How come Bill Clinton gave a speech on August 20, 1998 where he said Osama Bin Laden was the target?
October 10th, 2009 | by admin |Heres a link to the speech,
http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199808/IND19980820o.html
And here is a quote,
Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security.
I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary.
Our target was terror. Our mission was clear — to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today
–
So, why are conservatives attacking Bill Clinton for ignoring Osama Bin Laden. This just seems like its a lie to me based on this August 20, 1998 speech?
Can I ask for an intelligent response and not the usual monica bee jay responses?
The correct answer is because they want to put ALL the blame on Clinton and none on Bush. They don’t care if it’s a lie that Clinton didn’t do anything to stop Bin Laden. It’s more convenient for them to lie than to have the fortitude to face the truth.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-3u2J2GcmeqKTcV41xP1AEF8M?p=499
8 Responses to “How come Bill Clinton gave a speech on August 20, 1998 where he said Osama Bin Laden was the target?”
By -ts- on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
Yeah, ok..Fire one missle at him and say, "Well I tried"!
Whatever..
References :
By That_Guy_Over_There on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
Good luck with that.
You’re gonna get.at best,rote recitations of Rush and Billo talking points that have nothing to with your question.
References :
By Count Acumen on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
The correct answer is because they want to put ALL the blame on Clinton and none on Bush. They don’t care if it’s a lie that Clinton didn’t do anything to stop Bin Laden. It’s more convenient for them to lie than to have the fortitude to face the truth.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-3u2J2GcmeqKTcV41xP1AEF8M?p=499
References :
By just plain jim on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
Good luck…………the righties will only answer in one of several ways
#1 revise history
#2 slander
#3 name calling
#4 bring up something that is unrelated
#5 or ignore it
The ultra left is just as guilty.
Peace
Jim
.
References :
By TruthSeeker on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
The speech was for the benefit of the American public, so that the name Osama bin Laden would already be in the back of our heads. It was a set-up for a person to blame things on in the future. And while Republicans and Democrats argue back and forth, blaming each other, the NWO globalists slowly absorb more power, and gain steam.
References :
By Westhill on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
Clinton gave the speech because he was planning on taking out Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He failed, and was dissuaded from further attempts by vocal Republicans who accused him of "wagging the dog", trying to distract from his affair with Monica.
Conservatives now are attacking Clinton for ignoring Bin Laden to divert attention from Bush’s failure to take action on Bin Laden despite the many warnings he and his adviser received between January and September 2001.
References :
By Chainsaw on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
He knew Bin Laden was a target. The problem was he had many chances to get Bin Laden but refused. There is a speech he gave in Long Island that stated he was offered him on a platter but refused because he could not charge him in American courts. That is the problem with him. A real man would have executed Bin Laden. Sometimes, you have to do what is right to solve our problems.
Ask anyone who worked in intelligence during his administration about what he and his people did to intelligence.
If Clinton was serious about terrorism, he would have flattened Somalia during the Black Hawk Down situation. Instead he allowed our dead soldiers to have their bodies dragged through the streets. He would have responded to Cobart Towers, USS Cole, Trade Center bombing, etc.
This man was more concerned with his image than doing his job. Listen to Dick Morris or watch the Path to 9-11. Oh, wait, Disney refuses to release it because of requests from Hitlery’s camp.
Hang around enough politicians and you will find that they say one thing, but do not necessarily follow through.
References :
By Botsakis G on Oct 11, 2009 | Reply
Well, GW Bush had the same chance of taking out Bin Laden.
Remember how close Bin Laden was on being killed or captured in the mountains of Tora-Bora in Afghanistan. But Donald Rumsfeld ignored the request for reinforcements by the undermanned US troops who had surrounded the area around Tora-Bora. The result was that Bin Laden (obviously wearing a disguise) was able to slip through the thinly-spread cordon of US troops and escaped. At the very same time as this was happening, Rumsfeld was sending more troops to Iraq instead.
This only shows to prove how low is the priority the Bush administration had placed in the hunt for Bin Laden. Now, six years after the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden is still out there in the mountains of Afghanistan, while Bush is still pursuing his entire anti-terrorism campaign in Iraq.
It is ironic that Bush continue to use the words "9/11", "terrorism", "Al Qaeda", and "Bin Laden" in his speeches about the Iraq War, while the real culprit and mastermind of the terrorism that he speaks about is roaming freely between the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
References :