Reply
Sat 20 Mar, 2004 09:37 am
So why didn't Clinton do anything about it?
Because the republican congress tied his hands by refuseing to give the military the money to conduct the necessary reprisels. When he did bomb some Al Quida positions the republicans screamed thier heads off about Clinton trying to gain popularity through promoting war. Does this sound familiar to you or was this before you were taught to read?
Why the need for the insult at the end of your whiny rant? Your arguemant unable to stand on it's own?
McGentrix
McGentrix wrote: "So why didn't Clinton do anything about it?"
Your selective memory continues to amaze me---especially about the Clinton presidency. It will be interesting to learn how you will edit the Bush presidency history when its over (the sooner the better.)
BBB
The gist of the article posted is that Clinton staff handed over documentation about threats to the US from AQ, yet the incoming Bush admin either ignored those briefings or didn't think they were important. I recall Clinton signing many treaties and pardoning many criminal campaign comtributors at the end of his lame duck presidency. Not waging war against known threats to the US.
If you have evidence to fill in the holes of my "selective memory", then feel free.
McGentrix
McGentrix, you never disappoint me in your consistent "change the question-focus" when confronted with facts contrary to your political bias.
Not only did the Clinton administration turn over documents, top staffers briefed top Bush staffers several times about the increasing danger from al Qaeda.
Once again you try to deflect these facts by making inane comments about pardoning, etc., which have no relationship to the topic.
BBB
Typical
I believe we may find out if gw bush and his staff failed in protecting America from attack in many ways. Whether they could have prevented the 911 Attack may never be known. I challenge anyone reading this to prove that Bush Inc. performed above average in protecting America then and challenge them to prove that they are doing an above average job now.
Note: Stating that the proof is in no attacks in the US from Al Q since 911 is not a valid proof. Al Q. rarely makes large strikes such as 911 within 3 or 4 yr intervals. Perhaps another will be forthcoming before the election.
rabel,
do you have any references pertaining to the Republican Congress tying Clinton's hands, refusing to fund military strikes?
I think McG asked a reasonable enough question. I mean, I found the article to raise more questions than it answered.
What did the Clinton administration do against Al-Qaeda?
What did the Bush administration do against Al-Qaeda in its first year?
What did the Clinton administration do that the Bush administration didn't do, too?
If there is no meaningful answer to that last question, I agree with McG that the accusations levelled here come down to the Clinton team asking the Bush team to do what itself neglected to do.
But the point is, we cant really tell, because the article doesnt provide much info on these questions at all. Just the conflicting statements from the two parties.
According to the senior Clinton official, America "saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut" after Bush came into power.
According to the White House spokesperson, the Bush admin "actively pursued the Clinton administration's policies on Al Qaeda" in those first months.
The journalist doesnt attempt to find out who is right by asking neutral experts or doing some desk research himself (this is one of my pet annoyances - journalists who think "reporting the truth" means giving offocials from each side equal time to spout their rhetorics).
Basically, I didnt learn much from this article. The Clinton people warned the Bush people. That would be news if the Bush people had ever claimed that the Al-Qaeda threat was some new surprise they couldnt have been prepared for. They havent, as far as I know - rather the opposite, they've always claimed the Clinton admin hadnt done enough about it already.
(On an aside, of course that argument falls a bit flat if they now proudly claim to have "actively pursued" Clintons policies upon coming to power).
What would be news is if they warned the Bush team that it was necessary to act in specific way X and Y, and the Bush team refused to because it didnt think it important enough. That's the subtext of this article, but apart from some generalising, unconfirmed statement by an anonymous Clinton official, it doesnt actually present any examples or evidence of that. I wouldnt be entirely surpirsed if it were true, and if it is it will probably emerge from the investigation, but as of this article, we still have little to go on except partisan bickering.
Check 60 min tonight then come back and talk to me Mc Gentrix. I know that the only thing the republican congress was interested in during clintons last four years was trying to put him down. Anything that he proposed was automatacally dismissed no matter what it was.
Bush must be a political genius the way he can get congress to bend to his will.
Bush has a rubberstamp republican congress bought and paid for by his big business friends.
Re: Clinton Aides to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on al Q
Quote:The sworn testimony from the high-ranking Clinton administration officials — including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and Samuel R. Berger, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser — is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.
How I wish Madeline Albright was still Secretary of State. Their testimony is going to be very, very interesting.
Quote:They are expected to testify along with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who will answer for the Bush administration, as well as George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence in both administrations.
Colin Powell's credibilty is shot. Being a part of the Bush administration has ruined him. Donald Rumsfeld's testimony will be nothing more than double talk and nonsensical....as usual. As for George Tenet, I think he's going to fall on the sword for Bush.
Quote:"Until 9/11, counterterrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House," said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut."
Sure, I also remember Bush taking the whole month of August 2001 to vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Quote:Ms. Rice has refused a request to testify at the hearings next week, saying it would violate White House precedent for an incumbent national security adviser to appear in public at a hearing of what the White House considers a legislative body. She has given a private interview to several members of the commission.
WTF is this about violating a White House precedent? The private interview is a bunch of hooey. She should be testifying out in the open with no special treatment whatsoever.
Quote:The commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was created by Congress in 2002 over the initial objections of the Bush administration.
No surprise the Bush administration would object to this commission, is there.
Quote:In his testimony, Mr. Clarke is also expected to discuss what he believed to be the Bush administration's determination to punish Saddam Hussein for the Sept. 11 attacks even though there was no evidence to tie the Iraqi president to Al Qaeda.
The fact that Bush has erroneously linked Saddam to the 9/11 attacks is what pisses me off the most about him. When the American public hears Mr. Clarke's testimony, and the testimony of others before this commission, I think Bush's poll numbers will slowly but surely fall.
Quote:The issue is addressed in a new book by Mr. Clarke, and in an interview to promote the book on "60 Minutes" on CBS-TV scheduled for Sunday, Mr. Clarke said that the White House considered bombing Iraq in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, even when it became clear that Al Qaeda was responsible.
IMHO, Bush couldn't wait to start bombing Iraq. He was chomping at the bit till March 19, 2003....the day the invasion of Iraq began.
Quote:"I think they wanted to believe there was a connection, but the C.I.A. was sitting there, the F.B.I. was sitting there, saying, `We've looked at this issue for years — for years, we've looked, and there's just no connection,' " Mr. Clarke said. He recalled telling Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that "there are a lot of good targets in a lot of places, but Iraq had nothing to do" with the Sept. 11 attacks.
Rumsfeld and Co. weren't about to let a few facts get in the way of their determination to get their hands on Iraq's oil and Saddam Hussein.
Quote:The White House has insisted that it acted aggressively throughout 2001 on the warnings to deal with the threat from Qaeda terrorists, and that there was an exhaustive staff review throughout the spring and summer, with a proposal ready for President Bush in early September to step up the government's efforts to destroy the terrorist network.
Yep, that proposal was all ready for the well rested and restored President Bush who just returned from his month long vacation in Texas. Ahhh, the pampered life of a newly elected republican president.
Per Clark tonight on 60 Minutes, we should be surprised Afghanistan was even invaded at all!
Yeah. The accounts from that program are really quite something - I'm impressed - or rather, aghast. See
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=610840
"It was the Bush administration that was presented the evidence about al Qaeda's role in the attack on the USS Cole, not the Clinton administration. But George W. Bush did absolutely nothing -- absolutely nothing."
Give it a rest. You know that's not true and the exagerration does not help your case.
McGentrix wrote:"It was the Bush administration that was presented the evidence about al Qaeda's role in the attack on the USS Cole, not the Clinton administration. But George W. Bush did absolutely nothing -- absolutely nothing."
Give it a rest. You know that's not true and the exagerration does not help your case.
Okay McGentrix... between January and September 2001 what did your hero do?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace