Clift's 9/11 Regret: It Sparked Our 'Obsessive Focus' on Terrorism
Of all the major regrets she could have about 9/11, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift whined that the attacks on that tragic day sparked this nation's "Obsessive focus on terrorism." As part of a panel retrospective on 9/11, aired on the syndicated McLaughlin Group over the weekend, Clift complained that George W. Bush's war on terrorism was "very costly to this country" as it distracted the nation from its "internal problems."
Clift went on to cite, in her view, the great shame that was Barack Obama begging Congress "for money to modernize schools and build science labs" and added: "that's just one small example of the cost we've paid with the obsessive focus on terrorism this last decade."
(video after the jump)
Recognizing that the worst attack on our nation's soil was probably something worth being "obsessive" about, the National Review's Rich Lowry smacked down Clift's take as he noted that given "the kind of attack we saw...you're gonna see a very strong national response. We were gonna go out and hit them hard. That's exactly what we did."
Lowry then proceeded to slam Clift via this lambasting of an oft-heard liberal critique: "I think this whole trope we heard, mostly from the left across these 10 years about how we lost touch with our values and betrayed our values, was utterly false. There was no serious backlash against Muslims in this country. There was no violation of civil liberties - certainly not compared to the Lincoln, Wilson or FDR administrations."
The following is a transcript of the relevant exchange as it was aired on the September 11 edition of The McLaughlin Group:
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Is President Obama carrying on the Bush/Cheney war in every way, except calling it Bush/Cheney?
...
ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK: Well this president is not gonna eradicate all terrorism. No president could do that. He is trying to responsibly bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end. But when you steer the ship of state you gotta avoid sudden moves. And I think he has made adjustments to the Bush/Cheney policy. I don't think we do waterboarding any more. There is no extraordinary rendition. And I think he has changed our image around the world, to some extent.
But this is a war -- if you use the Bush terminology, the war against terrorism -- that has been very costly to this country and continues to be costly. Not only the two wars, the extraordinary medical costs associated with it. And as Pat [Buchanan] says, the, the lack of a decades of worth of not paying attention to our internal problems. You have American businesses scrambling to get B1 visas to bring in people abroad from other countries to fill jobs that we should be educating people in our schools. And when the President goes before the Congress and has to beg for money to modernize schools and build science labs, that's just one small example of the cost we've paid with the obsessive focus on terrorism this last decade.
MCLAUGHLIN: Rich Lowry.
RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well John, I think, given what, the kind of attack we saw, the Jacksonian spirit still runs so high in this country that inevitably you're gonna see a very strong national response. We were gonna go out and hit them hard. That's exactly what we did. And I think this whole trope we heard, mostly from the left across these 10 years about how we lost touch with our values and betrayed our values, was utterly false. There was no serious backlash against Muslims in this country. There was no violation of civil liberties - certainly not compared to the Lincoln, Wilson or FDR administrations. And then what have done over abroad and overseas? Maybe naively and maybe somewhat arrogantly, but we've attempted to spread a decent system of government. So it was a strong response and it was fundamentally a good response that talks to, speaks to our profound decency as a people.
- Geoffrey Dickens's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Damn, he even protected Liberals and shrews.......
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:08pm.
This is part of the meme, IF we didn't spend on wars and terrorism we would have smarter kids, better houses and fresher breath.
Bush stole our futures and BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED..................
Clift is just a talking-points recording
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 9:16pm.
It's seems that the latest alibi for the failure of our public schools is that they would be better had we not spent money fighting our enemies.
Yet, as Dept of Education data of the past 40 years shows, we have seen the amount of money we spend per student double (in constant 1970 $$$), with no increase in SAT scores.
Money is not the issue. It must be something else.
You're so right Eleanor
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:08pm.
There's waaaaaay too much focus on terrorism. We have a population of 300 million in this country. We could let your islamic friends kill, say, 200,000 people a year and not even break a sweat. What's the big deal? The 3,000 people who died on 9/11 was chump change.
Dummy.
Clift is oblivious to the
Submitted by exLib on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:24pm.
Clift is oblivious to the irony of her statement.
While the left wholly blamed the attacks on Bush, since he was actually in office at the time of the attacks, we know for a fact they were planned during an 8 year run when our military budget was cut and more money was spent focusing on "other things" as Eleanor puts it.
So, she doesn't even realize that the reason we got attacked in the first place was a lack of focus and incorrect priorities in fiscal matters.
What she wants to do is make sure the terrorists bomb new schools instead of old ones?
I still say the best analogy of liberals approach to terrorism is found in "Die Hard" the first movie when the coked out sales guy is trying to bargain with the terrorists and Bruce Willis says, "You don't know who you are doing with" just before the terrorist shoots the salesmen.
Do liberals really think that by codeling terrorists they will be spared?
Clift is an aging bag of
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:24pm.
Clift is an aging bag of stupid. Begging for money to modernize schools and build science labs? How many schools could have been "modernized" and science labs built with the $500 million pissed away by agent zero's heroes at Solyndra?
Move
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:29pm.
Wish Clift would move to a terrorist country and get "obsessed" with their way of life. Would be nice to see her in a burka and not able to speak. She is another prime example of a "elite and educated nobody" spewing uneducational remarks hoping some poor soul will listen to her crap.
Excellent point. Wonder what
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:35pm.
Excellent point. Wonder what she'd think of sharia law when it's demonstrated in the form of a backhand to her chops?
Yes, we've become
Submitted by ant on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:33pm.
Yes, we've become 'obsessively focused' on controlling the derelict non- enforcement of immigration laws that allowed the terrorists to reside here in the first place...oh wait, no we didn't.
Maybe it's the 'obsessive focus' on blaming Americans for it, or standing in the way of war efforts, or the NY Times 'obsessive focus' on helping Muslim organizations suspected of aiding and abetting, or that focus on treating American grandmothers and babies as a threat in airports, which probably comes as a result of 'obsessive focus' on hiring ex-cons for the job, or Boxer and Feinstein's insistence that TSA agents be 'registered democrats'...yeah, that was crucial to security, I'm sure.
Part of the problem with listening to leftards is it's too tempting to use a novel's-worth of examples and truth to correct just one of their stupid little statements.
If the murder of 3,000 people on our soil isn't worth being 'obsessively focused' on, what is?
Her comment is further proof,
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:39pm.
Her comment is further proof, as if we needed any, that liberals don't really care about this country. Nor do they care for their fellow man, despite claiming to own the market on compassion.
I would guess Clift loves death
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:41pm.
Judged on her brilliant character, I would guess she is in full support of the death of 3,000 Americans every single day via "Choice." No it is not on TV in such drama, but I can assure you it is quite violent to the kid who was given no "choice" as he is being killed. Terrorist sympathizers all the same; "well-meaning," "thoughtful" "liberals." Literally no logical thought process behind their "feelings."
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
'And I think he's changed our
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:44pm.
'And I think he's changed our image around the world, to some extent'................yeah, I think more people are laughing at us these days than they were under Bush.
What's the difference between Eleanor Clift and Eleanor Rigby??? None..........they're both dead!!!
"All the loony leftists
Submitted by ant on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:48pm.
"All the loony leftists
where do they all come from?"
Pretty good, ant..........try
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 4:13pm.
Pretty good, ant..........try this:
Eleanor Rigby, sits on the cliff with the Clift who is bearing her name.......
both are insane
Look at her talking, trying so hard to not sound like she is so inane.......
nothing to gain
all the loony leftists
where do they all come from?
obsessive focus
Submitted by CarlosS on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:44pm.
Just think of how much better of we'd be if we hadn't had to put an "obsessive focus " on defeating the Japanese after their unprovoked attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.
Geez, Ealanor Clift is beyond stupd now.
Where are you Ron Paul Wingnuts?
Submitted by cbeyer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:46pm.
Clift is stating exactly what Ron Paul believes. He opposes our war on terror. He's your guy
Maybe someday?
Submitted by ironhead4099 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:46pm.
Maybe someday the people who run this show will understand the wicked witch of this show HAS TO GO! GO AWAY, FAR AWAY!
Eleanor Clift
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:47pm.
Eleanor Clift is becoming more and more like Eleanor Rigby every day. Just like the fictional character in the Beatles song, she lives in a dream. In Clift's case, a dream of a socialist utopia.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
And Liberals call Republicans and Conservatives stupid?
Submitted by mrwiffle on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:58pm.
They are so stupid, they never associate that the people who are murdering innocents, want to hurt them...they think if we just share our wealth, or that we show them we care about them, that they wouldn't want to hurt us....Those are some famous last words..."And when they came for me"....
I'm curious about something
Submitted by Maestroh on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 3:41pm.
I'm curious about something that never gets addressed.
For eight years Bill Clinton hid behind the rhetorical phrase that he was "doing the work of the American people." that phrase really became overused during the impeachment fracas. Yet I'd like to know what EXACTLY he was doing. It's pretty obvious he wasn't monitoring flight schools or taking Bin Laden when offered his head. Dick Morris wrote "Behind The Oval Office" in 1997 & told Clinton that international terrorism was one of the 3 biggest issues he faced.
So since Clinton didn't do anything about that issue - what did he think was the work of the people?
Note: I am not blaming Clinton for 9/11 any more than I blame Bush. But Bush never hid behind that phrase to justify his existence either.
Dick Morris is a pitiful liar
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 4:31pm.
who hates the Clintons with a pathological fury. Bin Laden's head was never offered to Clinton. And while Clinton may be justifiably accused of not taking the threat of Al Qaeda seriously enough during his first term--and that opportunities to take bin Laden out were squandered or the wrong call was made a couple of times during his second term--the record is clear that he was highly focused on terrorism during his last four years in office. In fact, Robert Oakley, who served under Reagan gave Clinton very high marks for his anti-terrorism policies. Some foreign policy "experts" even expressed the opinion he had been too focused on Al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, it was mostly Republicans in Congress [aided by several Democrats] who thwarted Clinton's efforts at tracing terrorist funding which later became such an important tool in tracking down the bad guys.
Jer
OK, I'll Bite
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 4:59pm.
Pray tell, Jer. What legislation did Republicans in Congress vote against, or prevent coming to a vote, that "....thwarted Clinton's efforts at tracing terrorist funding...."? I'm sure you know the answer to this one already, and I'm actually more puzzled as to why you didn't provide evidence of your statement up front.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Here's a partial summary, Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:33pm.
Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton
President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media.
Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition.
President Clinton:
-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA. When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton: -- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters. -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY. -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism. -- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."
source.
Jer
BTW...I believe the tracing legislation eventually passed after being significantly delayed and watered down by the GOP.
Sorry Jer
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:36pm.
I didn't mean my post to be a response just aimed at having you make a bunch of arguments to take up your time. You were, however, very specific in your original post when you said: "As a matter of fact, it was mostly Republicans in Congress [aided by several Democrats] who thwarted Clinton's efforts at tracing terrorist funding which later became such an important tool in tracking down the bad guys."
My query was strictly related to the tracing of terrorist funding effort by Clinton, that was thwarted by the Republicans. Very specific, but you brought it up, so I got interested.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
And later, many of these
Submitted by ant on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:25pm.
And later, many of these measures, such as tracking bank accounts and airport security, would be hindered and obstructed by libtards and the Democrats, in a "Party before Country" hatred of a President from Texas.
And while, Clinton was out there in his 'Rambo Commando Outfit' stopping 'cold' all these terrorist plots, maybe an enforcement of immigration laws could have hindered 'visitors' from the sandy armpit of the world. That would have, at least, fit in with his ideology of treating acts of war as criminal offenses.
Not Exactly
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:23pm.
There is puffery in the above. The national program, both public and militarily, met Democrat resistance concerning antrhax protection and imploded. The smallpox program was hardly a success - 40 million doses in a population of 250 million for an easily spread virus like smallpox. A steaming heaping pile of blame, once again, lays at the feet of Democrats who cut vaccine manufacturers off at the neck with overregulation and the protection of litigating John Edwards-type shysters. The sad state of affairs with respect to vaccine manufaturing, something that risks not only American but the world's population, is directly related to Democrat malfeasance and Clinton's flaccid cronyism. Any half-assed protections by Clinton, who was forced to accept them due to the dangerous risks to Americans, failed to right the wrongs done by Democrats to the pharmaceutical industry, someithing we are still paying for today. Clinton = Vaccine Fail.
There probably are other exaggerations in the list which came from a link from a Democrat organizer: http://mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml/ Nice broken link. Opps!
Then again, the name of the page/blog is "Constantly Amazed, But Never Surprised", sort of how many NB's feel about the Left's uncanny ability to out crazy themselves.
a chain email list likely victimized by the forward button
Submitted by kata on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:44pm.
I've been picking through it (although I am dog tired atm so I am not at my usual googling best.) The issue of Clinton looking to tighten airport security is the only one I've found thus far. In case anyone is interested in it - the bill discussed in the article is the Aviation Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1996. Some of the list is so vague it's not easy to pin down things like "stopped cold". Each point could easily be exploded into it's own discussion on semantics alone.
strat---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:52pm.
Jer's whole post looks like puffery for Clinton.
If Slick Willie had really been that busy, he'd not have had time to be puffed on, I mean puffed up by, I mean, spend any time with Monica.
MD
MD
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 1:54am.
Is that where the rumor started about Monica calling BJ 'Puff Daddy'?
strat---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 2:14am.
Probably.
I'd be willing to bet that was about the time crockery, lamps, and anything not tied down started zooming through the air in the WH living quarters.
All these years I thought "G-D" Bill Clinton was an expletive hung on Slick Willie by conservatives; turns out it was a Secret Service code for the Slickster.
Stood for "Good Ducker".
MD
Bill's A Lamp Magnet
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:23pm.
Hillary also has her own code name for Bill and it rhymes with "Good Ducker".
None of this is relevant to the proposition at hand
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 2:56am.
Clinton passed on extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan in 1996.
Clinton's anti-terrorist policy stunk out the joint. One need only look at the results from the '93 WTC bombing up to 9-11 : a monotonic escalation of ever more destructive and frontal attacks against the United States, its citizens and allies.
Clinton operative and later FannieMae conspirator, Jamie Gorelick, erected the infamous wall of separation under Clinton's watch that did so much to enable the 9-11 hijackers to enter the United States and carry out their plan undetected. Imagine if you will that FBI Field Agent Rowley had been allowed to read Zaccarias Mousawi's hard drive and share its contents with intelligence agencies at the time of his arrest in Minnesota on 8-16-11. Had the CIA or other intel servcices been allowed to tell the FBI who Mousawi's friends were, I bet the US attorney in Minneapolis would have obtained the necessary search warrant. In short, the whole plot would have been busted 3 weeks before it was carried out. Clinton's bunch of losers can and should be 100% blamed for this failure.
Yep I remember the "wall" issue
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 4:19pm.
infamous wall of separation under Clinton: Simply outrageous!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Nor is your being suckered into the same tedious, debunked
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 6:26pm.
fantasies which have been packaged and peddled by the "it was all Clinton's fault" wing of the agenda-driven Right for the past ten years. The same folks who mocked him for allegedly diverting attention from his 'zipper problem' by actually pursuing al Qaeda and ridiculed his attempts to blow bin Laden to bits were the very ones who later--on September11 while Clinton was publicly rallying support for George Bush--squealing with hyperbolic rage that the hands of Clinton were drenched with the blood of three thousand dead Americans. The cheap and tawdry display of raw partisanship at the very moment of a devastating national crisis still disgusts.
Clinton's anti-terrorism policy was flawed, inconsistent, unevenly asserted, and occasionally baffling. Although at the time he was often criticized for acting too boldly and obsessively, in hindsight it must be conceded he--as well as his advisers--acted too timidly. There were opportunities to take out bin Laden for which the decisions not to "pull the trigger" were formerly rationalized for a multitude of superficially justifiable reasons but can now be seen as clear, unfortunate errors on the side of caution.
But while Clinton's policy may have been far from perfect, he at least--in stark contrast to the subsequent administration--was fully focused on the problem. He at least had a policy whereas Bush had none, or at least not one which viewed al Qaeda as a high priority, existential threat--even with repeated grim predictions issued by members of the outgoing administration to incoming senior officials; even with the extraordinary spike in intel chatter and warning lights blinking red in the spring and summer of '01, one heard virtually nothing about bin Laden, but plenty about Iraq, North Korea, and missile defense. The stunning PDB of August 5 provoked nothing but a glib "well you've covered your ass" response from Bush whereupon he returned to clearing brush at his Crawford ranch for the next month instead of heading to DC, calling together the top people from every relevant agency and connecting the damn dots. That failure was nothing short of monumental neglect, and overwhelms the apocryphal notions of the "Gorelick Wall" [there was no such thing] or silly fables about the execrable dictators of the Sudanese terrorist thugocracy supposedly offering bin Laden's head to Clinton [they didn't].
So, I'll assign some--even a lot--of the blame for 9/11 to Clinton, but not most of it, which must be borne by his successor.
Jer
Most of the blame
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 7:08pm.
The blame belongs to the terrorists who planned and perpetrated the heinous act. Yea, I know what you're trying to say, Jer. I just don't like the way your saying it. I don't like the mindset.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Agreed, Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 7:14pm.
I assume you are now composing a similar reprimand to NL207 who assigned 100% of the blame to Clinton and will be posting it shortly.
Jer
Blanket Reprimand
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 7:58pm.
I hope you don't feel that I was picking on just you?
I follow your posts because it's usually a good argument that never devolves into petty name calling and the like, so I tend to respond to your posts when I disagree. That's why I was somewhat disappointed when I couldn't deconstruct your comment from yesterday regarding the flow of funds, banks, and terrorists.
Oh....who am I kidding. I can use your lack of concrete evidence on that claim for quite some time!
But back to Clinton and Bush and the blame for 9/11. I don't like how the language has devolved to saying any American politician is to blame. Could some of them have done more to prevent the attack? Maybe. It's like the "Bush lied" meme. It grows tiresome.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 1:25am.
The funding issue is complicated. I spent at least a couple of hours in additional research last night and another hour or so earlier today. There was a presidential directive issued by Clinton in 1995 regarding monitoring funding in connection with several named terrorist organizations, although neither bin Laden nor Al Qaeda appeared on the original list. It is my understanding one or both were added in either 1998 or 1999, but the program was never as effective as originally hoped due to several reasons including the lack of knowledgeable individuals in the agencies responsible for its implementation and the resistance of both foreign and domestic banks to the regulations [the latter institutions being protected by Phil Gramm who was the GOP chairman of the banking committee at the time]. After Bush assumed office, his administration demonstrated little interest in continuing the policy [which hadn't been particularly successful anyway]. That all changed in the aftermath of 9/11 when a consensus developed recognizing the importance of tracing and hindering the flow of funds to terrorist organizations.
Most of the sourcing for the claim that Republicans opposed and slowed the fund-tracking legislation back in 1995-96 is linked to CNN.com, but the URL opens up to a message that the article is no longer available on that page. I haven't yet been able to determine whether it may be archived and still accessible.
But there were other aspects of the terrorist legislation proposed in 1995--expanded wiretapping provisions for example--which Clinton had pushed hard for but met fierce resistance from Republicans. A compromise bill was eventually passed, but without all the "teeth" the administration would have preferred.
I did bookmark a few sources related to that and other issues, and I'll post two or three of those when I revisit this tomorrow.
Jer
Actual Legislation
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 8:04am.
Jer,
Both you and I know the games played by politicians, and their supporters, when they push a particular initiative or policy that seems perfectly reasonable, but end up attaching that piece of legislation to a bill that is totally untenable to the other side. The bill gets voted down, and the losing side screams to high heaven that "My opponents oppose my perfectly reasonable approach to tracking the illegal flow of funds to terrorists!".
That's why I enjoy looking at the actual legislative proposal, and the language it contains, when doing this sort of analysis. I seriously doubt that a reasonable proposal to track the flow of funds to terrorists would have been opposed by anybody in the mid to late 90's, if it was a stand alone piece of legislation.
It really is OK if you don't produce "the bill". I would hate to see you spend more time on this then you already have.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...This doesn't contain legislative histories, but
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 4:36pm.
nevertheless it is a useful and informative compilation of documents, including [in Section V] a list of all relevant presidential orders and directives going back to the Reagan administration. Some portions remain classified. It still doesn't resolve the original issue of alleged GOP attempts to impede tracking of funds, but I think is is a valuable resource nonetheless. I had trouble linking via highligting key word, so I have posted the entire web address below:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/index1.html
Jer
One thing I might actually be able to help you with.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 8:36am.
You mentioned you're having trouble using the linking function. I've had to switch to using Google Chrome as my web browser when I visit NewsBusters. I can read everything just fine in IE9, but if I try to switch to the rich text editor, it often just gets hung up, and the link function doesn't seem to work at all anymore when using IE9.
Thanks for all your research efforts. I hope you understand that unless I can see the entire proposed legislation, it's impossible to see the reasons why any Congressmen or Senator would vote against a well thought out system that tracks funding to known terrorist groups or persons, be they Dem or Repub.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
This is a text of Clinton speech delivered in 1996
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 4:59pm.
part of which is a complaint about congressional inaction. However, his criticism involves wiretapping and explosive marker issues rather than funding
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/august96/clintonspeech_8-6.html
Jer
This is an investigative report in 1999 purporting to reveal
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 5:18pm.
efforts by Gramm to frustrate the monitoring of terrorist financing. I don't know anything about the author or the website so there may be objectivity issues. You may take it for what it's worth.
http://lists.democracygroups.org/pipermail/rightwatch/2001q3/000121.html
Jer
Your Laser Focus
Submitted by CommanderTaya on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 5:49pm.
is admirable but September 15.........September 15............September 15..........
Commander T...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 6:07pm.
I was just about to ask what in the heck are you talking about...and then I remembered. Thank you, dear.
Jer
As promised...
Submitted by CommanderTaya on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 6:33pm.
Enjoy. :-))
a decent source
Submitted by kata on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 6:07pm.
a decent source.
I've found most of the info on there to be verifiable. Ya'all can argue over if'n its biased ;)
Hmm...I guess
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 7:35pm.
the anticipated reprimand is shaping up to be an unusually lengthy one, or else I was selected to be the lone reprimandee. ;-)
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:07pm.
I think there is an audio of Bill Clinton admiring he passed on a chance to get Bin Laden . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Why, it seems like only yesterday that Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:37pm.
admitted, with the notation 'full disclosure', that he loathes Dick Morris.
Is it really 'full disclosure' if Jer doesn't also admit that he loves, worships, idolizes, and pines for, both the Clintons and the days of their reign?
MD
edit for - Dick Morris only worked for and with Bill Clinton, in the White House environs. What could he possibly know or state that Jer can't absolutely prove to be a lie when referencing both Bill and Hillary?
Speaking of disclosure, Bill
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:51pm.
Speaking of disclosure, Bill Clinton discloses how he missed a chance to get Bin Laden in audio found here: archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Ouch
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 6:50pm.
Jer, Bueller, Bueller?
Damn that's gotta hurt.
Hurt? Are you kidding Tomorama?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 6:57pm.
I've read and heard Morris make outrageously false statements. The guy is so consumed with partisan hatred for the Clintons his credibility has been absolutely shredded. It has to embarrass you to defend that toe-sucking clown.
Jer
Not unless defending the Clintons and---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 8:38pm.
Obama embarrasses you, Jer.
MD
I'm not embarrassed at all, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 8:45pm.
since I defend and criticize both. It does require a bit more research, thought and analysis, however, as opposed to your reflexive smears. Those are easy.
Jer
You stating, Jer, that you ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 8:53pm.
defend and criticize both may make you a stalwart, fair-minded individual in your own mind; but to me it just makes you wishy-washy.
And easy to make a target, with comments that you perceive as reflexive smears.
Depends entirely on whose ox is getting gored, eh?
MD
There was never any direct offer by the terrorist-coddling thugs
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:10pm.
who ruled Sudan to turn over bin Laden to the US. Both Richard Clarke and Madeline Albright--and they would certainly be in a position to know the facts--have characterized those claims as complete fables. It's not surprising that the right-wing propaganda organ Newsmax.com would try to spin it as a colossal Clinton blunder however.
JIer
But Dick Morris, even having been an integral part---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 8:45pm.
of the Clinton Machine, is a blowhard who cannot and will not be truthful, according to Jer; while Richard Clarke and Madeline Albright are to be believed implicitly.
It's not surprising that left-wing organ, Jer, would try to spin any comparisons in favor of the propaganda he favors.
MD
Pretty funny, Jer
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 9:18pm.
You denounce Newsmax as a "right wing propaganda organ", but had no issue with linking one of your posts to a self described "progressive" website as "evidence" of Clintons effectiveness against terrorism. Priceless.
By the way, the "links" on that website don't work properly. Big surprise.
Well, NC Cop, as they say...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 9:41pm.
"When in Rome, etc."
I only tried the first two links before posting. The first one worked, the second one didn't. Sorry.
Jer
Funding
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:03pm.
Jer, Usually you do a little better at sourcing your points of contention, when they are stated so precisely. All I wanted was a simple reference to a claim you made about how Republicans prevented Clinton from tracking funds directed to terrorists, and you give a link that sent me to a rambling diatribe that is almost impossible to sift through.
I usually enjoy your arguments because they are backed up with some reference points. This time, it's impossible to try and use your so called sources to figure out where you are going. Too bad.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...After such a cordial and complimentary post, the
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:14pm.
least I can do is look for a more definitive source to better explain my point and satisfy your concerns. Give me some time.
Jer
Don't beat yourself up about it
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:06pm.
Sometimes I'll press a point, but not this time. It would have been interesting to view the legislation and how it was written. Clinton had a history of working with the bankers, unlike our current anti-capitalist bafoon, so it would have been interesting to read legislation that was voted down by the Republicans that would have allowed the tracking of these financial transactions. It's your point though, Jer. So feel free to source it if you want.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...see post below.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:35pm.
I'm sure I read an article that objectively summarized the history of the legislation, but I'm having a hell of a time locating it. I'll look a little bit more before throwing in the towel. Maybe I'll get lucky.
Jer
As I noted earlier, it wasn't just Republicans who opposed the bill, but I'm pretty sure they constituted a significant majority.
Kingfish...update
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:29pm.
This source is not a neutral one either. It is penned by another Clinton supporter making the case for his anti-terrorism policies. There are problems with links in this essay, too. But the titles and ID numbers of legislative proposals are provided.
I can find scores of brief references in google searches to what I'm looking for, but nothing so far that objectively sets forth the facts in detail. I actually thought I had bookmarked the article I had in mind a couple of years ago.
I'll keep looking.
Jer
Relax a little, Jer
Submitted by ant on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:49pm.
You may be getting 'obsessively focused'. Eleanor would not be pleased, you could've spent this energy improving public schools.
May be?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:55pm.
Now thats funny, wow you win!!!
Don't bother me, ant...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:06am.
I'm busy lookin', dammit. And I'll keep lookin' until I find what I'm lookin' for.
Will you help me look?
Jer
If you can't find what you're
Submitted by ant on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:48am.
If you can't find what you're looking for, I definitely won't. I'm not a patient man with computers.
In that case will you bring a sledgehammer over to my
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 1:06am.
house and beat the crap out of mine. I'm switching back and forth between two OS's, using five different search engines, and have three sets of favorites, each containing a couple of hundred bookmarked sites, and it's driving me nuts.
Jer
Speaking of pitiful liars ....
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 2:41am.
taste this : " the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden. It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States."
"Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting"
"Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him"
I should think that Bill Clinton's history of blatant dishonesty and perjury would be sufficient to divine the truth here. The Annenberg Project has deep and extensive ties to Obama and the Left. If they are saying this in fact check, then Clinton is as guilty as they come.
Others are less generous to Clinton :
"Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden"
Follow the link to an audio recording of Clinton himself admitting this.
You mean :"others less generous" like Newsmax which
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 7:08pm.
betrays its anti-Clinton animus in the 'here's some red meat for you' headline to the article by claiming Lewinsky played a role?
Look...Clinton denies it, Berger denies it, Albright denies it, Clarke denies it--each of whom should be in a position to know whether or not there was a credible offer from Sudan. Falling back on the they're-a-bunch-of-liars canard always makes for a tidy defense.
Other terrorists had been aggressively pursued by the administration--the first WTC bombers for example--so what would be the motive in rejecting bin Laden if there were credible evidence of his illicit acts? Assuming the lack of the latter, then the attempt to get Saudi Arabia to take him theory--if true--makes sense. In fact, just getting OBL out of Sudan and into Afghanistan arguably presented plausible advantages to the US.
Jer
Yea It's all Monica's fault
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 7:53pm.
When it comes to Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, there’s no need to invent fictional scenarios to show how ineffective he was; the truth is bad enough.
The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. “Everyone knew the ‘wag the dog’ charge was going to be made,” recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified.
I know you are very picky when it comes to links.
So is this an WND link or an Ann Coulter link???
Nope It's from National Review
In the interest of helping you out with a rebuttal link, lookie at what I found.
- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.
You Didn't Build That.
As opposed to.....
Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 3:58pm.
Eleanor's obsession with being a moron?
NO...our obsessive focus is on...
Submitted by Rackie on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 4:18pm.
dieting and sports
and!
Submitted by kata on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:23pm.
reality television and social media sites.
So, by this twit's twisted logic, Pearl Harbor sparked...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:35pm.
...America's 'Obsessive Focus' on expanding Japanese imperialism, since we declared war on them four days later, and very quickly carried said war right to Tojo's front door.
I wonder if this burned-out hack has ever considered what sort of world we would now be living in had Tojo and Hitler been left unmolested.
(Yes, I understand that the Red Army would probably have ultimately defeated the Hitlerites without our help, but the ramifications of that would have most likely been even worse than Hitler prevailing).
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Clift, the hunchback of hope and change...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:45pm.
Freedom, Clift, isn't free and the Muslim terrorists only have to be lucky once, and the price for that protection is eternal vigilance. 9/11 was an internal problem very costly to this Nation. If the Clinton administration did not tie the hands of our intel departments, and if he took out ubl when he had him, the towers MAY still be there today.
Who runs the schools, Clift? And who runs them into the ground to cry for more money? The democrats do. The democrats are failing our children by socializing their education and not setting demanding standards. They teach the homosexual agenda instead of math, reading, and writing. Teacher Unions, Clift, rob the children of education dollars for their pensions.
Clift should ask survivors of the towers if we are too obsessed with protecting this Country from Muslim Terrorists. Get out of the DC bubble, hunchback.
Eleanor objected to the War of 1812.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:54pm.
And she told James Madison personally.
Seriously, why does anyone listen to that cackling, irrelevant hag anyways? Her voice and manners suggest she should be one of the trio stirring the cauldron in "Macbeth". Andrea Mitchell and Lesley Stahl are the other two.
Doc Sam,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 6:14pm.
LOL - I wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that Eleanor was Benedict Arnold's mistress, and that she was the reason he went all Quisling on us.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Only after she finished her affair with Ben Franklin.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 6:25pm.
And after she dumped Cotton Mather.
I think her age is now Carbon-dated.
first off it's not Constitutional
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:18pm.
Dear Elea-snore,
the entire department of education (sic) is unconstitutional. Along with many other agencies, none of them are authorized by the Constitution. There is no authority for taking money by force from the citizens and then spending it on local projects like schools. None. Federalizing schools was a pure power grab. It needs to be deleted.
our British cousins have an appropriate moniker for her
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:19pm.
dozy cow
Maybe if we hadn't spent that
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:43pm.
Maybe if we hadn't spent that money, this stupid cow would be dead.
Why oh why can't this buffoon buy a clue?????
Eleanor tried to buy a clue, but Obama's check bounced
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 8:47pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Why?
Submitted by Radical Reductionist on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:50am.
Why do you gentlemen even bother to give this woman a platform beyond a show that saw its day years ago? You know what she is going to say on any issue, so do we. For heaven's sake, stop being so voyeuristic. Leave her behind the key hole and throw away the key!