This is a scoop courtesy of Matt Drudge.
I assume the Drudge scoop is a accurate reproduction of the Time article.
I find it difficult to believe this. [ul][li]It’s out of character. The Clinton administration had done little to attack al Qaeda while Clinton was in office. []There was no especial provocation in the period before 9-11-2002.[]If this were true, it would have come out a long time ago. [/ul]However, I have no facts to disprove the story. [/li]
What do you think?
Alternatively, Clinton did what he perceived he would be allowed to do, given that even the efforts he did expend were labeled “Wag the Dog” events by the Right.
Of course not. The first WTC bombing and the bombing of two embassies were no provocation at all.
Quite possibly true. OTOH, the plan’s author was an associate of the Bush folks and might have not wanted to embarass them by bringing it to light, earlier.
Besides, this is water over the dam stuff. No reasonable person would condemn Bush for wanting to review an attack plan that he had inherited from another asdministration. Kennedy deared that point into the minds of all his successors at the Bay of Pigs. Accepting the last guy’s battle plan is a good way to make yourself look really stupid.
seared, not deared
Apart from launch cruise missile attacks against a training camp in Afghanistan and a supposed bioweapons factory in Sudan. Oh and (by his own admission) look into ways of having Osama killed.
Apart from the attacks mentioned by Tomndebb, didn’t they also kill 17 crewmen when they launched a suicide bomb attack against the USS Cole in Yemen?
I don’t see why. Not everything gets leaked you know. Things that may hurt the sitting administration are kept more tightly sealed than anything else.
When did you ever?:rolleyes:
—It’s out of character. The Clinton administration had done little to attack al Qaeda while Clinton was in office.—
That’s a matter of debate. There was all sorts of police action around the world to find these guys after the emmbassies and the Cole, and the 2000 attack was indeed foiled. There wasn’t military action (aside from the Sudan and various missle strikes) but it’s worth remembering that neither Clinton nor the Bush administration were in a very good position to mass an pre-emptive mass attack on Afghanistan: that underestimates how much changed after 9/11 as far as governments around the world and especially in the Middle East.
I also doubt that by “everything we’ve done since 9/11” Clarke was reffering to the sort of military assault we were able to launch on the Taliban and Al Queda, because that scale of operation simply wasn’t thinkable back then: he probably meant the world coalition of police action and creating a more centralized Homeland Defense plan/organization (the latter which, if I remember from back then, was the major finding of the plan, which was laughed at by the Bush administration (even after Sept. 11) as creating yet another bueracracy).
This report/plan, if it’s the same one I’m thinking about, was not really a secret to begin with.
It was developed by a bypartisan comittee composed of both Clinton administration officials and Republican members of Congress including Newt Gingrich and (if I’m recalling it right) Orrin Hatch. I concluded that Al Queda was regrouping, preparing its resources for something, and posed a serious potential threat to the mainland U.S. The Clinton adminstration may well have been guilty of passing it off onto the next administration without taking needed action itself, but it wasn’t simply a Clinton plan: it really was a surprisingly bipartisan effort.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
Here is the actual Time story.
I have just glanced at it but let me say that it isn’t news that members of the Clinton administration ,especially Berger, were extremely worried about terrorism so that part of the story is believable. Whether their actual policies were adequate and appropriate is anothe matter and I don’t have any opinion on that.
Great, Clinton took out some aspirin factories and launched an ineffective raid against OBL. (He wanted the two attacks to occur at the same time, not caring about the time zone difference, thus ensuring that the attack against OBL took place several hours after the meeting he was at was over.)
Clinton had no real anti-terrorist policy, so we now have to clean up a mess that was left largely untouched for 8 years.
—(He wanted the two attacks to occur at the same time, not caring about the time zone difference, thus ensuring that the attack against OBL took place several hours after the meeting he was at was over.)—
Cite?
I very much doubt you’re telling the whole story on this one: sounds like you’re just out for whatever tangential blood you can draw.
Besides the person who planned these attacks was the same guy who led Bush’s campaign on Al Queda. Assuming he wasn’t this incompetant, there was some reason you don’t know or aren’t letting on.
—Clinton had no real anti-terrorist policy, so we now have to clean up a mess that was left largely untouched for 8 years.—
You sound like the sort of person who wouldn’t agree that he had any “real” policy no matter what it was.
Besides, the Bush adminstration had a chance to make up for this “obvious” (according to you) decificiency. But it didn’t either (indeed, pulled resources out of anti-terrorism and into drug busting). Assuming, as I am, that both administrations actually CARE about preventing terrorism (gasp!) and terrible attacks like Sept. 11, I would guess there are more complicated reasons why the pursued the particular policies they did than simply “Clinton was sloppy and evil!” Or “Bush was sloppy and evil!”
You guys are missing the obvious: it has to be true because it’s written all in caps.
Apos,
The Washington Times is now charging for the article that I want to cite. I will keep digging to get you a proper non-geocities cite.
As for Clinton bashing, I liked him as a President (generally; The Brady Bill was and is a travesty), but as a person, I don’t care him. I don’t think you’ll get much Clinton-bashing out of me, as long as we stick to his job, not his personal life.
Also, don’t take my critisicm of Clintons nominal anti-terrorist policy as approval for Bush’s anti-terrorist policies. Again, I think Bush is a great President, in general, (I am a presidential optimist), but I think he is sorely lacking (doing the right things, but pussy-footing it) in the war against terrorism. But that would be another OP.
—Also, don’t take my critisicm of Clintons nominal anti-terrorist policy as approval for Bush’s anti-terrorist policies. Again, I think Bush is a great President, in general, (I am a presidential optimist), but I think he is sorely lacking (doing the right things, but pussy-footing it) in the war against terrorism.—
But this should just suggest more strongly to you that perhaps there are problems facing anti-terrorist efforts that both administrations face: restrictions on what they can plausibly do. It’s easy to be an armchair general, when you don’t have to think about all the related consequences and risks.
Cool! Brutus knows an ex-president!
Not that I meant it that way, but as long you are interested, the only person of note that I have ever met and shook hands with was (then) VP Gore. I’ll try to introduce you to my elite and powerfull circle of friends someday.
I look forward to it Brutus, as long as we can skip Ash and Rummy - my built in reality-check meter might break if I get too close to those guys. I’ll golf with Dubya any time though, just tell me when.
From december’s link of 7:25 pm
So, knowing that Time was publishing a hyperbolic version of the proposal, couched in inflammatory language, on the eve of a mid-term election, the White House issues a denial with enough weasel words to permit plausible denial if more information comes to light regarding the actual proposal.
Well, what else could they do? Short of presenting the actual plan with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each page explaining what they had to consider for eight months, nothing they say will calm the anti-Bush people with blood-lust in their eyes (while nothing would persuade the militantly pro-Bush camp that anything could be done).
As someone who does not like or respect Bush, I still think this is a non-story. I think a proposal was made, but that nothing in it would have prevented the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
december Even though it’s a Reuters story in your link, I’ll accept it as true anyway:D
I personally don’t think for a minute that Bush and his administration did less that they could priory to 9/11. If they did, it would be only by degrees. And the Dems probably wouldn’t have done better.
Now that that’s out of the way, the article makes one good point.
That is kinda disturbing. Not damning, but unsettling.
Eh…How is a Predator drone the “best possible source of intelligence on the terror camps”? What would a drone flying overhead really tell you, anyway? “Hey, there’s a bunch of guys with beards running around down there shooting AK-47’s at targets and running through obstacle courses and stuff.” A drone fly-over might not even tell you for sure that it’s an Al-Qaida camp–it’s not like Afghanistan has had some sort of shortage of bearded guys with guns at any point in the last couple of decades.
The “best possible source of intelligence” on Al-Qaida would have been infiltrating a real live human being into the organization. Which is not something the U.S. has been all that good at, for a long time now, under multiple Presidential administrations of both parties. And which is very difficult under the best of circumstances.
A Predator drone would not have been the best source of intelligence on the terror camps. The drone’s range at the time would have been far too limited, due to lack of airfield deployment. That statement alone puts the articles author into question. The best airial recon for that area at the time would have been a U-2, which was being done at intervals I believe.