9/11 Panel Member Faults Clinton Inaction

[1CAV]

9/11 Panel Member Faults Clinton Inaction
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A Sept. 11 commission Democrat disagreed Friday with President Clinton (news - web sites)'s assessment there wasn't enough intelligence linking al-Qaida to a deadly attack on a Navy ship to justify an attack on the terrorist organization.




Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey said he believes Clinton should have launched a military strike against al-Qaida following the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (news - web sites) that killed 17 sailors.



"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said on ABC's "Good Morning America.



The commission interviewed Clinton behind closed doors Thursday for nearly four hours, with many of their questions focused on the Cole attack.



A person familiar with the Clinton session said the former president told the commission he did not order retaliatory military strikes because he could not get "a clear, firm judgment of responsibility" from U.S. intelligence before he left office the following January.



U.S. intelligence didn't conclude that al-Qaida had sponsored the attack on the ship in the harbor at Aden, Yemen, until after the Bush administration took office.



Bush officials have said they didn't retaliate because they didn't want an inadequate "tit-for-tat" response that would embolden the terrorists.



The commission held a private session with former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) on Friday. The three-hour session was described by the panel as "candid and forthcoming."



"He answered all our questions. We talked a lot about airline safety and security, the Cole, and the Clinton White House attitude toward terrorism," said Republican commissioner James R. Thompson, a former Illinois governor. He declined to give specifics.



A preliminary report on airline security that the panel released in January noted Gore had chaired a 1996 presidential Commission on Aviation Safety and Security that focused on the danger of explosives on aircraft rather than potential foreign hijackings.



"It's too soon to be making assessments at this point," Thompson said.



President Bush (news - web sites) and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) also will meet privately with the full panel in a joint session in coming weeks. They initially restricted the interview to one hour with two panel members, but under mounting public pressure agreed last week to a joint session without time constraints.

[cb88]

Does this news article sound like a bunch of school kids to anyone? With both sides saying "no, he's more at fault" "No, he is"

I'm sorry, at this point, does it change anything? There was a lot of vague intelligence. More to the point now is SOMETHING is being done.

While I believe 8 years of inaction and apathy by Clinton imboldened the terrorists, and that there may have been VERY vague intelligence about imminent threats, it doesn't matter. Let's move forward, people. All these "public witch hunts" and political separation is only serving to show the terrorists they still have a "foot in the door"

I direct you to a very well-written column that I posted and everyone ignored: Western Cannibalism: Eating each other while our enemies smile

[Woodmonkey]

No doubt about it, a lot happened on Clinton's watch. Hey, Richard Clarke was there too.

[Snowden]

By cb88:

While I believe 8 years of inaction and apathy by Clinton imboldened the terrorists, and that there may have been VERY vague intelligence about imminent threats, it doesn't matter. Let's move forward, people. All these "public witch hunts" and political separation is only serving to show the terrorists they still have a "foot in the door"

That's the real and present danger here - with all this politicizing of what this one did and that one didn't, what our enemies see is a nation divided. Unfortunately, we are just that, and more evenly divided than in any previous time in our history. And this is the greatest danger that has ever been posed for this country - a very bad time for the politicians to be playing this game. But they see only that their "careers" are threatened without seeing that a lot more is at stake.

The media is running the country. They never let anything be hidden any more. JFK was no moral giant - but the press did not see any reason to inform the world of his indiscretions. Most of our presidents have been allowed to keep their private peccadillos just that - private. When this line was crossed, and a sitting president exposed for being a bit overly "human," it started a landslide that can do us a heap more damage than good. I'm not saying the sins won't be exposed; I am saying that we as a nation need to stand behind the people who are fighting for us - and so do the politicians. They would have no power if we didn't give it to them. Why do we keep putting the Ted Kennedys into a position of power? What does this say about us as a people?

Gosh, I hate to think of it! Do our "representatives" in government really reflect us? If so, we may well have already lost what we most prize. Our integrity as a free country.

[cb88]

Originally Posted by Snowden

That's the real and present danger here - with all this politicizing of what this one did and that one didn't, what our enemies see is a nation divided. Unfortunately, we are just that, and more evenly divided than in any previous time in our history. And this is the greatest danger that has ever been posed for this country - a very bad time for the politicians to be playing this game. But they see only that their "careers" are threatened without seeing that a lot more is at stake.

There are a few left that have much integrity. Unfortunately you don't hear about them because the press perceives them as "boring".

I believe that our Speaker of the House, Speaker Hastert, is a man of great integrity. I have met the man, I worked for a man that was seat mates with him for 16 years, I am great friends with people that were taught by him when he was a school teacher and I've met his wife. They are fine, upstanding citizens.

JC Watts was a Congressman of great integrity, however he has since retired and I see that as a great pity. He was a pillar of integrity and good charachter.

There are few though. The Ted Kennedy's of the House and Senate far outweight the Hastert's and JC's of DC.

I also find Bush to be a man of integrity. If he was more worried about getting elected, he'd change the course of what he's doing to curtail to the media and the polls, yet he has not.

The media is running the country. They never let anything be hidden any more. JFK was no moral giant - but the press did not see any reason to inform the world of his indiscretions. Most of our presidents have been allowed to keep their private peccadillos just that - private. When this line was crossed, and a sitting president exposed for being a bit overly "human," it started a landslide that can do us a heap more damage than good. I'm not saying the sins won't be exposed; I am saying that we as a nation need to stand behind the people who are fighting for us - and so do the politicians.

I will have to disagree with this somewhat. When a President's lust and indiscretions dictate his actions in regards to our nation, then it puts us in jeopardy.

They would have no power if we didn't give it to them. Why do we keep putting the Ted Kennedys into a position of power? What does this say about us as a people?

That the majority of us are apathetic. Heck, there is a large percentage of the population that doesn't even vote because they think their vote doesn't matter. Imagine if they became informed and started voting. Which brings me to the other problem, voters are uninformed (Or at least ill-informed). They rely too much on the biased media rather than researching for themselves. This is changing. Now more than ever what a candidate has said in their past can come back to haunt them. If people want to check stories and investiage on their own, they can find out who their candidate really is. The next problem, many people have been so "brain washed" by the special interest groups they are involved with, it doesn't matter what you tell them, they vote with that special interest group. (think move-on.org, etc.)

Gosh, I hate to think of it! Do our "representatives" in government really reflect us? If so, we may well have already lost what we most prize. Our integrity as a free country.

Scary thought, isn't it?

[Snowden]

It is a scary thought, cb.

This bit that I will put here (server permitting) is a head scratcher, though. I put it as I got it - there's no way I know of to check it out yet, other than the CNN line - and we know CNN all too well. But I don't doubt it could be true. If nothing else, it gives pause for thought! Does anyone remember hearing about this? I do not. Maybe the related stories at the bottom of the article will have more about it.
---
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or WAV sound)

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related stories:
a.. Congress passes anti-terrorism bill - April 18, 1996
b.. Congress reached compromise on anti-terrorism bill - April 16, 1996
Related sites:
a.. The White House
b.. The Senate