A decade ago, a different president wanted anti-terror legislation…

September 5, 2006

It’s amazing what Google will turn up when you start digging around. Aravosis, for example, found a terrific CNN report from July 1996 about then-President [tag]Clinton[/tag] facing stiff resistance from a [tag]Republican[/tag] [tag]Congress[/tag] on tough anti-[tag]terror[/tag] legislation. From the CNN piece:

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this [tag]terrorism[/tag] issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference…. “The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out — that they give us as much help as they can,” he said.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

The context of the debate included the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the explosion at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, and the crash of TWA Flight 800. In response, Clinton offered proposals to study chemical markers in explosives and to expand presidential wiretapping powers. Republicans, naturally, opposed the Clinton plan.

In a stark reminder of how Washington used to operate. Clinton, at the time, said lawmakers could move forward on parts of his counter-terrorism proposals that they approved of, and put the more controversial elements aside for additional debate. The key was getting something done, even if it meant one less issue Clinton could campaign on during his re-election bid.

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

“What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don’t let it overcome the areas of agreement,” he said.

Those were the days, when the president was more concerned about passing substantive legislation than scoring cheap political points. Ah, the memories….

Aravosis said that Clinton’s Republican rivals prevented the administration from “getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 – well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11.” That would depend, in part, on what actually transpired with lawmakers’ approach to the Clinton measures. The CNN report emphasized a White House push in advance of a congressional recess. What steps, if any, did Congress approve afterwards? If the GOP blocked any and all progress, Aravosis may be absolutely right. (If anyone knows/remembers how the debate played out in ’96, be sure to let me know.)

Regardless, it’s an important reminder that we had a president, long before [tag]9/11[/tag], who took the [tag]terrorist[/tag] threat seriously and implored Congress to act. In light of a certain slanted “docudrama” that’s scheduled to air next week, it’s a point that can’t be emphasized enough.

Remembering this is soooo pre-9/11.

  • Ah, those halcyon days of yore, when we were blessed with a president who could receive under-the-desk blowjobs AND do NY Times crossword puzzles AND juggle a dozen political contests brilliantly (except for “don’t ask, don’t tell”) AND think of national security issues at the same time.

  • As far as this piece of proproganda (aka – docudrama) goes, we should all be writing down the names of the corporation that advertise on and pay for this crap. With names in hand we will then kick these corporate bastards in the bottom line.

    With its declining sales and marketshare, the last thing that a stockholder of Ford Motor Co. would want to see is an exposure to negative public opinion. We will see how stupid Ford or other corporations are this coming weekend.

  • we should all be writing down the names of the corporation that advertise on and pay for this crap. With names in hand we will then kick these corporate bastards in the bottom line.

    Great idea. I admit that I don’t have the stomach to watch the garbage, but if someone does post a list of advertisers/sponsors, I’ll definately not give any of my personal or professional business to them.

  • “Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants”

    Yes, I remember that one. The taggants would make the explosives more unstable and more terrorists would kill themselves accidentally. No, sorry, that would be more explosives experts would have to be more careful then they are now handling explosives.

    “Ah, those halcyon days of yore, when we were blessed with a president who could receive under-the-desk blowjobs AND do NY Times crossword puzzles AND juggle a dozen political contests brilliantly (except for “don’t ask, don’t tell”) AND think of national security issues at the same time.” – Ed Stephan

    Now Ed, how do you not know that Clinton was able multi-task because he was getting stimulated with a blowjob? 😉

    This article is a nice counter to the Republican’t lies about Clinton. Run the text of DeLay saying the attacks on Afghanistan after the Embassy bombing were just wagging the dog to distract from Monica. Then add that the Clintonistas gave responsibility for revenging the Cole to the Bushites specifically because DeLay said we had no evidence of responsiblity at the time of the cruise missile attacks in 1998, so the Clintonistas decided that the Bushites could act after they had solid proof of the guilt for the Cole. Of course, they didn’t, did they?

  • I’ve just been reading on an FDL thread that The Scholastic Corporation has put out a teaching guide for grades 9 through 12 on the upcoming ABC slander of Clinton. Does anyone know if there is a basis to this story? If so, I don’t think we can just let e-mails to ABC suffice. I would like to write the FCC or particular congressmen and senators who deal with this matter of politicizing mainstream television. ABC is not a cable channel, and I don’t see how they can do anything they want without government regulation. Please, anyone who can supply links. I would really be thankful.

  • Yeah, Clinton’s ideas were so “pre-9/11 thinking.” I’m floored by the fact that no function of government is beyond the Republicans playing politics with it and that we, the people, are left holding the bag, and the bodybags, for their little games.

  • the only problem with the list of advertisers is that ABC is running the film without interuption cause its so darned important to get the truth out. Of course, that should mean that all the advertisers will be advertising up front and people won’t have to subject themselves to ABC’s dredge.

    Hopefully everyone here has noted that Think Progress has a handy dandy write a letter to ABC form at http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc . TP also has some comments from Richard Clarke on the veracity of the film. Worth a look at http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/

  • My favorite example is the one from 1998, where he actually bombed Afghanistan, targetting the Al-Qaeda camps, and the Republif*&ks claimed that it was a ‘political move’ designed to draw attention away from Monica Lewinsky!

    • Comments are closed.