CNN.com-Rice Disputes Clinton on terror claims
ledvedderman
Posts: 7,762
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton/index.html
NEW YORK (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has taken on former President Clinton, rejecting his statement that President Bush failed to carry out adequate anti-terror efforts before the September 11, 2001, attacks.
"What we did in the eight months [between Bush's inauguration and 9/11] was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice told the New York Post in comments published Tuesday.
"The notion that somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false."
Rice's remarks followed Clinton's TV interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which the ex-president defended his efforts to track down and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Clinton lashed out against "the right-wingers who are attacking me now," saying the same people had accused him of being "obsessed" with bin Laden. (Watch as Clinton says he tried to kill bin Laden -- 1:18)
"They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed," he told interviewer Chris Wallace.
He added that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the Bush administration. (Watch as analysts debate Clinton's effectiveness -- 2:36)
But Rice told the Post that "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."
Both Rice and Clinton pointed to the bipartisan commission that investigated the September 11 attacks, which also traced the steps the two administrations had taken before the September 11 attacks. In a 2004 report, the 9/11 commission criticized both for not having done enough.
In December, the commission slammed the Bush administration for failing to implement many critical recommendations from that report.
In Sunday's often contentious Fox interview, Clinton said he left behind former terrorism chief Richard Clarke, "the best guy in the country," to implement a comprehensive anti-terror strategy but said Bush officials had demoted him.
At one point, Clinton referred to Clarke as having been fired.
Clarke, who served under four presidents from both political parties, resigned in early 2003 after having been moved to a position in charge of battling cybersecurity. He later said he requested the move partly due to frustration with what he called the Bush administration's "lackadaisical attitude" toward terrorism before 9/11.
His testimony to the September 11 commission and his public remarks have included some of the harshest criticism President Bush has faced from a former member of his administration.
In 2004, Clarke told CNN that Bush did "virtually nothing about al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001."
He said that while Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, held daily meetings after being warned of a possible terrorist attack and "shook out of their bureaucracies every last piece of information to prevent the attacks," Rice, as Bush's national security adviser, did not do so before the attacks.
"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," he said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
Clarke also is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.
Members of the Bush White House questioned his credibility when he spoke out two years ago, contending he had voiced support for the administration while a member of it.
Rice painted a different picture of the situation in the Post article.
"Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/ 11," she told the paper. "I would be the first to say that because, you know, we didn't fight the war on terror in the way that we're fighting it now. We just weren't organized as a country either domestically or as a leader internationally."
Asked whether she is calling Clinton a "liar," she responded, "No, I'm just saying that, look, there was a lot of passion in that interview."
========================================================
"The notion that somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false."- Sec. Rice
Really? With a little help from a previous post by El_Kabong and myself, maybe she should think about these events in their first 8 months in office.
Obviously the Bush Administration was focusing on the security needs of this country when they didn't have any meetings with Richard Clarke even after the 8/6/01 memo came out stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US using airplanes.
or when an FBI budget official told the Joint Inquiry that counterterrorism was not a priority for Attorney General Ashcroft before September 11, and the FBI faced pressure to make cuts in counterterrorism to satisfy his other priorities.
or when FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents, they got shot down even as Ashcroft began, quietly, to take a privately chartered jet for his own security reasons.”
or the White House plan to sharply cut an emergency F.B.I. request for $1.5 billion in extra counterterrorism money after the attacks.
or in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States
or official annual budget goals memo mentions 7 strategic goals, not one is related to anti terror efforts. The same document by Janet Reno the previous year was delivered a month earlier and put counter terrorism as one of two top priorities
or upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism
or when the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center
or when Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen
NEW YORK (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has taken on former President Clinton, rejecting his statement that President Bush failed to carry out adequate anti-terror efforts before the September 11, 2001, attacks.
"What we did in the eight months [between Bush's inauguration and 9/11] was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice told the New York Post in comments published Tuesday.
"The notion that somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false."
Rice's remarks followed Clinton's TV interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which the ex-president defended his efforts to track down and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Clinton lashed out against "the right-wingers who are attacking me now," saying the same people had accused him of being "obsessed" with bin Laden. (Watch as Clinton says he tried to kill bin Laden -- 1:18)
"They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed," he told interviewer Chris Wallace.
He added that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the Bush administration. (Watch as analysts debate Clinton's effectiveness -- 2:36)
But Rice told the Post that "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."
Both Rice and Clinton pointed to the bipartisan commission that investigated the September 11 attacks, which also traced the steps the two administrations had taken before the September 11 attacks. In a 2004 report, the 9/11 commission criticized both for not having done enough.
In December, the commission slammed the Bush administration for failing to implement many critical recommendations from that report.
In Sunday's often contentious Fox interview, Clinton said he left behind former terrorism chief Richard Clarke, "the best guy in the country," to implement a comprehensive anti-terror strategy but said Bush officials had demoted him.
At one point, Clinton referred to Clarke as having been fired.
Clarke, who served under four presidents from both political parties, resigned in early 2003 after having been moved to a position in charge of battling cybersecurity. He later said he requested the move partly due to frustration with what he called the Bush administration's "lackadaisical attitude" toward terrorism before 9/11.
His testimony to the September 11 commission and his public remarks have included some of the harshest criticism President Bush has faced from a former member of his administration.
In 2004, Clarke told CNN that Bush did "virtually nothing about al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001."
He said that while Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, held daily meetings after being warned of a possible terrorist attack and "shook out of their bureaucracies every last piece of information to prevent the attacks," Rice, as Bush's national security adviser, did not do so before the attacks.
"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," he said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
Clarke also is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.
Members of the Bush White House questioned his credibility when he spoke out two years ago, contending he had voiced support for the administration while a member of it.
Rice painted a different picture of the situation in the Post article.
"Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/ 11," she told the paper. "I would be the first to say that because, you know, we didn't fight the war on terror in the way that we're fighting it now. We just weren't organized as a country either domestically or as a leader internationally."
Asked whether she is calling Clinton a "liar," she responded, "No, I'm just saying that, look, there was a lot of passion in that interview."
========================================================
"The notion that somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false."- Sec. Rice
Really? With a little help from a previous post by El_Kabong and myself, maybe she should think about these events in their first 8 months in office.
Obviously the Bush Administration was focusing on the security needs of this country when they didn't have any meetings with Richard Clarke even after the 8/6/01 memo came out stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US using airplanes.
or when an FBI budget official told the Joint Inquiry that counterterrorism was not a priority for Attorney General Ashcroft before September 11, and the FBI faced pressure to make cuts in counterterrorism to satisfy his other priorities.
or when FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents, they got shot down even as Ashcroft began, quietly, to take a privately chartered jet for his own security reasons.”
or the White House plan to sharply cut an emergency F.B.I. request for $1.5 billion in extra counterterrorism money after the attacks.
or in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States
or official annual budget goals memo mentions 7 strategic goals, not one is related to anti terror efforts. The same document by Janet Reno the previous year was delivered a month earlier and put counter terrorism as one of two top priorities
or upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism
or when the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center
or when Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
clinton tried hard and didn't get him... bush has tried hard after 9-11 and hasn't gotten him
Let's argue over mediocrity some more. Here's to everyone trying hard and to mediocrity
http://www.despair.com/med24x30prin.htmlmake sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need0 -
Condelezza Rice reminds me is a winged minion of Satan. Give her some bat-wings, horns and a pointy tail... see?
...
And she has to give the worst blow jobs... I mean, just look at them choppers. Like the blades in a coffee grinder.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
didn't bush take a vacation after winning the election? How long was that for? I may be mistaken.0
-
Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:didn't bush take a vacation after winning the election? How long was that for? I may be mistaken.
wasnt Clinton catching blowjobs in the oval office? I always wondered if that was a distraction for him.0 -
Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:didn't bush take a vacation after winning the election? How long was that for? I may be mistaken.
and he's still on vacation. it's funny, because usually presidents age 20 years or so while they're in office this long because of all the stress. they start looking tired, worn down, and have a few more wrinkles than when they first went in. bush is amazing. he looks great! he doesn't look as though he loses any sleep and seems to be in the best shape of his life. i wonder why??Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self0 -
jlew24asu wrote:wasnt Clinton catching blowjobs in the oval office? I always wondered if that was a distraction for him.
what if he whacked off in the licoln bedroom every night before bed?? would it matter??Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self0 -
aBoxOfFear wrote:and he's still on vacation. it's funny, because usually presidents age 20 years or so while they're in office this long because of all the stress. they start looking tired, worn down, and have a few more wrinkles than when they first went in. bush is amazing. he looks great! he doesn't look as though he loses any sleep and seems to be in the best shape of his life. i wonder why??
its in Gods hands...so really he doesn't have to do much...its all predestined anyway.....(-:
Actually he looks like shit..and I'm glad.
As for Condi...she's just covering her and Carl's ass.10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG0 -
aBoxOfFear wrote:what if he whacked off in the licoln bedroom every night before bed?? would it matter??
what he does by himself is his business. when he is doing it with an intern instead of running the country, that matters.0 -
aBoxOfFear wrote:what if he whacked off in the licoln bedroom every night before bed?? would it matter??
capital punishment and making all the evil doers pay for their sins...good.
Go figure.10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG0 -
jlew24asu wrote:what he does by himself is his business. when he is doing it with an intern instead of running the country, that matters.
I'm thinking Clinton wasted 20 minutes with the "intern" if he was lucky....10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG0 -
what is a reasonable amount of time? could bush have attacked afganistan claiming it was in response to the 1993 WTC bombing? can we attack on a persons opinion of what someone might do? many suspect north korea will attempt an attack. should we bomb them now so in the future no one can say YOU WERE WARNED? maybe we should attack everyone who may attack us.0
-
jlew24asu wrote:what he does by himself is his business. when he is doing it with an intern instead of running the country, that matters.
If he got a blowjob from his wife every night, would that bother you too? Or is that doing something instead of running the country?My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln0 -
we are getting off topic here. lets get back to the bush hating point of this thread0
-
onelongsong wrote:what is a reasonable amount of time? could bush have attacked afganistan claiming it was in response to the 1993 WTC bombing? can we attack on a persons opinion of what someone might do? many suspect north korea will attempt an attack. should we bomb them now so in the future no one can say YOU WERE WARNED? maybe we should attack everyone who may attack us.
That seems to be the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld plan...My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln0 -
aBoxOfFear wrote:and he's still on vacation. it's funny, because usually presidents age 20 years or so while they're in office this long because of all the stress. they start looking tired, worn down, and have a few more wrinkles than when they first went in. bush is amazing. he looks great! he doesn't look as though he loses any sleep and seems to be in the best shape of his life. i wonder why??
i would've taken a long vacation after an election like that so don't ask me.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:we are getting off topic here. lets get back to the bush hating point of this thread
This isn't a "Bush hating" thread. This is, here is what Sec. Rice is saying, and here are some things that go against what she is claiming.0 -
ledvedderman wrote:This isn't a "Bush hating" thread. This is, here is what Sec. Rice is saying, and here are some things that go against what she is claiming.
I apologize, I don't know what I was thinking0 -
I guess it's hard to draw the line between Bush hating and hard evidence. They both paint a picture of an administration that is just awful and it can be hard to decide which is which.jlew24asu wrote:I apologize, I don't know what I was thinking0 -
ledvedderman wrote:I guess it's hard to draw the line between Bush hating and hard evidence. They both paint a picture of an administration that is just awful and it can be hard to decide which is which.
well you can blame clinton as much as bush. wheres my evidence you ask? he (OBL) isnt caught or dead. thats the only evidence I need0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help