Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Sep 28, 2006.

  1. FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) - Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.

    Political bickering over which president - Clinton or George W. Bush - missed more opportunities to prevent the attacks has been escalating since Clinton gave a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he defended his efforts to kill Osama bin Laden.

    "The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists - the Islamic fanatics - who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and she accused the Democrat of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.

    Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.

    "Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor said. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

    Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the Iraq war had become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.

    "The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism," Giuliani said. "What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."

    Giuliani said he was "very interested in considering" a run for president but would not make a decision until after the November election.


    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060928/D8KDJAPO0.html
     
  2. I don't think anyone would object if Clinton had limited himself to saying he had done the best he could, with the information they had at the time. He couldn't leave it at that though. He had to say he had done more than anyone else, that his critics had objected to him going after bin Laden, that Bush had been negligent, that there was a right wing conspiracy to undermine him, etc. Unfortunately, all his claims were demonstrably false, and he surely knew it when he said it.

    Clearly we as a country underestimated the threat posed by al qaeda. Equally clearly, Clinton had numerous opportunities to kill or capture bin Lden and deal al qaeda serious blows and didn't take them. His failure to retaliate for al qaeda's attacks on Americans emboldened them to go after bigger targets.

    If Bush is to be criticized for failing to prevent 9/11 a few months after taking office (and there may well be plenty of grounds for such criticism), I think it is fair to criticize the Clinton administration as well for eight years of inaction.
     
  3. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    I think Clinton/Democrats miscalculated on this one.

    Their reaction to the airing of the "Path to 9-11", more-so than the actual film, did more to dredge this back up. It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, and they had the appearance of wanting to cover something up. Outside of the fringe, after 6 years, no-one wants to revisit this and point fingers at Clinton.

    Clinton looked ridiculous instigating this feud during the interview. He certainly didn't look like a spokesman for a political party ready to seriously address the issue, rather a child stamping his feet.

    The new "Get-Tough" Democratic posture my-arse, more like whining about him being mistreated. Somebody show him a photo of Pelosi standing in the senate chamber with a sign declaring the president, "Dangerously incompetent".
     
  4. Artie21

    Artie21

    Everything CLinton said is correct.

    He tried and failed. Bush didn't try.

    Prior to 9/11, Bush received a an oral briefing (as is his habit, he doesn't like to read) from a CIA analyst who said there was evidence that bin Laden wanted hijack a plane and crash it into the WTC. At the end of the briefing, Bush looked at the analyst and said "OK, you're ass is covered now."

    Bush stand to go down as one of the least effective and most destructive Presidents in the history of our great republic.
     
  5. That has been established. He did say that.
     
  6. jem

    jem

    this seems to be a typical democratic response.

    AAA just gave you are reasonable rightwing perspective. that GWB is ripe for criticism but so is Clintion. For instance Clinton could have taken him out. and Clinton lied about be call obsessed with OBL by right wingers. (what a fricken joke).

    Yet you write everything he said is correct. I just do not get why someone would take such an incorrect postion.

    And to me it seems the left always does this very often. The facts mean nothing to them.
     
  7. Objectively...this can easily be said about both sides.
     
  8. Artie21

    Artie21

    Perhaps you did not see the segment in which Clinton responded. His statements are indeed factual.

    I don't understand why those who affiliate themselves with certain right wing groups regard as leftist anyone who voices a counter opinion.

    I am hardly on the left.

    JEM, 65% of Americans have lost confidence in your darling messiah from Crawford. They are all wrong and you are right (no pun intended), I suppose
     
  9. The left always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always, always....

    ad infinitum.



     
  10. not trying to be a punk here but aren't those self contradictory? maybe there are good examples. can you name one thing bush did prior to 911 to protect us from the al qaeda attack and hijacking preparations he was warned of in early August? Ashcroft had credible enough threat information in July that he stopped flying commercial. Pentagon leadership cancelled their flights for the 11th on the 10th. i'd be curious to know if there is one thing. none come to mind, which seems like demonstrable negligence
     
    #10     Sep 28, 2006