THE ABOVE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS THE INHERITANCE OF 8 YEARS UNDER THE CLINTOONS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
THE ABOVE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS THE INHERITANCE OF 8 YEARS UNDER THE CLINTOONS.
LOL!! Perfect! Good thread Quil
You're quite welcome, and best wishes to you and yours. ;-)
 |
|
|
Every time Bubba opens his mouth, the room gets a destinctive odor.
The odor is that of BullS##t.
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.)
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
The couple that puts the SICK in Sycophant!
Remember that by May, Senator Jeffords switched to Independent (from Republican) and "caucused" with the Dems, so they re-took control of the Senate and slow-rolled the President's transition from that point on. Meanwhile, Clintonoids in the bureaucracy and Administration were burrowing in -- and Clinton had left various time-bombs for the new Administration to deal with:
Do you remember arsenic standards in drinking water? What about the Clinton pardons? Clinton's EPA Administrator stripping her hard-drive so that no record of their last months in office could be recovered or recreated? Just little things like that. Yeah, Clinton really helped out in the Bush Transition... He really provided a comprehensive plan to combat terrorism!!!!! He TRIED, at least he TRIED!!!!!
He met with Jim Woolsey once during Woolsey's term in office. He left the CIA in 1995 so make that 2+ years.
Its like Clintoon's story about "all those burning churches in Arkansas" when he was growing up. Total and complete bull. Not a single burned church. He made it up and like the "anti-terror strategy," he may even believe it.
Do you have an exact quote? What was the context of that statement? a brush at foreign policy?..good find..btw..
Excerpt from 2000 State of the Union Address by Bill Clinton:
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.)
And Thabulous Thread bump.
...Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.”
Don't forget, this was Bubba's last "State of the Union" and Usama had put out his Fatawh.
" >> 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. << "
Yes, but when Monica presented Bill with a strategic blue dress, he "acted" on it immediately!
(remove... fingers... from... keyboard... resist... urge... to... make... snide... remark... Resist... RESIST! Noooooo...)
And don't forget that for "some" reason the Secretary of Defense (Helloooo Bill Cohen---wherefore are THOU these days?) and the intelligence community "FORGOT" to tell the Bush team about the increasingly provocative game of "chicken" being played since year 2000 by Chinese pilots against our reconnaissance aircraft off the coast of China .....
Until Wong Way went the Wong Way- clipped our P-3, forced it to land, and Bubba's good friends the Chinese "hosted" our naval aircrew for several weeks ... handing the Bush Presidency it's very first national security crisis - while the Tom Daschle Democrat controlled Senate was still obstructing Cabinet and other Bush adminstration appointees and impeding the executive branch of govt from organizing to do its job- -
REMEMBER??
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.