Bill O'Reilly Blames Clinton For Terrorist Attacks

9-17-01, A few days ago O'Reilly said that President Clinton was to blame for the terrorist attack and that he should have taken out Bin Laden, What he failed to mention was that President Ford signed an order prohibiting foreign assassinations 25 years ago and that Mr. Clinton had tried numerous times to get Bin Laden. Because of the order prohibiting foreign assassinations Mr. Clinton could not directly assassinate Bin Laden.

The facts show that even despite that order Mr. Clinton tried to kill him at least 2 times (One time with cruise missles and one time with afghan citizens hired by the CIA) and was going to try a 3rd time if he could have found out where he was before he left office. What did Bush do about terrorism ? Nothing ! All Bush cared about was the tax cut and his right-wing agenda.

Hey O'Reilly Guess What, Bill Clinton took numerous actions to fight terrorism including the Hart/Rudman commission and trying to find, arrest or even kill Osama Bin Laden if needed. Next time before you blame Mr. Clinton for something at least have the facts. You would think a journalist of your so-called credentials could have researched these stories before trying to blame everything on Mr. Clinton and his administration. If anyone is to blame it's the media and President Bush for ignoring the Hart/Rudman Terrorism Report issued on 1-31-01 after 2.5 years of study. Bush and the media did nothing, at least President Clinton tried to do something.

Here is what I found in just 2 days:

Bill Clinton increased the FBI's counterterrorism budget by almost 400 percent after World Trade Center bombing, from $78.5 million in 1993 to $301.2 million in 1999.

Additionally the number of FBI agents devoted full-time to counterterrorism increased, from 550 in 1993 to 1,383 in 1999.


Clinton Targeted bin Laden for Apprehension or Assassination

WASHINGTON (AP) 9-14-01 - President Clinton signed a secret directive in 1998 authorizing U.S. efforts to capture or disrupt Osama bin Laden and his terrorism network, and several unsuccessful attempts were made, a person familiar with the effort said Sunday.

Non-Americans in Afghanistan, promised a bounty if they succeeded, had an ``active, constant and unsuccessful effort to capture bin Laden or take him out,'' the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``There were several attempts.''

CBS News reported Sunday night that in one such attempt, non-Americans hired by the CIA launched rocket-propelled grenades at a bin Laden convoy but hit the wrong vehicle.

A second source, a government official also speaking on condition of anonymity, would say only that the U.S. government was informed of a failed attempt on bin Laden last year.

It was reported last week (9-12-01) that during Clinton's final days in office (January of 2001), senior officials weighed a military strike against Bin Laden after receiving intelligence on his whereabouts. The plan was rejected over concerns the information was stale and could result in a miss or civilian casualties.

The information spurred high-level discussion inside the White House in December 2000.

``There were a couple of points, including in December, where there was intelligence indicative of bin Laden's whereabouts,'' former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told The Associated Press. ``But I can categorically tell you that at no point was it ripe enough to act.''


In 1998 a bipartisan 14-member panel was put together by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., to make sweeping strategic recommendations on how the United States could ensure its security in the 21st century.

In its 1-31-01 report, (Bush Became President on 1-20-01) the reports findings were not released until 1-31-01 after Mr. Clinton left office. The report complied over 2 years by seven Democrats and seven Republicans unanimously approved 50 recommendations. Many of them addressed the point that, in the words of the commission's executive summary, "the combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack."

"A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century," according to the report.

What did George W. Bush and his administration say, Lets study it more. That is their answer to everything, if it involves even one dime of an extra cost to a business they want to study it more. As an example; The Bush administration killed the worker safety ergonomics bill after 10 years of study, they said "Lets throw out a 10 year study and study it more" they also threw out the new Clinton/Gore arsenic in water standards of 10 parts per billion when the rest of the world is already at 10 parts per billion saying lets leave it at 50 parts per billion and study it more.

On Wednesday 9-12-01, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with frustration and regret about how the Bush Administration failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

What does a campaign manager know about terrorism ?

The Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically recommended that the issue of terrorism was such a threat it needed far more than FEMA's attention.

Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. "Frankly, the White House shut it down," Hart says. "The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day."

"We predicted it," Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999."

In March, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, introduced the National Homeland Security Agency Act. Other members of Congress -- Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., John Kyl, R-Ariz., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- talked about the issue, and these three and others began drafting legislation to enact some of the recommendations into law.

But in May, Bush announced his plan almost as if the Hart-Rudman Commission never existed, as if it hadn't spent millions of dollars, "consulting with experts, visiting 25 countries worldwide, really deliberating long and hard," as Hart describes it. Bush said in a statement that "numerous federal departments and agencies have programs to deal with the consequences of a potential use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon in the United States. But to maximize their effectiveness, these efforts need to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive." That, according to the president, should be done through FEMA, headed by Allbaugh, formerly Bush's gubernatorial chief of staff.

O'Reilly should also blame himself and the media for not reporting on the Hart/Rudman terrorism report. Personally I never even knew about it because the media never reported it.

In addition to the Bush administration, Hart has another group that he wishes had paid the commission's suggestions more heed. "The national media didn't pay attention," Hart says. One senior reporter from a well-known publication told one of Hart's fellow commissioners, "This isn't important, none of this is ever going to happen," Hart says. "That's a direct quote."

Hart points out that while the New York Times mentioned the commission in a Wednesday story with the sub-headline "Years of Unheeded Alarms," that story was the first serious mention the Times itself had ever given the commission. The Times did not cover the commission's report in January, nor did it cover Hart's testimony in April, he points out. "We're in an age where we don't want to deal with serious issues, we want to deal with little boys pitching baseballs who might be 14 instead of 12."