Rudy Giuliani Blames Bill Clinton Not Bush for Letting Bin Laden Go

Rudy Giuliani was on Meet The Press today engaging in a bit of GOP revisionist history, as he claimed that it is Bill Clinton’s fault that Bin Laden is still free, “The reality is, in the period of time when we weren’t paying as much attention to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, they were attacking us almost every other year. I’m talking about in the, in the ’90s.”

Here is the video:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

David Gregory asked Giuliani to respond to Ted Koppel’s recent New York Times piece which argued that Bin Laden goaded the United States into an excessive response. Giuliani answered by blaming Bill Clinton, “Well, it’s, it’s–there’s a bit of a, of a policy problem for the United States here that if, you know, if you do, you’re damned and if you don’t, you’re damned. The reality is, in the period of time when we weren’t paying as much attention to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, they were attacking us almost every other year. I’m talking about in the, in the ’90s, culminating in the attack of the USS Cole, in which we didn’t respond because we weren’t clear enough about who the, who the enemy were.”

He continued, “Since we’ve had those kind of change in policy, call, call it going on offense against Islamic terrorism, which Bush began and which, in the case of Afghanistan, the Obama administration, and I support them in this, are, are continuing, at home, at least, we’ve been able to avoid a repetition of the September 11 attack, which I have to tell you, nine years ago today, which would have been the day after September 11, when I was still mayor, I was being briefed we were going to be attacked numerous times. So I can’t tell you all the reasons that we haven’t been attacked in the way in which everyone predicted, but I think part of it is that big response that Ted is, is talking about. That’s keeping them on defense. And I wouldn’t, wouldn’t pull that away without analyzing it very closely because, in my view, the more you have Islamic extremism on defense, the safer we are. The more you give them room to plan, maneuver, and work out a tax, the more dangerous we are.”

Giuliani claims that al-Qaeda was attacking the United States every other year in the 1990s, but this is simply not true. There were three al-Qaeda attacks during the Clinton years, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The bombing of two US embassies in Africa in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole attack in 2000. Sorry Rudy, but 1993, 1998, and 2000 does not equal every other year. Placing blame on Clinton is neat revisionist trick that Republicans have come up with to deflect attention away from the fact that George W. Bush gave up very quickly on catching Bin Laden.

Six months after 9/11 Bush admitted that he wasn’t concerned about Bin Laden:

Here is Giuliani’s talking point about being on the offense, and Bush shifting the attention from Bin Laden to Iraq in 2006:

The next time you hear a Republican whine about how Obama is blaming Bush for the economy, you might want to politely remind them that their own party is nonsensically blaming Bill Clinton for not capturing Bin Laden. It was not Bill Clinton who swore that Bin Laden would be captured after 9/11. Nor was it Clinton who quickly lost interest in Bin Laden and started a war in Iraq. Osama Bin Laden is still free to keep plotting terrorist attacks because George W. Bush and the Republican Party gifted him his freedom.

Republicans like to pretend that they are tough on terrorism and national security, but I am sure that you all are familiar with the old saying, when the going gets tough; the Republicans quit, and start a preemptive war in Iraq. Blaming Bill Clinton for Bin Laden is a lot like blaming Woodrow Wilson for Adolph Hitler. It doesn’t pass the smell test. Leave it to 9/11’s Punxsutawney Phil, Rudy Giuliani to pull some four year old talking points out of mothballs to try to keep the myth of Republican strength on national security alive. September 11th is over now Rudy, you can go back into your hole, and please take your moldy talking points with you. No matter how they try to spin it, the responsibility for Bin Laden falls squarely on the shoulders of the GOP.

25 Replies to “Rudy Giuliani Blames Bill Clinton Not Bush for Letting Bin Laden Go”

  1. Giuliani knows as does any thinking person with more than a sponge for a brain that it doesnt matter how much you attack them, it wont stop anyone from coming here. If we had attacked OBL 4 weeks before 9/11 it wouldnt have stopped it, nor would you have caught any of the 9/11 attackers in Afghanistan.

    Anyone who thinks attacking them over there so we don’t have to fight them here is adled. Anyone who wants to continue those wars has a totally different agenda than that of the people.

    I once had a list of people I thought were smart people. And even though some were republicans it didnt matter. Giuliani was on that list, along with Gingrich, Lou Dobbs and others. Today they are on my list of people with less than one molecule of brain sponge and dysfunctional synapse.

  2. They are also morally bankrupt, along with being intellectually and factually challenged. For those reasons, they are dangerous to the welfare of this country. It’s utterly sickening that people like these like to pretend that they are patriots, when their appeals to hate, fear, and ignorance are capable of destroying the country from within. With “patriotic friends” like these, who needs enemies?

  3. shiva… 1st and foremost you can’t hold a candle to any of the mentioned republicans. Each 1 is more successful than you could every think about becoming, so don’t try and do your liberal bashing on them.
    And if the liberals had their way after Sept 11th then we would have just bowed down to OBL. Where or how many attacks would have taken place if the Dems had their choice?
    as far as blaming Clinton… this is no comparison as having Obama blame Bush.
    Jason show me one instance where George W Bush ever blamed Clinton.
    this is typical of dems trying to compare apples to grapes….its ok only for dems to that, I guess
    Want to talk about morally bankrupt intellectually and factually challenged… what class would you put Dodd, Stupak, Rangle, Reid, Pelosi in….let me guess the Best People in the World

  4. I know a person like you. All she does is run away from subjects and points at someone else. but but but but ………………………………..

    I see you are taking Denial and Talking points 101

  5. BTW Jaime

    “Dodd, Stupak, Rangle, Reid, Pelosi ” are all successful. Being as you rate success on the amount of money a person has and not their abilitites, you must admit along with me that the above people are successful. Say it along with me Jaime, “successful”

    See you out on the ethernet jaime.

  6. Do you mean turn the other cheek, as Jesus would have done, the true way to God is not through violence but PEACE. Much like your GnOP zeros you know nothing!

  7. shiva…good reading, unlike you I never said anyone wasn’t successfull. Try re reading 1 more time. BTW who said anything about how much money one has makes them successful…just like a typical liberal trying to put words in someone’s mouth. Nice try

  8. While we are quite aware that you hate liberals and Democrats, some of whom are morally bankrupt, the subject here is Rudy Giuliani and his deliberate lying about letting Bin Laden go. His lie is notable not only for its brazenness, but also because it is a lie that is easily discredited with only the most minimal research. However, anyone with a clear memory remembers who was the president on 09-11-01. Therefore, anyone who tells such a foolish lie is unquestionably fact-challenged and morally bankrupt. Bringing up Democrats for any reason indicates an inability to come up with a defensible reason for Giuliani’s deception.

  9. so anne what you are saying is that who ever is president during a time of crisis is responsible? is that what I am hearing? how convienent for you to say that
    the Liberal motto should be PASS THE BLAME….ITS NEVER OUR FAULT

  10. I’m quite sure you blame Obama for what is going on now, although he was not in office when the economic crisis started. On August 6, 2001, GW got specific information warning that what actually did happen 5 weeks later on September 11, 2001, was imminent. The Bush administration failed to act on this info that was provided by the CIA, with predictable results. It is well-documented that the Bush and Bin Laden families are close, and Bush made it his business to get the members of Bin Laden’s family who were here out of the United States. So, since Clinton was no longer president, it was on Bush’s watch. Whatever Clinton did, or failed to do while he was president, Bush was president at that time. This is not a question of being either liberal or conservative, but about the truth of the matter–which puts GW in an unfavorable light.

  11. It’s typical of you to deflect when you have no defensible or remotely reasonable way to deny the existence of facts that don’t suit you. No one, including President Obama, is perfect or is free of blame or responsibility for something. However, the subject that you are so intent on avoiding is that of Rudy Giuliani’s deliberate lying in order to revise history in GW’s favor.
    The problem is that Giuliani knows better, but he is perfectly willing to deceive gullible people who either don’t read or , or self-deluding people who see what they want to see. It’s obvious that this fact is unpalatable to you, but there is absolutely nothing you can do or say to refute it. All you can do is insult “libs,” which does nothing to advance any argument you make.

  12. So are you suggesting that it’s Obama s fault that bush ignored intelligence or that its Obama s fault that bush cowered all day in his plane? Which failure of bush’s are you blaming on Obama?

  13. If Giuliani is successful, then you must admit that Dodd, Stupak, Rangle, Reid, Pelosi are successful as well. Lets face it, you are caught in your own trap. You can keep running now. And being as you cannot define successful, any definition I use is fine.

  14. If Giuliani is successful, then you must admit that Dodd, Stupak, Rangle, Reid, Pelosi are successful as well. Lets face it, you are caught in your own trap. You can keep running now. And being as you cannot define successful, any definition I use is fine.

    Oh. BTW, was Bush responsible for anything in your view? Nope? TY

  15. So typical of the Rethug’s “down the memory hole” revisionist history…now all that’s left is to get it into a Texas history book and fiction becomes fact for a whole new generation of kids. Enjoyed your post – added you to my blogroll – P2Blogs, best in the business!

  16. …Bush was trying to reign in Fannie/Freddie in 2005 -stating that the bubble could not sustain itself, yet there is tape of Barney Frank stating that there really was NO Housing Bubble; that Repubs were just trying to deny loans to the underpriveleged. That moron Franklin Raines took over $90M in salary from Fannie over his years there – to basically run it into the ground. Yes, Moody’s and S&P sold their integrity for market share, and Wall St idiots followed the Congressional idiots right into the sewer. But Bush did try on some of this.

  17. I never heard that every time a republican talked on TV like Obama does That’s all that he talks about. He should take a tip from Harry Truman ” The Buck Stops Here “

  18. If that’s so, then Guiliani and his ilk should keep in mind that 9-11 happened on GW’s watch. He, and not Obama, is trying to push yet another false narrative–this time against Clinton. It’s on top of the even more egregious lie that there were no terrorist attacks during GW’s administration but during Obama’s. Talk about not assigning proper responsibility!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.