Having had to work late last night I found it quite funny to wake up and see this video all over the web: Now that is some funny stuff. Kinda reminds me of: When he said “they had 8 months…

However, there appears to be no contemporaneous statements from Clinton or members of his national security team to back up Clinton’s contention. In fact, public statements at the time suggest that they believed Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was the biggest threat.

On January 8, 2001, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the following while paying a farewell visit to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan:

“The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration January 20.”

Albright made no mention of al Qaeda during that visit.
LINK

On January 9, Albright held a press conference concerning Mideast peace in which a reporter stated that “Iraq was the centerpiece of your foreign policy.” Albright did not take issue with that contention. Instead, she responded, “First of all, I am really sorry that we had the issue of Saddam Hussein on our plate when we arrived, and I am equally sorry to say that we are passing it on.”

Albright’s press conference on Mideast peace included no statements about al Qaeda.
LINK

To hear Team Clinton talk today, the issue of Saddam Hussein was off their plate by January 2001.

On January 11 UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke held a farewell press conference. The press release from the State Department after the press conference had this headline: “Holbrooke: Iraq Will Be a Major UN Issue for Bush Administration.” Holbrooke said the following about Iraq:

“Saddam Hussein’s activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world, not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime.

“His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times.”

Holbrooke also discussed Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Angola, Burundi, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the Congo. However, he made no comments regarding terrorism and al Qaeda.
LINK

As far as I can tell, the only member of Clinton’s national security team who made any public statements about the USS Cole during the transition period was Secretary of Defense William Cohen. That was on January 9 after Cohen met with Donald Rumsfeld. In addition to the USS Cole, that press conference covered “countries who are developing weapons of mass destruction” North Korea, and national missile defense (NMD).
LINK

Cohen had also appeared at a Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2000 in which he addressed NMD. He made the following statement:

“Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you the US National Missile Defense (NMD) program. I cannot think of a more important issue to address than protecting the American people from the threat posed by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq who are seeking to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them.”

Further:

“From my perspective, the utility of considering active defenses against missiles from states like North Korea, Iran and Iraq does not depend on a judgment that their leaders are utterly indifferent to the prospect of retaliation. Rather it is based on a recognition that leaders of these isolated states might be prepared to use WMD attacks–and risk retaliation–in circumstances where more traditional, or at least more cautious, leaders would not.”

LINK

There was nothing in Cohen’s January 9 press conference to suggest that al Qaeda had supplanted “the threat posed by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq” as the most important issue to address.

If Clinton truly believed al Qaeda was by far the biggest threat facing the U.S. in January 2001, why did their public statements place a much greater emphasis on Iraq?

So, in other words, you’ll take our millions of dollars in aid, but won’t help us a bit when we need it, right?

-When you see people reject all responsibility, and refuse to apologize to those that have really suffered, all the families and people hurt deeply by loss over the years, and principly at the WTC, people who would rather protect legacies and play partisan politics, you see real fascism in action.

- I reject your base premise that there’s anything like equivalency on both sides of the issues. The Left has fully embraced “the ends justifies the means” troupe, throwing any pretense of character, morality, or values and principles, overboard for want of political power. They are bereft of idea’s, and take a simple minded position that “We’re not bush”. No platform, no idea’s, antipithetic to almost every value of mainstream America, and yet they expect to win elections. It’s like watching a slow motion trainwreck.

- We’re not France. Get it?

- Bang

You will also note I did not say you were a totalitarian state, growing was the term I used. The Jews were aloud to walk around Germany in the beginning of the Nazi state. The neocons have to complete the capture of all power bases before they are able to start attacking their opponents physically. They cannot even torture foreign suspects, they still have a way to go.

Yup, sounds like a totalitarian state to me!

Sounds like Mahkss is a tad jealous of American success to me. Try improving your own country rather than wanting the US to fail. You’d be amazed at how well it works.

The Second American Civil War. If you were fighting yourselves, the rest of us may be left in peace. It would be an interesting conflict with all the money made though military expenditure, “re-building” Iraq and oil profits going to finance rabid rightwing fanatics, the blinded religious contingent and the brainwashed ignorant. The righteous left would have the intellectuals leading the vast masses of under privileged, immigrant and leftwing workers. Who will win? Who cares? As long as the empire is brought low and the rest of us are relieved of your arrogant blood sucking influence.

Hilary may not need Bill, but it’s obvious that Bill needs Hilary to keep him out of trouble.

- Bang