...to learn that Bill Clinton lied to us again. Over a matter of national security.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here's the full story:

The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)

No, they rarely do.

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden.

Far be it from me to defend Slick Willy, but authorization to use lethal force to capture is also authorization to use lethal force to kill. I would say this wasn't a lie in his case, but I will believe that he is trying to paint a broader picture than what's really there.

yeah, what Mac said. Lethal force is lethal force. Sounds like license to kill, to me...

The phrase "use lethal force to capture" seems to me to refer to being authorized to kill "others" during the course of an attempt to effect the capture of OBL, but it does not directly authorize the killing of OBL himself.

Sounds like typical Clinton double talk to me.

Cecil,
I agree with you. Clinton was so hot and heavy to catch Bin Laden that when the Sudanese officials offered him up, Clinton passed on it. Hmm?

It's pretty easy for to tell when the Clintons are lying, their lips are moving.

Actually, in all seriousness, Clinton raises his eyebrows when he lies. Its an almost dead giveaway. In this case though, given a certain famous past performance, I think the wagging finger should have been a clue.

Steve,

For what it's worth, the 9/11 Commission found no reliable evidence for the Sudanese claims that they would "offer him up." They were apparently willing to extradite him to Saudi Arabia, on the condition that UBL be pardoned. Should the US have accepted that offer? The US couldn't take him, because there was no indictment against him. Bringing him here would have afforded him Constitutional protection (at the time).

How is it that Democrats keep selecting such unethical people as their presidential nominees?

I mean, it is one thing to tell falsehoods to protect national security. It is entirely something else when the falsehoods are CYA exercises.

I speculate that the answer to my question has to do with party insiders desires' for a weak President / strong legislature power structure, or a weak President / strong bureaucracy power structure, or maybe even weak President / strong NGO power structure.

The problem with that approach (if it exists) is that the rest of us get scre*ed by such Chief Executives.

** Yes, I know this post begs the question of "what is ethics / ethical behavior".

"How is it that Democrats keep selecting such unethical people as their presidential nominees? "

Because the ends justify the means.

Perhaps the most pertinent statement in the article regarding authorization to kill OBL is this:

“There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.”

Perhaps the CIA lawyers were over cautious given the Agency's history. Perhaps they were just idiots. The end result was that no one seriously tried to kill OBL during the Clinton years despite what he may claim. Given his "nuanced" speech patterns, Clinton may actually believe he gave the CIA permission to kill OBL. On matters like this, straight talk is always better than "nuance."

"Given his "nuanced" speech patterns, Clinton may actually believe he gave the CIA permission to kill OBL."

I think you're right there Larry, but such things I have never been able to understand. I've heard of such occurrences happening through history, the President ordering such and such out come in some issue and his order being misinterpreted.

If I were President and I really wanted OBL dead, I would direct my DCI to KILL him; kill him DEAD. D E A D Dead, no ambiguity. And I would follow up on the issue and make sure he knows that I want OBL dead soon.

And I believe that if WJ Clinton really wanted OBL dead, he would have done the same.

he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden.

To continue on Mac's theme, in Clinton's mind, this probably is permission to kill Bin Laden. By that, I mean it say's lethal force, and if the news of his death spun well in the world media, Clinton would say he authorized lethal force. If the news of his death caused problems, he can say he authorized the capture of Bin Laden. The memo was just covering his ass, he really wanted Bin Laden dead and wanted the CIA to do it without making a scene.

The memo was just covering his ass, he really wanted Bin Laden dead and wanted the CIA to do it without making a scene.

More likely, he wanted plausable denialability should OBL have ended up dead. The CIA lawyers were perhaps over cautious like some JAG lawyers early in the war who were too timid to authorize an attack.

To continue on Mac's theme, in Clinton's mind, this probably is permission to kill Bin Laden.

I'm not sure if it wasn't worded that way on purpose, just to allow a way out if neccessary. Considering the restrictions on the CIA and FBI cooperation and communication that came to light with 9/11, its always possible that the ex-prez was setting himself up a bolt hole. Some of the lies he told were off the cuff easy to spot. However, there were a few that were very well done too.