http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52702-2001Oct12.html

I've heard the question "What was Clinton doing to stop Ben Laden? Well, a hell of a lot, you just weren't interested in hearing it, it didn't have anything to do with sex". He did his job even with all the crap he was getting.

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 13, 2001; Page A16

Two years ago, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order freezing $254 million in Taliban assets in the United States, more than twice the amount linked to terrorist groups and seized worldwide since the Sept. 11 attacks.

U.S. officials will not disclose where the $254 million came from, except to say that it was under the control of the Taliban. But the large sum, contrasted with the very small amount of trade between the United States and Afghanistan, has raised questions about the source of the money.

The $254 million seizure, described in a Treasury Department report on terrorist assets in January, has taken on new significance because of the Sept. 11 attacks, as some legislators and lawyers work to make it easier to compensate victims of terrorist attacks from frozen assets.

The State Department opposes that effort, and so far legal judgments have been paid in only a few cases from frozen assets of Iran and Cuba.

While Afghanistan has not been officially deemed a terrorist state, the Taliban money was frozen by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC) in 1999, after attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The order accused the Taliban of harboring Osama bin Laden and his organization.

U.S. Froze $254 Million In Taliban Cash in 1999, Why was the Bush administration giving them $43 million in 2001?

It seems that everything Clinton worked towards, the Bush administration went out of their way to undo.

Clinton was heavily involved in trying to ease tensions all over the globe, Bush gets in and states he doesn't want to get involved, and what happens?

Clinton worked hard towards preparing for and preventing terrorism, Bush gets in and ignores the 3 year report on terrorism. It is almost like the administration considers democrats, liberals and the Clinton administration as THE ENEMY, to hear some people talk, even some here, an American President and half of the citizens of this country are enemies because their beliefs don't fall in lock-step with the conservatives.

When Clinton fought back against the Ben Laden for their bombing of one of our embassies, the headlines screamed "wagging the dog"! Claiming he was trying to divert attention away from the Lewinsky situation. People sucked up the hype from the right-wing and ignored the facts. Could 911 have been avoided if Clinton had had the backing of the Congress and American public which were focused on trying to bring him down? Had he been allowed to do his job, maybe, just maybe a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 21, 2001

Answers

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/20/national/20DEMS.html? ex=1004241600&en=35f616184746becc&ei=5038&partner=ASAHI

October 20, 2001

THE DEMOCRATS

Bush Winning Gore Backers' High Praises

By RICHARD L. BERKE

ASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — As he leads the country in a war on terrorism, President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential campaign.

Many Democrats who once dismissed Mr. Bush as too naïve and too dependent on advisers to steer the United States through an international crisis are now praising his and his advisers' performance. Some are even privately expressing satisfaction that Mr. Gore, who tried to make his foreign affairs expertise an issue in the campaign, did not win.

Sounding relieved that Mr. Gore is not president, Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said: "I feel comfortable with President Bush. I never thought I would utter those words."

Mr. Moran continued: "Even though I'm a Democrat and think the Supreme Court selected our president, I don't think it's to our disadvantage to have George Bush as president. Sometimes you need a certain amount of braggadocio in your leaders."

Perhaps out of a desire to rally around Mr. Bush, not one of more than 15 prominent Gore loyalists interviewed said their candidate would have done a better job.

The bluntest assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power, and they questioned whether Mr. Gore would have surrounded himself with as experienced a foreign policy team as Mr. Bush did. Citing Mr. Gore's sometimes rambling speech in Des Moines on Sept. 29 in which he praised Mr. Bush, some Democrats also questioned whether the former vice president would have been as nimble at communicating to the public.

The Associated Press The House minority leader, Richard A. Gephardt, left, on Tuesday joined Representative James P. Moran in calling for passage of an aviation security bill. Later, Moran, a Virginia Democrat, expressed support for the way President Bush has led the war on terrorism.

One former senator who was a staunch Gore backer said he was relieved that Mr. Bush was president because he feared that the former vice president would think he had all the answers.

"He may know too much," the former senator said. "And he would have tried to micromanage everything."

A top appointee in the Clinton administration, criticizing the qualifications of those he expected to be Mr. Gore's foreign policy team, said he could not imagine Mr. Gore's foreign policy advisers "running a war against Afghanistan."

Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat who was one of Mr. Gore's most ardent supporters, said his candidate might have handled the crisis as well as Mr. Bush — but not necessarily any better.

"People were wondering if Bush was up to it," Mr. Dicks said. "I think he's answered that. The guy has really impressed people. One of the real strengths of this administration is that people do feel comfortable about Colin Powell and Dick Cheney in particular."

Of course, no one will ever know how the crisis would have unfolded in a Gore administration. But discussions about how Mr. Gore might have tackled the crisis have reverberated in the capital, perhaps because last year's election was so close.

In a statement today through an aide, Mr. Gore declined to join in the speculation.

"I have consistently declined either in public or private to say what I would have done or what I would do now during this war on terrorism," he said. "As I said in Iowa, George W. Bush is my commander in chief, he is president of the United States. And I refuse to second guess his decisions in this matter."

Several Gore loyalists said Mr. Gore would probably have also turned to seasoned professionals to staff his administration. Richard C. Holbrooke, the veteran diplomat, was frequently mentioned as a possible secretary of state. Leon Fuerth, Mr. Gore's longtime foreign policy adviser, might have served as White House national security adviser.

Still, many Democrats said they felt particularly reassured by Mr. Bush's team, particularly Vice President Cheney; Mr. Powell, the secretary of state; and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary.

The diminished confidence in Mr. Gore that some Democrats are expressing is a big change from last year's campaign, when Gore supporters argued that Mr. Gore should be elected because of his grasp of world affairs, if for no other reason. At a rally only days before the election, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mr. Gore's running mate, asserted, "When I think of a solitary figure standing in the Oval Office, weighing life and death decisions that can affect the security of our country and the stability of our world, I see Al Gore."

Now, not even Mr. Gore's closest aides would assert that their candidate would have done any better.

"The Bush administration has a number of people with tremendous experience in foreign policy and crises," said Carter Eskew, one of Mr. Gore's top political advisers. "They were able to add a sense of stability to the situation, and the president has led them well. Gore himself would have had that experience."

One foreign policy adviser to Mr. Gore said that Mr. Gore would have been more assertive earlier in engaging other nations. But, the adviser said, "I don't think our conduct at the tactical or strategic level would be that much different."

Whatever Mr. Gore's capabilities, others Democrats noted that members of their party were known to be more aggressive defenders of Israel than Republicans, which may have complicated diplomatic objectives in the region.

"Because of the politics of the Democratic Party," Mr. Moran said, "it may have been more difficult to work with Pakistan versus India and to have worked with some of the Arab nations against the wishes of Israel."

Not all Democrats were skeptical about Mr. Gore. Some noted that he was much more emphatic during the campaign than Mr. Bush about the need to deal with terrorists and for nation building. Others said Mr. Gore did not need to rely on as talented advisers because he was far more steeped in international affairs.

For better or worse, they added, he would probably have been more hawkish about military action than Mr. Bush, because he often pressed President Bill Clinton to be more aggressive, particularly in the Balkans.

"I don't think there would have been a lick of difference," said Rahm Emanuel, a senior adviser in the Clinton White House. "I remember the counsel the vice president provided to the president many times during military action."

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, said it was unfair to assume that Mr. Gore would not have done as well.

"I am very comforted by the way the president has handled all this," Mr. Daschle said. "He has more than risen to the occasion. He's impressed me a lot. Al Gore could have been every bit as capable of rising to an occasion like this."

-- BinnyWalksOKWithBill (BillTheLoser@Did.Nothing), October 21, 2001.

These are the same IDIOTS who thought it a terrific idea to shut down Congress over an Anthrax Scare(not that these people are even capable of thinking mind you). A move which has never been done in over 200 freaking years of countrys' existence.

I think it way past the time more Americans understand the Multi- Nationals have stacked YOUR GOVERNMENT with rubberstamp moronics for THEIR agenda, not the countrys.

-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 22, 2001.

Cherri,

Did you ever stop to think that since the planning for the 911 attack started during Clinton's term that maybe his half-assed attempt to take out Bin Laden with a few cruise missiles may have had something to do with the fact that Bin Laden hatched this slaughter?

Nah, cuz you're a left-wing loonie who cares only about feelings and whether your social security checks arrive on time.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 22, 2001.

Social Security? Shit, this welfare whore collects money from other gubmint agency’s besides SS. Oh, don’t forget flight pay. LMAOATFF.

-- Low (life@welfare.mooch), October 22, 2001.

Actually this is all Ronald Reagan's and George Bush the First's fault. By never attempting to address the issue of establishing a lasting peace in the Middle East by addressing the Israeli/Palestinian question. This was compounded by the half-ass intervention of George Bush the First in the Gulf War with Iraq.

If you are going to assign blame then you should do so to all parties that are responsible. No matter what you think one man or one administration is not solely responsible for todays sociopolitical climate. Where is all the outrage at the culpability of the Reagan and Bush the First administrations?

BTW low life, mind telling us who you are and where your money (and motivation) comes from?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 22, 2001.