Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

[Ted Striker]

Clinton did WAY more to track down Osama than Bush ever did, before 9/11.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Clinton did WAY more to track down Osama than Bush ever did, before 9/11.

And getting this close to capturing him... then losing him... then getting this close to capturing him... then losing him...

[Drake Tungsten]

Clinton did little in the 7 years between the first WTC attack and 2000. Bush wasn't any better, but he didn't have much time to loaf around before September 11th shoved those years of neglect into our collective faces.

[Ted Striker]

Clinton: actively searching for Bin Laden

Bush pre 9-11: Didn't do one damn thing, even when his top expert urged him to
Bush post 9-11: Takes eyes off the ball and invades Iraq

Bush's Chief Counterterrorism officer warned him repeatedly that he wasn't taking the threat seriously:

Frustrated by what he saw as an inadequate response to terrorism, Clarke sent a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice one week before the deadly attacks, blasting the Defense Department for not doing enough against al Qaeda and criticizing the CIA for holding up a plan to arm Predator drones.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/

[Ted Striker]

Clarke goes on to note the difference in how Clinton's administration handled things competently:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/

Later, on CNN's "Larry King Live," Clarke said the Clinton administration's approach to a similar threat before the turn of the millennium -- on which top officials held daily interagency meetings and actively sought information from within their own agencies -- shows that a similar approach might have worked to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that prior to 9/11, people within the FBI knew that two of the 19 hijackers were in the country, but that information never made its way up to the highest levels of power.

"If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001," Clarke told King.

Samuel Berger, who was national security adviser to former President Clinton, also testified Wednesday.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, I guess Ted's reasonable behavior up above was just an isolated slip back to his old self...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Clinton did little in the 7 years between the first WTC attack and 2000. Bush wasn't any better, but he didn't have much time to loaf around before September 11th shoved those years of neglect into our collective faces.

Uh, that isn't the arguement being made. The Bush Administration has "come close" to capturing bin Laden, yet he manages to get away. Obviously, "time" isn't at issue here, so making a comparison to Clinton's 7 years and Bush's few months is a non-starter.

Clinton dropped the ball on his watch, but he and others inside the new administration tried to get Bush to pick up the slack. Bush ignored them, thousands paid with their lives, and we still haven't gotten the rat-bastard.

Oh, and bin Laden is still free.

[Ted Striker]

Well said, DRoseDARs.

On top off that, "the gloves are off," so there shouldn't be any legal, diplomatic or any other political roadblocks in the way of capturing him.

We've had 4 "gloves off" years and still haven't found him.

Hey, we got Saddam though.

[Drake Tungsten]

Hey, we got Saddam though.

And dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda. How'd Clinton do on that score?

[Ted Striker]

I think it's something like 3000 dead, economic recession, destroyed world credibility


Great score.

Osama Bin Laden is where?

[Drake Tungsten]

Is that all you got?

Clinton - didn't get Osama, didn't get Saddam, didn't hurt Al Qaeda

Bush - hasn't got Osama, got Saddam, hurt Al Qaeda

Current Score: Bush 2 - 0 Clinton

[Ted Striker]

Getting Saddam is actually an offensive foul and the shot doesn't count. Terrorism gets two technical foul shots and Al Queda gets to take the ball out of bounds. So -2 there, with the chance for a basket now we're up to -4, or -5 if they make the 3 pointer.

"Hurting Al Queda" doesn't count because we didn't have a valid pretext to go invade Afghanistan, until 9/11. So Bush didn't do crap, pre-9/11, so that gives him 0 points there. Any President would have invaded Afghanistan, probably would have even gotten Bin Laden.

So really it's a -2 or -4 to 0 according to your silly game.

[Alexander's Horse]

what pwns the Bush administration is the example they are setting to other major powers - its okay to lie, to invade, to bomb, to torture or mistreat prisoners.

what are they going to say to China if it takes action against Taiwan or Russia if it attacks a neighbour?

[Sikander]

No one seems to remember that Clinton was sure that Iraq had wmd and backed Bush on the invasion of Iraq. I see no reason to disbelieve Bush or Blair when they claim that they also believed so based on the same faulty intelligence. Bush made clear in his first foreign policy speech during his first run for president that regime change in Iraq was one of his main goals. We all know (there were stories well before the war started) that the occupation and stabilization of Iraq were not planned at all well, in part because our intelligence was not good enough to predict how things would go and in part because the administration didn't want to endanger their policy with accurate appraisals of just how much this sort of thing migh cost in blood and treasure. This memo doesn't seem to add anything to what we already know. It seems more of an excercize in keeping people angry about what they cannot change. Consider that both Blair and Bush were both recently re-elected for instance.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Hey, we got Saddam though.

And dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda. How'd Clinton do on that score?

Bush's anti-Islamic, Christian crusader tone (led by Boykin, who has not been disciplined or rebuked in any significant way for his "my God is bigger" remarks), not to mention Guantanamo, has led to today's situation, where Bush is al-Qaeda's best recruiting tool throughout the Islamic world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3674632.stm