nothing at all. The fact that he would do something like that says nothing about his character or his opinion of the military or security or anything.
I have no idea what he was talking about. For all I know the military matters were regarding the upcoming Army-Navy game.
I'm sure Hillary was very influential in the Clinton White House. And I suspect she was heavily in a number of domestic policy initiatives. I also think she had no involvement in foreign policy issues.
You're big on innuendo but small on actual facts.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I haven't seen too many links or references in your posts, but what's a citation among friends?
But here is a fact - if the Republican nominee has any spine at all, Hillary will be forced to spell out her exact involvement in domestic issue as well her exact involvement in foreign policy issues. If she says she wasn't involved at all, it will strtch credulity and beg the question of exactly why Obama was light on experience as a Senator, but she wasn't.
Because I can't prove a negative. How do I prove that she was not involved in foreign policy decisions?
You think the Republican nominee should focus on the Clinton Presidency? You really think that is a good strategy?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Especially since she is dragging her husband around to every campaign stop she can. She will try to reap the benefit of "experience" in the admin. without answering for the failures. If she wants to focus on her work in the Senate, fine, but if she does she is no more qualified than her rivals. She will try and play it both ways, the MSMS will willingly go along, but a spineful opponent will not let her.
During the election I look forward to finding out exactly what her role was - unless, of course, she has something to hide.
I'm instantly reminded of a news piece I heard the other day about how the Clinton Library refuses to release Hillary-related White House documents until AFTER 2008. Why, that also happens to be the next election year... what a co-incidence!
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
I am sure it contains the recipes that helped her win a blue ribbon at the Iowa State Fair in the pie baking contest. Sure wouldn't want those in the public domain now, would we?
Maybe she was in the Sit Room and everyone, including Bill's best bud Hugh Shelton, have chosen to not mention that fact.
Since there is no evidence to support that she WAS involved with foreign policy matters, it would be up to YOU to prove that she was.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I guarantee if hillary (a sad sad day) gets elected she will change her name to hillary rodham. This will confirm her scary insecurity and her need to be dictator in chief.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
She's a Marxist, but come on... I don't remember the takeover of the US government the last time she lived in the White House...
Bush took almost a year vacation in the 6 years hes been president, breaking all records. Enough said.
you're right. I should say, what did Bush do to stop Osama before September 11? How much was he on vacation before the terrorist attacks? That's more pertinent. Everything's so one sided, on both sides.
go outside and play...we're tired of you
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Are you able to think for yourself? Do you know how long Bush was in office before Sept 11? Can you do the math?
What's pertinent is the boneheads supported by your side had eight years to handle the situation, and were too busy diddling interns to lift a finger.
If you can post anything more worthless, please try. You have set the bar very high here, though.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Anything over 4 letters is too big for a KosKid.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
the federal government stops working and there is no way to contact him. Nice to know. I'd never noticed that before, I'll be on the look out for it in the future.
."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
But then the Executive Mansion was his own personal playpen so he could blow off vacation and frolic with the staff.
has been totally OVERBLOWN~!
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
Have you noticed how descriptive Slavic names can be as nouns?
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
the White House would be tough to swallow.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
stain on the political fabric of this country...IMO
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Left me thinking that I never should have shot off my mouth in the first place.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
tongue and cheek... sorry
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
We're in trouble if the adults see this. I'm running for cover now...
I could never resist a double entendre'. Rehab, here I come.
It will be a choke of monumental proportions.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
she is smart and motivated...if she loses, she'll just have to find something else to sink her teeth into.
OK...Moe, I'm done, really.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Please leave the discussion to the adults and go back to playing with your toys (made of tin foil). The president is *never* on vacation. He may be away from the White House, but everywhere he goes, he's still the president. We have these new fangled things here in the 21st century, they're called phones & computers. With those a president is able to maintain contact with all the people he needs to be in contact with.
I just wish Congress was out on "vacation" more, the less they are in DC the less they can spend of our money.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
but if you want to understand the full degree of Clinton's lack of spine on the hunt for bin Laden you need to buy, or check out from your library, Steve Coll's book "Ghost Wars." Just so you know where he's coming from he's a former managing editor of the Washington Post and a critic of the Iraq War.
Clinton interpreted EO 12333 to preclude any assassination attempt against bin Laden and didn't have the nerve to sign a secret finding setting aside whatever objections there were in this case ("stroke of the pen and it's the law of the land" and all that). As a result the attempts made against bin Laden by the Northern Alliance and others all had to be planned as if they were missions to capture bin Laden. To meet a legal sufficiency test they had to have an exfiltration plan. No one could ever come up with a viable exfil plan even though no one wanted him alive or thought he'd let himself be taken alive.
It was a legal laff riot.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
3) 18 mo for WH staff security clearances (Travel Office was a higher priority)
4) phone sex
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Reno was just a figurehead. A place to point blame when the fan got soiled.
Gorelick ran DOJ while running cover for Clinton.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Do you suppose that the Mossad (or other foreign intelligence services) did not have Ms. Lewinsky's phone tapped?
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Not that I don't trust the national security credentials of Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, the relevant portion of the Inspector General's report is posted here for your perusal:
The Joint Inquiry charged that US policymakers had wanted Usama Bin Ladin killed as early as August 1998 and believed CIA personnel understood that. However, the government had not removed the ban on assassination and did not provide clear direction or authorization for CIA to kill Bin Ladin or make covert attacks against al-Qa’ida [Redacted] The JI said that the CIA was reluctant to seek authority to assassinate Bin Ladin and averse to taking advantages of ambiguities in the authorities it did receive that might have allowed it more flexibility. The JI argued that these factors shaped the type of covert action the CIA undertook against Bin Ladin and that, before September 11, covert action had little impact on al-Qa’ida or Bin Ladin.
[Redacted] The findings and conclusions of the Review Team correspond with most but not all of the JI conclusions. The Team believes that the restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to Bin Ladin, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations. Given the law, executive order, and past problems with covert action programs, CIA managers refused to take advantage of the ambiguities that did exist. The Team believes this position was reasonable and correct. Ultimately, the Team concluded the failure of the Agency’s covert action against Bin Ladin lay not in the limitations of its covert action capabilities. CIA’s heavy reliance on a single group of assets, who were of questionable reliability and had limited capabilities, proved insufficient to mount a credible operation against Bin Ladin. Efforts to develop other options had limited potential prior to 9/11.
[Redacted] The Joint Inquiry states that US military official were reluctant to use military assets to conduct operations in Afghanistan or to support or participate in CIA operations against al-Qa’ida prior to 9/11. At least in part, this was a result of the IC’s inability to provide the necessary intelligence to support military operations. The findings of the Team matched those of the JI as they relate to the CIA. The Agency was unable to satisfy the demands of the US military for the precise, actionable intelligence that the military leadership required in order to deploy US troops on the ground in Afghanistan or launch cruise missile attacks against UBL-related sites beyond the August 1998 retaliatory strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. Differences between CIA and the Department of Defense over the cost of replacing lost Predators also hampered collaboration over the use of that platform in Afghanistan. The Team concludes, however, that other impediments, including the slow-moving policy process, reduced the importance of these CIA-military differences. The Team believes CIA handled its relationship with the US military responsibly and within the bounds of what was reasonable and possible.
[Redacted] The Joint Inquiry charges that the CIA failed to attack UBL’s financed and failed to work cooperatively with the Department of the Treasury to develop leads and establish links to other terrorist funding sources. The Team, likewise, found that CIA failed to attack Bin Ladin’s money successfully but finds that this was not for lack of effort [Redacted] The Team also agrees that bureaucratic obstacles and legal restrictions inhibited CIA’s partnership with the Department of the Treasury.
Note: The declassified executive summary can be read in its entirety by following the link to the pdf.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Feel free to take a look around, create an account and participate here. Just remember to play nice and follow the rules, and show respect to the moderators, and you'll get along fine here. (On the other hand, if you've come here to metaphorically drop a steaming load on the carpet, don't expect to stay here long.)
For the regulars here: this is the first link (6th item under Reading Assignments) I've noticed that boortz.com has had to here; hopefully it won't be the last.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
It showed Clinton pointing his finger at Wallace, but then a big hand above Clinton with the word "History" written on it, pointing its finger at him.
That says it all. Clinton's legacy is secure, no matter who and his thugs try to bully around. I will make sure my great-grandchildren know it.