Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Rice fires back at Clinton Assertions
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, September 26, 2006

I have to admit I loved the NY Post's headline: "Rice Boils Over". OK, it also had a "bubba" reference as well, but hey, nothing particularly clever there.

I'll tell you one thing though, for a Secretary of State, she doesn't mince words, that's for sure:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
No diplospeak there, huh? That's pretty cut-and-dried.

OK, enough with the cooking references.

But "flatly false" certainly aren't weasel words, are they (and no, I'm not segueing into animal references)?
Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.
Heh ... a little side note on that last sentence: in the big scheme of things, Rice is admitting what Clinton can't and won't admit. They really did nothing much. And for Clinton to take issue with the way Rice phrased it would, well, not be in Clinton's best interest. OTOH, if Clinton claims to have "tried", well, then so did the Bush administration ... at least as hard as Clinton.
The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.
Yeah, no less than Sandy Burger and Richard Clarke shot that little bit of Clinton nonsense down as we noted yesterday.

Huh, how about that? Looks like "push back" is a two-way street.

And with a hat tip to the Anchoress, I give you the quote of the day. It comes from Kobayashi Maru:
How ironic that the man who claimed to have felt, as a child, the pain of black churches being burned in his home state (nothing of the kind actually took place ...) is being called to account by a black woman in power... who actually did.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I have to admit that the last point seems to lack not only irony but relevance as well. ((shrug))
 
Written By: ozymandias
URL: http://
Yeah, no less than Sandy Burger and Richard Clarke shot that little bit of Clinton nonsense down as we noted yesterday.
Only problem is they didn’t burn the plan and bury the ashes.

Damn those internets!

More here.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
I hope you are not seriously pushing forth that the memo linked to there, is a PLAN, or even STRATEGY for dealing with al Queda...

It is a bullet point list of items that needed discussed, and plans put in place for dealing with the threat, which Clarke defines as:
al Qida is the active, organized, major force that is using a distorted version of Islam as its vehicle to achieve two goals:

—to drive the US out of the Muslim world, forcing the withdrawal of our military and economic presence in countries from Morocco to Indonesia;

—to replace moderate, modern, Western regime in Muslim countries with theocracies modeled along the lines of the Taliban
And in the document it says:
al Qida is present in the United States. AQ has been linked to terrorist operations in the U.S. while also conducting recruiting and fundraising activities. U.S. citizens have also been linked to AQ.
So, Clinton KNEW there were terrorists in the country, and did precious little to give our guys the edge in finding them. Like breaking down the wall between the NSA/CIA/FBI...

Yep, that’s a record to stand on.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
It’s plain from Clarke’s memo that there were at least two strategic plans from the Clinton administration that Rice and Bush ignored.
 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
So you drink Rove’s Kool Aid?

You’ll believe anything then...including the lies of Condi Rice?

December 30, 2001, New York Times—"As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr. bin Laden’s brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.’’

Amazing...first the Republican Congress skewers Clinton over Monica Lewinsky and accuse Clinton of playing Wag the Dog when he wanted troops in Afghanistan....The White House Bush administration (from the top down) made fun of Clinton’s "obsession with Al Queda and the terrorists."

FACT—BUSH IGNORED THE INFOR GIVEN HIM BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

BUSH IGNORED AL QUEDA....Bush was the PRESIDENT when 9/11 happened....

So why is anyone surprised that Bush did his best to PREVENT any 9/11 commission hearings from ever happening?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid folks...That’s right if it’s a FACT then it has to be liberal.....d’uh....keep spinning in your bushworld fantasy land....

Buaa...Buaa...Mosquito.
 
Written By: Mosquito
URL: http://mosquito-blog.blogspot.com
How ironic that the man who claimed to have felt, as a child, the pain of black churches being burned in his home state (nothing of the kind actually took place ...) is being called to account by a black woman in power... who actually did
Being that Bill is also the first Black President does this make it an intra-racial spat?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It’s plain from Clarke’s memo that there were at least two strategic plans from the Clinton administration that Rice and Bush ignored
Wrong as usual, but lets even grant that one administration leaves the next one a "plan" for whatever- terrorism, the economy, etc.

What obligates the new administration to follow that plan?

Just asking...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
What obligates the new administration to follow that plan?
Not a thing.

But the new administration should at least acknowlege the threat and develop its own plan forward. And as history shows, there was only one counterterrorism meeting held in the eight months before 9/11 and it was at a staff level.

 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
What obligates the new administration to follow that plan?
Absolutely nothing, unless some treaty violation would be involved in not following the plan.

But the linked memo specifically lays out past negotiations with Pakistan as well as advice for going forward.

Given that, is this a true statement or not?

""Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren’t going to get Afghanistan.""

 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Geez. How many times do you people have to see it.

Sandy Berger,testimony, Select Committees On Intelligence, U.S. Senate And U.S. House Of Representatives Hearing, 9/18/02:
"Now, the second question you asked - which comes off the Time Magazine story, I think, was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. If I could address that. The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had - I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information - what was going on and what situations they faced. Number one among those was terrorism and Al-Qaeda, and I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly so I’m not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."
Any questions?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Why does Condi think she can get away with lying about it now?

I wonder if Fox News will now follow the story...oh my god like a real news station...and inteview Richard Clark....

Or are they too Rovian, Orwellian for that?

Anyone taking bets?

Buzz...Buzz...
 
Written By: Mosquito
URL: http://mosquito-blog.blogspot.com
Love him or hate him—you have to admit that Clinton is one hell of a politician. For three years the Rs have been largely able to keep the terrorism conversation away from any discussion of their competence or lack thereor in fighting terrorism. The Ds have tried unsuccessfully for the last [pick your time period] to try and get the public interested in this conversation, with little or no success. Now in one interview, six weeks before a key election, Clinton has shone the spotlight on the issue. He may be exaggerating and he may be as much to blame as the Rs, but he’s not in office and they are. As long as the conversation is who was more incompetent, Bush or Clinton, the Ds will be smiling. If the conversation over the next six weeks centers around the competence of the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress, Clinton will have done his job and that is not good for the Rs.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
Any questions?
Yes, when is a plan, not a plan? Oh yeah, when it inconveniences Condi Rice to have had a plan, then it’s just a group of ideas.
[Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy] Berger says he told [his successor, Bush’s Condoleezza Rice], “I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”
The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, [] who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen [] to become the White House’s point man on terrorism. [He was] chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG)[…]. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole […] he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. […] Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. “We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20,” says a former senior Clinton aide. “That wasn’t going to happen.” Now it was up to Rice’s team to consider what Clarke had put together.
Clarke’s proposals called for the “breakup” of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble — Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen — would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to “eliminate the sanctuary” where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. […] In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”
On Monday, The Washington Post published an op-ed from Rice attempting to rebut Clarke’s accusations. She wrote first that "No Al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration" by Clarke’s Counterterrorism Security Group at the end of the Clinton administration—only "several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted." While "several" of these ideas were subsequently adopted, she explained, "we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to ’eliminate’ the Al Qaeda network." That strategy "marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets—taking the fight to the enemy where he lived."

According to information released at the 9/11 Commission hearings, this appears to be a very misleading description of Bush’s strategy, known as National Security Presidential Directive-9 (NSPD-9) and completed days before the September 11 attacks. Among the initial findings of the 9/11 Commission yesterday was that on January 25, 2001, Clarke delivered to Rice two documents in response to a request from her deputy, Stephen Hadley, for "major initiatives" against Al Qaeda. The first was a plan—known as "Delenda," after Rome’s famous cry to destroy Carthage—that Clarke had developed following the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. The second was a December 2000 update to Delenda known as the "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of Al Qaeda," which incorporated a covert action plan from the CIA called "Blue Sky." As the 9/11 Commission explains:


Clarke laid out a proposed agenda for urgent action by the new administration:

· Approval of covert assistance to the Northern Alliance and others.
· Significantly increased funding to pay for this and other CIA activity in preparation of the administration’s first budget, for Fiscal Year 2002.
· Choosing a standard of evidence for attributing responsibility for the U.S.S. Cole and deciding on a response.
· Going forward with new Predator reconnaissance missions in the spring and preparation of an armed version of the aircraft.
· More work on terrorist fundraising.

It’s hard to understand how Rice is differentiating this "agenda for urgent action" from the "plan" that she says she was never given. What’s more, it looks like this became the backbone of the Bush administration’s plan—the strategy Rice and others have described as more "comprehensive." As Clarke testified, his proposals "formed the basis of the draft national security presidential directive that was then discussed in September of 2001 and signed by President Bush as NSPD-9." It appears that the elements Bush officials added to Clarke’s plan were support for non-Pashtun Afghan resistance groups and increased diplomatic engagement with Pakistan and Uzbekistan in order to open up future options for dealing with the Taliban.

Which is a far cry from Rice’s description of a plan that "marshal[ed] all elements of national power," most significantly, "military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets—taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." NSPD-9 remains classified. But yesterday, for the first time, 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick gave the public a closer look at NSPD-9 than the administration has allowed. "I can only speak of [NSPD-9] in generalities," Gorelick said. "But as I understand it, it had three stages which were to take place over, according to Steve Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, over a period of three years. The first stage was, we would warn the Taliban. The second stage was we would pressure the Taliban. And the third stage was that we would look for ways to oust the Taliban based upon individuals on the ground other than ourselves, at the same time making military contingency plans."

If this is true, it contradicts Rice—and puts NSPD-9 on more of a continuum with Clinton administration policy than the Bush team would like to admit. Rice says NSPD-9 included "ground forces"—by not saying what kind, she implies that she is referring to American ground forces. Gorelick is talking about NSPD-9 using "individuals on the ground other than ourselves," which means, principally, the Northern Alliance. And what Gorelick describes as "military contingency plans" means, basically, that the military would consider future options as they developed—presumably, that’s where Pakistan and Uzbekistan would kick in. So, Rice’s references to "ground troops" who will "take the fight to the enemy where he lived," if they mean anything at all, really mean using forces other than our own That sounds pretty similar to the 1998 and 2000 plans—sorry, "ideas"—Clarke had developed, which were themselves improvements on Clinton administration policy.
Any questions?
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Clarke’s proposals called for the “breakup” of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel.
A "proposal" is not a plan.
It’s hard to understand how Rice is differentiating this "agenda for urgent action" from the "plan" that she says she was never given.
Actually it isn’t. A plan is executable. A "strategy" is guidance. So is an agenda.

Nor is this a plan:
And what Gorelick describes as "military contingency plans" means, basically, that the military would consider future options as they developed—presumably, that’s where Pakistan and Uzbekistan would kick in. So, Rice’s references to "ground troops" who will "take the fight to the enemy where he lived," if they mean anything at all, really mean using forces other than our own That sounds pretty similar to the 1998 and 2000 plans—sorry, "ideas"—Clarke had developed, which were themselves improvements on Clinton administration policy.
It is a ’grand scheme’. Another strategy. "Will take the fight to the enemy where he lived" is what sort of "plan?"

This:
The first stage was, we would warn the Taliban. The second stage was we would pressure the Taliban. And the third stage was that we would look for ways to oust the Taliban based upon individuals on the ground other than ourselves, at the same time making military contingency plans."
... is a strategy. And until there’s a plan to execute it, it’s no better than a wet dream.

It is no different than saying we will exploit their new cornerback on offense and attempt to blitz on key third downs to sack their quarterback.

Given that guidance or strategy, you then develop a plan to do that. There would be an offensive and defensive game plan to execute the given strategy. That plans would include actual plays to be called, players to be involved in those plays, etc. all pointed at putting the new cornerback at a disadvantage in the offensive game plan. And the same would be true defensively, with a plan to include the designated rushers, 3rd down team personnel, etc., all pointed toward the attempt to sack the quarterback per the defensive game plan. Those two are plans because they are executable.

So again ... where is the plan?

Oh, and Davebo ... what you found isn’t a plan either. It’s more of the same crap Cap is waving around.

And I say that after 18 years in operations writing PLANS to implement strategies, guidance and proposals. Believe me, I know what a plan looks like, and nothing you’ve yet presented fits the bill.

Any questions?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s plain from Clarke’s memo that there were at least two strategic plans from the Clinton administration that Rice and Bush ignored.
Geez. Strategies aren’t "plans" for heaven sake.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Gotcha,

It all boils down to McQ’s definition of "is". Condi got caught in a fib. Especially regarding her comments on Pakistan.

And I don’t really care if you have any questions.

 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Any questions?

Yeah, Captain Sarcastic - I have one.

How come George bush is a SOB for not doing in 8 months what Slick Willie couldn’t be bothered to do in 8 years?
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
If I say "I want to get rich". Is that a plan?

Nope, that’s a strategy. There is no clear path to it in that statement. An actionable plan with verifiable subgoals is the how.

I can’t believe that we are explaining this to the lefties here. No wonder you are still living in your Mom’s basement.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
It all boils down to McQ’s definition of "is". Condi got caught in a fib. Especially regarding her comments on Pakistan.
It really boils down to what constitutes a plan and it is obvious you haven’t a clue. But then, when have you ever?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I can’t believe that we are explaining this to the lefties here. No wonder you are still living in your Mom’s basement.
Really.

It still astonishes me that you have to explain the most basic concepts to them at times.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Really.

It still astonishes me that you have to explain the most basic concepts to them at tim


Well, if they were capable of any type of logical reasoning, they wouldn’t be lefties, after all.
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
I couldn’t care less if Clinton had a plan or a strategy to deal with al Qaeda and terrorism. The only relevant question is: what did Clinton do about al Qaeda and terrorism? Anywhere outside of fantasyland, he spent millions of dollars on the creation of some documents that he and Berger apparently handed to the Bush Administration and said "you take care of it."

If Clinton was actively doing so much about terrorism, how did Hansour, al Hamzi and al Midhar all get into the country and begin training at flight schools in 2000? Why did he allow the Cole to get attacked in 2000?

Liberals think that by saying something is so, it will make it so. No matter how angry or bitter liberals are about the failure of their ideology, Clinton was and is a mediocrity. He came into office when the GDP had been expanding at 3.5% for a full year, the Cold War had been won, and the restructuring of the American economy in the 1980’s had freed up trillions of dollars to be invested in productive businesses like Intel, Cisco and all the other companies that fueled the economic growth that he wants to take credit for. Clinton, the master politician could never even win 50% of the vote. He has always had the support of liberal sychophants who admire his ruthlessness in the pursuit of power but he is nowhere near as popular as the media tells us he is.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
Somehow I don’t see the good Captain becoming Major Sarcastic any time soon. Let’s see if I get this straight....
Clarke laid out a proposed agenda for urgent action by the new administration:

· Approval of covert assistance to the Northern Alliance and others.
· Significantly increased funding to pay for this and other CIA activity in preparation of the administration’s first budget, for Fiscal Year 2002.
· Choosing a standard of evidence for attributing responsibility for the U.S.S. Cole and deciding on a response.
· Going forward with new Predator reconnaissance missions in the spring and preparation of an armed version of the aircraft.
· More work on terrorist fundraising.
So, basically, Clarke tried to get the Bush administration to do what the Clinton administration had refused to do for the prior few years? And part of that would begin in FY02? Thanks for the laugh.
 
Written By: laughingman
URL: http://
I saw a sound bite of Madeline Albright on the news today, responding(I think) to C. Rice’s comments. She asked "How many meetings did they have?". LOL. Evidently the metric of success in some endeavour for M. Albright is how often it is discussed. She definitely belongs in the state department.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Yeah, Captain Sarcastic - I have one.

How come George bush is a SOB for not doing in 8 months what Slick Willie couldn’t be bothered to do in 8 years?
Because GWB has been politicizing 9/11 and spinning his failure as either success or Clinton’s failure ever since 9/11.

Clinton admits he failed.

I am pretty passionate about this, since it is central to my political transformation, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which Republicans were obsessed with for 2 years, was the reason I left the Republican Party, and now it seems that this circus was more than just a power grab, it was the abdication of duty and denial of genuine threats by Republicans, that was, in my opinion, more responsible than George Bush, and far more responsible than Bill Clinton for our failure to address this threat.

9/11 May have happened no matter how much attention we gave this threat, but why is it surprising that I have more respect for those that did more and less respect for those that did less and pretended they did more.

Condi Rice was scheduled to give a speech on 9/11 about the top security priority of the Bush administration.

Missile Defense!

That’s just an ironic example of how far the Bush administration missed the actual threat while they were trying to sell a solution to a problem we didn’t have. Of course with Bush’s disasterous policies, we may need that missile defense program now TOO.

Cap



 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Somehow I don’t see the good Captain becoming Major Sarcastic any time soon. Let’s see if I get this straight....
Clarke laid out a proposed agenda for urgent action by the new administration:

· Approval of covert assistance to the Northern Alliance and others.
· Significantly increased funding to pay for this and other CIA activity in preparation of the administration’s first budget, for Fiscal Year 2002.
· Choosing a standard of evidence for attributing responsibility for the U.S.S. Cole and deciding on a response.
· Going forward with new Predator reconnaissance missions in the spring and preparation of an armed version of the aircraft.
· More work on terrorist fundraising.
So, basically, Clarke tried to get the Bush administration to do what the Clinton administration had refused to do for the prior few years? And part of that would begin in FY02? Thanks for the laugh.
What Bush DID was to remove anti-terror from a cabinet level priority.

What his AG did was tell the director of the FBI to stop talking to him about terrorism.

What Condi Rice did was to talk up missile defense.

Hey, if you think that Bush gave anti-terror the priority that Clinton did, and you think that Bush acted properly toward this issue, then fine, we disagree. You have access to the facts, just as I do, we apparently have a different view of the picture these facts paint. I am willing to bet that I am less partisan than you and more objective, but that’s irrelevant, you believe what you need to.

I am not looking for a promotion to Major, I am considering a pay grade increase from sarcastic to sardonic.



 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
You are all missing the point, the admin does not give a crap re: terrorism, they came into office with a plan to invade Iraq, establish permanant bases and take control of the oil and not just in Iraq. In the process enriching themselves and all their close associates. 9/11 was just what they were hoping for, they have used it as an excuse to keep the public in a constant state of fear so they could consolidate power under the excutive branch and piss on the constitution. Their so called war on terror has done nothing but make themselves and their cronies rich off the sacrifice of our sons and daughters. After they steal the elections coming up don’t be suprised when the introduce a bill to repeal the term limits on the president. This is the most openly corrupt admin that’s ever been and they do not even try very hard to hide it. They should all burn in hell.
 
Written By: tluptowski
URL: http://
I never thought such a thing existed, but here it is: Weapons Grade Stupidity. And apparently, it causes BDS.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Once more, McQ’s political masters have been caught in a lie and McQ’s sole defense is to try to play semantical games as to what a ’strategy’, ’plan’, ’proposal’ is or isn’t.

As CAPT S points out, this administration repeatedly ignored warnings about the threat posed by AQ. They deemphasized counterterrorism in favor of Star Wars; they had an AG who was more interested in prostitution in New Orleans than terrorism; and they essentially ignored what the Clinton administration told them would be their priority issue.

But semantical games are useful in convincing low-information-types that their heroes have an excuse for their negligence and incompetence.
 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
What Bush DID was to remove anti-terror from a cabinet level priority.

What his AG did was tell the director of the FBI to stop talking to him about terrorism.

What Condi Rice did was to talk up missile defense.
And this all has exactly what to do with what Clinton’s administration did or didn’t do pertaining to terrorists in general and AQ and bin Laden specifically?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Once more, McQ’s political masters have been caught in a lie and McQ’s sole defense is to try to play semantical games as to what a ’strategy’, ’plan’, ’proposal’ is or isn’t.
Actually I come from a long line of people who believe words mean things and are not malleable to the point of meaninglessness.

A plan is actionable. I notice you simply refuse to engage that portion of the argument and instead choose to flop the usual red herring out there and resort to ad hominem attacks.

I’ll let that speak for itself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy — uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn’t get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn’t sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You’re saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that’s correct.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Anchoress and Sigman , Carl and Alfred should have done a little more Googling. Can’t speak for Bill Clinton’s voracity, but a church in Pine Bluff, Arkansas burned in 1963. This article will show you how similar Arkansas was to Alabama. Dr. Rice did not live in Alabama her entire chilhood. From her bio she attended high school in Denver. So what is the point, to state Dr. Rice lived in state that where black churches burned, when there was racism,lychings and riots in Arkansas during the same time. Dosen’t anybody remember the mob and anticipated violence, during the desegregation of the high school in Little Rock?
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration
This was part of an off the record background briefing that Clarke was asked to give by the Whitehouse to put the WH in the best light possible. Clarke was an employee doing what he was told, until he quit and became free to speak without spin on the record.

Clarke was not lying when made the off the record background comments, but he admits he was highlighting the positive and omitting the negative.

This was not, as it has been reformatted to indicate, an on the record interview with Richard Clarke, he would do his masters bidding, but not under his own name.

It’s so funny to me that you guys don’t get it when generals are unwilling to speak up until they retire, and in fact usually say nothing about their leadership that isn’t positively glowing, and when they retire and speak up plenty, you people go after them for not having spoken up while they were in uniform following orders. It’s the same concept with Richard Clarke.

This backgrounder is no more useful than if Scott Ari Fleischer delivered it.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
you people go after them for not having spoken up while they were in uniform following orders
Never been a soldier, have you?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
This was part of an off the record background briefing that Clarke was asked to give by the Whitehouse to put the WH in the best light possible. Clarke was an employee doing what he was told, until he quit and became free to speak without spin on the record.
Ah, so he lied.

But now, now we’re supposed to give everything he says credence?

Is that the point, Cap?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Can’t speak for Bill Clinton’s voracity, but a church in Pine Bluff, Arkansas burned in 1963.
Yeah, well Bill wasn’t a little kid in 1963, was he?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s so funny to me that you guys don’t get it when generals are unwilling to speak up until they retire, and in fact usually say nothing about their leadership that isn’t positively glowing, and when they retire and speak up plenty, you people go after them for not having spoken up while they were in uniform following orders. It’s the same concept with Richard Clarke.
Who’s "you guys?"

If you have an ounce of integrity, you speak up when you are called to do so either by your conscience or your duty.

If not, you lie.

If you do the latter, please don’t ask me to sort through the crap to decide which version is most likely true.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Never been a soldier, have you?
No, I grew up in military school and had enough crew cuts and 5 AM revelies long before I was old enough to sign up.

My father was a CWO4 in the Air Force.

Do you have a point?

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Ah, so he lied.

But now, now we’re supposed to give everything he says credence?

Is that the point, Cap?
You just couldn’t quite make it to the second paragraph before shooting out a reply could you?

I had already addressed your comment before you made it.
Clarke was not lying when made the off the record background comments, but he admits he was highlighting the positive and omitting the negative.
Basically, Clarke did what you have been doing, he used semantics and sophistry and spin to make the WH look better than unadulterated truth would have indicated.

I don’t blame him for quitting, it was bad enough that the WH failed to do anything, they were ordering him to make it look as much as possible like they did do something. Oh and by the way, if he was lying for the WH, that would be a really good reason to be on background.

Surely you are not so naive as to think that the WH doesn’t lie through background press conferences, which by definition means that the source is unnamed and confidential. In other words, "I didn’t say this but..."

It really was a clever tactic by Fox news to release the confidential source of this background in an attempt to discredit Clarke. Totally unethical, but hey, It’s FOX.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
"You are all missing the point"........tluptowski HAS THE POINT!!! that you all are missing!!!

"Their so called war on terror has done nothing but make themselves and their cronies rich off the sacrifice of our sons and daughters. After they steal the elections coming up don’t be suprised when the introduce a bill to repeal the term limits on the president. This is the most openly corrupt admin that’s ever been and they do not even try very hard to hide it"

This is the most HONEST thing said here today and NOBODY has even notised. By the time it happens, the name calling will be over....we will all be scratching our heads and saying "did YOU see THAT comin???"

WAKE UP! It’s happening right now. T is right, they are not even trying to hide it.
 
Written By: skysarcastic
URL: http://
Yeah, well Bill wasn’t a little kid in 1963, was he?
This coming from the guy defending George Bush who said "He wouldn’t let the inspectors in" referring to Saddam after the inspectors were thrown out by George Bush.

Clinton lied, no doubt, but I don’t think Arkansas thing was a lie, the Arkansas Gazette between 1946 and say 1960, was not necessarily the height of efficency.

The entire assertion that Clinton lied is based on the Gazette being unaware of any church burnings during Clinton’s childhood. Of course they were not even aware of the Pine Bluff church burning in 1963, so really, I think you would have to call this a draw.

More signficantly, who the hell cares???

It’s not like Clinton was hiding a DUI or something.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
You just couldn’t quite make it to the second paragraph before shooting out a reply could you?
Nope, read it all.

Clarke can characterize it any way he wishes (and what a surprise that he attempts to spin it), but hey, I know a lie when I see one.
Basically, Clarke did what you have been doing, he used semantics and sophistry and spin to make the WH look better than unadulterated truth would have indicated.
Ah, I see. Out of arguments Cap?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This coming from the guy defending George Bush who said "He wouldn’t let the inspectors in" referring to Saddam after the inspectors were thrown out by George Bush.
Wasn’t it you who once sent an email around listing all the logical fallacies, Cap?

You might just want to consult it right about now.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Wow. This is complete idiocy. Great. Let’s keep reviewing what happened in the ’60s. That’s just great. Wonderful. This is so typical. In fact, let’s get a committee! A review board! That’s even better! We will sit here and debate everything. While Halliburton continues to profit on the blood of our sons and daughters.

I, too, agree with the tluptowski post. Every stinking word of it. Sad Sad US of A......worrying about DUIs and Clinton’s childhood when you should be worrying about the Administration we have in office RIGHT NOW.

Though I am a Republican, I will vote Dem no matter what. I am THAT SCARED.
 
Written By: David
URL: http://
Wasn’t it you who once sent an email around listing all the logical fallacies, Cap?

You might just want to consult it right about now.
When in Rome...



 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
When in Rome...
Right, Cap ... whatever.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ,
Both you and I know a lot of stuff happened to black folk that never was in the news. The comment implied that kind of thing never happened in Arkansas and somehow Dr. Rice was the true southerner. I am sure Bill Clinton knew of horrible things that happened to blacks in his childhood as you did. If you didn’t, you must have been very sheltered.

How can I change my email info when I comment?
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
Right, Cap ... whatever.
There are big lies and little lies, perhaps you make no distinction, if so, my comparative example is irrelevant, if you do make such distinctions, then you must FURIOUS over Bush’s big lies if you think of enough a POSSIBLE Clinton little lie from 1992 to even bring it up or debate it.

How come you call me on this when every time Bush’s response to terror is brought up, people are yelling "Clinton was worse, Clinton was worse" across this blog.

Pots and Kettles

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Actually I come from a long line of people who believe words mean things and are not malleable to the point of meaninglessness.
Yeah, sure. That’s why you beat a word to death (that you don’t even understand)in order to deflect attention away from the fact this administration was fully informed of a threat and did nothing. Because they weren’t furnished with a detailed, step-by-step, illustrated document with photographs.

This has become the MO of this administration and its adherents in explaining its numerous failures.

We were told by Bush 9/11 couldn’t have been prevented because he didn’t know when and where the terrorists would strike. Condi Rice, in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, explained her inaction by saying she would have done something if somebody had told her what to do.

Katrina? Nobody imagined the levees might fail in the event of a hurricane.

Iraq. Who on earth suspected there might be sectarian violence? We were going to be greeted as liberators on that cakewalk.
A plan is actionable.
It can be. But your definition is low-information and not IAW any definition used by the military or intelligence agencies of this country.
 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
How come you call me on this when every time Bush’s response to terror is brought up, people are yelling "Clinton was worse, Clinton was worse" across this blog.
Why are you asking me ... ask them. I don’t speak for them.
There are big lies and little lies, perhaps you make no distinction, if so, my comparative example is irrelevant, if you do make such distinctions, then you must FURIOUS over Bush’s big lies if you think of enough a POSSIBLE Clinton little lie from 1992 to even bring it up or debate it.
Read the blog, Cap. We’ve taken plenty of shots at Bush and the boys about all sorts of things to include what we believe to be lies.

It just so happens that the topic today is Clinton. You need to understand that and get over this inclination that if a "Clinton" is attacked today, that means we must dredge up an attack on "Bush" to be "fair".

We’re not fair. We’re topical, and today’s topic is Clinton.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
A plan is actionable
It can be.
Well what is it if it isn’t?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But your definition is low-information . . .
Low information . . . assuming that Clinton passed on a "plan", it was a low-information plan.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Do you have a point?
Other than you being a clueless f*ck, no.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I am getting confused. Am I to believe that although Clarke told the truth, what he said wasn’t true? How Clintonesque. I guess it all depends on what your definition of " Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." is.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Katrina? Nobody imagined the levees might fail in the event of a hurricane.
Hurricane not required.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Do you have a point?
Other than you being a clueless f*ck, no.
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

You add so much to the discourse, this blog would just be missing something without you.

Of course I don’t know how much of a problem it would be if it was missing a guy who doesn’t think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but watches it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.

Cap


 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider