digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Rice Falsely Claims Clinton Did Not Leave A "Strategy To Fight al-Qaeda"

thinkprogress.org — The 9/11 Commission Report proves it (pg. 197): "As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] incorporated the CIA ’s new ideas...and posed several near-term policy options. Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to 'roll back' al Qaeda over a period of three to five years."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Alcorsu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+86"Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told Condoleezza Rice that al Qaeda terrorism would be the single most important problem the Bush administration would deal with while in office, and handed her a huge file on the matter. Rice has admitted that she did not read that file until after the attacks of September 11 had taken place."

    Oh... THAT strategy to fight al Qaeda. The one she didn't even bother to pick up until after 9/11.

    The title is a little deceptive... Like usual, Condi is making it sound like she's saying one thing when she's really saying the opposite. She said Clinton did not leave a "comprehensive" strategy, not that he didn't leave *any* strategy. How does she define "comprehensive"? Does it have to have al Qaeda's full membership roster before it's "comprehensive"? Based on what I've read it sounds very comprehensive.

    The most important thing is that Condi didn't bother to read it until after 9/11, so it doesn't matter if it had Ayman al Zawahiri's mother's maiden name or Osama's shoe size or not. She didn't care and she didn't read it, and then she didn't act after the August PDB saying bin Laden was determined to strike in the USA. Antiterrorism was downgraded by the incoming Bush Administration, and she's largely to blame.
    • 23r17i05o42n, on 10/12/2007, -77/+8I'd take her word over a known liar and adulterer.
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -17/+61there r plenty of liars on both sides here, big difference is one lied about a bj and noone got hurt. another lied about why we should go to war and thousands die. some priorities you have.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+43This administration has already proven that they won't take blame for anything regarding 9/11 or the mess they've gotten us into with Iraq. The only thing we responsible americans can do is talk to our represenatives in congress about our disapproval of this and hope that changes in the government this election lead to people who will stand up to the constant lies this administration keeps shoveling out because they think that we can't see the facts that outweigh their deception.

      ***** bush, ***** condi, ***** chaney, and ***** their supporters.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -34/+3"***** condi"

      She's already taken every other guy's ***** in the house. I'd much rather do it with a virgin than with flappy bacon strips. The fact that her morals are as loose as she is should be enough to discourage anyone, but the added physical shallowness just deepens the hole.
    • PepeGSay, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12If you honestly think the Bush administration, which was in office for 9 months, should take any *blame* for 9/11 you are an idiot. It is clear that if anything *could* have been done about 9/11 from a strategic perspective, which is the level at which a president operates, it would have had to have been done before Bush's term. Parse my words and your own carefully, it all has meaning.

      The Iraq war they have responsibility for, but trying to put 9/11 on them too is absolutely retarded. They simply were not in office long enough to have the strategic effect on our approach to terror, and on top of that the previous administration which had *5* terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and U.S. properties did not appropriately sound the call which would have politically enabled a president *in his first 9 months* to start making the correct policy changes to have that strategic effect.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Pepe:

      >The Iraq war they have responsibility for, but trying to put 9/11 on them too is absolutely retarded. They simply were not in office long enough to have the strategic effect on our approach to terror

      Oh, of course. Eight months isn't long enough to put the airports on alert when you get a PDB about an attack.

      You need at least, what, 15, maybe 20 months to get around to making that phone call.
    • PepeGSay, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7lol, are you drooling on yourself? The PDB is irrelevant here. No one puts airports on alert because of a one page memo that states something that everyone already knows and without actionable info. If they had put them on alert... what would they ahve told them? To look for the same guys YOU ALREADY look for? The PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America" only has political value for you idiots who actually think a title like that on a document actually has value.
    • nicstevens42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Hmm... as National Security Advisor that would be dereliction of duty. Isn't that a prison-able offense?
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Pepe:

      >lol, are you drooling on yourself? The PDB is irrelevant here. No one puts airports on alert because of a one page memo that states something that everyone already knows and without actionable info.

      No actionable info? It said that planes were likely to be used

      >If they had put them on alert... what would they ahve told them?

      The same thing that the Clinton administration told them in 1998. More thorough checks, more security, more searches, more questions. You know, obvious stuff that even the most stupid and incompetent administration would perform.

      >To look for the same guys YOU ALREADY look for? The PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America" only has political value for you idiots who actually think a title like that on a document actually has value.

      How about this document, from January, saying that a meeting about Al Qaeda was URGENTLY required? No value as well? I guess URGENT means eight months and nothing:

      http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
    • SirCharge, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"there r plenty of liars on both sides here, big difference is one lied about a bj and no one got hurt."

      That's the only lie you can remember out of Clinton's entire presidency? How old were you when he was in office? He couldn't even tell the truth about what 'is' meant.

      They had a plan to "roll back" al Qaeda? Sounds like ***** to me. What they had was a plan that Clinton never really pursued while he was in office because it wouldn't have harmed al Qaeda in any way. The comprehensive plan should have involved cruise missiles aimed at the known al Qaeda training camp.

      Course, this is all in hindsight. I don't blame Clinton for 9/11, I'm just tired of attempts by Clinton supporters to whitewash history. The fact is that the Clinton administration had its chance to take out Bin Laden and they failed.
    • KenLin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I'd take her word over a known liar and adulterer."

      Well, that lying adulterer did not send 3,000 of our troops to their deaths with another 10,000 injured (Source: Department of Defense http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/). The current lying imbecile spent half a trillion dollar doing so while not making us any safer (Source: April NIE, all over the news)

      Tell me: why do you and the neoconservatives hate America, our freedom and our soldiers so much you are willing to spend money to send them to their deaths?
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"That's the only lie you can remember out of Clinton's entire presidency?"

      And yet you didn't happen to mention any more lies. What happened, did you forget what you were doing in the middle of composing your post?
    • designer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Clinton left behind a Power Point presentation. I'm not sure if that counts as a plan.
    • SirCharge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know this post is dead, but here's just a few of the Clintonian lies: He lied about Whitewater, his personal drug history, pre-election lies, mishandling of FBI files, the suicide of a colleague and so on. There's a whole lot more, but I don't know why I'm even posting here.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44All I can say is:

    BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

    RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. Now, the ...

    BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

    RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

    BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

    RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

    BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

    RICE: Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

    BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10well, he did actually ask her if it warned of an attack...
    • Macfreq, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Actually, he asked a yes/no question along with the title of the alert--the title itself seems to answer the question.
    • kristov, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5Just because it was called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" doesnt mean it had anything to do with Bin Laden. Could have been a manual on how to fit a intern under your desk for all we know.
    • realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8But of course. That's why I label my HDD manual "How to launch a ballistic missile against the american infidels in 5 easy steps".

      I think you must re-evaluate your common sense gland and labelling practices. It may be under pressure from your partisan lobe,
    • PepeGSay, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I bet you also believe that the tobacco lawsuits make sense. You're a tool.
  • torifile, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1nevermind.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11In late 2000, the CIA and the NSC staff began thinking about the coun=
    terterrorism policy agenda they would present to the new administration.The
    Counterterrorist Center put down its best ideas for the future, assuming it was
    free of any prior policy or financial constraints.The paper was therefore inforFROM
    THREAT TO THREAT 197
    mally referred to as the “Blue Sky” memo; it was sent to Clarke on December
    29.The memo proposed
    • A major effort to support the Northern Alliance through intelligence
    sharing and increased funding so that it could stave off the Taliban
    army and tie down al Qaeda fighters.This effort was not intended to
    remove theTaliban from power, a goal that was judged impractical and
    too expensive for the CIA alone to attain.
    • Increased support to the Uzbeks to strengthen their ability to fight
    terrorism and assist the United States in doing so.
    • Assistance to anti-Taliban groups and proxies who might be encour=
    aged to passively resist the Taliban.
    The CIA memo noted that there was “no single ‘silver bullet’ available to
    deal with the growing problems in Afghanistan.”A multifaceted strategy would
    be needed to produce change.153
    No action was taken on these ideas in the few remaining weeks of the Clin=
    ton administration. Berger did not recall seeing or being briefed on the Blue
    Sky memo.Nor was the memo discussed during the transition with incoming
    top Bush administration officials.Tenet and his deputy told us they pressed these
    ideas as options after the new team took office.154
    As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff devel=
    oped a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the
    Delenda plan of 1998.The resulting paper, entitled “Strategy for Eliminating
    the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects,”
    reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA’s new ideas
    from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options.
    Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period
    of three to five years. Over time, the policy should try to weaken and elimi=
    nate the network’s infrastructure in order to reduce it to a “rump group” like
    other formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations of the
    1980s. “Continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent
    some attacks,” Clarke’s office wrote,“but will not seriously attrit their ability
    to plan and conduct attacks.” The paper backed covert aid to the Northern
    Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March
    2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-andcontrol
    targets and infrastructure andTaliban military and command assets.The
    paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the
    United States
  • BonPosh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1110 Years ago, who was working hard to fight terror?

    http://digg.com/politics/What_a_Difference_10_Years_Makes_in_the_War_on_Terror

    • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7it's all facts, no heart. :(
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Republicans want to stick their heads so far in the sand that they'll mod down an news article from a mainstream source with actual quotes from their guys.

      Damn those facts have a liberal bias!
    • tituskashmarek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3lol@politics
    • Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As Colbert says, "reality as a well-known liberal bias."
  • darrenm, on 10/12/2007, -31/+2I think Bill Clinton's strategy was to get a blow job from top al Qaeda figures in the Oval Office. That way they would be too busy sucking to blow anything (up).
    • meepus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Fixated much? That's hardly relevant, definitely off-topic, and completely uncalled for. Someone should tell Uwe Boll you mocked his films on the internet.
  • CARPEDATAM, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Finger pointing solves nothing.
    • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13This is not finger pointing, this is called, knowing what and where we went wrong.

      Since the Bush administration claims that Clinton did not leave a Strategy to fight al-qaeda (finger pointing ?). It's just fair that they get the backlash when the truth's revealed.
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Saying finger pointing solves nothing is wrong to begin with. You point at the problem, you try and fix and then you try not to repeat it. Not trying to find out what the problem was is what solves nothing.
  • NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -28/+4This is what William Jefferson Clinton was primarily thinking about during his administration:

    booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty booty
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I wouldn't care even if he was thinking about MY booty. He got the job done.

      Your life, and the life of everyone you know, was better during the 90s than it is now. America was safer, more prosperous, and better respected.

      Those are facts. Your opinion of the situation means nothing.

      We are worse off today.
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2He got the job done at what expense? He didn't deal with a problem, and handed it to Bush when he left office.
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"He didn't deal with a problem"

      Yes, he didn't effectively deal with A problem - the elimination of Al Qaeda.

      Meanwhile, there was a budget surplus, increased public and personal wealth, technology investing, environmental reform, a budget designed for modern needs instead of lopsided entirely in the direction of military development, etc., etc., etc.

      What he didn't do - and not for lack of trying, in spite of Republican Congressional opposition - was bomb Osama. And that's a shame.

      But like he said to Wallace, he certainly tried. And he let the incoming admin know he'd tried. And left plans for how they might try. And suggested they do so.

      And they did.....?......nothing.

      Now, suddenly, they're war heroes. Osama STILL hasn't been bombed. Meanwhile, Iraq is a gigantic jihadist breeding ground, we're up to our ears in debt, the administration lies, blatantly, about every single aspect of both their domestic and foreign policy on a daily basis, etc., etc., etc.

      What, exactly, are you defending? If you can demonstrate anything besides a record of crystal-clear, abject failure from this administration since day 1, then cite a source.

      We'll believe it when we see it.
    • Phssthpok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Look... just because you can go for eight years without getting laid doesn't mean we all can.

    • NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You know, I'm really getting tired of everyone blowing their load over Clinton because "the dollar was stronger than it's ever been" and other nonsense. The president doesn't do anything that directly effects the economy. "He was more respected in the world," okay, but he's the president of the U.S.A. I'd rather have him be well respected here, in the U.S.A.

      When he first came to office, he was charged with sexual harassment by a woman from his days as governor of Arkansas. He tried to use his powers of executive privilege to dismiss her case.

      Furthermore, it was your role model here Billy that signed NAFTA and CAFTA into law. This is why when you buy a GM vehicle over 35% of the components were manufactured and assembled in Mexico.

      And the unlimited trade agreement with China. Which is now where a vast majority of manufacturing and textile production is located. Plus, China as the new foreign market didn't really pan out because most people are too poor to buy American goods, and why would they, since they can buy domestic made goods for much much cheaper?

      "I'll bring the jobs Bush gave away back to America!" was a major point of Kerry's campaign. "We care about you, the blue-collar worker!" and they bought it.

      He was schmuck. A lying, adulterating, perjurer. And when all was said and done, he blamed it on his mom and dad not giving him enough hugs when he was little.

      There, Forumgirl, are specific reasons why I do not like the man, and he was not a good president. Next time you try and talk with the big kids, and you make a comment like "Your life, and the life of everyone you know, was better during the 90s than it is now. America was safer, more prosperous, and better respected." you should probably prepare some examples, because sheer passion does not make up for lack of intelligence.
  • jfanpgh, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10Richard Clarke admitted to the 911 commission that a comprehensive strategy did not exist. Its part of his testimony.

    Also, Richard Clark was not demoted. He re-signed because he did not get the position of Homeland security chief. Also, he did not leave until AFTER 911 happened.

    Sandy Berger .... laugh .... he should be in Levinworth for stealing classified documents from the Federal Archives .... ask him what other documents he regularly shoves in his pants.

    BEN-VENISTE/Jamie Goerelick - both loyal to Clinton. We can all thank Goerelick for building 'the wall' between the FBI and CIA so they could not share information between one another. This was done to help hide Clintons intimate dealings with the Chinese.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Richard Clarke admitted to the 911 commission that a comprehensive strategy did not exist. Its part of his testimony."

      Please cite this claim regarding Richard Clarke's 9/11 commission testimony. It seems to me that one of the men most responsible for anti-terrorism efforts under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton claiming "a comprehensive strategy" never existed would be remarkably self-incriminating. Such testimony would be like Richard Clarke admitting he spent all his time in an executive office reading Hustler.
  • aindikt, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5It's fairly obvious that the Clinton Administration was working in a different world, as was Bush prior to Septmber 11, 2001. As CARPEDATAM says, all this partisan crap blaming each other is rubbish - as was Clinton's outburst on FOX. I think it is demonstrable that Clinton didn't recognise the threat that Al Qaeda entailed - if he did, Bin Laden would never have made it out of Sudan in the 1990s. Bush had less than a year to ramp up the attack, which he didn't do - if anyone who was paying attention recall, the initial foreign policy focus was on China (quite successfully).

    I think that Bush has reacted strongly to what is a major challenge. Would Clinton have reacted as well if the 1993 plot against the WTC had suceeded? I don't think so. As many noted above, he was busy getting bjs in the Oval Office. It's true Clinton lied, but I don't think it's demonstrable that nobody died while his mind was elsewhere.
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15"I think that Bush has reacted strongly to what is a major challenge."

      Indeed, but without thinking. No one praises the kid with the big biceps for punching out a kid if it's the wrong kid.

      Bush cares about Iraq. Osama is ephemera. Call that "strong" if you want. Everyone else calls it stupid.
    • Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I don't know if it's a valid arguement to say that aPresident would not react any more appropriately after 9/11. It's like saying they don't care about the country.

      Even if Clinton was busy getting a bj, I would think that as a sitting president, he would have taken priority of the country over getting a hummer.

      That said, while Bush did act appropriately with the invasion of Afghanistan, it seems that lumping Iraq into the war on terror in the very beginning was a really crappy idea.

    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Brian, I'd add one more detail...

      IMHO, Bush's actions in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 were ill timed, badly funded, and undermanned.

      http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/afghanann.htm
  • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2The Clinton Administration sees terrorism as a crime, The Bush Administration sees terrorism as war. Hindsight is always 20/20, but during Clinton's presidency, Al Qaeda was not that strong and he could have cut the head off of it real quick. Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Qaeda, and Bush only had 9 months.
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Apparently you don't remember the Republicans causing a fuss in Congress every time Clinton went after Al Qaeda.
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2When did he go after Al Qaeda?
    • avenu420, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6he had most of those 9 months to go on vacation and not perform his primary duties, I might add.
    • Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Waging a "war" against an organization or a concept, not a country, is unprecedented, except in the USA. A war is a disagreement between nations, taken to the battlefield.

      The best analogy I've heard to date related terrorism to piracy, in the sense that it's a universal crime that affects everyone, and should be universally unacceptable and punished appropriately. It's still not a war.

      And about Clinton attacking Al Qaeda, he went after Bin Laden and his associates directly, or at least tried.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/155252.stm (weird, digg won't linkify this properly)

      for instance. You know, the same thing that everyone was shouting "wag the dog!", claiming that he was deliberately trying to distract the nation. Go figure.
    • Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2not to mention the fact that back in the 90's the CIA and FBI hated working with each other, and didn't share any intel, or very little intel, so going after someone like Osama was next to impossible. He admitted he tried repeatedly to get them to go after him but they couldn't get over there petty little disputes between departments on how to do it. The FBI and CIA at the ones to blame.
    • neonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Fighting an insurgency is best handled with a police force, not a military force. Thus I believe experience has shown that Terrorism should be fought like a crime. A very serious and severe crime, but an organization like the FBI is better equipped to handle the job of counter terrorism operations.
    • KenLin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How well is that War on Terrorism going?

      Did you miss that memo from National Intelligence Estimate that says “the Iraqi jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.”
    • djtansey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Bush hasn't had 9 months. It isn't like 9/11 was the end of all things. Bush has had 6 years now -- with a constant focus on terrorism -- and hasn't been able to do anything about Al Qaeda. It makes Clinton's efforts look a lot more impressive -- he was able to do _something_ without having the benefit of 9/11 to keep him focused.

      And, on a side note, I'm young, but even I remember how hard it was to convince Americans (especially with the conservatives blasting any proposal on the radio, t.v., etc) that it was important for us to engage in _any international conflict. THEY insisted that we only attack people if it was in direct response to an attack by them. Americans are historically isolationist. That still hasn't changed.
  • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Wait, wait, he's a Democrat. I thought Republicans were the ones who knew how to wage war?

    Why would a Republican even need a plan from the previous democrat? This flies in the face of everything I was told as a child.
  • etheterwel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Come on guys, really it's surprising how much people care about personal attacks on presidents whether it is Bill's sex life or Bush's (lack of) ability at public speaking. Please please please judge them by what they have done for (and to) this country.

    Dugg, because this article is at least trying to sort out all the spin politicians throw out.
  • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The Clinton administration left a comprehensive plan on how to deal with terrorism, specifically the terrorists who ended up attacking us. Condi lied. These are facts.

    All this other crap about blowjobs and Clinton's area of focus his last few months in office is an attempt to distract. Bush had a plan and did NOTHING.
    • tmach, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Well, actually those are not facts. Not according to Richard Clarke anyway. He said there was no comprehensive plan left. In fact, in interviews he has vehemently denied ANY plan being left, and HE'S the one who supposedly left it.

      The fact is, no president has ever done much to combat terrorism. It first affected us in the 70's, and Carter did nothing about it for a long time. The one time he DID try doing something about it, it was a half-hearted attempt that was doomed to failure in the start.

      Reagan bombed Qaddafi, but at the same time propped up Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. At the time, of course, they were seen as the enemies of our enemies. Funny how these things have a way of turning themselves around.

      Clinton fired off a couple of cruise missiles, but that was about it. In one instance he knocked out an aspirin factory. Maybe the terrorists will have no way to relieve their headaches now. And lets not forget that he knew Osama was a threat beginning with the 1993 WTC bombing. Bin Laden was named in the indictment for that attack, and yet when the opportunity arose to take him into custody in 1998 (i believe, though could be wrong about the date), Clinton said there was no reason to hold him. Now he says he would have more than 20,000 troops on the ground looking for the man. He could have done that ten years ago, but did not. Truth is, he was deathly afraid of putting troops on the ground because he was afraid of casualties. This is evidenced by the fact that he pulled out of Somalia as soon as people started dying. (Of course, he may just not have considered a UN humanitarian mission worth it.) Either way, the assertion that he would have sent more troops is laughable.

      Bush started out doing something after 9/11. He went after the training grounds in Afghanistan, and the Taliban which let groups like Al Qaeda have free reign. Then he went off on his Iraq tangent, and you'll never be able to convince me that Iraq was a vital part of the fight against terrorists. I'm sure it is NOW, since that's the easiest place they can hit at our interests, but it wasn't before.

    • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The 9-11 Commission Report refutes Rice's Claims
      Page 197 (paperback edition- Chapter "Threat To Threat, Sec. 6.3 Attack on the Uss Cole"):

      "As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998. The resulting paper, entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects" reviewed the threat and record to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options".
  • dshewmaker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5It says Clarke - not Clinton was developing a plan. Which he didn't have time to present to the Clinton administration and was pushing with the new administration. Rices comment is true Clinton Did Not Leave A "Strategy To Fight al-Qaeda". Clarke was still around trying to push it, but now he had to start over with a new administration. Any of you try to get anything done when management changes?

    Clinton might have set it in motion, but if he cared that much about it he could have implemented it as one of his last orders of business. It looks like he had about a month if you read the report. All he would have had to do is say "do it." (yeah, there is probably more to it than that.)

    Yes Rice should have paid more attention.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Clarke didn't leave a "strategy?" Well it was 13 pages, if it's not a strategy, it's called something else then.

      Certainly sounds like a strategy to me.
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7The entire administration in office now are a bunch of no talent, assclown *****. They'll go down in history as the worst president/cabinet ever to drag our country through the muck.

    ***** them. ***** them all.
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Isn't it past your bedtime?
    • Persol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5We're in Orange Alert. Sleep isn't allowed.
  • Toydriver, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I miss the old days of Slick Willie. Burning up women and children hiding in a bus. Killing a defenseless woman holding a baby. Putting a commie dictator back in power in Haiti, blowing up the Chinese embassy by mistake. Let's see, oh yea I almost forgot using a swat team to invade a house to send a child to Cuba and blowing up an aspirin factory to divert attention from stuff at home. And best of all sending missiles into an empty desert camp after American sailors are killed.
    Bill had a plan alright but it involved a fat whore not protecting the nation.
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Didn't you get the memo?

      No one cares what people like you think anymore.

      You represent unwashed Flyover America's minority opinion. You stopped being relevant about 6 months ago, right around the time all those "Support Our Troops" ribbons started mysteriously vanishing from the minivans.

      Go check my oil.
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Apparently some people like what he thinks... That's why we have a respectable Republican President in office, instead of a lying, cheating, adulterer.
    • Persol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'd rather live next door to a pimp than a man that randomly shoots his neighbors.

      That applies to who I'd vote for to.
  • nullview, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I have to say that I am a little stunned by the steady recurrence of references to blow jobs. Some people just seem to be incapable of seeing past this, almost completely insignificant event (IMHO).

    I am sure that many here are too young to appreciate the difference in enlightenment, for lack of a better word, that each of these presidents brought to the country. The feeling of optimism that was almost epidemic.

    The U.S. is worse off today, and the world is much worse off today; but hey look on the bright side... no more sex scandals in the oval office.
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0Hey, if someone will cheat on their wife, how can that person be trusted? In fact, how can a president be trusted when he's getting oral sex in the friggin Oval Office of all places! He could have at least had the decency to take it somewhere else, and not defame the White House.
    • nullview, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9How about cheating to stay out of vietnam, or having reputable sources claim that you indulged in a cocaine habit, questionable business dealings, bait and switch with osama in afghanistan and hussein in iraq, bungling the war effort, bungling the recovery from natural disasters... but hey, no sex scandals... good job.
    • Persol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"He could have at least had the decency to take it somewhere else, and not defame the White House."

      Dude, get some ***** perspective. The White House is a ***** building. That is it. Enough of 'protecting the symmbolism' (flag) and 'defaming the White House'. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

      The President has a job. That job does not involve who he sleeps with, what TV shows he watches, if his socks show, or if he ***** his wife in the Lincoln Bedroom.

      You need priorities. We, as a country, need to deport your ass and replace you with a mexican who will do the same bitching, but for minimum wage!
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0"You need priorities. We, as a country, need to deport your ass and replace you with a mexican who will do the same bitching, but for minimum wage!"

      Wow, wonder where you got your talking points from? moonbats-a-plenty.com? I have priorities, and it involves keeping characters like Slick Willie from being elected.
    • dortdruben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I highly doubt Clinton is the only President who's gotten some action, NOT by his wife, in the Oval Office. Come on, there's been like 30-some presidents, and when you're the most powerful man in the country, yr gonna have an easier time gettin' some. Especially with plucky interns running all around.

      Plus, who cares?
  • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Clinton or Bush would have both loved to stop the attack. But namecalling doesn't help anything. Getting a report that says "Bin Laden determined to attack..." does not tell you when or where an attack will happen. Maybe more should or could have been done, sure. But if Clinton had gotten that same report, nothing would have been different. Hindsight is 2020. We were and are still vulnerable in many areas. I just feel bad for the next president who is in office when there is an attack, because the other side will surely claim that THEY would have done more or stopped the attack.
    • Persol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"We were and are still vulnerable in many areas."

      And the sad truth is... it doesn't matter. We'll ALWAYS be vulnerable.

      We need to understand that we have (and had) agencies in place to prevent this type of thing. They won't stop them all. Hell, I can walk one block and derail an Acela train if I wanted to. I'm sure you all have similar 'targets' you could hit. Trying to protect all of them is pointless.

      Making this the only thing we are worried about as a country is shortsighed and, from a societal standpoint, going to cost us more in other areas.
  • NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Warning: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
    Rightwingers have reported that this story contains information that may shake up their little beliefs and as so have reported it as inaccurate.
  • artman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"Myth: Clinton Did Nothing To Fight Terrorism"

    http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

    ...and another thing...

    Clinton developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

    Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

    Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

    Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

    Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively - and successfully - to stop future terrorist attacks.

    Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

    Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

    Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

    Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

    Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.

    Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

    Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.

    Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

    Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".

    Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.

    Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".

    ...Ms. Rice is a do-nothing liar. Clicking on the "Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate" button doesn't change a thing.
    • toobueller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively - and successfully - to stop future terrorist attacks."

      Familiarity with "Godwin's Law" is a prerequisite to understanding The "Clinton Defense."

      They surrender the argument, and expose their lack of any defense when a conservative media sheep responds by blaming Clinton.


    • Decimator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I blame Carter, not Clinton.
  • dracheflieger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Richard Clarke said the same thing...no plan left...
  • cubiculum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Welcome to digg, where people post articles about political opinions and are immediately marked as "inaccurate" by those who don't agree.
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I enjoy seeing articles by the Washington Post or CNN marked as possibly inaccurate, right next to an Avant News or Onion article that doesn't carry the same warning! The front page yesterday had a great example - in fact the Diebold technician wins presidency article is still not marked as inaccurate!

      http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=281
  • itguru81, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"Bill Clinton stopped cold..."

    Give me a break, Clinton didn't stop anything. Neither did Bush. Any of you out there actually work a 40+ hour a week job? Ever worked in management? Ever known everything going on in your company? If you say yes I call BS. You know what people tell you, and yes you have some accountability for the people around you. But these claims that Clinton or Bush DID alot of this stuff is Bull. There is definately some lying going on from both sides, and trying to take credit for things others did. But by the same token there is alot more on the shoulders of people like the CIA and others who have NOT served the president or the country very well. The president has to deal with 1000s of issues every day, every one of them claiming to be crucial to our country. Frankly I don't like either Bush or Clinton... they're all corrupt power and legacy seekers.
    • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Exactly. This is politics in America. Any time a president does something good, the other side will shoot holes in it. Any time a president makes a mistake or something bad happens, the other side will second guess and claim they would have done better. Its all ***** and it will not change any time soon.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're absolutely right, itguru81. No manager ever knows everything that's going on in his/her office. However, you're wrong about a manager's lack of omniscience being an excuse. When something bad goes down in any given office, it is the responsibility of that office's manager to correct the fault, not award the mistaken/faulty subordinates with medals.

      Any ethical manager will fully admit that attitude reflects leadership. Also, policy, hiring practices, and perpetuity reflects office effectiveness. And whether an office is successful/ineffective because of micromanagement/lack of management, any experienced manager knows the successes and failures of given office will hang on his/her shoulders. Admittedly, the failures will often generate more responses than the successes, but that's the bitch about management.

      Bush hired like-minded ideologues; professionals at knowing exactly the goals and motivations of his administration. When those group-thinkers failed, he pinned medals on them and displaced their subordinates. Even when he took office, he displaced "employees" with long, bipartisan experience to prevent dissension.

      Bush and his immediates micromanaged the executive branch of the U.S. federal government. And now that everything's gone to pot, we're supposed to forgive his responsibility and liability for its failures but acknowledge its successes?
  • Guncrazy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Of course Clinton had a strategy to fight Islamic terrorists.

    1. Block their bombs with hotels housing our troops (1992, Yemen).

    2. Block their bombs with American skyscrapers (1993, New York City).

    4. Block their bombs with our military bases & personnel (1995, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia).

    5. Block their bombs with military housing (1996, Dharan, Saudi Arabia).

    6. Block their bombs with American embassies (1998, Nairobi, Kenya).

    7. Block their bombs with more American embassies (1998, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania).

    8. Block their bombs with our military ships (2000, Yemen).

    Hmm. You'd think that NINE YEARS of attacks by ISLAMIC TERRORISTS might have been enough of a hint for a man as smart a Bill Clinton is alleged to be. His only response through all of this? Arrest a few people and launch million dollar cruise missiles at empty tents. Had 9/11 happened in 2000 rather than 2001, Bill Clinton would have sent Barney Fife to Afghanistan with a single bullet, with instructions to bring back Osama bin Laden.
    • artman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I guess that means Bush Co. are blocking the insurgent's bombs with our soldiers, eh?

      /live in your fantasy
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And yet, with all of those problems you mention, Bush STILL denied there was a problem until 9/11, please explain that.
  • mijohnst, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I can’t believe how many whinny babies use digg. Thank God none of you are in charge or the world would see us scared little pussies.
    • Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0"Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get ***** by dicks. But dicks also ***** assholes: assholes that just want to ***** on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can ***** an ***** is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they ***** too much or ***** when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of ***** that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us ***** this *****, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in *****!"
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I can’t believe how many whinny babies use digg."

      As a digg user, then, that makes you a self-confessed whinny baby.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Quoting from the 9/11 Commission report:

    "We have found no indication of any further discussion before September
    11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an
    al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in
    Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the Pres=
    ident between August 31 (after the President had returned toWashington) and
    September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of
    the domestic threat during this period."
  • Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Marked by right wingers by as inaccurate
  • vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This whole argument is rather amazing to me. You can argue that Clinton didn't do enough to get Osama before 9/11, but if you do, you must say that Bush didn't do enough before or after. Even after the attack of 9/11, it's been 5 years and Bush has still failed to get him. Even with the support of much of the world after 9/11 and more than 300 billion in military spending. And, a promise to bring him to justice "dead or alive." It's really amazing to me that Bush supporters are trying to pin the failure to get Osama solely on Clinton. It's simply ridiculous!
  • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In his latest book, Al Franken argues (full disclosure: I agree with him) that Bush has, in fact, committed an obvious and impeachable felony. He has violated Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment; not just once but on several occasions. Section 4 stipulates:

    "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ..."

    On several occasions Bush has questioned, even downright refuted the "validity of the public debt of the United States" by calling Treasury bills -- the investment basis of the Social Security Trust Fund -- nothing but "I.O.U.s." He has since recanted by referring to T-bills as "sound investments" under his failed privatization plans.

    So Bush has not just committed millions of counts of felony fraud as well as potentially actionable warcrimes but he has also brought the full faith and credit of U.S. debts into doubt. Seems to me that a bipartisan Congress with an ounce of backbone could impeach him quite readily.
  • V93R, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0During the Clinton presidentcy we had multiple terrorist attacks against US targets around the world. That should of been enough for then President Clinton to launch military strikes against terrorist targets.
    Congress is only needed to declare war, while the President can call on strikes with out the need of Congress. Special Forces have always been at the disposal of the President when the need to call on them should arise.
    Considering that there was a document made on how to take out the terrorists which indicates that there must of been previous intelligence to that point. Why instead of a document being made were there not Special Forces strikes on terrorists targets during the Clinton presidentcy?
    I do agree that there was a period of inaction on President Bush's part, however there was a longer period of inaction on President Clinton's part. Inaction is inaction, no matter what political party you are from.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Please review artman's previous post about the myth of Clinton's inaction during his terms in office. You may choose to declare his actions as inadequate. I believe even Bill Clinton himself would begrudingly grant that to you, if his most recent interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" is any indication.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3(cont.)

      But to claim Clinton was "inactive" against terrorism during his tenure as President is to misunderstand why 9/11 was such a tragedy. It was on continental U.S. soil. It was in the densest population of Americans anywhere in the world. It was almost 3,000 dead. And it wasn't prevented because Bush displaced, by choice, so many of the programs and personnel Clinton had put into place.
    • vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"During the Clinton presidentcy we had multiple terrorist attacks against US targets around the world. That should of been enough for then President Clinton to launch military strikes against terrorist targets."

      He did! Did you not even bother to consider this? Were you not around back then?
  • SoulDrift404, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank God we know that during the 8 months prior to 9/11, Rice wasn't warned about any impending attacks. ;)
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.