Bill Clinton Defenseless?

That's the conclusion I got from this story. His defenselessness became apparent when Clinton supposedly went ballistic on the issue of capturing bin Laden. Here's what's being reported on his diatribe:

In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on "Fox News Sunday," the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted "right-wingers" for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.

"But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden's danger. "They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."

The September 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in January 2001. "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him," Clinton said.

Mr. Clinton, They had 8 months, you had 8 years to get him. This diatribe is Clinton showing that he's worried about being seen as ineffective in his efforts dealing with terrorists. He's justified in being worried because he was ineffective in dealing with terrorists. (Hint to the Clintons: Reality shapes perception more than spin.) Let me refer to a Steve Emerson article from Sept. 1996:

And what has the Clinton administration done to combat radical Islamic groups operating in the U.S.? Very little. In January 1995 Mr. Clinton issued an executive order to freeze the assets of 12 terrorist groups. Investigators found terrorist front groups operating in more than a dozen states, with assets worth tens of millions of dollars . But the Treasury Department has seized only $800,000 , from those with the most blatant links to terrorist activity: WISE; Musa Marzuk, the Hamas leader arrested last year by alert field agents at New York's JFK Airport; and Mohammad Salah, a Palestinian-American convicted by an Israeli court of receiving U.S. funds to attack Israelis. These funds were seized, according to one official, because "their existence had notoriously come to the government's attention and thus it was forced to seize the money. We didn't go out and look for it, that's for sure.It was shoved in our faces."

After reading Emerson's well-sourced accusations, are Clinton's statements about going all out to kill or capture bin Laden credible? After all, he didn't hardly lift a finger to seize assets verified as the terrorists' money here in the United States.

This begs another set of questions:

• How is it that Clinton signed an executive order to seize terrorist assets but Robert Rubin's Treasury Department doesn't seize them?
• Why didn't Clinton take Rubin to the proverbial woodshed for capturing a paltry $800,000 of terrorists' assets when there were "tens of millions of dollars" in those accounts?

Might it be because they were tight with terrorist groups? Here's a little information about that:

At the same time, the Clinton administration has established close ties with groups like the American Muslim Council, which has supported Hamas and other radical groups. Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Al-Amoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzuk, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdel-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing.

It isn't credible to say that you're doing everything to capture bin Laden while aligning yourself with known associates of Hamas and the SAAR Foundation. Here's what SAAR was about:

SAAR stands for Suleiman Abdel Aziz al-Rajhi, a Saudi banker and billionaire who largely funded the group beginning in the early 1980s. He is said to be close to the Saudi ruling family and is on the Golden Chain, a list of early al-Qaeda supporters.

You're likely asking why SAAR belongs in this picture. This explains that connection:

Alamoudi is a past employee of the SAAR Foundation, the hub of the raided "SAAR Network." According to the search warrant authorizing the raids, officials were looking for, among other items, "Any and all information referencing in any way PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad], Hamas, Al-Qaida,Usama Bin Laden, and any other individual or entity designated as a terrorist by the President of the United States, the United States Treasury, or the Secretary of State." No charges have yet been filed in relation to that raid.

Let's put the facts together that we've gathered thus far:

• Bill Clinton says that he "at least tried to capture bin Laden";
• Hillary Clinton "worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Al-Amoudi";
• Al-Amoudi was "a past employee of the SAAR Foundation" which was "largely funded" by Suleiman Abdel Aziz al-Rajhi, a man "on the Golden Chain, a list of early al-Qaeda supporters."

Here's the conclusion I draw based on these verified facts:

Bill Clinton tried capturing bin Laden by having Hillary work closely with a man who openly supported Hamas and who was employed by a man who was an early supporter of al-Qa'ida.

Let's face facts, folks. If that isn't the strangest way to capture a terrorist, then I don't know what is. That's the lamest Clinton story I've heard in ages. Frankly, it isn't credible; it's laughable.

---

Posted Saturday, September 23, 2006 6:24 PM

August 2006 Posts

No comments.