This would be the lead story, but as reported on Imus this morning, even some in Clinton's White House are undermining his claims: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15011269/?from=ET Rice challenges statements by Clinton on terror Secretary says administration aggressively pursued al-Qaida before 9/11 NEW YORK - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue al-Qaida, saying in an interview published Tuesday that the Bush administration aggressively pursued the group even before the 9/11 attacks. "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post. The newspaper published her comments after Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al-Qaida leader killed. "That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try." \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I don't have time to look for them now, but apparently others-- even some in the Clinton White House-- are befuddled by his claims of a comprehensive plan to get bin Laden. What say you about this? Let me guess.... And before you go off on me about this, I LIKED CLINTON'S RESPONSE. In the same way that I liked Dick Cheney's tellling Leahy to "F@%$ himself" A little more passion and a little less professionalism is what our leadership needs. That being said (about Clinton), I don't mean to endorse it or him. Politics are dirty and I'm sure he's tired of it. He's done a lot of good in this world since he was president and to be subjected to these pissing contests must be exasperating.
Apparently there is more out there. Did you read past the headline? The reports on Imus this morning had Clinton staffers "shaking their heads" in befuddlement about the claims he made about his comprehensive plan to get bin Laden that he claims to have handed over to the Bush Administration. Things will surface if these reports are accurate. Be on the lookout if you are interested in the truth.
i think republicans are happy to have the focus on the WOT in the run up to the mid-terms. the democrats tried anti-war strategies in 2002 and 2004 and got hammered each time- not sure why they think the same strategy will work this time, but since the economy is doing well, and americans realize the admin deserves at least some of the credit, democrats have precious little else.
I don't see any of that in that article. Who are these "staffers"? I think it is a bunch of horse**** and even IF it was true, does that make Bush any less of a douche bag? Me thinks not.
staffers "shaking their heads".. wow thats really concrete evidence.. who are these staffers? why should any classified anti-terror plan go through them? so richard clarke with his briefing to biush's admin did not happen?
1. We know Clinton, at the very least, "lobbed some cruise missles." I doubt that occured on a whim. To me, that tells me some effort was put for PRIOR to lobbing those cruise missles. America doesn't "lob cruise missles" accross international boarders without doing some due dilligence. 2. We know that Republicans called the "lobbed some cruise missles" event "Wag the Dog" so they clearly opposed even that small operation. 3. We know that Richard Clarke was demoted shortly after W took office. 4. We know that W still has not caught OBL ...and Clinton did in fact come closer than W has to killing him. 5. ...and most importantly, 9/11 occured on W's watch ...not Clintons. Spin it how you like Giddyup but RESULTS speak for themselves. If you want to argue this issue, you will LOSE. results results results. Clinton's results = 0 W's results = -5 One point I will agree with you, however, is the Dems need to be careful about taking up the terrorism issue as their own as the Repubs clearly own that issue.
I don't think Clinton's reality is crumbling. I don't know who the people in his administration are and what they are talking about, but I most definitely was not in his administration and I can tell you about his comprehensive plan that left after the Cole bombing. Not I only do I know of the plan, I know some of what was in it. 1. Send in special forces to AFghanistan to get Bin Laden. 2. Work with other leaders around the world and give them aid to fight terrorism. 3. Go after bogus charities, and funding of terrorist organizations. Trace the money and cut off bank accounts. 4. Increase intel funding to fight terrorism. If I know that I am not sure why anyone in Clinton's administration doesn't know that. As for Condi Rice, she provided no specifics, unlike the specifics we know from Clinton's plan, and I borrowed this from rimrocker's post in the other thread. Looks like Rice has changed her tune now. Maybe it is just another case of Condi lying. Clinton really has the administration on the defensive. Basso made the point the administration wanted the focus on the WOT. That was probably true until the Wallace interview. Now they look ineffective there as well, and Democrats have something to seize on.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926...ePIfhGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM- I think that settles that.
There is an interesting quote in that interview. So she admits that they were left a plan. She only said a piece was missing. Again the question comes up... What did the Bush administration do to fill in the missing piece? The answer is nothing, and even worse because they demoted Richard Clarke.
Your headline not worth a pile of dogfarts, nor is Rice's circular denial. Rice is documented on the record for intentionally and deliberately advising that the government not doing anything about the Cole bombing - yet it is Clinton who the right wing recently tried to attack and profiteer off of on Sept 11 (perhaps to distract from the 5 years of failure which has made us less safe since...?) for precisely that reason. That is a fact, that is reality, and no matter how much you or basso tries to deny it, no matter how much stinky dogfart gas you emit until election day. "a report on Imus about staffers shaking their heads?" I can't think of anything that better shows the weakness of your position. "Mr. Clinton, what do you have to say to reports of unnamed staffers shaking their heads? Do you nod your head vigorously, sir?"
It is like the Bush reaction goes into automatic lie mode when they are hit with any blow that could resonate with the public. Its almost like they can't help themselves. If they thought about it they would surely have known that folks would drag out the quotes that rimrocker did from Condi Rice where she advised doing nothing about the Cole, and that she considered it someone elses problem.
i think they just dont care - they know that the majority of the american public doesnt know or care about those quotes and they can rely on the "biased liberal media" to NOT point it out. nothing to see here - back to bed america.
Looks like Rice has changed her tune now. Maybe it is just another case of Condi lying. Rice lie? I mean we all know that the US had no idea that the evil doers were going to fly planes into buildings until after they did so. After you tell that lie, all other lies become background noise.
I liked this part of your post, giddy, and it is more "open-minded," than what I've seen in your posts about Clinton, etc., in the past. I was pleased to see it. And certainly it pleased me no end to see Bill tell Wallace, Fox, and the country just what the GOP and Rove had been doing to him, his administration, and Democrats in a vicious campaign of lies, distortions, and personal attacks addressing the period of 8-9 months prior to the attack, and their own "response" to 9/11 up to the present day. Someone like Clinton has needed to say what Bill said for a very, very long time... someone the nation would pay attention to. Someone who presided over a period even many Republicans miss, in my experience, as we all look wistfully back at the days before attacks on New York and the Pentagon, and before Bush was "elected." I can't tell you how pleased I was to see it. The rest of the post tells us nothing of substance, and everything about the frantic reaction to Bill blowing out of the water Wallace, Fox, and the lack of a post-inauguration policy and focus on Bin-Laden during those months before 9/11. Bill himself said that it's very likely that Bush couldn't have stopped 9/11, even if he had followed the plans, recommendations, and strategies left by the Clinton Administration. Sadly, you are quoting those who are trying to save their reputations for their own failures, for inaction prior to 9/11, and excepting Afghanistan, the incredible decision to focus on Iraq, instead of Afghanistan and the hunt for the actual madmen behind the assault on our country. Another thing to remember... Bill Clinton has been remarkably supportive of Bush, until now, despite what had occurred that he finally addressed. No one can deny that with a shred of credibility. I've been waiting for years for Clinton to make just the sort response that we finally saw Sunday. Thank goodness, he finally did. At least you didn't just post a flippant response like basso, who made himself look the fool, with all due respect, by babbling about Monica, and ignoring the real issues brought up by what we saw Sunday. And one more thing. I would argue that we haven't seen the passion you are looking for from our leaders, or the professionalism. We have seen praise for failure, promotion for incompetence. I would like to see that change. This is the best I can do at the moment. We discovered we had run out of coffee this morning, and I haven't had what basso quotes in his signature. I don't need to put the coffee down, but to pick up about a gallon of the stuff. Keep D&D Civil.
what i don't get is why attack clinton? seems a poor bit of strategy. you mess with the bull you get the horns. clinton is not gonna bumble and stumble like the rest of the dems as of late. why wake up the last man who wiped the repubs out in an election. clinton, unlike bush, was not barely elected. he is a galvanizing presence and a riveting speaker, the dems can use him. dumb move by the neocons.
