[Homer1]

Interesting, this also mentions the White House policy fo going after the whole network, instaed of just OBL. This correlates nicely with what the administration has been saying about not wanting to "swat flies," and instaed to go after terrorism. This within THREE MONTHS of assuming office. This makes Clarke look like an even bigger bonehead.

[jwalsh07]

Nice one!

[CMailBag]

Recall that GWB also had the Chinese downing a plane that he had to deal with for a period of time. During that 3 months

[tbeatty]

April 2000 was the Clinton administration. Not Bush.

[maestro]

Wow!!!

'State' is the U.S.A.'s first line of defense!

Uh,......what is the 'INS'......hello, 'State'...??

/sarcasm

[VadeRetro]

CNN might want to disappear that article. It's embarrassing to Clarke and to Clintonistas in general. I'm sure they haven't realized the implications.

[kayak]

bttt

[faithincowboys]

Good, we need more of this. Where in the Hell is the counter attack? We should attack Clarke's arguments, not how much money he's making. Clarke's arguments are utterly full of it. The Clintonistas were totally unserious about fighting terror and any honest person knows it.

Next Clarke wil start arguing that Bill Clinton had a "No 'is' with Interns" sign on the White House.

[freeangel]

Good find

[EllaMinnow]

You need to email this to the media before CNN remembers it.

[DallasMike]

bttt

[luvbach1]

To be honest, I'd never heard of it until after 9/11. But I was in no position to be fighting the islamofascist evil doers.

[visualops]

BTTT

[FairOpinion]

"The State Department once again re-designated Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of international terrorism. "

===

But I thought there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and terrorism -- all the Democrats say so NOW.

[cookcounty]

Please explain this scrambled article. It talks about the "2000" report (Clinton was President until 2001) and then describes Powell as Sec/State. This is a bit jumbled. Does "last year" refer to 1999?

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[The_Reader_David]

Maybe it's not surprising that the Clintonistas didn't mention al Qaeda in their terrorism report. After all they were very eager to provide their European cohort with air support to take control of half of Bosnia and then to steal Kosovo, the spiritual heartland of Christian Serbia.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

But Al Queda was the #1 priority according to Clarke, but of course on Timmy Russert today he said Mideast Peace Deal, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq were Clinton Admin priorities.

Not to mention keeping Hillary and Bill out of legal trouble and pardoning his criminal donor buddies.

[McGavin999]

You might be interested in this one.

[eggman]

Great find. Here is more.

I decided to check the Dems 2000 party platform to see just what a high priority fighting terrorism would have been had Gore been elected. They devoted 3 paragraphs at the end of the platform to battling terrorism. Here is the only metion of Bin Laden. There was no mention of al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, or the Taliban all of which grew from non-issues at the beginning of Clinton's first term to the core of terrorism in 2000.

Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack.

Looks like Gore might not have heard of al-Qaeda. Forward Engagement? Is that like a preemptive strike?

[ladyinred]

Oh Homer, this is a great find!

Drip, Drip, Drip, Swoosh! This is the flood exposing Clarke's obvious lies, perjury, and political agenda!