Replies

I think we need to aggressively fight political smears like this, but not by joining in Clintonian wag-the-dog battle plans. It is pretty clear from this article that (1) Clinton had a plan to fight terrorism and didn't and (2) Bush continued with Clintonian half-measures when he came into office.

Why? Obsession with "state-sponsored" terrorism. That's a problem to be sure, but as it turns out (with 20/20 hindsight), not our biggest problem.

Why aren't we dealing with the potential threat from Islamic radicals in this country who could easily pull off another 9/11? Is it too difficult? Too politically incorrect?

The best way to fight the political war described in this article is to fight the real war the way it should be and stop fighting it the way Clinton did.

The best way to fight the political war described in this article is to fight the real war the way it should be and stop fighting it the way Clinton did.

BTTT!

"It is pretty clear from this article that (1) Clinton had a plan to fight terrorism and didn't and (2) Bush continued with Clintonian half-measures when he came into office."
This article is highly cultivated BS, so what does that make (1) and (2)? The same susbstance.
There was not plan. A laundry list is not a plan.
From what the GWB administration has countered, this is what I imagine happened:
"What is this Mr. Rumsfeld?"
"It's a long list of ideas of how to deal with OBL, sir."
"What kind of ideas?"
"Memos from brainstorming sessions, really. Oh, and here's the threat list." Rummy hands him some papers from the intelligence community.
After fighting down bile, GWB responds: "Do you mean to tell me that THIS is the best set of ideas to counter OBL? After EIGHT years??! Donald, get our sh!t together. We've got to contain this."
"Yes, Mr. President. We're on it."
(Yeah, this is speculation, but it's at least as credible as the Time garbage...)