Bush Aides Deny Getting Plan to Fight Al Qaeda

reuters ^ | 8/4/2

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"EVEN IF TRUE, which we know isn't possible". That's how much of the Arab world responded to the news of 9-11. Given their hatred for, and distrust of, Israel, they were convinced the western news media were lying. In fact, it's still widely believed in the Arab world that 9-11 was the work of Israeli secret agents. If they were being rational they would at least admit that it's _possible_ western news reports were accurate. Don't you think?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Next week they AOL-Time Magazine will report that Clinton also had ... plans to ... solve our energy dependence." Perhaps by raising the cafe standard for automotive fuel efficiency back in 1992? Given the popularity of SUV's and the like, average fuel economy is at the lowest level in almost 25 years.

[NativeNewYorker]

I was referring to the zilch probability of the Clinton Adminstration, in the midst of auctioning pardons and looting the pantry, crafting a rational and comprehensive plan to rid the world of a key terror node.

THAT is what's impossible.

The press does tell the truth from time to time -- today's high was 91 -- but that is not what I was commenting on.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

From the article: "the proposals were developed by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush administration and became the point man on terrorism in the Clinton White House." He's not a politician. He may even be a Republican.

[j271]

The leftist media really is 100% shameless.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that an avalanche of memos, directives, reports and other bureaucratic tedium got dumped on the incoming administration, and they needed time to sort through all of it - hence the policy review.

Apparently, by presenting the articles this way, Time/Reuters hope to have the public believe that Bush officials ignored some sort of urgent and explicit warning from the Clinton camp, along the lines of, "Oh by the way we absolutely, positively guarantee that within a year al-Qaeda will stage the biggest terrorist attack in US history, so you better do something."

Disgusting.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"It wouldn't surprise me to learn that an avalanche of memos, directives, reports and other bureaucratic tedium got dumped on the incoming administration, and they needed time to sort through all of it." It wouldn't surprise me either. But that's not what the White House is saying. Seem they want to say "we got no such report". I guess the truth of that depends on such things as the meaning of "such".

[Dems_R_Losers]

/rolling eyes/

So, we are supposed to believe the Clintoon Administration thought Al Qaeda was dangerous enough to provide the new president with a full strategy for fighting it, but had this report done by a Career bureaucrat? And why has Sandy Berger made no mention of this report in all of his "don't-blame-me" whining since 9/11? Give me a break.

Sounds to me like the career bureaucrat is about to write a book about how brilliant he was and how nobody listened to him, and he got a gullible reporter to buy it.

[j271]

Your point about the White House reponse is true enough ConsistentLibertarian, but part of it may be due to confusion while scrambling to get damage control in place against this Times/Reuters hit piece.

Clearly, I believe these articles are severely slanted against the Bush administration. Do you consider the Times/Reuters treatment fair?

[j271]

Sounds to me like the career bureaucrat is about to write a book about how brilliant he was and how nobody listened to him, and he got a gullible reporter to buy it.

Nice one. Is there anything more humiliating for a reporter than to be suckered in like a gullible hick?

[Jeff Chandler]

Given the popularity of SUV's and the like

"Yes, yesss... those EEEEEEE-vil SUVs!!!" he cackled.

[hellinahandcart]

Time is full of shit, Bill Clinton is full of shit, Newweak is full of shit, the Slimes is full of shit, the WP is full of shit and there isn't one clown on the network news whose eyes don't runneth over with it.

Marry me? ;p

[hellinahandcart]

Hey, looky here. A rebuttal already!

[ConsistentLibertarian]

The lead sentence is pretty much a quote of the White House press release. The rest reads in a (boring) "we originally reported ... however the White House says" format. I'm not sure where you're seeing the severe slant.

[dighton]

Marry me? ;p

"The best man won" and all that. Broken-hearted, but maintaining a stiff upper lip. If you have a moment while on honeymoon, send me a postcard.

;-)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

American dependence on foreign oil is a function of domestic supply and domestic demand. From there it's a leap to talking about evil, but people who are inclined would probably take a page from the NRA and say "SUV's aren't evil. People who drive SUV's are evil."

[TLBSHOW]

here was my take on the story last night.......

To: Brian Mosely

More liberal spin and smears!


20 posted on 8/4/02 10:47 AM Eastern by TLBSHOW

[Jeff Chandler]

People who drive SUV's are evil

Dang, now I'm really confused. I'm beginning to think that the word "libertarian" doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I'm really confused". Sometimes it helps to make fewer inferences. If you're not really at it, you can get yourself twisted silly.

[hellinahandcart]

Well, I was only going to say "I love it when you talk dirty, jwalsh07", but I'm in an audacious mood tonight.

[Lance Romance]

The report was real, but it was under the title "Ways to distract public from Lewinsky scandal, pardon scandal, Fundraising scandal, Elian Gonzalez scandal, Whtewater scandal......".

Since it was over 5000 pages long it took a long time to review,