Two comments Cherri:
(Italics are Cherri's words)
"It was this kind of blind attacks on Clinton's efforts to take out Bin Ladin and the Taliban that forced him to back down because he had absolutly no support from the Congress or American media and American PEOPLE in this country."
First, Clinton had no clue what to do. If he needed to 'take out Bin Ladin' why did he cut the military?
He would have had congressional support to up military spending with only a hint of a war against terrorism.
Truth is, he had no clue what to do.
He used the military as a police force, constantly sending them on 'humanitarian' missions. If he had set out any kind of military mission, I would have given him my full support. He had no clue.

-- Cherri (Jessam6@home.com), October 23, 2001

Answers

While I think Clinton did not make National Defense his highest priority, I don't think there was a political mandate in the 90s for anyone of any party to wage a world-wide campaign as we are doing now (I hope we are doing it now).

It took Sept 11 to galvanize American resolve. It took 9/11 to convince many that there was a real enemy out there. Prior to 9/11, anyone who would have predicted a WTC level event would have been ridiculed. Would you have believed it? I certainly did not.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 23, 2001.

Lars, You are wrong. If you lok up the public records of Clinton, you will find he was always talking about anti-terrorism, and fought hard and long to get an anti-terrorism act passed. It took 3 years and many of the things he asked for were taken out by republicans and at times even democrats.

http://www.milnet.com/milnet/terract/s735txt.htm

I have been collecting a lot of these records, which are public records as opposed to media articles. Been busy lately, but I will be posting them.

-- (Jessam6@home.com), October 26, 2001.

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
From the 1996 Presidential Documents Online via GPO Access [frwais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:pd05jn95_txt-2]

[Page 915-916]

Monday, June 5, 1995

Volume 31--Number 22
Pages 915-966

Week Ending Friday, June 2, 1995

The President's Radio Address

May 27, 1995

Good morning. It has now been over 5 weeks since the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City. In the days immediately after that tragedy, congressional leaders pledged to have the legislation I proposed to crack down on terrorism on my desk by Memorial Day. The Senate is now considering the antiterrorism bill. I'm glad they're working on it. At the same time, I disagree with the position of some Senators from both parties that three crucial weapons in the fight against terrorism should be stripped from the bill.

The first concerns my proposal to expand the wiretap capabilities of Federal investigators. Terrorists move around. They don't want to be caught. They go from State to State, from motel to motel, from pay phone to pay phone. We need the power to move our taps and surveillance as fast as the terrorist moves his base of operations. But those who want to weaken my antiterrorism bill want law enforcement to go back to court for a new wiretap order each and every time a terrorist moves, unless we can specifically show that he's trying to evade our surveillance.

We should protect citizens' privacy rights. But we shouldn't force law enforcement to lose valuable time by making them get a court to agree that a terrorist is trying to knowingly evade us. Have you ever heard of a terrorist who wasn't trying to evade the police? I don't care whether a terrorist is trying to knowingly evade the police. I care that he or she may be trying to plan another Oklahoma City bombing. And I want the police to stop those people cold.

The restrictive view taken by some people in Congress would handicap our ability to track terrorists down, follow them when they move, and prevent their attacks on innocent people.

The second disagreement I have is about my request that we should be able to use the full resources of the military to combat terrorists who are contemplating the use of biological or chemical weapons. In general, the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement in any way. That's why it's against the law.

But there is a limited exception to this authority: granting the authority to cooperate with law enforcement to the military where nuclear weapons are involved. There's a good reason for this. The military has the unique technical expertise, sophisticated equipment, and highly specialized personnel to fight a nuclear threat. Well, the same is true for biological and chemical weapons, which seem even more likely to be used in terrorist attacks in the future, as we saw recently in the terrible incident in the Japanese subway.

Therefore, I can't understand how some Senators could actually suggest that it's okay to use the military for nuclear terrorism but not to use them for chemical and biological terrorism. We need their unique knowledge in all instances. I want law enforcement to have the authority to call in the military to deal with these chemical or biological weapons threats when they lack that expertise, equipment, or personnel. There's simply no reason why we should use anything less than the very best we have to fight and stop the extraordinary threat now posed by chemical and biological terrorism all around the world.

Finally, I strongly disagree with Senators who want to remove a provision of my bill that will help us track down terrorists by marking the explosive materials they use to build their weapons. It would be a relatively simple matter to include something called a tagget in materials used to build explosive devices. That way, law enforcement could track bomb materials back to their source and dramatically increase their ability to find and apprehend terrorists.

[[Page 916]]

There is no reason to delay enactment of a law that would require taggets in explosive materials. Every day that goes by without a law like that is another day a terrorist can walk into a store and buy material that is virtually untraceable. As long as the basic building blocks of bombs are sold without taggets, we can only hope they're not being bought by terrorists.

The Senators who want to oppose my bill on these points simply argue that these provisions will open the door to an overly broad domestic use of military troops, to overly invasive wiretapping, or to an erosion of the constitutional rights of those who buy explosives. I disagree. Constitutional protections and legal restrictions are not being repealed. We are simply giving law enforcement agencies who are committed to fighting terrorists for us the tools they need to succeed in the modern world.

I want to work with Congress to resolve these differences and to make my antiterrorism bill the law as soon as possible. On this Memorial Day weekend, we honor those who fought and died in our Nation's wars to keep America free. In the 21st century, the security of the American people will require us to fight terrorism all around the world and, unfortunately, here at home. It's a fight we have to be able to win.
Thanks for listening.

Note: The address was recorded at 2:22 p.m. on May 26 in the Oval Office at the White House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on May 27.

-- Cherri (Jessam6@home.com), October 26, 2001.

Cherri--

Clinton was correct to suggest what he did in 1995. Whether he aggressively pursued the anti-terror bill in Congress, I don't know. I still say that it took 9/11 to galvanize a majority of Congess.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 26, 2001.

Clinton was a great speaker. Too bad this still doesn't show his "efforts to take out Bin Ladin". He referenced the OK bombing, a domestic, not foreign, attack. His concern was bio-chemical and he wanted to use the military as an extension of the police force, for domestic attacks. Can you see why he didn't have any support?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 26, 2001.

Maria,

Once again you miss the point that Cherri is trying to make. All those (including you) who automatically want to bash Clinton want to blame him for everything and give him no credit for things he did or tried to do.

Here is documentation that the man was trying to propose some of the very same measures to counteract terrorism that are being approved today, SIX YEARS ago. Surely it doesn't matter that he was trying to respond to an instance of domestic terrorism (unless you believe that McVeigh was merely making a political statement) or external terrorism. Terroristic acts are terroristic acts are they not?

I find your statement that he was concerned with biochemical attacks and wanted to use the military as policemen so he got no political support very interesting. Right now this country is being subjected to attack by the use of biological weapons. The very same type of biological weapons our military developed. Wouldn't it be nice if a response to such an attack, by the ones most trained and equipped to deal with such an attack (our military forces), was in place as proposed SIX YEARS ago? I think this quote from the record posted by Cherri says it all:

"We need their unique knowledge in all instances. I want law enforcement to have the authority to call in the military to deal with these chemical or biological weapons threats when they lack that expertise, equipment, or personnel. There's simply no reason why we should use anything less than the very best we have to fight and stop the extraordinary threat now posed by chemical and biological terrorism all around the world."

I guess that makes sense to me, doesn't it make sense to you? We had a chance to at least take steps to be better prepared to deal with today's situation and we didn't. The proposals made by Clinton may not have been near enough but at least we would be better off than we are now. That we are not in that situation is not the fault of Clinton. This why I keep saying to you that statements that it is all Clinton's fault are unfair. He is not SOLELY responsible for anything because we have a little thing called Congress that has to go along with what a President wants. Clinton lost support on both sides of the aisle on this proposal. Are not those people who voted against these provisions at fault? Where is your outrage for them? Why is Clinton SOLELY the one responsible?

You state that due to his desire to use the military as policemen it is no wonder that there was no support for his proposal. You have made this "use the military as policeman" several times as a put-down of Clinton's policy. Read this quote from Clinton as posted by Cherri above:

"In general, the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement in any way. That's why it's against the law."

I don't see this as a blanket endorsement of using the military as policemen. Then he follows this statement with this one:

"But there is a limited exception to this authority: granting the authority to cooperate with law enforcement to the military where nuclear weapons are involved. There's a good reason for this. The military has the unique technical expertise, sophisticated equipment, and highly specialized personnel to fight a nuclear threat. Well, the same is true for biological and chemical weapons, which seem even more likely to be used in terrorist attacks in the future, as we saw recently in the terrible incident in the Japanese subway."

Okay, there already existed in law situations where the military would be used to fight domestic police problems. He was proposing that a logical extension (at least logical to him, and to me I'm afraid) of this exception to address the treat of biochemical attacks within this country. Why you act like this was such a terrible, evil thing I don't know.

There are other examples of use by the military to assist in domestic situations. For example, in the case of a large-scale natural disaster, such as, flood, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., what usually happens? The

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 26, 2001.

I'm not blaming Clinton for your forgetfulness with tags

-- bogsworth (running@on.8cylinders), October 27, 2001.

1995 news conference with reporters.

*************************** First, Clinton had no clue what to do.
(The President). Thank you. Let me begin by thanking the Vice President and the commission for all their hard work and for this excellent action plan. This is partnership at its best, Government and private citizens, Democrats and Republicans, joining together for the common good.
As the Vice President has said, we asked the members of this commission to do a lot of work in a little time. They rolled up their sleeves; they delivered. We know we can't make the world risk-free, but we can reduce the risks we face, and we have to take the fight to the terrorists. If we have the will, we can find the means. We have to continue to fight terrorism on every front by pursuing our three-part strategy: first, by rallying a world coalition with zero tolerance for terrorism; second, by giving law enforcement the strong counter- terrorism tools they need; and third, by improving security in our airports and on our airplanes.
The Vice President's action plan goes to the heart of this strategy. So I want everyone to understand that whenever this plan says, ``the commission recommends,'' you can understand it to mean, ``the President will.''

Today I will direct the Federal aviation authority to instruct their personnel in the field to convene immediately those responsible for security at our Nation's 450 commercial airports so they can strengthen security as a team

. I will direct that all airport and airline employees with access to secure areas be given criminal background checks and FBI fingerprint checks.

I will direct the FAA to begin full passenger bag match for domestic flights at selected airports. And I'm proud to say that several of the commission's recommendations will be put into place immediately.
snip
As the Vice President's action plan makes clear, there is much more which must be done, and we cannot meet that responsibility without willingness to commit our resources. Shortly, I will submit to Congress a budget request for more than $1 billion to expand our FBI antiterrorism forces and to put the most sophisticated bomb detection machines in America's airports.
As a result of these steps, not only will the American people feel safer, they will be safer. Close to half our requests will be used to make the improvements in aviation security the Vice President and this commission have asked for.
As I said, we want to put the most sophisticated bomb detection equipment for screening passengers, baggage, and cargo in America's airports. We should do this as quickly as possible. We want to significantly expand the number of FBI special agents dedicated to fighting terrorism. We want to expand the use of bomb-sniffing dogs in our airports--the no-tech program the Vice President has recommended-- and train additional bomb-sniffing dogs for Government use as well.
In addition to improving security in airports and airplanes, the focus of the Vice President's plan, we want to use these funds to keep advancing the other two parts of our strategy, combating terrorists beyond our borders and here at home. We need to continue to improve security at our military and diplomatic facilities overseas so we can better protect those who wear our Nation's uniform and serve our Nation's interests abroad. We need to continue to expand our intelligence capabilities to combat terrorists worldwide

. We must train and equip fire departments and medical teams so they can respond to biological or chemical attacks.
snip
We must tighten protection at a number of high profile public sites including Government buildings, national landmarks, and national parks.
These counter-terrorism funds are a smart investment in our Nation's security and our people's safety. I urge Congress to join with me in combatting terrorism by giving us the resources we need to do the job right. As I requested, the Vice President and this commission took just 45 days to deliver their action plan. Now Congress should act with the same dispatch before they leave in October to pass the funding that will bring these security measures to life. Our people deserve no less.

There are other areas where Congress can and should act to strengthen our fight against terrorism.

We need new laws I have proposed to crack down on money laundering and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent crimes against American citizens abroad,

to add taggants to gunpowder used in bombs so we can track down the bomb makers,

to extend the same police power we now have against organized crime to tapping all the phones a terrorist uses so we can better prevent terrorist attacks.

And I again call upon the Senate to ratify without delay the Chemical Weapons Convention.
We need all these laws, and we need them now, before Congress recesses for the year. Terrorists don't wait, and neither should we. The American people should be grateful that the Vice President and this fine commission didn't wait and in fact delivered on their mandate within just 45 days.
Thank you very much.
Reporter question;
Counter-terrorism Technology
Q. Mr. President, the high sophisticated technology that you mentioned this morning for screening passengers for bomb detection technology can see through clothes. Do you expect there to be a major debate over privacy issues and civil rights in connection with the deployment of this technology? And could it thwart some of the commission's actions?
(The President to The Vice President); Do you want to answer that?
(The Vice President). Let me respond to that. We don't--we think that particular concern has been greatly overstated in some of the preliminary reports. That's only one of several technologies that are discussed in this report. Incidentally, the commission is recommending the establishment of a civil liberties advisory board to review and give advice upon any of the recommendations that might raise privacy or civil liberties concerns. But we think that particular concern has been vastly overstated.

-- Cherri (Jessam6@home.com), October 28, 2001.

First, Clinton had no clue what to do. If he needed to 'take out Bin Laden' why did he cut the military? He would have had congressional support to up military spending with only a hint of a war against terrorism. Truth is, he had no clue what to do. He used the military as a police force, constantly sending them on 'humanitarian' missions. If he had set out any kind of military mission, I would have given him my full support. He had no clue. ***snip*** Yet if there ever were the slightest hint that Clinton wanted more military spending to support going after Osama (as Cherri suggests), the repub would have been 'johnny on the spot' with the right bill.

. . . In 1992, Bin Laden left for Sudan to take part in the Islamic revolution under way there under the charismatic Sudanese leader Hassan Turabi. Bin Laden's continued criticism of the Saudi Royal Family eventually annoyed them so much that they took the unprecedented step of revoking his citizenship in 1994. It was in Sudan, with his wealth and contacts, that Bin Laden gathered around him more veterans of the Afghan war, who were all disgusted by the American victory over Iraq and the attitude of the Arab ruling elites who allowed the US military to remain in the Gulf. As US and Saudi pressure mounted against Sudan for harboring Bin Laden, the Sudanese authorities asked him to leave.

In May 1996, Bin Laden traveled back to Afghanistan, arriving in Jalalabad in a chartered jet with an entourage of dozens of Arab militants, bodyguards and family members, including three wives and 13 children. Here he lived under the protection of the Jalalabad Shura [an advisory body or assembly], until the conquest of Kabul and Jalalabad by the Taliban in September 1996. In August 1996, he had issued his first declaration of jihad against the Americans, whom he said were occupying Saudi Arabia.

"The walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets," the declaration read. Striking up a friendship with Mullah Omar, in 1997 he moved to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and came under the protection of the Taliban.

By now, (1997) the CIA had set up a special cell to monitor his activities and his links with other Islamic militants.

A US State Department report in August 1996 noted that Bin Laden was "one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world." The report said that Bin Laden was financing terrorist camps in Somalia, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan.

In April 1996, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allowed the US to block assets of terrorist organizations. It was first used to block Bin Laden's access to his fortune of an estimated US$250-300 million.

A few months later, Egyptian intelligence declared that Bin Laden was training 1,000 militants, a second generation of Arab-Afghans, to bring about an Islamic revolution in Arab countries.

CIA tries snatch operation

In early 1997, the CIA constituted a squad that arrived in Peshawar to try to carry out a snatch operation to get Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. The Americans enlisted Afghans and Pakistanis to help them but aborted the operation. The US activity in Peshawar helped persuade Bin Laden to move to the safer confines of Kandahar. On 23 February 1998, at a meeting in the original Khost camp, all the groups associated with Al Qaeda issued a manifesto under the aegis of "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." The manifesto stated "for more than seven years the US has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsular, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsular into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

The meeting issued a fatwa. "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to." Bin Laden had now formulated a policy that was not just aimed at the Saudi Royal Family or the Americans, but called for the liberation of the entire Muslim Middle East. As the American air war against Iraq escalated in 1998, Bin Laden called on all Muslims to "confront, fight and kill, Americans and Britons."

1998 U.S. Embassy bombings

However, it was the bombings in August 1998 of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 220 people which made Bin Laden a household name in the Muslim world and the West. Just 13 days later, after accusing Bin Laden of perpetrating the attack, the USA retaliated by firing 70 cruise missiles against Bin Laden's camps around Khost and Jalalabad.

Maria, Why didn't you know about this? What prevented you from learning about the threat to our country by terrorist extremests?
Perhaps the screams of "Wagging the Dog" by Rush Limbaugh, which every media outlet parroted, deciding that it was more beneficial to their bottom line (profits), to yell wag the dog, and spam us with tales of Monica and Clinton's crotch, than it would be to report the truth, to give facts, alerting American citizens to the very real terrorist threats and the overwhelming danger we faced.
Maria, you claim that Clinton didn't have a clue.

The American public didn't have a clue. Not because the information didn't exist, but because it was not screaming from the headlines and repeated endlessly in sound bites.

Rush's mouth exploded like an infected boil, with his vile, putrid determination of the "facts" and the sheeple, covered with this viscous verbal contagion, allowed the infection to seep deep into their souls to fester and erupt into a social plague. This contagion continues to this day.

Several camps which had been handed over by the Taliban to the Arab-Afghans and Pakistani radical groups were hit. The Al Badr camp controlled by Bin Laden and the Khalid bin Walid and Muawia camps run by the Pakistani Harakat ul Ansar were the main targets. Harakat used their camps to train militants for fighting Indian troops in Kashmir. Seven outsiders were killed in the strike -- three Yemenis, two Egyptians, one Saudi and one Turk. Also killed were seven Pakistanis and 20 Afghans.

In November 1998 the USA offered a US$5-million reward for Bin Laden's capture. The Americans were further galvanized when Bin Laden claimed that it was his Islamic duty to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons to use against the USA. "It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims. Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded for it by God," he said.

. . . After the Africa bombings, the US launched a truly global operation. More than 80 Islamic militants were arrested in a dozen different countries. Militants were picked up in a crescent running from Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan and Yemen to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and the Philippines."

In December 1998, Indian authorities detained Bangladeshi militants for plotting to bomb the US Consulate in Calcutta. Seven Afghan nationals using false Italian passports were arrested in Malaysia and accused of trying to start a bombing campaign." According to the FBI, militants in Yemen who kidnapped 16 Western tourists in December 1998 were funded by Bin Laden. In February 1999, Bangladeshi authorities said Bin Laden had sent US$l million to the Harkat-ul-Jihad (HJ) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, some of whose members had trained and fought in Afghanistan. HJ leaders said they wanted to turn Bangladesh into a Taliban-style Islamic state.

Thousands of miles away in Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania in West Africa, several militants were arrested who had also trained under Bin Laden in Afghanistan and were suspected of plotting bomb explosions. Meanwhile, during the trial of 107 Al-Jihad members at a military court in Cairo, Egyptian intelligence officers testified that Bin Laden had bankrolled Al-Jihad. In February 1999, the CIA claimed that through monitoring Bin Laden's communication network by satellite, they had prevented his supporters from carrying out seven bomb attacks against US overseas facilities in Saudi Arabia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uganda, Uruguay and the Ivory Coast -- emphasizing the reach of the Afghan veterans.

. . . But it was Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the original sponsors of the Arab-Afghans, who suffered the most as their activities rebounded. In March 1997, three Arab and two Tajik militants [from Tajikistan] were shot dead after a 36-hour gun battle between them and the police in an Afghan refugee camp near Peshawar. Belonging to the Wahabbi radical Tafkir group, they were planning to bomb an Islamic heads of state meeting in Islamabad.

Fighting in Kashmir against India

With the encouragement of Pakistan, the Taliban and Bin Laden, Arab-Afghans had enlisted in the Pakistani party Harkat-ut-Ansar to fight in Kashmir against Indian troops. By inducting Arabs who introduced Wahabbi-style rules in the Kashmir valley, genuine Kashmiri militants felt insulted. The US government had declared Ansar a terrorist organization in 1996 and it had subsequently changed its name to Harkat-ul-Mujaheddin. All the Pakistani victims of the US missile strikes on Khost belonged to Ansar. In 1999, Ansar said it would impose a strict Wahabbi-style dress code in the Kashmir valley and banned jeans and jackets. On 15 February 1999, they shot and wounded three Kashmiri cable television operators for relaying Western satellite broadcasts. Ansar had previously respected the liberal traditions of Kashmiri Muslims, but the activities of the Arab-Afghans hurt the legitimacy of the Kashmiri movement and gave India a propaganda coup.

Pakistan faced a problem when Washington urged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to help arrest Bin Laden. The ISI's close contacts with Bin Laden, and the fact that he was helping fund and train Kashmiri militants who were using the Khost camps, created a dilemma for Sharif when he visited Washington in December 1998. Sharif sidestepped the issue but other Pakistani officials were more brazen, reminding their American counterparts how they had both helped midwife Bin Laden in the 1980s and the Taliban in the 1990s.

Bin Laden himself pointed to continued support from some elements in the Pakistani intelligence services in an interview. "As for Pakistan there are some governmental departments, which, by the Grace of God, respond to the Islamic sentiments of the masses in Pakistan. This is reflected in sympathy and co-operation. However, some other governmental departments fell into the trap of the infidels. We pray to God to return them to the right path," said Bin Laden.

Conundrums for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

Support for Bin Laden by elements within the Pakistani establishment was another contradiction in Pakistan’s Afghan policy. . . . The US was Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to the military and the ISI. But both the Taliban and Bin Laden provided sanctuary and training facilities for Kashmiri militants who were backed by Pakistan, and Islamabad had little interest in drying up that support. Even though the Americans repeatedly tried to persuade the ISI to cooperate in delivering Bin Laden, the ISI declined, although it did help the US arrest several of Bin Laden's supporters. Without Pakistan’s support, the United States could not hope to launch a snatch by US commandos or more accurate bombing strikes, because it needed Pakistani territory to launch such raids. At the same time, the USA dared not expose Pakistan’s support for the Taliban, because it still hoped for ISI cooperation in catching Bin Laden.

The Saudi conundrum was even worse. In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates. The Saudis also gave cash for the Taliban's check book conquest of the north in the autumn. Until the Africa bombings and despite US pressure to end their support for the Taliban, the Saudis continued funding the Taliban and were silent on the need to extradite Bin Laden.

The truth about the Saudi silence was even more complicated. The Saudis preferred to leave Bin Laden alone in Afghanistan because his arrest and trial by the Americans could expose the deep relationship that Bin Laden continued to have with sympathetic members of the Royal Family and elements within Saudi intelligence, which could prove deeply embarrassing. The Saudis wanted Bin Laden either dead or a captive of the Taliban -- they did not want him captured by the Americans.

. . . By now Bin Laden had developed considerable influence with the Taliban, but that had not always been the case. The Taliban's contact with the Arab-Afghans and their Pan-Islamic ideology was non-existent until the Taliban captured Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was closely involved in introducing Bin Laden to the Taliban leaders in Kandahar, because it wanted to retain the Khost training camps for Kashmiri militants, which were now in Taliban hands. Persuasion by Pakistan, the Taliban's better-educated cadres, who also had Pan-Islamic ideas, and the lure of financial benefits from Bin Laden, encouraged the Taliban leaders to meet with Bin Laden and hand him back the Khost camps.

A life with the Taliban in Kandahar

Partly for his own safety and partly to keep control over him, the Taliban shifted Bin Laden to Kandahar in 1997. At first he lived as a paying guest. He built a house for Mullah Omar's family and provided funds to other Taliban leaders. He promised to pave the road from Kandahar airport to the city and build mosques, schools and dams, but his civic works never got started as his funds were frozen. (BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION) While Bin Laden lived in enormous style in a huge mansion in Kandahar with his family, servants and fellow militants, the arrogant behavior of the Arab-Afghans who arrived with him and their failure to fulfill any of their civic projects antagonized the local population. The Kandaharis saw the Taliban leaders as beneficiaries of Arab largesse rather than the people.

Bin Laden endeared himself further to the leadership by sending several hundred Arab-Afghans to participate in the 1997 and 1998 Taliban offensives in the north. These Wahabbi fighters helped the Taliban carry out massacres of the Shia Hazaras in the north. Several hundred Arab-Afghans, based in the Rishkor army garrison outside Kabul, fought on the Kabul front against [the Mujaheddin leader Ahmad Shah] Masud. Increasingly, Bin Laden's world view appeared to dominate the thinking of senior Taliban leaders. All-night conversations between Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders paid off. Until his arrival, the Taliban leadership had not been particularly antagonistic to the USA or the West but demanded recognition for their government. However, after the Africa bombings the Taliban became increasingly vociferous against the Americans, the UN, the Saudis and Muslim regimes around the world. Their statements increasingly reflected the language of defiance Bin Laden had adopted and which was not an original Taliban trait.

As US pressure on the Taliban to expel Bin Laden intensified, the Taliban said he was a guest and it was against Afghan tradition to expel guests. When it appeared that Washington was planning another military strike against Bin Laden, the Taliban tried to cut a deal with Washington -- to allow him to leave the country in exchange for US recognition. Thus, until the winter of 1998 the Taliban saw Bin Laden as an asset, a bargaining chip over whom they could negotiate with the Americans.

The US State Department opened a satellite telephone connection to speak to Mullah Omar directly. The Afghanistan desk officers, helped by a Pushto translator, held lengthy conversations with Omar in which both sides explored various options, but to no avail. By early 1999 it began to dawn on the Taliban that no compromise with the US was possible and they began to see Bin Laden as a liability. A US deadline in February 1999 to the Tatiban to either hand over Bin Laden or face the consequences forced the Taliban to make him disappear discreetly from Kandahar. The move bought the Taliban some time, but the issue was still nowhere near being resolved.

The Arab-Afghans had come full circle. From being mere appendages to the Afghan jihad and the Cold War in the 1980s they had taken center stage for the Afghans, neighboring countries and the West in the 1990s. . . . Afghanistan was now truly a haven for Islamic internationalism and terrorism and the Americans and the West were at a loss as to how to handle it.

-- (Jessam6@home.com), October 28, 2001.

JBT,

" give him no credit for things he did or tried to do." Ok I'll give him credit to try to convince congress to spend money to stop terrorism.

" Terroristic acts are terroristic acts are they not? . . . I find your statement that he was concerned with biochemical attacks and wanted to use the military as policemen. . . ." And here's where you miss the point. Domestic terrorism (as in Timothy McVeigh) is not so easy. Remember four dead in Ohio? Military actions against its citizens are a stupid way to use the military.

"Wouldn't it be nice if a response to such an attack, by the ones most trained and equipped to deal with such an attack (our military forces). . . " Did you happen to read any of Asleep at the wheel's posts on bio and chem attacks? If you did, you'd understand how utterly stupid this thinking is.

" I want law enforcement to have the authority to call in the military". We don't need the military in times like these. Other organizations would be better equipped to fulfill these roles. And further, police don't order the military to do anything. Only the CINC can do that. This is exactly why I commented that Clinton wanted to use the military as an extension to the police force.

"He is not SOLELY responsible for anything because we have a little thing called Congress that has to go along with what a President wants. Clinton lost support on both sides of the aisle on this proposal." No, he's not solely at fault. But why do you suppose he couldn't convince congress to act? My guess is that it was a stupid idea, not entirely thought out. It was misguided. He didn't act to 'get Bin Ladin'. His proposal in essence diluted our military, not strengthened it.

"In general, the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement in any way. That's why it's against the law." Great advertising pitch. He states this as a sound bite but when one reads the fine print, one sees that it is exactly the opposite.

"Well, the same is true for biological and chemical weapons, which seem even more likely to be used. . ." No it's NOT true. Again you didn't read any of asleep at the wheel's posts (at one point he wrote 'kiss your ass goodbye' when referring to bio-chemical). Our military doesn't know as much about bio and chemical as it does about nuclear.

"Why you act like this was such a terrible, evil thing I don't know." Because the military are trained to fight wars not bring criminals to justice. Maybe you should read up on the subject.

Cherri,

Ok so Clinton wanted to fight terrorism. He had a three part strategy: coalition, law enforcement, and airports. Coalition is a no brainer; law enforcement was stupid and still is. Airport security should be improved. I'll give him credit to see this as a problem. But I'm not going to blame the media or the republicans for his lack of congressional support. He was the best salesman in politics and he couldn't sell this?

He froze bin Ladin's assets. Great! But if he wanted to 'get Bin Ladin' what the hell was he doing in Kosovo? That's the true 'wag the dog' farce.

In early 1997, we aborted an operation to snatch bin Ladin. Clinton failed in his first step, building a coalition. After the embassy bombings, he launched missiles against bin Ladin. Wonderful. I think he should have done more of this. But he didn't. Instead he sent troops to Kosovo. Also, why didn't he act after Mogadishu? If he had a clue, he should have used it at that time.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 29, 2001.

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=416482 5270+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
From the 1996 Presidential Documents Online via GPO Access [frwais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:pd25mr96_txt-6]

[Page 512-514]

Monday, March 25, 1996

Volume 32--Number 12
Pages 505-547

Week Ending Friday, March 22, 1996

The President's Radio Address

March 16, 1996

Good morning. I have recently returned from an historic meeting in the Middle East. Twenty-nine leaders from the region and around the world came together in support of peace and against terrorism. Our summit was called to confront an urgent threat. Recent terrorist atrocities in Israel have taken scores of innocent lives, including those of two young Americans. They have jeopardized the hopes of Israelis and Palestinians who long for peace, and they menace the dreams of all the mothers and fathers there who seek a better life for their children.
But the merchants of terror will not succeed. By their acts of violence they have only reinforced the determination of the peacemakers. Whatever the effort, whatever the time it takes, we will prevail because we must.
The violence in Israel is a terrible reminder of the challenges we all face to protect the security of our Nation and our people. For while we live in an age of great possibility, we face new perils as well. Open societies and open markets are on the march. And the dawn of the information age is creating exciting new opportunities to build a brighter future. But as barriers fall the free-

[[Page 513]]

dom and openness that make our Nation strong can also make us vulnerable. The freedom and openness that will bring Americans almost 3 million new jobs in the next few years in telecommunications alone, spurred on by the telecommunications bill I signed just a few weeks ago, also mean that our democratic societies which have to be open to new people and products and information are also more vulnerable because they're open to threats that all too easily can cross national borders.

Terrorism is a part of the growing web of threats that include the spread of weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, and organized crime. I have made our fight against terrorism a national security priority. And in order to defeat these forces of destruction, we need every tool at our disposal.

The United States maintains strong sanctions on states that sponsor terrorism. We have stepped up cooperation with other nations to root out terrorists before they act and to capture them when they do. We have increased funding, manpower, and training for our law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism. And our efforts are yielding results.

We made swift arrests after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City.

Today those responsible for the World Trade Center bombing are behind bars.

In the last 3 years the United States has arrested more terrorists than at any time in our history, plucking them from hiding all around the world and bringing them to justice for their crimes. This progress is dramatic, but we must do more.

Yet on the same day I was in the Middle East rallying the world community to fight terrorism, some in Congress, led by Republicans, were taking apart piece by piece the tough legislation designed to beat back that very threat.
More than a year ago I sent a bill to Congress that would strengthen our ability to investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist activity. After the Oklahoma City bombing I made that legislation even stronger. My efforts were guided by three firm goals: first, to protect American lives without infringing on American rights; second, to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to do the job; and third, to make sure that terrorists are barred from our country.
The congressional leaders promised to send me that bill by last Memorial Day, 6 weeks after the Oklahoma City tragedy. The Senate passed counterterrorism legislation last June. But now, less than 6 weeks before the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the House has finally acted to gut the bill. The House took the teeth out of our efforts to fight terrorism. Unbelievably, the House voted to give law enforcement officials fewer tools to fight terrorism than they have to fight far less horrible crimes here at home.
First, the bill had a provision to chemically mark the explosive materials terrorists use to build their deadly bombs. If we know where explosives come from, we have a better chance of figuring out who used them. The House voted to strip this law enforcement tool because for some reason the Washington gun lobby opposed it. The House and the Washington gun lobby are against giving law enforcement the ability to trace explosives. I know we should be able to keep up with materials terrorists use to build bombs.
The House also voted to let terrorists like Hamas continue to raise money in America by stripping the Justice Department's authority to designate organizations as terrorist and thereby stop them from raising funds in the United States. The House voted against allowing us to deport foreigners who support terrorist activities more quickly, and it voted to cripple our ability to use high-tech surveillance to keep up with stealthy and fast-moving terrorists.
At the same time the bill went easy on terrorists, it got tough on law enforcement officials. The House stripped a provision that would have helped protect police officers from cop-killer bullets. And it ordered a commission to study not the terrorists but the Federal law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line to fight terrorism.

Even the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, couldn't believe what his colleagues did, saying the House eviscerated the terrorism bill.

I urge the Senate to stand firm and turn this bill back into the strong antiterrorism legislation I want to sign and America needs.
Our Nation has felt the lash of terrorism. We know its terrible costs, and we know that

[[Page 514]]

only America can lead the world's fight against it. We can't let the gun lobby turn America into a safe house for terrorists. Congress should get back on track and send me tough legislation that cracks down on terrorism. It should listen to the cries of the victims and the hopes of our children, not the back-alley whispers of the gun lobby.
Thanks for listening.

Note: The address was recorded at 5:08 p.m. on March 15 in the Roosevelt Room at the White House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on March 16.

-- Cherri (Jessam6@home.com), October 29, 2001.

-- hope (that@clears.it), October 31, 2001.

Cherri, I think Bill hit it when he said that Clinton dealt in generalities, that he didn't really go after bin Ladin, and being the great communicator, Clinton didn't try to rally the public. I'd add that Clinton's bill was stupid.

Ms Albright admitted to failure.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37761,00.html

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Personal Story segment tonight, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. She held that position from 1997 to 2001 and had to deal with the terror bombings of American embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Aden.

Secretary Albright joins us now from Washington.

Somebody who knows in the Clinton administration told me there was a calculated decision made by President Clinton not to aggressively pursue Usama bin Laden because if the president did that, it would have disrupted the world economy. You would have seen a lot of riots. You would have seen a lot of disruption in the Muslim world, anti-American feeling. And the thought was that we can contain this guy and I don't want to disrupt the economy, President Clinton's thought. Is that accurate as far as you know?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: No. Well, I don't know who said that to you because that is not anything I heard. What we tried to do, especially after the embassy bombings, was to pursue him vigorously. And we, in fact, did launch some cruise missiles against camps in Afghanistan and obviously found that there was not enough intelligence to move forward.

I keep saying that we basically consumed all the intelligence information that we had. And then we also hit the chemical plant in Sudan, which we knew to be connected with Usama bin Laden. So we did everything that we could.

But clearly the author of these bombings was not captured. We did, as you know, finally get the people that were affiliated with the embassy bombing, also tracked the people that had been responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center in '93. So we pursued this vigorously.

O'REILLY: All right, but you knew based on the testy in Africa that Usama bin Laden was behind it. And you also knew that the Torricelli principle, which dried up ground intelligence for the CIA if anybody had an unsavory record, was going to hurt the inflow of intelligence from the ground. Yet President Clinton signed off on that. Were you against that Torricelli principle?

ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, it was not something that came up in that particular way. But I can tell you this, from people that I talked to in the agency, they said that there was never anyone that was suggested by somebody in the field as somebody to work with that was turned down by the agency for that reason. And I think the thing that doesn't, is not evident at the moment is the amount of things that the Clinton administration did to put into place an infrastructure for going after these people.

We were the ones that began the blocking of assets. We made sure that there was intelligence cooperation among the various countries. We figured out how do do kind of the tracking the money through the banking system.

I put the al Qaeda organization on a list of terrorist organizations which meant that they could have no outside funding to be raised in the United States, a variety of issues like that.

And then the other part, Bill, that never seems to come out is the number of things that we foiled. You know, it's the dog that doesn't bark. So there were a number of attempts to disrupt us and terrorist activities that we did disrupt.

O'REILLY: All right, but the fact remains that you knew bin Laden was in Afghanistan. You knew that he was being protected by the Taliban government yet the Clinton administration chose not to take any overt action other than not recognizing the Taliban government.

ALBRIGHT: That's not true.

O'REILLY: What other overt action did you take?

ALBRIGHT: We took, first of all, on a regular basis we tried to press the Pakistanis to help on...

O'REILLY: But you failed. You failed because they didn't.

ALBRIGHT: Well, we did fail.

O'REILLY: They were supporting him, especially the Pakistani intelligence agency. They were supporting bin Laden.

ALBRIGHT: Well, and part, part of the problem was that, yes, we did fail. There's no question about that. But we pushed them. We, as you know, they were under sanctions, which were mandated automatically by Congress, making it a little bit more difficult to put pressure...

O'REILLY: Yes, because of their atomic weapons movement, not because of Usama bin Laden. Look, I want to stop you because I don't want to interrupt your thought with a commercial. But when we come back, you see, I'm not saying that your intent wasn't the right intent. But I don't know why, in hindsight, and it may be unfair to do this, that the United States government just didn't take a more aggressive approach in the sense that we know where this bin Laden guy is, we know he's killed American citizens, we've got to do something more than contain him. It looked like you were containing him.

So we'll have more with Secretary Albright in a moment. She'll respond to that.

And then, should President Bush attend the World Series in New York with all the terror? We'll hear both sides and we hope you stay tuned for those reports.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'REILLY: Continuing now with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Fifteen out of the 19 suicide terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and by all accounts, they have not been helping us, the kingdom hasn't, in tracking the money to Usama bin Laden. A lot of it's been going through Saudi Arabia. Are they our friends?

ALBRIGHT: Well, they're very complicated friends.

But Bill, can I go back to what you asked before, because we pushed the Taliban also to give up Usama bin Laden, and worked on that very hard, and worked on the basis of the intelligence that we had. And this is a terrible thing to say, but the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania actually were -- we didn't have the support in order to do a larger operation the way this administration has now...

O'REILLY: The support of whom?

ALBRIGHT: The American people and Congress, in order to go further in terms of our attempts to deal with Usama bin Laden...

O'REILLY: But I didn't see President Clinton...

ALBRIGHT: ... we did the best we...

O'REILLY: ... out there trying to drum up support for that, he did...

ALBRIGHT: Oh, we did. We worked very hard to get all the support we could. We also launched the investigation on the U.S.S. "Cole." That happened on October. Elections were in November. The Bush administration has been in since January. And I don't see that much happened in the intervening nine months on this, because the truth is that tracking Usama bin Laden is very hard. I support what the administration is doing now.

But I think in going back and trying to figure out what went wrong is not useful, because we can go back to original sin. Why wasn't the Iraqi war finished?

So there are any number of issues like this...

O'REILLY: Sure, but do you...

ALBRIGHT: ... and I think we should look forward...

O'REILLY: I, I, I agree with you, but the...

ALBRIGHT: ... and be supportive of what the president's doing.

O'REILLY: Here is the worthiness of looking back at what happened, we don't make the same mistakes. That's the worthiness of it. Don't make the same mistakes that we made.

Now, when you say that President Clinton couldn't get the support of the American people, I got to tell you, I covered that man as intensely as anybody, and I never really saw him say, Look, we got to get this bin Laden guy, he's a threat to us, let's go get him, get him, get him.

And you know what a great communicator he is. He could have rallied people to his side. But I didn't see it.

ALBRIGHT: We spoke a great deal about the danger of terrorism, and...

O'REILLY: In general.

ALBRIGHT: ... the evidence of Usama bin Laden himself was not as clear as it is now. And I think also -- let me say this -- is, there is a genuine question now as to whether turning all the attention on Usama bin Laden, whom we might not catch...

O'REILLY: We'll catch him.

ALBRIGHT: ... is the smartest -- well, I hope we catch him...

O'REILLY: We have to.

ALBRIGHT: ... but we need to look at the larger terrorist network...

O'REILLY: All right, and I agree with that...

ALBRIGHT: ... which is what we began to do.

O'REILLY: ... but just reading the transcripts of the testimony, and I'm sure you have, of the African bombings, you can see Usama bin Laden. The guys are fingering him all over the place.

ALBRIGHT: Well...

O'REILLY: Oh, you got the money from him, he helped us this, he helped us that, he's in charge, he told us to do it, we plotted the thing with it, we went to Afghanistan, come on. So...

ALBRIGHT: Well, but we got the people that did it...

O'REILLY: Yeah, I know, but...

ALBRIGHT: ... actually, and we -- and I'll tell you something...

O'REILLY: ... you didn't get the big boy.

ALBRIGHT: ... Bill, what was interesting was, whatever we did, we were criticized for not doing enough or doing too much.

O'REILLY: That's true, and that'll always...

ALBRIGHT: I was very much...

O'REILLY: ... be the case with people in power.

ALBRIGHT: ... for -- well, and I think we did the right thing, and I support what the administration's doing now...

O'REILLY: All right. Now, how about the Saudis? I mean, are they are friends, or what?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think the Saudis are in overall our friends. But they are very concerned about their own stability. I wish that they would, in fact, be more helpful in turning over passenger lists and blocking the money and helping us in all these investigations. I think it would be very important for them to do that.

O'REILLY: And do you believe -- see, I look at them as a very, very opportunistic government, that they sell us our oil, they have us over the barrel, pardon the pun...

ALBRIGHT: Yes.

O'REILLY: ... but we can't do anything to them because we need their oil. And they basically say, Ahhh, you know, we're going to give lip service to this, but when it comes right down to it, we're afraid of these fundamentalist. We're going to buy 'em off. That's how I see it.

ALBRIGHT: Well, they are definitely afraid of the fundamentalists.

But the thing that I learned, Bill, was that the Saudis do do things behind the scenes that are helpful. I don't know whether they're doing that now. I would presume they are. But clearly they are a government that is concerned about its own future, and we, unfortunately, are dependent on a lot of oil.

I wish that we would diversify our oil.

O'REILLY: So do I.

ALBRIGHT: I don't -- that doesn't mean drilling ANWR, that means looking at other places in the world. But we should not be dependent on any one source of oil this way.

O'REILLY: Absolutely. And I would drill in ANWR, myself, just to see what's up there, but that's another topic for another day.

Madam Secretary, we appreciate your time very much. We hope you'll come back and -- because you know as much about this situation as anybody on the earth, and I enjoy talking with you.

ALBRIGHT: I'll be glad to be back with you, Bill, thanks.

O'REILLY: OK.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 31, 2001.

Maria, You did a "Cherri", you cut and pasted *grin*. The interview you posted showed how the questions were asked in a biased way and she was not allowed to finishe her answers. Also, it is true that we didn't do all that we should have done, but the mindset in America was defensive, to blatently go out and kill OBL was not an option.

Even with that, the bombs were dropped just hours after OBL had left. Clinton was on top of the threat of OBL and his organization and did what he could do within the constraints that he was tied with.

Clinton didn't just go after OBL and move on to other issues, dropping the threat OBL's organization posed to us.

He didn't just talk about it, it was an ongoing effort. It may not have been publisized, but that does not negate the fact of what he was doing in this area.

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
From the 1998 Presidential Documents Online via GPO Access [frwais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:pd24au98_txt-9]

[Page 1643-1644]

Monday, August 24, 1998

Volume 34--Number 34
Pages 1637-1647

Week Ending Friday, August 21, 1998

Address to the Nation on Military Action Against Terrorist Sites in Afghanistan and Sudan

August 20, 1998

Good afternoon. 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. (The only media reporting on this was the cries of "wag the dog")
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 Usama bin Ladin, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.
The groups associated with him come from diverse places but share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against.
A few months ago, and again this week, bin Ladin publicly vowed to wage a terrorist war against America, saying, and I quote, ``We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians.
They're all targets.''
Their mission is murder and their history is bloody. In recent years, they killed American, Belgian, and Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia. They plotted to assassinate the President of Egypt and the Pope. They planned to bomb six United States 747's over the Pacific. They bombed the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan. They gunned down German tourists in Egypt.
The most recent terrorist events are fresh in our memory. Two weeks ago, 12 Americans and nearly 300 Kenyans and Tanzanians lost their lives, and another 5,000 were wounded, when our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed. There is convincing information from our intelligence community that the bin Ladin terrorist network was responsible for these bombings. Based on this information, we have high confidence that these bombings were planned, financed, and carried out by the organization bin Ladin leads.
America has battled terrorism for many years. Where possible, we've used law enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight. The long arm of American law has reached out around the world and brought to trial those guilty of attacks in New York and Virginia and in the Pacific. We have quietly disrupted terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that practice terrorism. We've worked to build an international coalition against terror.
But there have been and will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough, when our very national security is challenged, and when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens. With compelling evidence that the bin Ladin network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act.
And so this morning, based on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, I ordered our Armed Forces to take action to counter an immediate threat from the bin Ladin network. Earlier today, the United States carried out simultaneous strikes against terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It contained key elements of the bin Ladin network's infrastructure and has served as a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe. We have reason to believe that a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus underscoring the urgency of our actions.
[[Page 1644]]
Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Ladin network. The factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons.
The United States does not take this action lightly. Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups. But countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safe havens.
Let me express my gratitude to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies for their hard, good work. And let me express my pride in our Armed Forces who carried out this mission while making every possible effort to minimize the loss of innocent life.
I want you to understand, I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of millions of good, peace-loving people all around the world, including the United States. No religion condones the murder of innocent men, women, and children. But our actions were aimed at fanatics and killers who wrap murder in the cloak of righteousness and in so doing profane the great religion in whose name they claim to act.
My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our Embassies in Africa, nor will it end with today's strike. It will require strength, courage, and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it, no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism, between the rule of law and terrorism. We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must.
America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders, because we act to advance peace, democracy, and basic human values, because we're the most open society on Earth, and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.
But of this I am also sure: The risks from inaction, to America and the world, would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact. In this case, we knew before our attack that these groups already had planned further actions against us and others.
I want to reiterate: The United States wants peace, not conflict. We want to lift lives around the world, not take them. We have worked for peace in Bosnia, in Northern Ireland, in Haiti, in the Middle East and elsewhere. But in this day, no campaign for peace can succeed without a determination to fight terrorism. Let our actions today send this message loud and clear: There are no expendable American targets; there will be no sanctuary for terrorists; we will defend our people, our interests, and our values; we will help people of all faiths, in all parts of the world, who want to live free of fear and violence. We will persist, and we will prevail.
Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless our country.
Note: The President spoke at 5:32 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), November 01, 2001.

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
From the 1999 Presidential Documents Online via GPO Access [frwais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:pd25oc99_txt-3]

[Page 2065]

Monday, October 25, 1999

Volume 35--Number 42
Pages 2065-2124

Week Ending Friday, October 22, 1999

Statement on United Nations Security Council Action Against
International Terrorism and the Taliban

October 15, 1999

I applaud the U.N. Security Council for taking a strong stand against international terrorism today and demanding that the Taliban stop harboring Usama bin Ladin. The Security Council's resolution, which passed by a unanimous vote, will result in economic sanctions being placed on the Taliban if they do not deliver bin Ladin within 30 days to a country where he can be brought to justice.
The Security Council's action demonstrates the international community's understanding of the threat posed by bin Ladin and his network of terrorists. Despite the condemnation of scores of countries after the 1998 bombing of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Taliban has continued to allow bin Ladin and his network to operate training camps, make threats against the United States and others, and plan terrorist operations from their bases in Afghanistan. Now the international community has spoken with one voice. The sanctions the U.N. has chosen parallel the unilateral ones that the United States placed on the Taliban in July and will result in the restriction of landing rights of airlines owned, leased, or operated by or on behalf of the Taliban, the freezing of Taliban accounts around the world, and the prohibition of investment in any undertaking owned or controlled by the Taliban.
The international community has sent a clear message. The choice between cooperation and isolation lies with the Taliban.

Note: This item was not received in time for publication in the appropriate issue.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), November 01, 2001.

"Clinton was on top of the threat of OBL and his organization and did what he could do within the constraints that he was tied with."

That's been your premise all along and you have provided Clinton's speeches, which showed he agreed with your premise. Of course, O'Reilly's questions are biased, just as Clinton's speeches. But that's the idea behind 'point-counterpoint'. Clinton made some half-hearted attempts to 'take out Bin Laden'. The positive things include freezing assets and lobbing a few missiles. But if he really wanted to 'take out Bin Laden' (as you have stated), he would have increased the military effort to do so. He didn't. The proposition put forth by Clinton was doomed to fail. I might even go a little further and say that the steps Clinton took actually incited OBL to come up with his most cold-blooded act. He continued to send troops to places that angered OBL and didn't aggressively seek to 'take out' OBL. Those two acts combined lead us to 9-11.

As I have repeatedly stated he didn't know how to use the military because he had no clue about military missions and war fighting capabilities. Say what you will about Bush's AWOL but at least Bush went through OTS (or its equivalent). Clinton didn't have that opportunity. I believe that military training is a 'you had to be there' kind of experience. Anyone who doesn't go through it doesn't truly know the military and can not speak with any kind of authority on the topic. I'm surprised that you feel Clinton could perform his 'CINC' duties without it. You could post more of Clinton's spin but you won't change my mind with it. Cherri, we just have a difference of opinion here and I'll leave it as an agreement to disagree.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 01, 2001.

Maria, you do have to agree though that he did a LOT in his effort to remove OBL. If 911 had not happened, even Bush would not have had the backing of the congress and American public to fight OBL. It took the actions of that horrible day to wake evryone up to a very real threat. Themajority of Americans didn't care about what was happening in the rest of the world, You and I, as well as other GI's have a deeper awareness and knowledge of the how serious situations in the rest of the world effect us. I appreciate the fact that you are acknowledging the fact that Clinton was aware of and tried to get on top of the terrorist threats.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), November 01, 2001.

"It took the actions of that horrible day to wake evryone up to a very real threat." On that we most definitely agree. That event has changed our lives in a very profound way. I still get teary eyed when I see it and the outpouring of emotions.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 02, 2001.