Monday, September 04, 2006

The War on Terror, 1996

Thanks to AmericaBlog for linking to this news story. It's good to jog the old memory every once in a while, especially in these days when history is being rewritten. From CNN, 1996:
resident Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

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

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

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

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue." President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws

There is an ABC special planned this week, commemorating 9/11 and, rumor has it, putting a lot of the blame on President Clinton for not doing anything about terrorism. So it might be instructive for TTF readers to read a little news from back in the day.
Taggants value disputed

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

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

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

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

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not saying ... I'm just saying.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is desperate grasping, here. It's nice that Bill Clinton was concerned about terrorism but a study about "taggants" really wasn't that significant. Honestly, we don't have that much trouble figuring out who the terrorists or even their general location.

Clinton allowed our military to deteriorate and famously bungled the negotiations at a Camp David with Yasser Arafat, hastening on the intifada.

Oh yes, and he bombed a pharmaceutical factory in North Africa, publicly stating he was trying to get Bin Laden but actually trying to distract public attention from a certain stained blue dress. Osama probably got a good chuckle out of that.

Then there was the time he bombed Iraq for two weeks for kicking out the inspectors and then moved on. I think that had something to do with Monica, too.

Ah, for the good times of yore.

September 05, 2006 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How soon they forget...

Excerpt October 3, 2000, 1st Bush Gore debate

"MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders...."

Excerpt October 11, 2000, 2nd Bush Gore debate

"MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either."

"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

September 05, 2006 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Honestly, we don't have that much trouble figuring out who the terrorists or even their general location."

Oh but the devil is in the details, don't ya know. I mean we *know* Bin Laden's "general location" is in the mountains of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and we've known that for a long time. We've also known that those pesky elusive WMD are *somewhere* in Iraq, unless they moved them...

September 05, 2006 4:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home