Gold9472
06-28-2007, 08:53 AM
Giuliani's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
http://www.alternet.org/story/55409/?page=2
(Gold9472: I'm not posting this because of the obvious attempt at making Bill Clinton come off looking rosey. 9/11 Truth is not partisan. I'm posting this because of the ridiculous hypocrisy of being able to "blame" Clinton for the 9/11 attacks, but heaven forbid anyone mention Bush and 9/11. There are many examples of people friendly to the Bush Administration blaming Clinton for the 9/11 attacks. Here's one from Bill Kristol (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/18/krtistol-its-all-clintons-fault/). Let's also not forget ABC actually made a movie (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/08/abc.movie/index.html) depicting Clinton as the one to blame. Remember, blaming Clinton for 9/11 good, blaming Bush for 9/11 bad.)
By Faiz Shakir and Nico Pitney and Amanda Terkel and Satyam Khanna and Matt Corley, Center for American Progress. Posted June 28, 2007.
During a speech Monday at Pat Robertson's Regent University, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani indirectly blamed President Clinton for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Echoing arguments offered frequently by Bush administration officials, Giuliani claimed that Clinton treated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing "as a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack," which "emboldened other strikes" on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, and Tanzania, and later on the USS Cole. "The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond," Giuliani said. "Bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it." The claim that Clinton "did not respond" to global terrorism during his administration is demonstrably and flagrantly false. (Giuliani himself knows this. Just last year, before he became a presidential candidate, he said, "The idea of trying to cast blame on Clinton [for the 9/11 attacks] is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it.") Giuliani's fundamentally misguided approach to counterterrorism is evidenced not only by his dishonest smears of President Clinton, but by his embrace of the same national security strategy as President Bush, under whom global terrorism is rising, Osama bin Laden is resurgent, the Middle East is deeper in violent unrest, and the U.S. military is in the midst of a readiness crisis.
CLINTON'S TERRORISM RECORD: The Clinton administration's efforts to "thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on." Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, detailed Clinton's counterterrorism record after Vice President Cheney claimed in 2004 that the United States had "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s: "It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s," Clarke said. "There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida," including military strikes against al Qaeda targets. Giuliani claims Clinton "did not respond" to bin Laden. In fact, Roger Cressy, former National Security Council director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda."
TERRORISM AS A CRIMINAL ACT: Giuliani's criticism that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was considered "a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack" shows a deeply flawed understanding of counterterrorism. In fact, the United States "has long regarded [terrorist] acts as criminal," according to the 9/11 Commission Staff Report. This practice continues under Bush; last year, for example, Bush introduced a plan to "improve national legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure appropriate criminal and civil liability" for nuclear terrorists. However, it was under Clinton that terrorism was first treated as a national security threat. The 1993 World Trade Center attack, which occurred one month after Clinton took office, "called attention to a new kind of terrorist danger." Not until July 1995 did the U.S. intelligence community identify this "new terrorist phenomenon" characterized by "loose affiliations of Islamist extremists" who were "more fluid and multinational than the older organizations." Clinton had already taken action. A June 1995 Presidential Decision Directive issued by Clinton for the first time emphasized concern about terrorism "as a national security issue," not just a matter of law enforcement. Clinton's directive declared that the United States saw "terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it." By 1997, U.S. intelligence confirmed "the existence of al Qaeda as a worldwide terrorist organization," and for the last three years of his presidency, Clinton "raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave."
THE USS COLE MYTH: Giuliani has frequently repeated the claim that Clinton did not respond to the bombing of the USS Cole. "You know, we get attacked on the Cole. We don't do anything about it," he told Fox News earlier this month. In fact, President Clinton was eager -- at the recommendation of top counterterrorism aides -- to retaliate against al Qaeda for the USS Cole. But that attack took place in October 2000. As Clinton explained in a 2006 interview, both the CIA and FBI "refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible" for the attack on the Cole until early 2001, which foreclosed the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration.
THE BUSH/GIULIANI COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGY -- INVADE IRAQ: When President Bush came into office, his administration was warned that no foe but al Qaeda posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." Yet in May 2001, Bush declared that "today's most urgent threat" was not terrorism but "ballistic missiles" in the hands of rogue states, specifically Iraq. In June 2001, Bush "outlined the five top defense issues" to NATO allies, and the "only reference to extremists was in Macedonia." Even as 9/11 occured, the focus remained on Iraq. On the day of the attacks, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told aides he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." -- meaning Saddam Hussein. One day later, Bush "testily" told Richard Clarke and other aides, "Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this." Within three months, Bush began drawing up plans for the Iraq invasion. This singular, ideological focus culminated in a policy that has consumed countless resources that could have been used to eliminate global terrorist networks and bolster homeland security. Yet to this day, Giuliani remains supportive of Bush's approach. He said recently that invading Iraq was "absolutely the right thing to do," and claimed the war would "help reduce the risk for this country."
http://www.alternet.org/story/55409/?page=2
(Gold9472: I'm not posting this because of the obvious attempt at making Bill Clinton come off looking rosey. 9/11 Truth is not partisan. I'm posting this because of the ridiculous hypocrisy of being able to "blame" Clinton for the 9/11 attacks, but heaven forbid anyone mention Bush and 9/11. There are many examples of people friendly to the Bush Administration blaming Clinton for the 9/11 attacks. Here's one from Bill Kristol (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/18/krtistol-its-all-clintons-fault/). Let's also not forget ABC actually made a movie (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/08/abc.movie/index.html) depicting Clinton as the one to blame. Remember, blaming Clinton for 9/11 good, blaming Bush for 9/11 bad.)
By Faiz Shakir and Nico Pitney and Amanda Terkel and Satyam Khanna and Matt Corley, Center for American Progress. Posted June 28, 2007.
During a speech Monday at Pat Robertson's Regent University, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani indirectly blamed President Clinton for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Echoing arguments offered frequently by Bush administration officials, Giuliani claimed that Clinton treated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing "as a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack," which "emboldened other strikes" on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, and Tanzania, and later on the USS Cole. "The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond," Giuliani said. "Bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it." The claim that Clinton "did not respond" to global terrorism during his administration is demonstrably and flagrantly false. (Giuliani himself knows this. Just last year, before he became a presidential candidate, he said, "The idea of trying to cast blame on Clinton [for the 9/11 attacks] is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it.") Giuliani's fundamentally misguided approach to counterterrorism is evidenced not only by his dishonest smears of President Clinton, but by his embrace of the same national security strategy as President Bush, under whom global terrorism is rising, Osama bin Laden is resurgent, the Middle East is deeper in violent unrest, and the U.S. military is in the midst of a readiness crisis.
CLINTON'S TERRORISM RECORD: The Clinton administration's efforts to "thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on." Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, detailed Clinton's counterterrorism record after Vice President Cheney claimed in 2004 that the United States had "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s: "It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s," Clarke said. "There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida," including military strikes against al Qaeda targets. Giuliani claims Clinton "did not respond" to bin Laden. In fact, Roger Cressy, former National Security Council director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda."
TERRORISM AS A CRIMINAL ACT: Giuliani's criticism that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was considered "a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack" shows a deeply flawed understanding of counterterrorism. In fact, the United States "has long regarded [terrorist] acts as criminal," according to the 9/11 Commission Staff Report. This practice continues under Bush; last year, for example, Bush introduced a plan to "improve national legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure appropriate criminal and civil liability" for nuclear terrorists. However, it was under Clinton that terrorism was first treated as a national security threat. The 1993 World Trade Center attack, which occurred one month after Clinton took office, "called attention to a new kind of terrorist danger." Not until July 1995 did the U.S. intelligence community identify this "new terrorist phenomenon" characterized by "loose affiliations of Islamist extremists" who were "more fluid and multinational than the older organizations." Clinton had already taken action. A June 1995 Presidential Decision Directive issued by Clinton for the first time emphasized concern about terrorism "as a national security issue," not just a matter of law enforcement. Clinton's directive declared that the United States saw "terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it." By 1997, U.S. intelligence confirmed "the existence of al Qaeda as a worldwide terrorist organization," and for the last three years of his presidency, Clinton "raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave."
THE USS COLE MYTH: Giuliani has frequently repeated the claim that Clinton did not respond to the bombing of the USS Cole. "You know, we get attacked on the Cole. We don't do anything about it," he told Fox News earlier this month. In fact, President Clinton was eager -- at the recommendation of top counterterrorism aides -- to retaliate against al Qaeda for the USS Cole. But that attack took place in October 2000. As Clinton explained in a 2006 interview, both the CIA and FBI "refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible" for the attack on the Cole until early 2001, which foreclosed the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration.
THE BUSH/GIULIANI COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGY -- INVADE IRAQ: When President Bush came into office, his administration was warned that no foe but al Qaeda posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." Yet in May 2001, Bush declared that "today's most urgent threat" was not terrorism but "ballistic missiles" in the hands of rogue states, specifically Iraq. In June 2001, Bush "outlined the five top defense issues" to NATO allies, and the "only reference to extremists was in Macedonia." Even as 9/11 occured, the focus remained on Iraq. On the day of the attacks, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told aides he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." -- meaning Saddam Hussein. One day later, Bush "testily" told Richard Clarke and other aides, "Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this." Within three months, Bush began drawing up plans for the Iraq invasion. This singular, ideological focus culminated in a policy that has consumed countless resources that could have been used to eliminate global terrorist networks and bolster homeland security. Yet to this day, Giuliani remains supportive of Bush's approach. He said recently that invading Iraq was "absolutely the right thing to do," and claimed the war would "help reduce the risk for this country."