# Why block Clinton's anti-terrorism papers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2004, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882 "2004-04-02T08:32:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/1 "2004-04-02T08:32:35Z")
From the _New York Times:_ > [@](#): > > [**Bush Aides Block Clinton’s Papers From 9/11 Panel**](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02PANE.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=adfceace8b231d87&partner=USERLAND&ex=1396242000) > The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton’s White House files from being turned over to the panel’s investigators. > > …The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration’s efforts against Al Qaeda. > > …Mr. Lindsey said that President Clinton and his foundation, which is based in Little Rock, Ark., had given authorization to the National Archives to gather evidence from Mr. Clinton’s files that was sought by the independent commission, which was created by Congress in late 2002. But the Bush administration, he said, had final authority to decide what would be turned over. > > Mr. Lindsey, who is Mr. Clinton’s liaison to the National Archives, said he was surprised to discover from the archives in later months that the Bush administration, after reviewing the Clinton documents gathered by researchers there, had decided not to turn over most of the material. … “They involved all of the issues — Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, terrorism, all of the areas with the commission’s jurisdiction,” he said. I’m hard-pressed to find a reason for why these papers were blocked that don’t boil down to political skullduggery. As I see it, the Bush Administration has been engaged in some revisionist history for a while, trying to paint the [falsehood](http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/30/135644/95) that Clinton didn’t do anything to combat _al Qaeda_ during his terms in office. The disclosure of thousands of pages of papers showing that Clinton was actively engaging _al Qaeda_ would blow that lie out of the water, and provide (further) embarassment to the Bush White House, especially if some of the later documents emphasized the need to warn the incoming administration of the terrorism threat. But that’s just my theory, and I admit I’m not as creative at finding excu^H^H^H^Hjustification for Bush’s actions.Does someone else want to toss out their favorite theories for why the Bushies were trying to bury this stuff? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/2 "2004-04-02T13:16:17Z")
Why is this WH More secretive than Nixon’s? Anyone with an answer for [brjung\*\*, please stop by and give an answer to [why the WH is opposed to dispelling the nasty rumors about how it handled the intel in the run up to the Iraq war](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242238&highlight=rumors). I’m genuinely curious about how attack-Iraq-Bush-backers excuse the default cover-up mode of this WH. Coincidentally, the Plame investigation’s now looking to whether or not the[WH took illegal actions to hinder the Plame investigation.](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02LEAK.html?ei=1&en=de87479abc01cdf9&ex=1081882426&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1080882448-/BXFrScDKlsJjqRBKqxEjA) Creepier than Nixon as they say. ---
**Author:** ![elpadre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/838e76/32.png) [@elpadre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elpadre)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/3 "2004-04-02T13:41:16Z")
BullCaca. Clinton was asleep at the switch. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/4 "2004-04-02T13:54:41Z")
> [@elpadre](#): > > BullCaca. Clinton was asleep at the switch. That perception is off by a factor of Four: > [@](#): > > Three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/5 "2004-04-02T19:21:06Z")
> [@elpadre](#): > > BullCaca. Clinton was asleep at the switch. Cite, please. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/6 "2004-04-02T20:00:00Z")
But, but but … Clinton got a _ **blowjob** _! ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/7 "2004-04-02T20:11:35Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > But, but but … Clinton got a _ **blowjob** _! I’ve had one or two myself. I reccomend 'em. I also reccomend an obscuro robusto from a reputable tobacconist. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/8 "2004-04-02T22:05:54Z")
Reason #1: The Bush administration doesn’t want to be caught in another lie. [Condi Rice has said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html): “The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or ‘roll back’ the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to ‘eliminate’ the al Qaeda network.” and “No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.” These papers could make Condi look really, really stupid and/or completely dishonest. But then again, this administration doesn’t seem to care much about appearing stupid and or completely dishonest. Reason #2: [Bush’s standings in the polls relies heavily on his supposedly tough stance on terrorism.](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_vote_2002_021103.html) If it turns out that the Democratic administration before him had a strong plan for dealing with al Qaeda (especially if, as it is mentioned in the first article I quoted, those Clinton papers did indeed have a position on “planes flying into buildings”) then these papers could really hurt the Bush re-election. Or pretty much what **jrung** said. What is the official reason for withholding them? ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/9 "2004-04-02T23:33:32Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > What is the official reason for withholding them? From the NYT link in the OP. > [@](#): > > Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were “duplicative or unrelated,” while others were withheld because they were “highly sensitive” and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. So, basically, because “they don’t say nuthin’.” :rolleyes: LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/10 "2004-04-02T23:43:51Z")
_Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman_ What a job that must be. Poor guy. At my last job I had the unfortunate task of explaining to a client how we hadn’t bilked them out of several hundred thousand dollars that we bilked them out of. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/11 "2004-04-03T00:06:51Z")
Bushco controls all releases of presidential papers… [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31) Y’all reckon he knew this was coming? ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/12 "2004-04-03T00:15:00Z")
**Reeder** , that link has me thinking I’m becoming a member of a conspiracy theory. Why would a WH do this? And not even two months after 9/11. I’m waiting for the theme to _The Twilight Zone_ to cue. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/13 "2004-04-03T00:39:47Z")
**LilShieste** , if I recall correctly, the white house wanted to block release of early Reagan administration papers. Stuff would have dribbled out starting with the Iran hostage crisis, and proceding through our support of Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war. Twould have been _uncomfortable_ for an admin. containing so many members who got their start at the national level during the Reagan years. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/14 "2004-04-03T00:56:54Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Twould have been uncomfortable for an admin. containing so many members who got their start at the national level during the Reagan years. I understand what you mean. I just would have figured they might have felt more anxious to take care of this earlier (like in 2000, or early 2001). > [@SimonX](#): > > Why is this WH More secretive than Nixon’s? I was thinking about this too. After some of the “intelligence failures” this administration has seen, I would think they would welcome a different view on things (kinda like a second opinion). LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/15 "2004-04-03T01:06:25Z")
For some really funny stuff like this, see my .sig A few choice examples: > [@](#): > > Wag The Dog ! Wag the Dog! We are bombing Afganhistan > > Last time it was Iraq, Now we are bombing Afghanistan and Sudan to deflect attention from Clinton’s troubles > > He set the whole damn thing up when he went to Africa. They blow up our embassies on command and Clinton gets to divert our attention away from his perverted crap. We need an investigation! > > Please pray for our pilots and sailors and that this does not escacalate. This is so sad. Afgahnistan ought to be our ally. > > Low-risk targets with very little chance of retaliation or casualties for US personnel-how coincidental!! He’s banking on a “rally-around-the-flag” (and the president) response from the sheeple. Will it work?? Maybe for a short time! Sooner or later, they’ll run out of low-risk targets. > > It’s a sad day for America. THE POTUS IS A SOCIOPATHIC SCUMBAG. > > This brash act by a brash child-man is a direct threat to the security of every citizen inside our own borders for the people against whom he acted are non-forgiving and have no fear of death. > > You heard it right - Sudan as well. We may have the entire Muslim/Arab world after us, but at least we can rest assured that “he did it for the children.” I guarantee we’ll hear that soon. > > SEE!!! YOU DUMB A\*\* LIBERALS. NOW HE IS PLACING YOUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN IN HARMS WAY TO SAVE HIS OWN BUTT. HIS GOING TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN. PLEASE GOD HELP US!!! I AM THE STUPID1 ----- please excuse me for yelling, but now I’m really scared of the lenghts this man is willing to go. I’m a 28 year old man with a beautiful family, may hands are shaking. nothing follows > > Get this SOB out of there!!! What do we have to do??? The demoncrats have to do something NOW!!! > > THE man is a crazy lunatic…get him out of office…even if it’s in a straight jacket…!!! > > I think there is a very good chance that this was a rigtheous act. However, how can we be sure? HOW can WE TRUST our President? I assume a car dealer is trying to fleece me. That’s why car dealers aren’t normally good candidates. If the Islamics are too outraged, we need to get the bum out. If he doesn’t resign, he needs to be impeached. This is absurd. We have NEVER had a military leader asked if “this was wag-the-dog”. This can’t be good for foreign affairs or for our troops. > > Killing terrorists is a Good Thing, and we can confidently expect the spin to begin: We need to get behind the Prez, he can’t be bothered by this scandal, yadda, yadda, yadda. No, we need to think about what it means to have our bombers at the command of a man who is a pathological liar. > > What if Islamic terrorist already pre-positioned in the U.S. start a terror campain? That could be the excuse for the FEMA scenario and he “Clinton, king for life” scenario. > > I can’t stop shaking either-this just came out of the blue-McCain just said that he hoped this wasn’t wag the dog (on Fox)and the president ddoesn’t have much credibility with Albright asking inspectors not to inspect in Iraq and that his reaction to Saddam was not strong enough before-my biggest fear is that the COWARD CAN MAKE THIS A NATIONAL SECURITY CRIS AND TAKE OVER!!! Do you think that this will be done!!!God help our country -I am also praying that God is not teaching the people to be careful who they put the nations secuirty in > > The real question is what we’re NOT hearing is if the strikes were conducted with the approval of Afghanistan & Sudan; and IF those other soverign states KNEW of our intention to launch attacks inside their territory. If not, slick has now marked America as a terrorist nation and committed an international act of war. This absolutely AIN’T no coincidence, folks. BC is dangerous and must go NOW! > > settle down this won’t work for willie the weasel. liberals don’t have children in the armed forces they are too busy making the world safe for the depraved. never fear god is answering our prayers. > > One of the points he made was that there was evidence of attacks previous to the ones in Africa (and of course, takes no action then). Plus there have been articles that the government ignored requests that embassies be upgraded for protection from attack. So comrade has a special elixir for disater in his back pocket to bring out when politically handy. > > An American president would not fabricate a plan of military action to keep the heat away from himself or improve his chances of being reelected. Or would he? I sh\*t you not, this is exactly what Republicans were saying not so long ago when Clinton struck at al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. If you changed “Bill Clinton” to “George Bush,” this could easily be taken for a Democrat reaction to Iraq or Afghanistan. We have it all - paranoia that he is going to take over the United States (using FEMA, of course), that the terrorists are all ready to slaughter us all if we blink in their direction (which would be interpreted as “being French - or maybe Spanish” today), the concept that **he set it all up**. I mean, FFS. This is not a pro-Democrat post, it is an anti-Republican post. Take it either way you want, but I’m just copy and pasting here. I’ll just re-paste one of my favorites: > [@](#): > > Killing terrorists is a Good Thing, and we can confidently expect the spin to begin: We need to get behind the Prez, he can’t be bothered by this scandal, yadda, yadda, yadda. No, we need to think about what it means to have our bombers at the command of a man who is a pathological liar. Historical revisionists, indeed. I especially like the, “my hands are shaking” ones. heh. One more time: > [@](#): > > **This is so sad. Afgahnistan ought to be our ally.** ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/16 "2004-04-03T01:10:39Z")
14 responses, and still not even the hint of a defense from the resident Bush apologists? Hello? Has everyone left early for the weekend? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/17 "2004-04-03T03:02:49Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > 14 responses, and still not even the hint of a defense from the resident Bush apologists? > > Hello? Has everyone left early for the weekend? There is a method of fishing in which you cast your line, and use a small motor to slowly move along, seeing what nibbles. Goblining? No, thats not it. Orcing! Nah, come to think of it, it’s not ‘Orcing’. Hrmm. It’ll come to me. In the meanwhile, you may want to read the entire article you linked to, as it does answer your ‘question’: > [@](#): > > Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were “duplicative or unrelated,” while others were withheld because they were “highly sensitive” and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. “We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job,” Mr. McClellan said. For a President that purportedly spent soooo much time and effort fighting terrorism, you would think that Clinton’s case would be self-evident, and he wouldn’t need his loyal vassals to trumpet that ‘fact’ at every turn. Odd. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/18 "2004-04-03T03:16:28Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > In the meanwhile, you may want to read the entire article you linked to, as it does answer your ‘question’ Not really. It just suggests that the info in the documents is more damning to the Bush administration than the predictable perception of impropriety created by withholding them. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/19 "2004-04-03T03:21:40Z")
> [@zwaldd](#): > > Not really. It just suggests that the info in the documents is more damning to the Bush administration than the predictable perception of impropriety created by withholding them. Gadzooks! A _NY Times_ aricle ‘suggesting’ that something the Bush administration is doing is ‘damning’ or whatever? What are the odds? Next thing you know, they will be running a series of articles favorable to the old Soviet Union, telling us how great life is there! If you stick to the _facts_, and leave out the editorializing that somehow managed to slip into the article, you are left with: Q: Why did the Bush administration not turn over some Clinton docs to the commission? A: > [@](#): > > Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were “duplicative or unrelated,” while others were withheld because they were “highly sensitive” and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. “We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job,” Mr. McClellan said. The rest, and what is coming from you merry fellows, is mere supposition. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/20 "2004-04-03T03:25:02Z")
So Bushco is determining what information the commission needs? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882.md?page=2)