Come on Condi - be honest now

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
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 notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that…
We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.

- Condi Rice, 9/26/2006.

Well read the 9/11 Commission & decide for yourself. Start around page 198 in a section called “From Old to New”.

From the 9/11 Report:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed
a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the
Delenda plan of 1998.The resulting paper, entitled “Strategy for Eliminating
the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects,”
reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA’s new ideas
from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options.
Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period
of three to five years. Over time, the policy should try to weaken and eliminate
the network’s infrastructure in order to reduce it to a “rump group” like
other formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations of the
1980s. “Continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent
some attacks,” Clarke’s office wrote,“but will not seriously attrit their ability
to plan and conduct attacks.” The paper backed covert aid to the Northern
Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March
2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-andcontrol
targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets.The
paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Rice made an initial decision to hold over both Clarke and his entire counterterrorism
staff, a decision that she called rare for a new administration. She
decided also that Clarke should retain the title of national counterterrorism
coordinator, although he would no longer be a de facto member of the Principals
Committee on his issues


Facts:

1) Clarke had presented Rice with a comprehensive strategy & the Delenda Plan (1998).

2) Clarke had been kept on but could no longer go to the Principal’s meeting. BIG MISTAKE! Clinton had made it so Clarke could go to this meeting. Clarke viewed this a demotion - read the 9/11 report.

3) On 1/25/2001, Clarke sent a memo to Rice indicating that they needed a principal’s meeting to deal with Al Qaeda. That meeting didn’t happen until 9/12. You can formulate your opinion on why that meeting didn’t happen.

4) Bush was given a PDB on 8/6/2001 saying the bin Laden wanted to strike inside the US. This was NOT a historical document as Condi so frequently claims.

What happened was that Bush didn’t want to “swat flies” anymore so they put off acting on the Cole & other intel while trying to develop some kind of new plan. They also didn’t listen to Clarke. Then we were hit on 9/11 and the rest is history.

You can argue all you want about Clinton but Clinton is history now. We need to ask Bush et al the tough questions.[/quote]

“Kinda Lies A Lot” Rice wants to be president…scarey thought, eh?

Speaking of honesty, it’s time to reassess those reading skills. Pay attention:

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,12:47)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
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 notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that…
We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.

- Condi Rice, 9/26/2006.

Well read the 9/11 Commission & decide for yourself. Start around page 198 in a section called “From Old to New”.

From the 9/11 Report:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed
a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the
Delenda plan of 1998.The resulting paper, entitled “Strategy for Eliminating
the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects,”
reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA’s new ideas
from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options.
Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period
of three to five years. Over time, the policy should try to weaken and eliminate
the network’s infrastructure in order to reduce it to a “rump group” like
other formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations of the
1980s. “Continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent
some attacks,” Clarke’s office wrote,“but will not seriously attrit their ability
to plan and conduct attacks.” The paper backed covert aid to the Northern
Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March
2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-andcontrol
targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets.The
paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Rice made an initial decision to hold over both Clarke and his entire counterterrorism
staff, a decision that she called rare for a new administration. She
decided also that Clarke should retain the title of national counterterrorism
coordinator, although he would no longer be a de facto member of the Principals
Committee on his issues


Facts:

1) Clarke had presented Rice with a comprehensive strategy & the Delenda Plan (1998).

From what you quoted this was a three-to-five year plan and that nothing in the current plan would "seriously attrit their [Al Qaeda’s] ability to plan and conduct attacks."

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,12:47)


2) Clarke had been kept on but could no longer go to the Principal’s meeting. BIG MISTAKE! Clinton had made it so Clarke could go to this meeting. Clarke viewed this a demotion - read the 9/11 report.

How exactly was Clarke’s attendance at a principal’s meeting going to prevent 9/11 from happening?? Further, Clarke actually asked to be reassigned, placing his own personal satisfaction over the safety of the country, assuming he could have done anything to make a difference anyway.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,12:47)
3) On 1/25/2001, Clarke sent a memo to Rice indicating that they needed a principal’s meeting to deal with Al Qaeda. That meeting didn’t happen until 9/12. You can formulate your opinion on why that meeting didn’t happen.

Again, Clarke asked to be reassigned in May or June of 2001. By quitting, he wouldn’t have set a very clear tone that this was much of a priority.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,12:47)
4) Bush was given a PDB on 8/6/2001 saying the bin Laden wanted to strike inside the US. This was NOT a historical document as Condi so frequently claims.

Actually it was historical and it mentioned that the FBI was taking care of things. What more was supposed to happen based on very limited and sketchy information??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,12:47)
What happened was that Bush didn’t want to “swat flies” anymore so they put off acting on the Cole & other intel while trying to develop some kind of new plan. They also didn’t listen to Clarke. Then we were hit on 9/11 and the rest is history.

More nonsense. Clarke publicly praised the Bush transition team in 2002 for continuing the previous policy and making new plans.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,12:47)
You can argue all you want about Clinton but Clinton is history now. We need to ask Bush et al the tough questions.

Bush has been asked plenty of tough questions. Obviously you don’t like the answers, but this is nonsense about Condi. Take off the partisan blinders and quit ignoring reality.
Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,12:47)
- Condi Rice, 9/26/2006.

I've had Mexican rice, Puertorican rice, even Chinese chicken fried rice, had some Pakastani rice, but for some reason they went out of buisiness.

But I've never had Condoleezza rice,

Were would you go to purchase such an exotic side dish?

On a side note: how is it that her name abbreviates Condi? There's no i in it.
I guess my name would abbreviate Jirm by that reasoning.

keep shinin'

jerm :cool:

But seriously folks,

Her bio reads like a special interest spread sheet,

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, The Rand Corporation


I’m curious to learn if any of these companies are currently profiting or stand to profit from say, small arms conflicts?

Is that a prenup for being in office these days?

With all due respect, she did earn here degrees in political science among other things, and puts a large amount of time into charitable efforts. ???
Got to give credit where credit is due.

As far as Tom’s comment goes, ain’t that part of the job description?

keep shinin’

jerm :cool:

Richard Clarke, August 2002:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Joe - you’re mixing/matching & confusing stuff as you usually do. The quotes from Richard Clarke that you use were from a background briefing that he gave while working for the Bush admin, in which Clarke put a “positive spin” on what Bush had done. Later, Bush used that to try to discredit Clarke, after Clarke became a critic. At that point, the right-wing attempted to smear & discredit Richard Clarke and call him a liar. So you can’t it both ways Joe, i.e., if Clarke is a liar then you can’t go quoting him as saying that there was no plan.

If you don’t know why not having Clarke as a Principal would matter, then it’s not worth discussing it with you.

For the record, why don’t you tell us what Bush on terrorism & Al Qaeda did from 1/1/2001 until 9/11 then. We’re all waiting to hear about it.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Bush has been asked plenty of tough questions.

That’s total partisan babble from old Joe. Tell me what hard questions they asked of Bush.

Jerem - you are right about Condi!

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,15:39)
Joe - you’re mixing/matching & confusing stuff as you usually do.

No, you just use this as an excuse when you can’t handle facts. There’s nothing confusing here at all, except your refusal to deal with the facts.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,15:39)
The quotes from Richard Clarke that you use were from a background briefing that he gave while working for the Bush admin, in which Clarke put a “positive spin” on what Bush had done.

Why wouldn’t he be honest in this situation?? Are you saying he’s a slimy politico who changes depending on whom he works for??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,15:39)
Later, Bush used that to try to discredit Clarke, after Clarke became a critic.

He was inconsistent. Did he have an honest change of heart or was he just out to make a buck by selling his book??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,15:39)
At that point, the right-wing attempted to smear & discredit Richard Clarke and call him a liar. So you can’t it both ways Joe, i.e., if Clarke is a liar then you can’t go quoting him as saying that there was no plan.

Actually, you can’t have it both ways. If he was always honest, then there would be no reason to “spin” for any administration. This isn’t the only time he was inconsistent.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,15:39)
If you don’t know why not having Clarke as a Principal would matter, then it’s not worth discussing it with you.

Mr Soul looks for another cheap way to avoiding discussing the finer details. Clarke didn’t need to be at the meeting nor did he make any specific request to be included. He provided all the information he had to his superiors who did hold a meeting about a week later and offered to provide a decision/discussion paper if it was needed. The attached 2000 “plan” made it clear that Al Qaeda was seen as more of a threat in the Middle East than it was in America itself and that a bigger concern was budgeting for FY '02 than taking immediate preemptive actions.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,15:39)

For the record, why don’t you tell us what Bush on terrorism & Al Qaeda did from 1/1/2001 until 9/11 then. We’re all waiting to hear about it.

You did know that Osama Bin Laden was on trial during that period by none other than Patrick (I’ve indicted Lewis Libby for nothing more than perjury) Fitzgerald. Was there some reason to assume that this holdover indictment from IFP Clinton’s administration couldn’t bring OBL to justice??

Also, the FBI indicated in the August PDB that they were conducting monitoring operations of Al Qaeda. There was no substantial reason to think they did not have things under control. Even Clarke’s own request for a meeting of Principals expressed doubts about the nature of the threat posed by Al Qaeda. Part of the reason for the meeting request was to determine if it was first level or just a “chicken little” threat, a term he specifically used.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,15:39)

That’s total partisan babble from old Joe. Tell me what hard questions they asked of Bush.

Your denial is total partisan babble, Mike. Do I need to start cutting and pasting questions from press conferences for you??

2006
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
I’d like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet – your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth – what was your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil – quest for oil, it hasn’t been Israel, or anything else. What was it?


2005
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?


2004
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it.

What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Even Clarke’s own request for a meeting of Principals expressed doubts about the nature of the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

What the h*ll are you talking about?!?! Are you crazy man. Clarke’s memo was solely to talk about the “first order” threat of Al Qaeda.

Clarke definitely needed to be in the Principals meeting. That was one of the best things Clinton did.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
he was always honest, then there would be no reason to “spin” for any administration.

You live in a dream world. Politicians spin all the time - surely you can see that.

Was Clarke supposed to get up & say his boss wasn’t doing his job? Get real man. Clarke answered all these “inconsistencies” in his Senate hearing.

Clarke’s testimony to the Senate & the 9/11 Commission is the truth. Do whatever you want to discredit him, but that is the truth.

The August 6 PDB was given to Bush to tell him that bin Laden wanted to & was going to strike inside the US. Read the 9/11 Commission report - the warning lights were blinking red.

Please tell us what Bush did to stop Al Qaeda from 1/1/2001 to 9/11. Please tell us why Bush didn’t retaliate for the Cole.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,16:31)

What the h*ll are you talking about?!?! Are you crazy man. Clarke’s memo was solely to talk about the “first order” threat of Al Qaeda.

OR whether it was just a “chicken little” overreaction. Read the thing before you make yourself look less informed.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,16:31)
Clarke definitely needed to be in the Principals meeting. That was one of the best things Clinton did.

If he needed to be in the meeting, would he not have made that specific request instead of offering to write a decision/discussion paper??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,16:31)

You live in a dream world. Politicians spin all the time - surely you can see that.

Then you agree that Clarke spins all the time.


Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,16:31)
Was Clarke supposed to get up & say his boss wasn’t doing his job?

Why wouldn’t he?? Was job security more important than being honest??


Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,16:31)
Get real man. Clarke answered all these “inconsistencies” in his Senate hearing.

Clarke’s testimony to the Senate & the 9/11 Commission is the truth. Do whatever you want to discredit him, but that is the truth.

It’s Clarke’s own words that discredit himself. I didn’t make up that stuff that he said.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,16:31)
The August 6 PDB was given to Bush to tell him that bin Laden wanted to & was going to strike inside the US. Read the 9/11 Commission report - the warning lights were blinking red.

No it wasn’t. Read the PDB.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns ofsuspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance offederal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May sayingthat a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

The FBI had 70 investigations. Was Bush supposed to come up with a new plan of action to supercede the FBI?? Further, the red warning light was about attacks with explosives, not planes flying into buildings. But again, why could not the FBI and CIA be trusted to stay on top of these reports??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,16:31)
Please tell us what Bush did to stop Al Qaeda from 1/1/2001 to 9/11. Please tell us why Bush didn’t retaliate for the Cole.

He let the FBI do its job. It’s in the memo. 70 investigations. Were the Democrats going to authorize military strikes?? Be honest for a change.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Was job security more important than being honest??

Clarke was not dishonest. He was just spinning Bush’s record as he indicated to the Senate committee.

Read Clarke’s 1/25 memo. He was gravely concerned about Al Qaeda. Any reasonable person would interpret the memo that way. His comment was “chicken little” was not important and was just put there to emphasis his beliefs.

FBI investigations do NOT take the place of a comprehensive policy on terrorism. Since you won’t answer the question about what Bush did from 1/1/2001 to 9/11 - I will. He was focused on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals. This is well documented & is even in the 9/11 Report.

All Condi could come up with yesterday was:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
…things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians, but essentially continuing the strategy that had been left to us by the Clinton Administration, including with the same counterterrorism czar who was Richard Clarke.

It was actually Richard Clarke who pushed for the armed Predator, and the other things.

The only thing that Condi said that had some truth was:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11.


The Bush admin was definitely caught off-guard by 9/11 & Al Qaeda. It didn’t listen to Clarke or his plan, and it didn’t deal with the bombing of the Cole in which the FBI confirmed it was Al Qaeda after Bush was in office.

The PDB was not historic! It’s title was “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” and it was CURRENT!

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,17:25)

Clarke was not dishonest. He was just spinning Bush’s record as he indicated to the Senate committee.

Read Clarke’s 1/25 memo. He was gravely concerned about Al Qaeda. Any reasonable person would interpret the memo that way. His comment was “chicken little” was not important and was just put there to emphasis his beliefs.

Nonsense. Clarke realized that he may have been overreacting and that cooler heads need to make objective decisions and policies. Clarke was looking way ahead, thinking about 2002 budget issues in how to deal with terrorism.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,17:25)

FBI investigations do NOT take the place of a comprehensive policy on terrorism. Since you won’t answer the question about what Bush did from 1/1/2001 to 9/11 - I will. He was focused on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals. This is well documented & is even in the 9/11 Report.

Again, Bush was not given any indication of an immediate threat prior to 9/11. The August PDB was a very general warning, but it indicated that the pre-existing policies and strategies were being relied on, such as those mentioned in the December 2000 Strategy paper:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
In order to implement the overall, global strategy while undermining the ability of al Qa’ida to utilize Afghanistan, CIA has prepared a program that focuses on eliminating it as a safehaven, disrupting the mujahididn support infrastructure that connects Afghanistan to the global network, and changing the operational environment inside Afghanistan.


December 2000 Strategy

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,17:25)
All Condi could come up with yesterday was:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
…things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians, but essentially continuing the strategy that had been left to us by the Clinton Administration, including with the same counterterrorism czar who was Richard Clarke.

It was actually Richard Clarke who pushed for the armed Predator, and the other things.

I’m not sure what your point is here, but a link with more than a partial quote would help.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,17:25)
The only thing that Condi said that had some truth was:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11.


The Bush admin was definitely caught off-guard by 9/11 & Al Qaeda. It didn’t listen to Clarke or his plan, and it didn’t deal with the bombing of the Cole in which the FBI confirmed it was Al Qaeda after Bush was in office.

Clarke’s plan would not have prevented 9/11. It was aimed at a three-to-five year time frame.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The United States’ goal is to reduce the al Qida network to a point where it no longer poses a serious threat to our security or that of any other governments. That goal can be achieved over a three- to five-year period, if adequate resources and policy attention are devoted to it.

December 2000 Strategy


Second, the strategy included military options which would have required congressional approval and would not have been easily obtainable prior to 9/11. Third, OBL was under indictment and on trial in 2001, yet he was never brought into face trial. Now there’s a puzzle. Why wasn’t there a stronger effort to bring OBL to justice?? If IFP Clinton didn’t think it was necessary, why would Bush think otherwise??

Nonesense to you. The US Cole had just been hit. There had been other terrorists attacks against us. Clarke rightly believed Al Qaeda was a serious threat, and indeed it proved to be with 9/11.

I never made the claim that Clarke’s plan would have prevented 9/11, so stop misrepresenting me. My claim is that Bush did not take Al Qaeda seriously before 9/11 & he was not focused on it. The facts back me up on that.

Rice & Bush received a 13 page strategy paper from the Clinton admin outlining how to deal with Al Qaeda. Roger Cressey, who worked under Clarke, said Bush didn’t take it seriously at the time.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,18:09)
Nonesense to you. The US Cole had just been hit. There had been other terrorists attacks against us. Clarke rightly believed Al Qaeda was a serious threat, and indeed it proved to be with 9/11.

I never made the claim that Clarke’s plan would have prevented 9/11, so stop misrepresenting me.

Stop making this about you Mike. No one said you claimed Clarke’s plan would have prevented 9/11. The point was that Clarke’s concerns meant very little in the long run, because he himself admitted that there wasn’t much they could do to prevent attacks, whether stronger action was taken or not.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,18:09)
My claim is that Bush did not take Al Qaeda seriously before 9/11 & he was not focused on it. The facts back me up on that.

Actually, they don’t. If Al Qaeda wasn’t taken seriously, the August 2001 PDB would not have talked about Al Qaeda.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 26 2006,18:09)
Rice & Bush received a 13 page strategy paper from the Clinton admin outlining how to deal with Al Qaeda. Roger Cressey, who worked under Clarke, said Bush didn’t take it seriously at the time.
Again, it was a three-to-five strategy that was designed to leverage funding. If Clarke was upset at the administration, it was most likely due to his desire to get that funding. Second, who’s Roger Cressey and what makes him the best judge of whether Bush took Al Qaeda seriously??

You are so funny.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
If Al Qaeda wasn’t taken seriously, the August 2001 PDB would not have talked about Al Qaeda.

Then why didn’t the Principals meet to discuss Clarke’s concerns until days before 9/11.

Tell us what Bush did from 1/1/06 to 9/11 on terrorism. I’m still waiting.

Bush was on vacation for ONE Month when the PDB came out. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t even read it. Bush was focused on Missle defense not Al Qaeda. As Clarke points out in his book, many in Bush admin didn’t take the Al Qaeda threat seriously.

This is all documented in the 9/11 Report. The Commission criticized both Bush & Clinton for not dealing with the attack on the Cole.

Roger Cressey worked for Richard Clarke. Roger Cressey knew what happened.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 27 2006,13:39)

Then why didn’t the Principals meet to discuss Clarke’s concerns until days before 9/11.

What was the hurry at that point?? That PDB didn’t show any signs of impending strikes. Clarke didn’t have any immediate fears. He had suggested a three-to-five year plan — not immiediate action.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 27 2006,13:39)
Tell us what Bush did from 1/1/06 to 9/11 on terrorism. I’m still waiting.

Bush was on vacation for ONE Month when the PDB came out. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t even read it. Bush was focused on Missle defense not Al Qaeda. As Clarke points out in his book, many in Bush admin didn’t take the Al Qaeda threat seriously.

This is all documented in the 9/11 Report. The Commission criticized both Bush & Clinton for not dealing with the attack on the Cole.

February 27, 2001: Ari Fleischer responds to a question about terrorism:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Q A follow-up, Ari, on D.C. General, that it’s also one of the two hospitals in the country that is capable of taking care of a bio-terrorist attack, and that also has national security implications. Isn’t that also a primary consideration now, given that bio-terrorism, other forms of terrorism have become more subject to that than previously?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is concerned about terrorism in this country, and he’s very confident that the FBI and the other law enforcement agencies and the training for that is done throughout the nation with localities, municipalities, that the United States is ready and can address any threats that are brought our way.


The August PDB mention 70 investigations under way with the FBI. Clarke had mentioned in the December 2000 strategy paper that the CIA had a broad counter-terrorism program under way. What part of that is not taking terrorism seriously?? Second, Bush wasn’t in office on 1/1/06. Was he supposed to authorize a military invasion of Aghanistan prior to 9/11??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 27 2006,13:39)
Roger Cressey worked for Richard Clarke. Roger Cressey knew what happened.

Unless Cressey was on Bush’s staff, he can provide nothing more than simple speculation.

I went through the 9/11 Commission on the first 8 months, and Condi was not being truthful when she said that they did at least as much as the Clinton admin did. Here’s what they did:

- they had a few meetings
- they didn’t have the principals meeting that Clarke called for until a few days before 9/11
- they did NOT retaliate for the Cole bombing
- they made it so Clarke could not go to Principals meetings, so he had to report to Deputy Directors now. Clarke testified that this decision slowed everything down & he considered it a demotion, and in effect, it was just that.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 28 2006,11:50)
I went through the 9/11 Commission on the first 8 months, and Condi was not being truthful when she said that they did at least as much as the Clinton admin did. Here’s what they did:

- they had a few meetings
- they didn’t have the principals meeting that Clarke called for until a few days before 9/11
- they did NOT retaliate for the Cole bombing
- they made it so Clarke could not go to Principals meetings, so he had to report to Deputy Directors now. Clarke testified that this decision slowed everything down & he considered it a demotion, and in effect, it was just that.

This is a lot longer list than what you’ve presented for IFP Clinton, which was Condi’s point. Clinton did next to nothing and Bush let the status quo ride on that.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Clinton did next to nothing and Bush let the status quo ride on that.

That’s a complete & utter lie & not back up by any facts. The 9/11 Commission & Richard Clarke’s book are full of things that Clinton did. Everything Clinton said on the FOX show is also.

You are a blind partisan & your response proves it.