NationStates Jolt Archive

Clinton Did Not Try To Kill Bin Laden ('http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20381551/site/newsweek/page/3/')


The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “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.”



Apparently not...

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.)


Not that I blame Clinton for 9/11 - it's likely that the operation would have been carried out even if Osama had been taking a dirt nap.

But to say on national television in no uncertain terms that he tried to kill him, when it's clear that he most certainly did not, is something Clinton didn't need to say. He just should have admitted that he wanted to capture him, and didn't feel that killing Osama would have been useful.

But I guess he was feeling some kind of pressure to be more "tough" than someone...

Interesting info...
wasnt there some sort of Oliver North connection to Bin Laden years back?

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.

...isn't lethal force itself killing?

Hmm... Seems to be mostly a dissagreement over Semantics. If Clinton allowed lethal force to be used, in pursuit of his capture, it would seem that most operations would probably lead to his death, if carried out (it isn't like he'd surrender).

I really don't think it's important at all.

...isn't lethal force itself killing?

If you say "use lethal force if necessary to capture" it doesn't mean kill him.

If you want someone dead you tell them "use of lethal force is authorized in the killing (or assassination, or irrevocable asset denial) of xxx"

...isn't lethal force itself killing?

Not the same at all.
its like a Police Officer being allowed to use Lethal Force if necessary in a particular situation - but thats SO not the same as the Chief telling us to specifically go out and Kill someone

He only tried to capture Bin Laden!?

My god what a fucking pussy liberal left homo. He wasn't willing to out and out invade two countries, killing hundreds of thousands, for a single man?

Seems pretty irrelevant now anyway.

Clinton also didn't murder 3,000+ US soldiers in an illegal war.

He only tried to capture Bin Laden!?

My god what a fucking pussy liberal left homo. He wasn't willing to out and out invade two countries, killing hundreds of thousands, for a single man?

Seems pretty irrelevant now anyway.

You're missing the point.

He said on national television that he ordered the CIA to kill him.

Obviously, he did no such thing.

See the difference?

You're missing the point.

He said on national television that he ordered the CIA to kill him.

Obviously, he did no such thing.

See the difference?

Obviously I don't care.

Does this somehow justify the entire Bush Administration?

Clinton also didn't murder 3,000+ US soldiers in an illegal war.

To be fair, every war since the end of WWII has been equally "Illegal".

That was a stupid thing to say. Clinton did make some very real progress in developing an infrastructure to combat terrorism in the US and abroad...he should have focused on that rather than say something that wasn't true.

Hey, has anyone else wondered if the CIA lawyers are the ones who are lying, not Clinton?

What would they have to gain from lying? I'd consider siding with the Clintons a far more politically astute move than trying to score points with W.

Hey, has anyone else wondered if the CIA lawyers are the ones who are lying, not Clinton?

What would they have to gain from lying? I'd consider siding with the Clintons a far more politically astute move than trying to score points with W.

I don't know the Lawyers in question, but what of their own political biases?

Hey, has anyone else wondered if the CIA lawyers are the ones who are lying, not Clinton?

*Gasp* Lawyers Lying?!?! :eek:

How dare you bring up such nonsense. Lawyers are just as honest as Politicians!




:p

Clinton lied...there's something new and ground breaking. Any Monica Lewinsky threads you'd care to revive while we're nailing out this line of political scandals. Hell maybe we can attack Gore because his house in Tennessee isn't 'green'. *gasp*

You're missing the point.

He said on national television that he ordered the CIA to kill him.

Obviously, he did no such thing.

See the difference?

It sounds to me like he ordered OBL killed but the lawyers said that that wasn't legal. Why would the lawyers say that if he didn't want OBL killed?

Either way, at least they were going after OBL.


Then again he's a lying bastard politician, and this is all illrelevant now anyway.

Because they are LAWYERS
isnt that like... one step below politicians and amoebas?

Because they are LAWYERS
isnt that like... one step below politicians and amoebas?

I like amoebas. :(

Because they are LAWYERS
isnt that like... one step below politicians and amoebas?

Below amoebas - above politicians.

Lawyers are, after all required to be ethical.

OK
Im sorry
I publicly apologise to any and all amoebas.
They are NOT in the same realm as Politicians, Laywers or Ex Husbands....


:)

Not that I blame Clinton for 9/11 - it's likely that the operation would have been carried out even if Osama had been taking a dirt nap.

But to say on national television in no uncertain terms that he tried to kill him, when it's clear that he most certainly did not, is something Clinton didn't need to say. He just should have admitted that he wanted to capture him, and didn't feel that killing Osama would have been useful.

But I guess he was feeling some kind of pressure to be more "tough" than someone...

Who kicked over your rock?

By the way, what will Bush say, when hes asked about when he decided to be "tough" and left Osama free while he ran around fucking up the middle east?

And this has been another Bushevik "But, But Clinton!!" Announcement brought to you by The Kimchiteers Club.

:rolleyes:

Did you know that the wanted poster from the CIA (or FBI I can't remember) for :mp5:Bin Ladin:mp5: has no mention of his accused role in the 11/9 attacks on the world trade centre?

Could this mean anything?
Is the CIA framing him?

Dun dun dun..........

Well Bubba Clinton had many flaws, maybe he just didn't read the order. Probably too busy diddling interns.

You're missing the point.

He said on national television that he ordered the CIA to kill him.

Obviously, he did no such thing.

See the difference?
Damn, man, you're talking about Bill Clinton. When did he _ever_ tell the truth about anything?

And this has been another Bushevik "But, But Clinton!!" Announcement brought to you by The Kimchiteers Club.

:rolleyes:
You know, there's a good saying about history and it's lessons. Learn them.

You know, there's a good saying about history and it's lessons. Learn them.

It's true. We've learned that with Kimchi, history will repeat it, and he'll spew Drudge-esque Far-Right Propganda every Thursday on the clock.

It's true. We've learned that with Kimchi, history will repeat it, and he'll spew Drudge-esque Far-Right Propganda every Thursday on the clock.
I kinda invited that, didn't I.

Clinton also didn't murder 3,000+ US soldiers in an illegal war.

And he also didn't start an equally illegal and unjustified war against Serbia...

I kinda invited that, didn't I.

To be honest, I couldn't even figure out where you were going with the origional point, so I was just ad libbing anyway.

Obviously I don't care.

Does this somehow justify the entire Bush Administration?
of course it justifies everything fuck-up the Bush admin have done.
why?
Because Clinton authorised the use of lethal force to capture Bin Laden, then years later on TV during an interview got angry and without thinking shouted that he had authorised the use of lethal force against Bin Laden.
The difference is so mind-booglingly huge that it definitely and in totality erases every single fuck-up Bush has ever done.

How can you not see that? You some sort of commiepinkoliberalflowerpowerhippie or something?

Clinton Did Not Try To Kill Bin Laden ('http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20381551/site/newsweek/page/3/')



Apparently not...



Not that I blame Clinton for 9/11 - it's likely that the operation would have been carried out even if Osama had been taking a dirt nap.

But to say on national television in no uncertain terms that he tried to kill him, when it's clear that he most certainly did not, is something Clinton didn't need to say. He just should have admitted that he wanted to capture him, and didn't feel that killing Osama would have been useful.

But I guess he was feeling some kind of pressure to be more "tough" than someone...

What the hell does "use lethal force" mean if not that it's ok to kill him?

Who kicked over your rock?

By the way, what will Bush say, when hes asked about when he decided to be "tough" and left Osama free while he ran around fucking up the middle east?

He'll say the exact opposite of the truth and get a pass on it. Just like when he said that he never said he didn't care where OBL was during the debate, and the only people to call him on it were the Comedians at the Daily Show.

Or when he said that anyone in his administration who is shown to have committed a crime will not be allowed to work in his administration. Then the media took a different clip where he said something else and said "it turns out he never said that he would fire anyone in his administration who committed a crime. He only said they would be 'taken care of.'"

So if Bush lies about his lack of effort to capture OBL the news the following day will be that he actually captured Saddam Hussein. Personally.

Oh no, Clinton never tried to kill Bin Laden. I mean, it's not as if - for example - he launched missile attacks on terrorist camps inside Afghanistan that narrowly missed tha bastard and got accused by the Republican majority of trying to distract attention from his penis because all they gave a sh*t about at the time was Ms Lewinski.

No.... that never happened....in 1998.

And he wouldn't have then got the message that dealing with terrorists was a non-priority from said Republicans that he had to work with either would it? You know - the people that he needed not to p*ss off if he wanted the nation's business taken care of?


Nahhhhhh. That sort of thing would NEVER happen!

Democrats are pussies after all. It's been the Republicans safeguarding the country the whole time.



Oh, and while parsing the words of that order, lets be blunt shall we? Clinton would have HAD to write an order saying "go get him and use lethal force if neccessary" in order to comply with standing executive orders (in other words, the law of the land) that prohibit assassinations. And in the context of the times and the witch hunt against him, there is no bloody way he could have signed an order for assassination and not had it throw back at him as an illegal order and probably incuded in ongoing impeachment proceedings.

So you are, in effect, now blaming Clinton for obeying the law.

The order, as written is clear. Go get him, and if he happens to die in the process well that's too damn bad. It's a "wink" at "go kill him".

Anyone who thinks that the meaning is unclear is being deliberately obtuse.

. Hell maybe we can attack Gore because his house in Tennessee isn't 'green'. *gasp*


Green light means go:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c179/KilliansPub/a967_bm.gif

If you say "use lethal force if necessary to capture" it doesn't mean kill him.

If you want someone dead you tell them "use of lethal force is authorized in the killing (or assassination, or irrevocable asset denial) of xxx"
Executive Orders come to play.
Like Executive Order 12333.

So ordering bombings which almost killed, and putting out an order to "capture"(As we all know what lethal force means-use all means necessary to capture person, but if things get hairy, killing said person is an option), and putting forth recommendations for the next Administration isn't enough.

What, did you expect him to run out to the Mid-east and kill Bin Laden with crazy kung fu shit? I'm sure nothing short of that would have appeased people like you.

Compare that to the current Administration, completely ignoring the threat(That they were very well aware of, mind you), completely ignoring the recommendations that were put forth by the Clinton Administration, deciding to go on a little adventure in Iraq, completely ignoring Bin Laden, and all-out doing everything in their power to not capture/kill Bin Laden after the Afghanistan thing went out of being news worthy.

Yeah.

Alright. I'll play.

But to say on national television in no uncertain terms that he tried to kill him, when it's clear that he most certainly did not, is something Clinton didn't need to say.Yes, just like you didn't need to say that "it's clear that he most certainly did not" when the operative word throughout the article, with respect to his order, is "ambiguous."

:rolleyes:

When posting an assertion (and a very reasonable one, for you) that people should simply stick to the facts rather than exaggerating to benefit their position... it would be nice if you could... well...

... do that.

Lol, it's actually quite funny that right-wing crackpots like FAG are still butthurt because Wallace got pwned by Clinton in that interview, yet on the other hand you probably sit around watching 'Pathway to 9/11' like it wasn't fantasy or something.

Green light means go:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c179/KilliansPub/a967_bm.gif

Seriously? Lame.