Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Contradicting Bill President Bush says Clinton placed little emphasis on terrorism
TIME Magazine ^ | Sunday, May. 02, 2004 | Timothy J Burger

Posted on 05/02/2004 6:45:13 AM PDT by Condor51

How much of a warning did Bill Clinton give incoming President George W. Bush that Osama bin Laden posed a grave danger? It depends on which President you ask. In his interview with the 9/11 commission last week, sources tell Time, Bush testified that Clinton appeared far more passionate about the dangers of North Korea's nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to sources, Bush said Clinton "probably mentioned" terrorism as a national-security threat "but did not make it a point of emphasis." Clinton earlier told the panel that he had ranked bin Laden as the No. 1 problem the new Administration would face; he made the same point in a speech in New York City last October.

The content of the testimony Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney gave in the Oval Office remains confidential. But a source says Bush told the commission he had not been warned of the CIA's and the FBI's concerns about would-be 747 pilot Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001.

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; bush; bushtestimony; clarke; clinton; clintonfailures; clintonlegacy; iraq; moussaoui; northkorea; nukes; waronterror; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
I searched and couldn't find this article. The link just came up on Drudge

Also, I excerpted because I'm not sure if TIME Mag is on 'the list'.

1 posted on 05/02/2004 6:45:14 AM PDT by Condor51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Condor51
This is exactly what Bush needs to be doing. Making sure that he counters every lie thrown his way.

Of course...when talking about Clinton..that could take a while.
2 posted on 05/02/2004 6:46:48 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with high powered explosives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51; Howlin; Miss Marple; Mo1
Well, lets see..............one man is a pathological liar, and the other is possible the most honest President we've had since Abe Lincoln....

Who shall I believe??? Decisions, decisions................

3 posted on 05/02/2004 6:47:45 AM PDT by ohioWfan (BUSH 2004 - Leadership, Integrity, Morality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
I just read the article from the Drudge link. It's laughable, really. When given the choice as to who is lying, will the American people choose Clinton, the Impeached Prevaricator, or Bush?
4 posted on 05/02/2004 6:48:37 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Charter member Broken Glass Republicans (2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Exactly. Bush must get out there continually to define Clinton's charges as being the red herrings they are. (to deflect attention from Clinton's abysmal record).
5 posted on 05/02/2004 6:48:49 AM PDT by tkathy (nihilism: absolute destructiveness toward the world at large and oneself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
THIS IS PROBABLY WHY BOB KERREY AND LEE HAMILTON LEFT IN MIDDLE OF BUSH/CHENEY TESTIMONY.

THEY COULD NOT STAND HEARING THE TRUTH.
6 posted on 05/02/2004 6:49:29 AM PDT by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Considering X42 has a huge credibility question after his actions and Congress's and subsequent Judicial actions taken against him who would you rather believe?
7 posted on 05/02/2004 6:52:52 AM PDT by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
This is exactly what Bush needs to be doing.

Its probably why Hamilton and Kerrey walked out early during the Commission Q&A of Bush/Cheyney. They didn't want to hear about their hero's lies about his No. 1 concern being Bin Laden.

8 posted on 05/02/2004 6:53:17 AM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
THIS IS PROBABLY WHY BOB KERREY AND LEE HAMILTON LEFT IN MIDDLE OF BUSH/CHENEY TESTIMONY.

Great minds thin alike. Unless, of course your name is Joe Biden

9 posted on 05/02/2004 6:54:30 AM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
"Also, I excerpted because I'm not sure if TIME Mag is on 'the list'."

Not according to this

10 posted on 05/02/2004 7:00:15 AM PDT by knarf (A place where anyone can learn anything ... especially that which promotes clear thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Clinton didn't place much emphasis on terrorism. Understatement of the year.
11 posted on 05/02/2004 7:01:19 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Well, lets see..............one man is a pathological liar, and the other is possible the most honest President we've had since Abe Lincoln....

Bush is a Liar!!!!!!! He lied about.....well, there was, uhhhhh......wait, I remember there was that time when....uhhh.....you know, when he ummmmm....uhhhhhh.....BUSH IS A LIAR AND YOU'RE A RACIST!!!

</sarcasm>

12 posted on 05/02/2004 7:04:00 AM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Slick handed Bush a 45,000 page intelligence document on the state of US national intelligence......Al Quaida was not mentioned once!!!
13 posted on 05/02/2004 7:04:04 AM PDT by Coroner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
All anyone has to do is read Toon's last few Security Strategy Statements to see how Toon regarded the threat of terrorism. Those docs speak for themselves.
14 posted on 05/02/2004 7:10:46 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
As many predicted, it didn't take long for the leaks to start a-commin'. Ben Veniste, Gorelick, Kerrey, Hamilton - the possibilies are unlimited.
15 posted on 05/02/2004 7:12:47 AM PDT by torchthemummy (Florida 2000: There Would Have Been No 5-4 Without A 7-2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
This is exactly what Bush needs to be doing. Making sure that he counters every lie thrown his way.

Yes. But the Administration should NOT be disparaging Ashcroft for releasing the Gorelick memos. Rather GWB should be vocal about her and her involvement.

[It seems GWB keeps covering for the Clinton administration, even while the Dems are skewering GWB. GWB needs to realize they are NOT his friends. One radio pundit this past week said that the Dems are setting GWB up. Their intent is to seek impeachment in the next term, if GWB wins the Nov election.]
16 posted on 05/02/2004 7:14:03 AM PDT by TomGuy (Clintonites have such good hind-sight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peach
My own interpretation of President Bush's saying to the early-departing Kerrey, "Keep your spirits up": Bush's facts had just demolished Kerrey's accusations about the administration. Bush's remark could very well have been, "Cheer up, Kerrey!"
17 posted on 05/02/2004 7:14:42 AM PDT by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Thanks for the latest link, I book marked it.
18 posted on 05/02/2004 7:14:43 AM PDT by Condor51 ("Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments." -- Frederick the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: I'm ALL Right!
ping
19 posted on 05/02/2004 7:15:04 AM PDT by No Fool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Way too early in the day to decide something of this importance.

I'll have to get back to you.

:-0
20 posted on 05/02/2004 7:20:04 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Interestingly, this jives EXACTLY with the Richard Clarke tape that Jim Angle turned up!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.



RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.


21 posted on 05/02/2004 7:24:23 AM PDT by adam_az (Call your State Republican Party office and VOLUNTEER!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
It depends on which President you ask.

Tough decision. The straight shooter or the convicted perjurer.

22 posted on 05/02/2004 7:29:34 AM PDT by alnick (Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's husband wants teh-rayz-ah your taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Let's see:

1. I broke a long stand gentleman's agree between the two parties, when in 1992, instead of staying out of the news during the Republican Convention, I shamelessly did everything I could to steal news coverage.

2. After using the liberal media to my greatest advantage, I was elected. During my inaguartion all the sound equipment was stolen, hundreds of thousands worth.

3. Within days of taking office I set out to inflict division in the military by promoting homosexuals under a thinly-disguised program. My wife used White House miltary staff as her own personal bell-hops.

4. The people I employed all had a particular distaste for the miltary and Secret Service. We are documented to have our lovely daughter refer to these people as "pigs."

5. Whenever it suited me, I used military backdrops to make me look patriotic. Of course my staff stole things like robes and other memorabilia off that air craft carrier, he he.

6. My best lying was only begining. Hell, I had the press eating out of my hand. Like at all those White House press conferences. That same ones where guys like Dan Rather said he loved my wife and I.

7. When I really screwed up, like not providing armor to those guys in Somalia, someone else too the blame. Same was true when we toasted those people in Waco.

8. I did a great job of denying that terrorism existed, even threw people off with all that militia and Limabught stuff. Of course that broad from Oklahoma almost got an Iraq connection. But none of my buddies in the press will follow up.

9. Osama? Hell, he was a tough one. And when I wasn't thinkin about Monica, I worked harder than I ever did trying to catch him.

What, you saw those drone photos? You heard me tell an audience that I couldn't take him from those that offered to turn him over?

He, he. That wasn't me, man. It musta been Bush!

23 posted on 05/02/2004 7:32:18 AM PDT by CT (God Bless The USMC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
If I were Bush, I'd have added that clinton is also a rapist and traitor and see if TIME would quote that too.
24 posted on 05/02/2004 7:33:35 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (So what are you expecting from NPR - the truth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Yes. But the Administration should NOT be disparaging Ashcroft for releasing the Gorelick memos. Rather GWB should be vocal about her and her involvement.

Agree completely. The President always takes the high road and gets skewered by the Rats for doing so. I get so upset with his focusing on good intentions such that he loses in the PR wars. I suspect its his belief in the Lord and the idea that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But it still infuriates me that he does strike back more often than he does.

25 posted on 05/02/2004 7:37:37 AM PDT by CedarDave (May God bless our brave sailors & all who have died serving our country, and comfort their families)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
My own interpretation of President Bush's saying to the early-departing Kerrey, "Keep your spirits up": Bush's facts had just demolished Kerrey's accusations about the administration. Bush's remark could very well have been, "Cheer up, Kerrey!"

BINGO!

26 posted on 05/02/2004 7:37:42 AM PDT by RightWingMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Time would have to publish a special edition.
27 posted on 05/02/2004 7:41:34 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
When given the choice as to who is lying, will the American people choose Clinton, the Impeached Prevaricator, or Bush?

Introducing Bill Clinton perjurer-in-chief, the titular head of all law enforcement in the country ... sworn to uphold the laws of the nation who never felt the law of the land applied specifically to him, or, those closest to him in the democ"Rat" party.

28 posted on 05/02/2004 7:48:47 AM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CT
very funny
29 posted on 05/02/2004 7:54:33 AM PDT by Teplukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Clinton's concern about terrorism in 1996.

Symbolism or substance?

On post six I linked the terrorism bill passed in 1996.

30 posted on 05/02/2004 7:55:01 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty (You're not the boss of me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Yes. But the Administration should NOT be disparaging Ashcroft for releasing the Gorelick memos.

Maybe the Whitehouse had plans to use the memos in a manner that did not include public disclosure. I can imagine a scenario where some deputy undersecretary's aide has a private conversation with the commission members vis-a-vis the memos. It actually might have had more impact on the commission to do it privately than to allow the biased media to run interference for them. Usual human nature is to fear the unknown more than the known. If it had been done as a private matter, the commission members would fear what might happen if it became public.

31 posted on 05/02/2004 8:00:41 AM PDT by been_lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All
So Kerrey frolics on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Kean yuks it up with Imus.

I cannot take these clowns seriously.

I intended to post my belief that the left-right divide is well beyond settling peacefully but I guess these matters are just things to amuse our "ruling class." They do not respect us as citizens. We are just an audience to be entertained. I am going to take some rotten tomatoes with me from now on when I vote.

32 posted on 05/02/2004 8:08:03 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I beg to differ. Clinton spent an immense amount of time thinking about terrorizing women.
33 posted on 05/02/2004 8:09:32 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
Hysterical!!!!

I can't believe President Bush said that to Kerrey as he departed. I think it was a shot across the bow; Bush knows Kerrey left disappointed...
34 posted on 05/02/2004 8:10:09 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
The fact is that Bush rarely uses the words "Clinton" or "previous administration". The same can't be said of the Clintons. That's honor exhibited in two short sentences.

I believe Bush'll bring out the heavy artillery if Hillary is "pushed" into the campaign (ha - "pushed"!), but until then, there's no need to get stuck in the past; it's the future that's important, and I want one.
35 posted on 05/02/2004 8:10:47 AM PDT by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
How much of a warning did Bill Clinton give incoming President George W. Bush that Osama bin Laden posed a grave danger?
My theory on this has always been that as Willard handed over the keys to the front door to the WH on inauguration day (figuratively speaking of course), Willard mumbled something to the effect of;

"George by the way, there's this Bin Laden guy, you might want to check him out. See ya George, I have a party to go to - lots of chicks there. Oh, and you might want to clean that sink in the Oval Office study real good (snicker-snicker), ta-ta."

36 posted on 05/02/2004 8:11:13 AM PDT by Condor51 ("Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments." -- Frederick the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Any 'sources' willing to talk to Time are not to be believed!
37 posted on 05/02/2004 8:26:06 AM PDT by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: been_lurking
Interesting take on the issue. However, I don't think this administration is into this type of devious manipulation. They appear to be much more straight forward in their actions.
38 posted on 05/02/2004 8:30:32 AM PDT by CedarDave (May God bless our brave sailors & all who have died serving our country, and comfort their families)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
The Clinton's were too busy gutting the White House to make a useful transition. I bet Clinton was also light on information as to hopefully help G. Bush fall on his face. The last administration was as condescending as any I have seen.
39 posted on 05/02/2004 8:35:07 AM PDT by oyez (Fortune favors the bold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Peach
This is even funnier . . .

The following is the "official" Clintonista re-write of pre-9/11 history being passed around the internet (I don't pretend that the Bush team deserves an A+ for counterterrorism efforts pre-9/11, but this assessment is riddled with errors, peppered with lies, full of omissions, and tied up with wishful thinking. Clinton did a lot of talking, sometimes committed things to paper, but failed to implement, failed to follow through, and did everything possible to sweep the terrorism problem under the rug):

Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton

President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition.

-- 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.

-- 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.

-- 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.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania

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

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

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

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

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

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

-- Of Clinton's efforts Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism says: "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 Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, 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"

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001: -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger and Louis Freeh about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed Clinton for 9/11.

40 posted on 05/02/2004 8:43:36 AM PDT by Spotsy (Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
If this helps anyone to make their decision on who is being truthful, 42 is barred from practicing the business he studied in, while 43 is not. ;-)
41 posted on 05/02/2004 8:54:37 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad (x = x + 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Since this purported characterization by Bush mirrors the state of the record on Clinton's public statements regarding these issues, even if one isn't a Bush supporter one must realize he is the credible party here.

One really must eshew facts, logic and reason to be a dem and a Clinton supporter Unfortunately there seems to be a sizable contingent of that type of person. Including many in the media willing to peddle in lies.
42 posted on 05/02/2004 9:58:59 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
But the Administration should NOT be disparaging Ashcroft for releasing the Gorelick memos.

I agree with you. I don't think he's trying to "cover" for the Clinton administration, though that appears to be the short-term consequence.

I'm willing to give them more breathing room, but admit to being aggravated about the Gorelick memo business and the president's comments about it.

43 posted on 05/02/2004 10:02:47 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Spotsy
Oh

My

God

Sickening and twisted lies. I can't stand it.
44 posted on 05/02/2004 10:06:49 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
.


'Remember the Lost and Suffering on September 11, 2001'

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33


.
45 posted on 05/02/2004 10:18:35 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
.

Two words = MONSOOR IJAZ


MONSOOR IJAZ gets PRIVATE 9/11 Testimony, demands IN PUBLIC

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117043/posts

.
46 posted on 05/02/2004 10:22:48 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oyez
"gutting the White House"


Not to mention looting Air Force One.

At the time there was a lot of 'semi-joking' that all the stolen and looted stuff would wind up on Ebay. Well lo and behold, the next day on Ebay I saw a cigar box for sale from AF1, with the Presidential Seal and supposed documentation as to it's originality.

I fired an email off to Ebay that they were allowing the sale of apparent stolen government property. I also wrote an email to the seller and pretty much called him a democrat thief.

He responded with a nasty email, which I then responded that I was turning his email and business address over to the FBI for possession and attempted sale of stolen government property.

I never heard from him again and as I recall the cigar box was removed from Ebay.

47 posted on 05/02/2004 10:27:23 AM PDT by Condor51 ("Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments." -- Frederick the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
There are so many sickening lies in that little "history" of how Billy worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks, but one of the stranger ones is Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

What the heck are they talking about???????????????

48 posted on 05/02/2004 10:35:47 AM PDT by Spotsy (Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
I hear you loud and clear.
49 posted on 05/02/2004 10:36:28 AM PDT by oyez (Fortune favors the bold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Spotsy
That caught my eye, too.

What bs
50 posted on 05/02/2004 10:41:52 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson