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

Skip to comments.

Did Clinton Really Give Bush A “Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy?”
National Review Online ^ | September 26, 2006 | Byron York

Posted on 09/26/2006 6:33:07 AM PDT by Quilla

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News on Sunday. “I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy.”

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a new interview with the New York Post. “The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t [fight al Qaeda] is just flatly false.”

Well, which is it? The argument over whether, in January 2001, the Clinton administration left the incoming Bush administration a blueprint to destroy Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda has been going on for years now. Long before the Clinton Fox interview, it came to a boil in the late summer of 2002, on the eve of the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, when Time magazine published a 10,400-word story, “They Had A Plan,” blaming the Bush administration for not following the Clinton newly developed administration’s strategy.

The Clinton plan, Time reported, was drawn up after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. In the wake of that bombing, Time said, White House anti-terror chief Richard Clarke put together “an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda.” Clarke reportedly wanted to break up al Qaeda cells, cut off their funding, destroy their sanctuaries, and give major support to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. In addition, Time reported, “the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan.” It was, in the words of a senior Bush administration official quoted by Time, “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

Time said Clarke presented the “strategy paper” to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. “We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office,” Time quoted an unnamed former Clinton aide saying. “That wasn’t going to happen.” Instead, Berger — who is portrayed as a tough-talking hardliner on terrorism — urged Rice, the incoming national-security adviser, to take action. But the new administration didn’t follow that good advice. The Clinton proposals, Time reported, “became a victim of the transition process, turf wars and time spent on the pet policies of new top officials.”

The Time account was explosive. Or at least it seemed to be explosive — until we heard more of the story.

After the article appeared, National Review talked to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chambliss was perplexed. “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times,” Chambliss told NR, “and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.” If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?

Sources at the White House were just as baffled. At the time, they were carefully avoiding picking public fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they told NR that the Time report was way off base. “There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda,” one source said flatly. “No new plan.” When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the Time story, the source said simply, “No.”

Finally, Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “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 any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”

A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”

“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “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.”

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

“There was no new plan.”

“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “

“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”

“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”

Amid all the controversy, some former Clinton-administration officials began to pull back on their story. One of them — who asked not to be named — told NR that Time didn’t have it quite right. “There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism,” the official said. “It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn’t have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration’s ongoing efforts and threat assessments.” That, of course, was pretty much what the Bush White House said had had happened all along.

But now, the story is back in the news. “At least I tried [to destroy al Qaeda],” Clinton told Fox. “That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy…” Perhaps the former president hoped to put an end to the questions about his record on terrorism. Instead, he just brought the issue back to public scrutiny.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; binladen; bushadministration; clinton; clintonplan; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
Bill Clinton, consummate liar.
1 posted on 09/26/2006 6:33:09 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Time lied. Clinton lied. Berger lied. Clarke lied.

So what else is new?

2 posted on 09/26/2006 6:35:59 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Additional documentation from the Washington Times:

"The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.

The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book."

3 posted on 09/26/2006 6:37:12 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

liar

One entry found for liar.
Main Entry: li·ar
Pronunciation: 'lI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogere, from lEogan to lie -- more at LIE
: a person who tells lies; i.e. William J. Clinton
4 posted on 09/26/2006 6:37:57 AM PDT by ladtx ("It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." -- -- General Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: jwalsh07

Its so obvious Clinton lied...but guess what...the MSM won't cover it...and if you on the left..you won't see it...


6 posted on 09/26/2006 6:39:09 AM PDT by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

As Byron posted on The Corner ... that all depends on what the meaning of the words "Comprehensive" "Anti-terror" and "Strategy" are.


7 posted on 09/26/2006 6:39:17 AM PDT by The G Man (The NY Times did "great harm to the United States" - President George W. Bush 6/26/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Maybe that "comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy" was buried in the Rose Hill Law Firm billing records


8 posted on 09/26/2006 6:39:36 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

RICHARD CLARKE: There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration ... In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. [They] decided to ... vigorously pursue the existing policy [and] ... initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years.

In their first meeting [the principles] changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding [for covert action against al Qaeda] five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [They] then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda ... to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.

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


9 posted on 09/26/2006 6:39:39 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
This symbolizes what the Clinton's left for the new administration:

Departing Clinton Staff Trashed White House Like Never Before

"In 2001, the departing Clinton White House staff made quite a mess, according to this GAO report issued today. [PDF file]

When news of this first came out in early 2001, Clinton apologists pointed the finger at previous administration's, saying in effect, "They did it first!" But the truth is that no administration in decades did as much damage as the Clinton team did on its way out the door:

The director of the Office of Administration (OA), who had been present during five previous transitions, said that he was “stunned” by what he saw during the 2001 transition and had not seen anything similar during previous ones, particularly in terms of the amount of trash. The OA associate director for facilities management said that there was more to clean during the 2001 transition than during previous transitions. The telephone service director, who had worked in the White House complex since 1973, said that he did not recall seeing, in past transitions, the large amount of trash that he had seen during the 2001 transition. Further, an employee who had worked in the White House complex since 1984 said that office space in the complex was messier during the 2001 transition than all of the other transitions he had seen.
Not that pointing the finger is an excuse for one's own sins. The fact is, they did trash the place, and beyond the financial cost of what they did, they sullied their administration by doing it. (Not to mention the real criminal implications of what they did.)"
10 posted on 09/26/2006 6:40:14 AM PDT by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Correct me if I am wrong but I recall some conversation that Clinton turned over a 4,000 page "turn-over" document to the Bush administration and did not mention OBL at all in that report.


11 posted on 09/26/2006 6:40:27 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Well if Clinton did have a plan, which I doubt, it got lost in the transisition. And why was that? Because Al Gore had to contest the election results for 6 weeks. There was no transisition.


12 posted on 09/26/2006 6:41:38 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

You're very close. Please see bold text in post 3 above.


13 posted on 09/26/2006 6:43:09 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

How many times did Al Qaeda make the National Intelligence Estimate prior to 9/11?


14 posted on 09/26/2006 6:43:20 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Bill Clinton:A Consumate Liar.Hillary Clinton;A Congenital Liar.Now,we're getting somewhere!


15 posted on 09/26/2006 6:43:54 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pookyhead

MEGA DITTOS TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!


16 posted on 09/26/2006 6:45:16 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Bill Clinton, consummate liar.

He's also a psychopath

17 posted on 09/26/2006 6:45:22 AM PDT by Mo1 (Hey McCain and Graham .... our soldiers signed up to dodge bullets not lawsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

And Berger stole the evidence in his socks.


18 posted on 09/26/2006 6:45:22 AM PDT by BIGZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Well, it is still early here in Southern California.

Thanks for the reference.


19 posted on 09/26/2006 6:47:46 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Clinton didn't even leave Bush any silverware, much less an anti-terror strategy.


20 posted on 09/26/2006 6:47:53 AM PDT by LIConFem (Just opened a new seafood restaurant in Great Britain, called "Squid Pro Quid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
The other day I was astonished that Clinton even mentionined Richard Clark in his own defense. I read Clark's book, I distinctly remember posting the contents of the press conference in the NR article in several forums and blogs at the time.  I had the impression that Clark was suffering from sour grapes syndrome with the Bush administration and was correct that the President wasn't running around trying to wage war on Al Qaeda, but still thought his testimony, book and interviews were absolutely damning of the Clinton administration not the current one.

 

21 posted on 09/26/2006 6:48:08 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
"“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice"

But we were left with a vandilized White House.

22 posted on 09/26/2006 6:51:13 AM PDT by sweet_diane ("Trying to reason with hurricane season.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
Maybe that "comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy" was buried in the Rose Hill Law Firm billing records.

Or hidden in Ft. Marcy Park.

23 posted on 09/26/2006 6:51:27 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

The whole Clinton morons are lying and it looks like Dr. Rice isn't going to take it anymore. I would bet she has her evidence stacked up ready for use if that's what Clinton really wants.


24 posted on 09/26/2006 6:54:11 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Read Bubba's State of the Union messages.

In 2000, he says that maybe in 10 or 20 years, these terrorists will be dangerous.

25 posted on 09/26/2006 6:55:30 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
As for "The Bush Administration had 8 months," let us also not forget the following:

1) For partisan political reasons, the Clinton Administration delayed delivery of the keys to the transition office for the Bush team due to Gore contesting the election. This delayed the Bush White House from being able to set up in a timely manner.

2. For partisan political reasons, the Democrats in congress failed to approve numerous Bush apointees in a timely manner (including Attorney General John Ashcroft for instance).

26 posted on 09/26/2006 6:55:43 AM PDT by The G Man (The NY Times did "great harm to the United States" - President George W. Bush 6/26/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
“I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy.”

Yeah, uh-huh. That sounds believable, NOT.

I can just see it now:

Ex-President Bill Cinton speaking:

"Well, here ya go George, er, I mean "Mister President", we got this comprehensive anti-terror strategy all set to go, I just never got around to actually doing it. All you need to do is go ahead and follow the instructions I had my intern write down, and this Bin Laden guy will wither up and disappear just like that evil witch in "The Wizard of Oz".

I know if I'd implemented this wonder plan during Al Gore's campaign he probably would have won the election, but I thought that might influence the electoral process, and you know I'd never stoop to that. Ah don't think Al will ever forgive me for that (quiver of the lip.)

But instead of being accused of election grandstanding, we put together this foolproof anti-terror plan for the administration that replaced mine. All you have to do is plug it in and set the dial to "Eliminate Terrorism".

And just to show ya that I'm a good sport, you can take all the credit for it..."

27 posted on 09/26/2006 6:57:07 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LIConFem
Clinton didn't even leave Bush any silverware, much less an anti-terror strategy.

Ahh, yes. I remember the movie about that whole issue (and more)...

"Crouching Intern - Stolen Sofa"

28 posted on 09/26/2006 6:57:51 AM PDT by 70times7 (Sense... some don't make any, some don't have any - or so the former would appear to the latter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

"In 2000, he says that maybe in 10 or 20 years, these terrorists will be dangerous."

Do you have an exact quote?
What was the context of that statement?
a brush at foreign policy?..good find..btw..


29 posted on 09/26/2006 6:59:08 AM PDT by WoodstockCat (General Honore: "The storm gets a vote... We're not stuck on stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Then why the hell didn't the Clinton administration use it? Oh I forgot, he was to busy servicing Monica.


30 posted on 09/26/2006 6:59:59 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
"What freaking "strategy paper" you talking about?"

Time said Clarke presented the “strategy paper” to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it.

31 posted on 09/26/2006 7:00:59 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Bill Clinton's "Plan" = Jean-Fraud Kerry's "Plan" = LIP SERVICE.


32 posted on 09/26/2006 7:02:00 AM PDT by RasterMaster (Winning Islamic hearts and minds.........one bullet at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pookyhead

You would think a guy that lies 99% of the time would be more honest then that.


33 posted on 09/26/2006 7:03:37 AM PDT by Big Horn (The senate is loaded with scum-baggers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kenton

34 posted on 09/26/2006 7:03:42 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

"Bill Clinton, consummate liar."

- As I seem to recall reading, Clinton was so obsessed with national security that he met with the CIA Director only once during his first year in office and the Director of the FBI twice during his first two years.


35 posted on 09/26/2006 7:04:22 AM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland; Mia T

ping


36 posted on 09/26/2006 7:05:49 AM PDT by nutmeg (National security trumps everything else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; DKNY; ...
ping!

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

37 posted on 09/26/2006 7:06:16 AM PDT by nutmeg (National security trumps everything else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Wasn't the out-going message, "Choose interns carefully"?
38 posted on 09/26/2006 7:07:49 AM PDT by pointsal (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Clinton wants everybody to forget about the November mid-term elections while he does a little patch and polish on the ol' Legacy. The narcissistic sense of self-entitlement of this man boggles the mind.
39 posted on 09/26/2006 7:07:59 AM PDT by gridlock (The 'Pubbies will pick up at least TWO seats in the Senate and FOUR seats in the House in 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
"By Clinton's own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the President, despite the Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, or the Al-Qaeda killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year." James Woolsey, Clinton's first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, "that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.""

Souce.

40 posted on 09/26/2006 7:09:29 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
["The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times."

I wonder how many times in that official summation Clinton used the words I, me, my and did as compared to the instance of the words terrorism, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden.

Oops! Well...then minus out the al Qaeda part, as it is apparently NON-EXISTANT.

Quilla, hello and thank you for such a great post! I hope that all is very well with you and yours.

41 posted on 09/26/2006 7:10:09 AM PDT by Miss Behave (You can't negotiate with people who want to kill you more than they want to live. ~Caller to Hannity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I was thinking the same thing - Gore's goons were filing all those legal actions down in Florida to keep the absentee military ballots from being counted as well as trying to count votes for Gore even where no hole was punched ("they just forgot to punch that hole"). Worse yet, once in office, Bush had a heck of a time getting his appointments approved. The Dems were proclaiming Bush an illegitimate president (didn't win the popular vote) and he shouldn't have the right to appoint anyone that the Dems didn't approve of...which was no one. War was declared on our entire system when the Dems lost power. They just can't be trusted to put the Nation's interests over their own. As long as that is true, they don't deserve the presidency.


42 posted on 09/26/2006 7:12:05 AM PDT by Sioux-san (God save the Sheeple)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

You can see it in his face in the interview: "I believe it, so it must be true!!!!!" What a lunatic! What a pathological liar!!!

Hey, America! Take a good look! This is what the country will look like (again) if we are crazy enough to elect that woman President in 2008!

Count on monthly versions of this loon going on these self-promoting blitzes.


43 posted on 09/26/2006 7:19:05 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TET1968

THE ABOVE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS THE INHERITANCE OF 8 YEARS UNDER THE CLINTOONS.

44 posted on 09/26/2006 7:19:35 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic lies/wet dreams posing as news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
"When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, "that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.""

LOL!! Perfect! Good thread Quil

45 posted on 09/26/2006 7:19:54 AM PDT by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Miss Behave

You're quite welcome, and best wishes to you and yours. ;-)


46 posted on 09/26/2006 7:21:07 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Just a couple of paragraphs out of Clinton's supposed comprehensive plan.

Nevertheless, we consistently maintain that sanctions on Iraq can only be lifted after it has met its obligations to the international community in full. Saddam's actions over the past decade lead us to conclude that his regime will never comply with the obligations contained in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. For this reason, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. (unless it's a Republican)  We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, (SLOG) but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam's regime.

Globally, as a result of more porous borders, rapid changes in technology, greater information flow, and the potential destructive power within the reach of small states, groups, and individuals, the United States finds itself confronting new threats that pose strategic challenges to our interests and values. These include the potential use and continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery, proliferation of small arms and light weapons, threats to our information/cyber security, international migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons, and the ability to disrupt our critical infrastructure. As a result, defense of the homeland against WMD terrorism has taken on a new importance, making coordinated Federal, state, and local government efforts imperative. The Domestic Preparedness Program has received significant resources to address immediate threats to our security. Ongoing efforts on National Missile Defense are developing the capability to defend the fifty states against a limited missile attack from states that threaten international peace and security. Prevention remains our first line of defense to lessen the availability of weapons of mass destruction being sought by such aggressor nations.

This one is my favorite including it's paragraph heading:

Promoting Democracy and Human Rights

We encourage the spread of democratic values throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Southwest and South Asia and will pursue this objective aided by constructive dialogue with countries in the region.

 

Geeze, and all along I thought the Democrats thought they couldn't handle democracy. Yet they actually engraved the opposite on a government printing press.

 

 

47 posted on 09/26/2006 7:21:18 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Every time Bubba opens his mouth, the room gets a destinctive odor.

The odor is that of BullS##t.


48 posted on 09/26/2006 7:21:32 AM PDT by roaddog727 (Bullsh## doesn't get bridges built.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WoodstockCat; Sacajaweau
Found it. Google can be our friend:

Jan. 27, 2000:

A third challenge we have is to keep this inexorable march of technology from giving terrorists and potentially hostile nations the means to undermine our defenses. Keep in mind, the same technological advances that have shrunk cell phones to fit in the palms of our hands can also make weapons of terror easier to conceal and easier to use.

We must meet this threat by making effective agreements to restrain nuclear and missile programs in North Korea; curbing the flow of lethal technology to Iran; preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors; increasing our preparedness against chemical and biological attack; protecting our vital computer systems from hackers and criminals; and developing a system to defend against new missile threats -- while working to preserve our ABM missile treaty with Russia. We must do all these things.

I predict to you, when most of us are long gone, but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narco-traffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons. And I want to thank the Pentagon and others for doing what they're doing right now to try to help protect us and plan for that, so that our defenses will be strong. I ask for your support to ensure they can succeed. (Applause.)

49 posted on 09/26/2006 7:22:07 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Those who do not know Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. They are the witless." –Khomeni)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
In all seriousness, one of the ways I, as it were, "lost my virginity" as a (now former) pastor and counsellor was when I found that a significant number of people who came for counselling were really coming for an excuse NOT to grow, for a validation of their reasons for avoiding dealing responsibly with life.

And these people shared the tendency to think think that reality was pliable or malleable, that "wishing can make it so". Another way to say that was that it was easy for them to lie, then to believe their lies, and finally to react with entirely sincere outrage when they were confronted with facts which contradicted their lies.

And they share with Bubba the history of growing up in abusive households. I don't know (or care much) if a shared genetic disability created the abuse or if the abuse, starting at an early age and continuing so that an intolerable level of stress was constant in the family, caused the personality defect, or if there is no connection (but I doubt that.)

But that there are such people, I am certain. I htink Bubba's outrage is sincere because he has come to believe the lies he has told himself. May God deliver us from such a fate. I find it terrifying

50 posted on 09/26/2006 7:22:44 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Reality is not optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 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