August 18, 2005: O'Reilly blames The Clenis for 9/11, wants him to address

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Dereliction of Duty?
Thursday, August 18, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly

Recently released classified documents paint a stark picture as to how Al Qaeda (search) was able to start the War on Terror. Let's walk through it. The group Judicial Watch (search) has been tracking Usama bin Laden and filed a Freedom of Information request for a State Department report that detailed bin Laden's activities. It took Judicial Watch four years, but this week they finally got the secret documents and they are devastating. Two memos written in July and August 1996 warned the Clinton administration that, "(bin Laden) can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost worldwide."

In the years following that top-secret analysis, bin Laden ordered the bombings of two U.S. embassies and the USS Cole (search). One month prior to the memo, Al Qaeda killed 19 American soldiers at the Khobar Towers (search) in Saudi Arabia. So Secretary of State Warren Christopher (search), and you would assume President Clinton, knew that Usama bin Laden was on the attack, yet the USA allowed him to operate in Afghanistan without sanction. Now we contacted Warren Christopher and he refused to comment. I believe Congress should compel the man to speak by issuing him a subpoena. At this point, it looks like Christopher was derelict in his duty. And he is a coward if he does not explain the situation. "The Factor" also contacted President Clinton's office here in New York City. So far, no reply. But again, Mr. Clinton has an obligation to the 9/11 families and every other American to address this.

On another front, it is now clear that Army intelligence had identified Mohamed Atta as a dangerous terrorist more than a year before Atta led the 9/11 attack. An Army group called Able Danger (search) got the information, but did not pass it along to the FBI and tell the bureau that Atta was actually inside the USA. Why? Because of a policy instituted by Attorney General Janet Reno (search) and her deputy Jamie Gorelick. The women erroneously believed that potential criminal activity could not be pinpointed by any U.S. military intelligence operation. That's insane. Now long-time "Factor" viewers will remember that I called Janet Reno the worst attorney general in history because the woman simply refused to aggressively pursue wrongdoing and was a political player, not a law enforcement officer in my opinion. As for Miss Gorelick, who also served on the 9/11 Commission, she obviously made an enormous mistake. If she had done the right thing, 9/11 could have been prevented.

All of this is relevant today because America is still struggling to define the war on terror. The Bush administration wants to be proactive. And that includes the Iraq action, but many are opposing aggressive anti-terror action for a variety of reasons. And some of them are legitimate. But the lesson here is this. The Clinton administration allowed Al Qaeda to grow in ferocity and did not confront an evil they knew existed. We simply cannot allow that to happen again in this country.

[blm]

1. 9-11 happened because Bush1 FOUGHT against the BCCI investigation

and stonewalled it for FIVE YEARS.

Clinton's culpable for 9-11 because he let Greenspan talk him out of allowing BCCI investigation revelations to be made public, or else face a threatened world economy.

Clinton let the Bushes and their cronies escape longterm jail sentences for TREASON.

Guess O'Reilly doesn't want to talk about that FACT.

[rfranklin]

2. Exactly wht did Bush do when told "bin Laden determined to...

attack the United States?"

Nothing, nada, zilch!

[Mr Rabble]

3. Not true. He went on vacation! That something.

MIHOP

[TheFarseer]

4. Still waiting for Bill to eat his crow on WMD's

AS HE PROMISED. until he does, "la la la, I'm not listening"

[stopbush]

5. Clinton strikes terrorist bases (1998)

God! The lies are so easy to disprove that you wonder why Oh, Really? bothers making them. This was posted just yesterday:


Clinton strikes terrorist bases

THE United States launched cruise missile strikes
in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday against centres
allegedly linked with the terrorist bombings of two
American embassies.

More here:
(http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html)

With about 75 missiles timed to explode
simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two
continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S.
military assault ever against a private sponsor of
terrorism.

... Clinton and his national security team linked
both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi
millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin
bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings
killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans.

... The president made no apologies for ordering
the strikes without permission from Afghanistan or the
Sudan, saying, "Countries that persistently host
terrorists have no right to be safe havens."
... Clinton presented several reasons for the
decision to act swiftly and forcefully, rather than to
punish bin Laden through the means of diplomacy and
law. Repeatedly he said bin Laden presented an
imminent threat, quoting his pledge this week to wage
a war in which Americans were "all targets."

[zbdent]

12. And the repukes said he was trying to distract the people from the

Lewinsky story . . .

[louis-t]

6. Here we go again with the

"Clinton was watching golf and couldn't be disturbed when the military had bin Laden in it's sights" story. Never mind that * had a "determined to strike in the US" memo and ignored it and went on vacation for a month, never mind that a chimp phony sat there waiting for someone to tell him what to do while being attacked, never mind that an insane, ill-bred coward still hugs, kisses and holds hands with the leader of the country most responsible for funding and training terrorists, never mind that the same ass-kissing psycho secretly escorted over a hundred Saudis out of the country while the rest of the country stood down......

[truebrit71]

Bill O'Really? is a fucking idiot.....

...this is just the latest attempt to spin 9/11 in the Crawford Coward's favour.

Mohamed Atta was a fully paid asset of Pakistan's ISI (their CIA). The number two guy in the ISI wired $100,000.00 to Atta not long before the attacks occurred. It turns out that the former head of the ISI (who just happened to be in Washington DC the week of 9/11, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?) authorized the transfer of $375,000 to Atta over several years, and yet 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault, and the Pakistani's are our valuable "ally" in the war on terror.... :eyes:

Oh, and Bill, go Falafel yourself you pompous, self-important douchebag....

[koopie57]

8. Bill Clinton must be shaking in his boots!!!!

O'Reilly is such a fool. Actually, wouldn't it be fun to see Clinton on oreilly. I bet oreilly would wet himself for sure.

[cloud9]

10. If Clinton was on oreilly

Oreilly would just unplug Clinton microphone within 5 minutes.
Clinton doesn’t play.

[Cell Whitman]

7. on the Cole....

In the years following that top-secret analysis, bin Laden ordered the bombings of two U.S. embassies and the USS Cole (search).

at this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2016708&mesg_id=2016708

You can find more of this kind of info....

this one from the WP...

At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda attack. But after concluding that bin Laden's group had carried out the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole – a conclusion stated without hedge in a Feb. 9 briefing for Vice President Cheney – the new administration did not choose to order armed forces into action.

[meegbear]

9. He did want to address it ...

he requested a public hearing for the 9/11 commission and they turned him down - must be private.

I wonder if they did that because dipshit wanted it that way ... with Cheney present ... and without being under oath.

There's something to ponder Bill.

[Jai4WKC08]

11. What a liar O'Reilly is

Because of a policy instituted by Attorney General Janet Reno (search) and her deputy Jamie Gorelick. The women erroneously believed that potential criminal activity could not be pinpointed by any U.S. military intelligence operation.

That's been US policy since at least the Ford administration. Instituted because of the abuses under Nixon. Based on Posse Comitatus, of course, which is much older.

[ncteechur]

13. O'Liely is a cocksucker!

[NuttyFluffers]

14. Can Bill Clinton's penis cause global warming and hurricanes, too?

I should start a survey among republicans whether their hatred of Clinton is just deep-seated envy. Maybe O'Reilly just feels impotent and humbled by the Clenis and thus it brings out such rage. More research is needed...
:freak:

[Emit]

15. It's a long read, but there's this post/thread that is a must read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2016708&mesg_id=2016708

to counter this O'Liely crap, as well as all of the other right wing propaganda whores that have been harping on this lately (esp. WorldNetdaily who were after Clinton big time, one might think their only purpose at conception was to deface Clinton, and they're back at it again).

It's the right wing propaganda (see: Tentacles of Rage @ http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm )machine at work with this Able Danger crap.

[LittleClarkie]

16. Judicial Watch can kiss my ass

Damn nut jobs. They're the ones who filed with the Navy about Kerry's medals.

They portray themselves as nonpartisan government watchdogs in ads I've heard on the radio, but I've never seen them go after a Republican

[fujiyama]

17. Actually they did file a request

to have Cheney's meetings with the energy industry made public.

That said, I still agree that Larry Klayman (or whatever his name is) and his organization are nutty. They've been after Clinton for years, right there with Scaife and the gang.

[LittleClarkie]

18. I stand corrected.

But it does sound like they've been out for Clinton.

God, my kingdom for that kind of scrutiny on Bush. Geez, he'd never withstand it.

[Emit]

19. Yes, they're funded by Scaife

Until 2001, Judicial Watch targeted the Clinton administration almost exclusively with its lawsuits. It was until mid-2001 that the group devoted more than token attention to suing non-Democrats, starting with a lawsuit over the secrecy surrounding Cheney's energy policy task force.

Judicial Watch has received a significant portion of its funding in the past from conservative organizations. From 1997 to 2000, Judicial Watch received nearly $3.7 million in funding from the Olin Foundation and two foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife (which have also been kind enough to send a chunk of change MRC's way).

Judicial Watch has also engaged in arguably partisan conservative activities. Among them: a press release that can only be interptreted as rooting for George W. Bush's victory in the 2000 presidental election despite a disclaimer at the end that "Judicial Watch is non-partisan and does not endorse or oppose any political candidate"; another one headlined, "Judicial Watch Congratulates George W. Bush On Presidential Election Victory"; and an ham-handed attempt at intimidation by declaring that it would "closely monitor the alleged 'shady' connections of Joe Conason and Gene Lyons," authors of the book "The Hunting of the President," for allegedly "planning a campaign to destroy conservatives on behalf of operatives of the Clinton-Gore White House." Judicial Watch has in the past provided a link on its web site to the conservative web site Free Republic. And Judicial Watch has also in the past exchanged mailing lists with the decidedly partisan National Republican Congressional Committee.

At least until early 2001, Judicial Watch's own press releases and leader Larry Klayman himself regularly referred to Judicial Watch as conservative. A Jan. 4, 2001, press release, for instance, refers to itself as a "nonpartisan conservative public interest law firm." On Jan. 25, 2001, it asked supporters for "immediate emergency support ... to help prevent conservatives ... from being destroyed by the smear campaign of ultra-leftist revolutionaries" during the confirmation process of President George W. Bush's Cabinet nominees. Klayman declared "we are conservative" in a Dec. 11, 2000, news release criticizing certain Bush administraiton Cabinet appointments as being too liberal. And in a Nov. 11, 2000, press release announcing its intent to involve itself in Florida election lawsuits, Judicial Watch proudly declares itself "a conservative organization" and further quotes Klayman describing Judicial Watch as "the leading public interest group in the area of government corruption" (the bracketed "conservative" is in the original release).

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/jwmrc.html

Funding
In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation and a further $400,000 from The Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000.

In all, between 1997 and 2002, Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations including. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations � the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations � the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. ]<http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php"recipientID=1122>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judicial_Watch