What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.102 Comments
- Alcorsu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+86"Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told Condoleezza Rice that al Qaeda terrorism would be the single most important problem the Bush administration would deal with while in office, and handed her a huge file on the matter. Rice has admitted that she did not read that file until after the attacks of September 11 had taken place."
Oh... THAT strategy to fight al Qaeda. The one she didn't even bother to pick up until after 9/11.
The title is a little deceptive... Like usual, Condi is making it sound like she's saying one thing when she's really saying the opposite. She said Clinton did not leave a "comprehensive" strategy, not that he didn't leave *any* strategy. How does she define "comprehensive"? Does it have to have al Qaeda's full membership roster before it's "comprehensive"? Based on what I've read it sounds very comprehensive.
The most important thing is that Condi didn't bother to read it until after 9/11, so it doesn't matter if it had Ayman al Zawahiri's mother's maiden name or Osama's shoe size or not. She didn't care and she didn't read it, and then she didn't act after the August PDB saying bin Laden was determined to strike in the USA. Antiterrorism was downgraded by the incoming Bush Administration, and she's largely to blame. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -17/+61there r plenty of liars on both sides here, big difference is one lied about a bj and noone got hurt. another lied about why we should go to war and thousands die. some priorities you have.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44All I can say is:
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. Now, the ...
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.
RICE: Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+43This administration has already proven that they won't take blame for anything regarding 9/11 or the mess they've gotten us into with Iraq. The only thing we responsible americans can do is talk to our represenatives in congress about our disapproval of this and hope that changes in the government this election lead to people who will stand up to the constant lies this administration keeps shoveling out because they think that we can't see the facts that outweigh their deception.
***** bush, ***** condi, ***** chaney, and ***** their supporters. - forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I wouldn't care even if he was thinking about MY booty. He got the job done.
Your life, and the life of everyone you know, was better during the 90s than it is now. America was safer, more prosperous, and better respected.
Those are facts. Your opinion of the situation means nothing.
We are worse off today. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Republicans want to stick their heads so far in the sand that they'll mod down an news article from a mainstream source with actual quotes from their guys.
Damn those facts have a liberal bias! - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13This is not finger pointing, this is called, knowing what and where we went wrong.
Since the Bush administration claims that Clinton did not leave a Strategy to fight al-qaeda (finger pointing ?). It's just fair that they get the backlash when the truth's revealed. - meepus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Fixated much? That's hardly relevant, definitely off-topic, and completely uncalled for. Someone should tell Uwe Boll you mocked his films on the internet.
- nullview, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I have to say that I am a little stunned by the steady recurrence of references to blow jobs. Some people just seem to be incapable of seeing past this, almost completely insignificant event (IMHO).
I am sure that many here are too young to appreciate the difference in enlightenment, for lack of a better word, that each of these presidents brought to the country. The feeling of optimism that was almost epidemic.
The U.S. is worse off today, and the world is much worse off today; but hey look on the bright side... no more sex scandals in the oval office. - colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Apparently you don't remember the Republicans causing a fuss in Congress every time Clinton went after Al Qaeda.
- Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I don't know if it's a valid arguement to say that aPresident would not react any more appropriately after 9/11. It's like saying they don't care about the country.
Even if Clinton was busy getting a bj, I would think that as a sitting president, he would have taken priority of the country over getting a hummer.
That said, while Bush did act appropriately with the invasion of Afghanistan, it seems that lumping Iraq into the war on terror in the very beginning was a really crappy idea. - forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15"I think that Bush has reacted strongly to what is a major challenge."
Indeed, but without thinking. No one praises the kid with the big biceps for punching out a kid if it's the wrong kid.
Bush cares about Iraq. Osama is ephemera. Call that "strong" if you want. Everyone else calls it stupid. - artman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"Myth: Clinton Did Nothing To Fight Terrorism"
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm
...and another thing...
Clinton developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively - and successfully - to stop future terrorist attacks.
Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
...Ms. Rice is a do-nothing liar. Clicking on the "Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate" button doesn't change a thing. - forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"He didn't deal with a problem"
Yes, he didn't effectively deal with A problem - the elimination of Al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, there was a budget surplus, increased public and personal wealth, technology investing, environmental reform, a budget designed for modern needs instead of lopsided entirely in the direction of military development, etc., etc., etc.
What he didn't do - and not for lack of trying, in spite of Republican Congressional opposition - was bomb Osama. And that's a shame.
But like he said to Wallace, he certainly tried. And he let the incoming admin know he'd tried. And left plans for how they might try. And suggested they do so.
And they did.....?......nothing.
Now, suddenly, they're war heroes. Osama STILL hasn't been bombed. Meanwhile, Iraq is a gigantic jihadist breeding ground, we're up to our ears in debt, the administration lies, blatantly, about every single aspect of both their domestic and foreign policy on a daily basis, etc., etc., etc.
What, exactly, are you defending? If you can demonstrate anything besides a record of crystal-clear, abject failure from this administration since day 1, then cite a source.
We'll believe it when we see it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11In late 2000, the CIA and the NSC staff began thinking about the coun=
terterrorism policy agenda they would present to the new administration.The
Counterterrorist Center put down its best ideas for the future, assuming it was
free of any prior policy or financial constraints.The paper was therefore inforFROM
THREAT TO THREAT 197
mally referred to as the “Blue Sky” memo; it was sent to Clarke on December
29.The memo proposed
• A major effort to support the Northern Alliance through intelligence
sharing and increased funding so that it could stave off the Taliban
army and tie down al Qaeda fighters.This effort was not intended to
remove theTaliban from power, a goal that was judged impractical and
too expensive for the CIA alone to attain.
• Increased support to the Uzbeks to strengthen their ability to fight
terrorism and assist the United States in doing so.
• Assistance to anti-Taliban groups and proxies who might be encour=
aged to passively resist the Taliban.
The CIA memo noted that there was “no single ‘silver bullet’ available to
deal with the growing problems in Afghanistan.”A multifaceted strategy would
be needed to produce change.153
No action was taken on these ideas in the few remaining weeks of the Clin=
ton administration. Berger did not recall seeing or being briefed on the Blue
Sky memo.Nor was the memo discussed during the transition with incoming
top Bush administration officials.Tenet and his deputy told us they pressed these
ideas as options after the new team took office.154
As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff devel=
oped a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the
Delenda plan of 1998.The resulting paper, entitled “Strategy for Eliminating
the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects,”
reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA’s new ideas
from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options.
Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period
of three to five years. Over time, the policy should try to weaken and elimi=
nate the network’s infrastructure in order to reduce it to a “rump group” like
other formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations of the
1980s. “Continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent
some attacks,” Clarke’s office wrote,“but will not seriously attrit their ability
to plan and conduct attacks.” The paper backed covert aid to the Northern
Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March
2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-andcontrol
targets and infrastructure andTaliban military and command assets.The
paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the
United States - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Pepe:
>lol, are you drooling on yourself? The PDB is irrelevant here. No one puts airports on alert because of a one page memo that states something that everyone already knows and without actionable info.
No actionable info? It said that planes were likely to be used
>If they had put them on alert... what would they ahve told them?
The same thing that the Clinton administration told them in 1998. More thorough checks, more security, more searches, more questions. You know, obvious stuff that even the most stupid and incompetent administration would perform.
>To look for the same guys YOU ALREADY look for? The PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America" only has political value for you idiots who actually think a title like that on a document actually has value.
How about this document, from January, saying that a meeting about Al Qaeda was URGENTLY required? No value as well? I guess URGENT means eight months and nothing:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Pepe:
>The Iraq war they have responsibility for, but trying to put 9/11 on them too is absolutely retarded. They simply were not in office long enough to have the strategic effect on our approach to terror
Oh, of course. Eight months isn't long enough to put the airports on alert when you get a PDB about an attack.
You need at least, what, 15, maybe 20 months to get around to making that phone call. - BonPosh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1110 Years ago, who was working hard to fight terror?
http://digg.com/politics/What_a_Difference_10_Years_Makes_in_the_War_on_Terror - enki25, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The Clinton administration left a comprehensive plan on how to deal with terrorism, specifically the terrorists who ended up attacking us. Condi lied. These are facts.
All this other crap about blowjobs and Clinton's area of focus his last few months in office is an attempt to distract. Bush had a plan and did NOTHING. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Saying finger pointing solves nothing is wrong to begin with. You point at the problem, you try and fix and then you try not to repeat it. Not trying to find out what the problem was is what solves nothing.
- Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As Colbert says, "reality as a well-known liberal bias."
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8But of course. That's why I label my HDD manual "How to launch a ballistic missile against the american infidels in 5 easy steps".
I think you must re-evaluate your common sense gland and labelling practices. It may be under pressure from your partisan lobe, - NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Warning: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Rightwingers have reported that this story contains information that may shake up their little beliefs and as so have reported it as inaccurate. - nullview, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9How about cheating to stay out of vietnam, or having reputable sources claim that you indulged in a cocaine habit, questionable business dealings, bait and switch with osama in afghanistan and hussein in iraq, bungling the war effort, bungling the recovery from natural disasters... but hey, no sex scandals... good job.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7it's all facts, no heart. :(
- artman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I guess that means Bush Co. are blocking the insurgent's bombs with our soldiers, eh?
/live in your fantasy - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Come on guys, really it's surprising how much people care about personal attacks on presidents whether it is Bill's sex life or Bush's (lack of) ability at public speaking. Please please please judge them by what they have done for (and to) this country.
Dugg, because this article is at least trying to sort out all the spin politicians throw out. - Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Waging a "war" against an organization or a concept, not a country, is unprecedented, except in the USA. A war is a disagreement between nations, taken to the battlefield.
The best analogy I've heard to date related terrorism to piracy, in the sense that it's a universal crime that affects everyone, and should be universally unacceptable and punished appropriately. It's still not a war.
And about Clinton attacking Al Qaeda, he went after Bin Laden and his associates directly, or at least tried.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/155252.stm (weird, digg won't linkify this properly)
for instance. You know, the same thing that everyone was shouting "wag the dog!", claiming that he was deliberately trying to distract the nation. Go figure. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Welcome to digg, where people post articles about political opinions and are immediately marked as "inaccurate" by those who don't agree.
- KenLin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I'd take her word over a known liar and adulterer."
Well, that lying adulterer did not send 3,000 of our troops to their deaths with another 10,000 injured (Source: Department of Defense http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/). The current lying imbecile spent half a trillion dollar doing so while not making us any safer (Source: April NIE, all over the news)
Tell me: why do you and the neoconservatives hate America, our freedom and our soldiers so much you are willing to spend money to send them to their deaths? - avenu420, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6he had most of those 9 months to go on vacation and not perform his primary duties, I might add.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And yet, with all of those problems you mention, Bush STILL denied there was a problem until 9/11, please explain that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"We were and are still vulnerable in many areas."
And the sad truth is... it doesn't matter. We'll ALWAYS be vulnerable.
We need to understand that we have (and had) agencies in place to prevent this type of thing. They won't stop them all. Hell, I can walk one block and derail an Acela train if I wanted to. I'm sure you all have similar 'targets' you could hit. Trying to protect all of them is pointless.
Making this the only thing we are worried about as a country is shortsighed and, from a societal standpoint, going to cost us more in other areas. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5We're in Orange Alert. Sleep isn't allowed.
- forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Didn't you get the memo?
No one cares what people like you think anymore.
You represent unwashed Flyover America's minority opinion. You stopped being relevant about 6 months ago, right around the time all those "Support Our Troops" ribbons started mysteriously vanishing from the minivans.
Go check my oil. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Quoting from the 9/11 Commission report:
"We have found no indication of any further discussion before September
11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an
al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in
Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the Pres=
ident between August 31 (after the President had returned toWashington) and
September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of
the domestic threat during this period." - vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"During the Clinton presidentcy we had multiple terrorist attacks against US targets around the world. That should of been enough for then President Clinton to launch military strikes against terrorist targets."
He did! Did you not even bother to consider this? Were you not around back then? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'd rather live next door to a pimp than a man that randomly shoots his neighbors.
That applies to who I'd vote for to. - dortdruben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I highly doubt Clinton is the only President who's gotten some action, NOT by his wife, in the Oval Office. Come on, there's been like 30-some presidents, and when you're the most powerful man in the country, yr gonna have an easier time gettin' some. Especially with plucky interns running all around.
Plus, who cares? - designer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Clinton left behind a Power Point presentation. I'm not sure if that counts as a plan.
- DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In his latest book, Al Franken argues (full disclosure: I agree with him) that Bush has, in fact, committed an obvious and impeachable felony. He has violated Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment; not just once but on several occasions. Section 4 stipulates:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ..."
On several occasions Bush has questioned, even downright refuted the "validity of the public debt of the United States" by calling Treasury bills -- the investment basis of the Social Security Trust Fund -- nothing but "I.O.U.s." He has since recanted by referring to T-bills as "sound investments" under his failed privatization plans.
So Bush has not just committed millions of counts of felony fraud as well as potentially actionable warcrimes but he has also brought the full faith and credit of U.S. debts into doubt. Seems to me that a bipartisan Congress with an ounce of backbone could impeach him quite readily. - artman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Old news. Didn't you read the memo?
http://www.rawstory.com/images/clarkerice.pdf
"2001 memo to Rice contradicts statements about Clinton, Pakistan"
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html?condi - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10well, he did actually ask her if it warned of an attack...
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"That's the only lie you can remember out of Clinton's entire presidency?"
And yet you didn't happen to mention any more lies. What happened, did you forget what you were doing in the middle of composing your post? - DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3(cont.)
But to claim Clinton was "inactive" against terrorism during his tenure as President is to misunderstand why 9/11 was such a tragedy. It was on continental U.S. soil. It was in the densest population of Americans anywhere in the world. It was almost 3,000 dead. And it wasn't prevented because Bush displaced, by choice, so many of the programs and personnel Clinton had put into place. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"He could have at least had the decency to take it somewhere else, and not defame the White House."
Dude, get some ***** perspective. The White House is a ***** building. That is it. Enough of 'protecting the symmbolism' (flag) and 'defaming the White House'. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
The President has a job. That job does not involve who he sleeps with, what TV shows he watches, if his socks show, or if he ***** his wife in the Lincoln Bedroom.
You need priorities. We, as a country, need to deport your ass and replace you with a mexican who will do the same bitching, but for minimum wage! - vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This whole argument is rather amazing to me. You can argue that Clinton didn't do enough to get Osama before 9/11, but if you do, you must say that Bush didn't do enough before or after. Even after the attack of 9/11, it's been 5 years and Bush has still failed to get him. Even with the support of much of the world after 9/11 and more than 300 billion in military spending. And, a promise to bring him to justice "dead or alive." It's really amazing to me that Bush supporters are trying to pin the failure to get Osama solely on Clinton. It's simply ridiculous!
- dracheflieger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Richard Clarke said the same thing...no plan left...
- DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Richard Clarke admitted to the 911 commission that a comprehensive strategy did not exist. Its part of his testimony."
Please cite this claim regarding Richard Clarke's 9/11 commission testimony. It seems to me that one of the men most responsible for anti-terrorism efforts under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton claiming "a comprehensive strategy" never existed would be remarkably self-incriminating. Such testimony would be like Richard Clarke admitting he spent all his time in an executive office reading Hustler. - Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Marked by right wingers by as inaccurate
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is