# 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:** 2
**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, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/21 "2004-04-03T03:27:50Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. This excuse presumes that the white house _knows_ what information the commission needs to do their job. And just what job is that anyway, to find out what happened and determine how to make a recurrence less likely, or to sweep the whole dirty pile of fuckups under the rug? Is there any evidence that the administration _knows_ just how they screwed the pooch in the months leading up to 9/11? ---
**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, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/22 "2004-04-03T03:53:49Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > A _NY Times_ aricle ‘suggesting’ that something the Bush administration is doing is ‘damning’ or whatever? The article didn’t suggest that at all. The act of withholding the documents despite the obvious perception of impropriety suggests it. ---
**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, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/23 "2004-04-03T05:46:40Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > 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. Or… here’s a crazy idea… **rjung** might have been waiting for some kind of response from the “other side.” Debates generally involve more than one viewpoint. > [@](#): > > In the meanwhile, you may want to read the entire article you linked to, as it does answer your ‘question’ Well, since I pointed out the excerpt you mention, and posters still had questions, i don’t think it answered any. > [@](#): > > 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: > Quote: > > 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. As **Squink** and **Reeder** have already pointed out: maybe we should let the commission decide what information it needs, and what information is redundant. To me, this is kind of like someone on trial being able to prevent evidence from being presented to the jury, because “it’s nothing new… so don’t worry about it.” Why _shouldn’t_ we be suspicious of something like that? LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/24 "2004-04-03T06:20:37Z")
forgive the statement of the obvious, but since they are standing there trying to keep the goods behind their backs, they, uh,( at least themselves) think they have something to hide. query:what the fuck could it be?? I mean, presumably the clinton folks know everything that’s there, and if there were a bombshell, they’d smoke it out without the documentation…But it must be something… ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/25 "2004-04-03T07:42:46Z")
They caved: > [@](#): > > [9/11 Panel Granted Look at Clinton Papers > White House Moves to Cut Off Another Dispute Over Testimony, Documents > By Dan Eggen > Washington Post Staff Writer > Saturday, April 3, 2004](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46375-2004Apr2.html) > > The Bush administration agreed yesterday to let the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks review about 9,000 pages of documents from the Clinton archives, which the White House had earlier refused to release, despite the conclusion of federal researchers that they were relevant to the panel’s work. > > The agreement, announced by White House spokesman Scott McClellan and confirmed by commission officials, was aimed at cutting short another high-profile battle between the administration and the Sept. 11 panel in the midst of the presidential election campaign. The Bush White House has feuded with the commission repeatedly over access to documents and witnesses, and this week capitulated to demands for public testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. ---
**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, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/26 "2004-04-03T07:49:27Z")
Once again, the Bush Administration does the right thing after they get dragged kicking and screaming into it. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/27 "2004-04-03T08:44:51Z")
I wonder if the administration will ask congress to extend the life of the commission by a month or two so that they have a reasonable amount of time to digest the new evidence, or is a half-assed job good enough for Bush? ---
**Author:** ![elpadre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/838e76/32.png) [@elpadre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elpadre)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/28 "2004-04-03T11:19:29Z")
[http://w3f.com/article.html](http://w3f.com/article.html) ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/29 "2004-04-03T11:45:08Z")
> [@elpadre](#): > > [http://w3f.com/article.html](http://w3f.com/article.html) From the linked story: > [@](#): > > Because of the above facts, I believe that Bill Clinton is fully responsible for the attacks on September 11th and the deaths of 3000+ people, including the cost to the taxpayers for the war on terrorism. I’m surprised no one thought of that before. Bush is hiding Clinton’s documents, because the documents prove that it was all _Clinton_’s fault. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elpadre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/838e76/32.png) [@elpadre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elpadre)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/30 "2004-04-03T11:51:01Z")
And we all know that Bush must be covering something up. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/31 "2004-04-03T14:45:08Z")
> [@elpadre](#): > > And we all know that Bush must be covering something up. Pretty much fits the standard definition of a [coverup](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coverup): > [@](#): > > the White House turned over 1,966 pages of 10,790 total, or about 18 percent. > … > Lindsey said the disputed records “clearly relate to the topics that the 9/11 commission is investigating.” He said the White House adopted a “legalistic approach” that allowed them to withhold, for example, memos prepared in advance of a particular meeting if the commission request was focused on the meeting itself. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/32 "2004-04-03T15:07:25Z")
> [@elpadre](#): > > And we all know that Bush must be covering something up. > > :rolleyes: 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) ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/33 "2004-04-03T15:54:50Z")
I like how Brutus states that Scotty’s statement is fact. Like he would have said the same thing about Clinton’s speaker. They are paid to spin and lie, its a FACT. Bush’s problem is that he has built his whole persona as someone who is apolitical and above the fray and also around the idea that he never apologises or does anything to take political damage. That’s probably why he is so polarizing. I can’t really see how people are on the fence with him, honestly. He probably doesn’t have some extremely embarassing stuff there, but the fact that he has been against every single form of 911 investigation, does make you wonder? Maybe he just wants to hide the fact that it could have been prevented. I would have a lot of respect for the man if he came out in late Setember 2001 and said that he had made mistakes, and that he would correct them. He could fire someone that he pinned the blame on and he would be immune from it now. But he has always chosen the easiest way out, politically. Now he’s paying for it. I don’t think that he has any really big secrets to cover up, but the problem is that he has been covering them up for so long he’s screwed himself over. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/34 "2004-04-03T21:29:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Because of the above facts, I believe that Bill Clinton is fully responsible for the attacks on September 11th and the deaths of 3000+ people, including the cost to the taxpayers for the war on terrorism. _Fully_ responsible? So it was Clinton in the cockpit of those planes? :rolleyes: ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/35 "2004-04-03T23:26:10Z")
The imagery in that article is funny. > [@](#): > > …those seeds of terror reaped a bitter harvest on America… How do seeds of terror reap a bitter harvest? Was this written by a 1st year college kid with 1 creative writing class under his belt? > [@](#): > > But the Clinton White House failed to accept the offer, believing there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute bin Laden. Yea, how dare they let a little thing like evidence get in the way of arresting a citizen of another nation. Thankfully, we have a man in the Whitehouse who takes no consideration for the consequences of his actions. Whew. > [@](#): > > blatant offensiveness, as a representative of the free world provoked the Muslims into attacking that which offends them so much… The decadence of the West. Do your homework, for with out it, your opinion means nothing. This part I’ll agree with, but it fits Bush more than it does Clinton. lol, this page also includes ranting on how the government can’t make us pay income tax, a boycott of France and French products, spends pages ranting on about “republic” versus “democracy” (making the funny mistake of assuming that “Republicans” are for a “republic” and “Democrats” are for a “democracy”) and charming little tidbits like these: > [@](#): > > If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. Really? I thought you were so for the concept of a Republic not being a mob of the masses… oh, nevermind. Sorry, this is all jsut too funny. Thanks for the link. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/36 "2004-04-04T05:17:04Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > 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. **Moderator’s Note:** Do not make [accusations of trolling](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2670336#post2670336) in the middle of a thread. Being clever about not using the word does not mean you aren’t breaking the rules. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/37 "2004-04-04T08:13:00Z")
The broader question is this one: why are Bush and his administration acting like _defendants_ in this deal? This is a bipartisan commission with the goal of finding out exactly what happened in the leadup to and in the time surrounding 9/11. Still, Bushco has stonewalled it at every turn, starting with opposing its creation in the first place. Now they’re going to great lengths to limit the administration’s testimony and to provide the relevant evidence. And–very importantly–it is not reflecting well on them in the press. They have to be aware that none of this looks good, which is just about everything in politics. So why are they still doing it? The only reason I can see is that they’ve weighed the risks and benefits, and the risks of hesitant, incomplete cooperation are not as bad as the risks of complete cooperation. But why? It’s clear that the administration was focused on threats other than terrorism before 9/11, but I don’t see that as damning in and of itself, nor do I think a lot of people would, even if they came clean about it. Aside from that, I never believed that the administration had committed any acts of commission or omission that might have encouraged or allowed the attacks. But they’re spending an awful lot of political capital to keep _something_ from getting out. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/38 "2004-04-04T14:16:44Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > The broader question is this one: why are Bush and his administration acting like _defendants_ in this deal? That’s the $64 mil question that’s being asked. A very select few attack-Iraq-Bush-backers are willing to try to answer it. The numbers may change if the WH puts out talking points for other attack-Iraq-Bush-backers to c&p and paraphrase. > [@DoctorJ](#): > > This is a bipartisan commission with the goal of finding out exactly what happened in the leadup to and in the time surrounding 9/11. Still, Bushco has stonewalled it at every turn, starting with opposing its creation in the first place. Now they’re going to great lengths to limit the administration’s testimony and to provide the relevant evidence. And–very importantly–it is not reflecting well on them in the press. Identical questions could be asked about the investigation into the [_ **use** _ of the intelligence to sell the invasion of Iraq to the US electorate](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242238), and the US Congress. > [@DoctorJ](#): > > It’s clear that the administration was focused on threats other than terrorism before 9/11, but I don’t see that as damning in and of itself, nor do I think a lot of people would, even if they came clean about it. Aside from that, I never believed that the administration had committed any acts of commission or omission that might have encouraged or allowed the attacks. But they’re spending an awful lot of political capital to keep _something_ from getting out. Apparently, the WH thinks that they do have good reason to be what could be _ **very** generously_ described as reluctantly cooperative. It’s apparent that there was a pre-9-11 consensus among some key WH personel that teh US should invade Iraq. The suspect use of the intel may be related to (an)other suspect agenda(s). The WH’s secrecy has thwarted the American electorate’s right to deny consent to it’s government. The result is that the powers the WH exercised are not just powers of government. Basically, the affairs have been abhorrently un-American. They’ve violated one of the essential principles of “America the Free,” -the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/39 "2004-04-04T20:41:56Z")
. The result is that the powers the WH exercised are not just powers of governmen" Well, John Dean says Bush and Cheney need to be impeached, (and, uh, he oughtta’ know…) ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882/40 "2004-04-04T20:46:59Z")
I’m sorry. I must clarify my position. Please disassociate the king of the visigoths with a “pro-impeachment” camp. When you lie to the electorate about a blowjob, that’s an impeachable offense. When you invent, from the whole cloth, a pretext to rain down death and chaos (upon a people who you yourself in your own justification characterize as powerless to influence their government or its insane tyrant,) on a distant nation, that’s ``` a war crime. ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-block-clintons-anti-terrorism-papers/237882.md?page=1)