Patterico's Pontifications

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she said during an appearance on Capitol Hill.

Ahhh…so it’s all about the title. If only Clinton had gotten a PDB with that title, he would have taken Bin Laden more seriously. Good to know.

MayBee (8aec89) — 9/26/2006 @ 10:16 pm

Because apparently the PDB that must have had a title like, Bin Laden Kills Employees in 2 American Embassies wasn’t enough.

MayBee (8aec89) — 9/26/2006 @ 10:20 pm

Please keep doing this dems.
Please keep doing this dems.
Please keep doing this dems.
Please keep doing this dems.

Mecha leck a hai mecha hiny ho.
mecka leck a hai mecka chany ho.

I think I just guaranteed a republican conquest in the elections.

Wickedpinto (d099bd) — 9/26/2006 @ 10:47 pm

Actually, a very specific plan developed under Clinton was handed over by Richard Clarke to Condi on January 25, 2001. But as Righties, you must ignore the written record and don’t dare mention that she’s lying when she says the Bushies never received a plan.

One element of the plan was to respond to the USS Cole bombing which Kindasleazy put into action

… NEVER.

Armed Predators were delayed, principles meetings were tabled, Osama was ignored in favor of missile defense.

But then we can look at all the thoughtful, pre-9/11 meetings of Cheney’s terrorism task force that totalled

… ZERO.

Unfortunately, that’s what passes for aggresive work for Kindasleazy. I mean, there’s shoe shopping to do while Katrina floods. Who cares that she did nothing when handed a PDB saying “Bin Laden determined to Attack in America”? Who cares that her Sudanese peace plan has actually exacerbated the violence in the Darfur? Who cares if she sat quietly on her hands while hundreds died before belatedly calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon … a delay that achieved nothing beyond those unnecessary deaths?

Judge her not on her record of sheer incompetence, she plays piano.

Macswain (2aadc0) — 9/26/2006 @ 10:58 pm

Actually, a very specific plan developed under Clinton was handed over by Richard Clarke to Condi on January 25, 2001.

— Macswain

[T]here was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

— Dick Clarke

Patterico (de0616) — 9/26/2006 @ 11:18 pm

So yesterday, the defense of Clinton was that he could not muster the nation’s support to attack Afghanistan for the lack of a motivating factor i.e. no 9-11. That is a reasonable assessment and defense in my mind. The lines between the connected dots were too long to make a cogent case to whack Afghanistan. We expected him to mobilize the entire military on a “we think these guys did it?” The American were addicted to air power and, if air power couldn’t fix it, it wasn’t that important anyway.

(Plus Clinton had the ‘wag the dog’ thing working against him, an action that was entirely his fault and is his lasting legacy. That was no conservative ‘hit-job’ btw, it was a dumb girl talking to a dumb friend who had an ax to grind. But it limited him politically and ruined his presidency. He “adversely affected good order and discipline” is the official military term. That is why sodomy and adultery are illegal in the military. Anyway, he was really pissed about his ruined presidency the other day.)

As I said and have been saying for years in defense of Bush’s actions on the PDB, in the absence of a motivating factor, what did we expect Bush to do? What would we, the American tolerated, without 9-11 as a backdrop? Even after the attacks, Americans didn’t want their personal lives disrupted, wanted the airports open, and so on. Hell, we still bitch about taking our shoes off at security.

So without a major event, how could Bush have shut down all the major airports? He didn’t have a specific date or specific enemy plan to work against. “Attack with planes.” Are we to put a policeman on every flight? For how long? What about flights coming from other countries? The only suggestion I have heard the left evolve from this argument is that Bush should have “done something….he certainly shouldn’t have been having a photo op with ‘My Pet Goat.'” Nice cheap shot. Presidents do that kind of stuff, folks.

I just find this kind of second guessing cheap and lacking in insight. Anyone that can’t appreciate the complexities of vague intel shouldn’t be a senator or a president.

y7 (1185a2) — 9/27/2006 @ 4:51 am

Actually, a very specific plan developed under Clinton was handed over by Richard Clarke to Condi on January 25, 2001.

#5, thanks, Pat, this is one of those myths that never seems to die. Richard Clarke himself as you correctly noted, has dispelled this myth of a “specific plan” being passed.

The fact is that virtually no one in either administration accurately anticipated the magnitude of the threat. The Clintons focused on law enforcement actions after crimes were commited and erected (or at the very least recognized) a wall between the FBI and the CIA, and the Bush administration was still figuring out the office plans for the West Wing when the attacks of 9/11 occured.

The question in my mind is, given this history about which we can at this point do nothing, short of inventing a time machine, what do we do now to eliminate this islamofacist threat to western civilization? It seems to me that the only adequate defense is a good offense and that we must take the fight to them worldwide before they bring the fight back to us.

Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 9/27/2006 @ 4:56 am

To add to y7’s excellent insightful comments on the PDB and the political realities facing both administrations, it is also a fact that we were still in a pre-9/11 mind set with respect to hijackings.

Again, even the PBD suggests that hijackings would be used to bargain for the release of prisoners, not as weapons of mass destruction, and there were no specific targets or other actionable intelligence provided, just a vague hijacking threat and a comment that buildings in NYC had been survielled. That threat was also not yet fully appreciated by any of the policy and decision makers of either party at the highest levels of government.

All of which, at this point makes for a fine finger-pointing exercise but arguably serves no other useful purpose whatsoever.

Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 9/27/2006 @ 5:04 am

Actually, a very specific plan developed under Clinton was handed over by Richard Clarke to Condi on January 25, 2001

One element of the plan was to respond to the USS Cole bombing

The Jan. 25 memo and the December 2000 paper are from this page in pdf format.

The Clarke plan doesn’t give any sense of urgency, mentioning the following actions taking 3 to 5 years to reduce al qaeda to where it isn’t a serious threat. The title of the ‘2000 plan’
December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects

The only mention of the Cole is that Pakistan didn’t want their airspace ‘violated again’ in an attack on Afghanistan.

liontooth (178098) — 9/27/2006 @ 5:22 am

The truth is that Bill Clinton failed to prevent several incidents on our military facilities as well as the bombing of our embassies. If Clinton was a real leader then he would have taken real action in 1998, declaring war on Al Queda back then.
Notice how Bush put Pakistan on notice after 9 11: cooperate or else. Clinton’s people, afraid of an Indo-Paki blowup informed the latter with enough time for the agents of Al Queda, who was in Pakistani intelligence to inform Osama we were coming after him.
This is the legacy Clinton left and all of the finger wagging lies can’t change that.

G A Anderson (407e49) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:50 am

Clinton had several opportunities to have OBL killed, but he wouldn’t give the order. At most he tried to convince the CIA and the military to whack OBL on their own, and when they refused to do it without orders, he backed away. Clinton refused to take responsibility, that is the main reason he failed. As they say “no guts, no glory”.

And the Clinton administration was proud of the fact that they handled foriegn policy ad hoc, they had no plan or strategy for anything.

larry (feb78b) — 9/27/2006 @ 7:42 am

Yeah sure he would have who dose this dim-bulb think she is kidding it looks like we have another lying clinton the wicked with and her flying monkeys what a joke

krazy kagu (1b5cd8) — 9/27/2006 @ 8:09 am

Pretty stupid statement from Hillary:

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she said during an appearance on Capitol Hill.

Uh…just such a PDB WAS presented to your husband in 1994 (it even mentioned hijacking airplanes). D’oh!!

Look, both these PDBs were NOT specific on the times and places of the strikes. How in the hell are you supposed to prevent something that MIGHT happen, but you don’t know where or when? That’s all that needed to be said…instead of this “we did more to prevent attacks than Bush did. It’s obvious from the long list of attacks that happened under Clinton’s watch, they did not! Nothing Hillary says surprises me anymore!

Carol

Carol Johnson (78791b) — 9/27/2006 @ 8:52 am

The main problem is that Americans would not have stomached a war in Afghanistan or anywhere else to get bin Laden before 9/11 happened. This is why Clinton did the menial attacks he did and why he relied on air raids in Bosnia instead of putting troops on the ground. He knew Americans wouldn’t stand for any deaths and he was right. Before 9/11, Americans didn’t think it could happen to us here. That’s what Clinton should have said, instead of reminding everybody of Ms. Lewinsky with his finger-wagging.

sharon (dfeb10) — 9/27/2006 @ 8:57 am

There’s a lot that Bill Clinton has to answer for; and most of it has to do with character. I was physically revulsed when I saw a picture of Bill Clinton walking across the White House lawn in early 1993 with a group of generals in uniform behind him. He did not have the character to be in that position; and I’d venture to say that many of the people serving in uniform or in the various intelligence agencies experienced the same feeling.

If a President’s serving military and intelligence agencies are disaffected, he’s going to have trouble getting things done. He had the power to order things done–but didn’t have the stones to issue the orders. And if he tried to “influence” order something without actually issuing the order, he didn’t have the influence either. What person would undertake something dangerous–or possibly illegal—knowing that if things went wrong a “lawyered up” Clinton administration would hang you out to dry?

Hillary’s statement that “her Bill would have done it better” is simply an indication that the geographical location of her head is approximately 6 inches north of the bottom of her alimentary canal. I don’tknow how she breathes.

Now our current President, as we are repeatedly told by such as Hillary and her confreres may not be the sharpest pencil in the box. {I tend to disagree, but folks are entitled to their opinions.} But I don’t think that there is anybody in the military who thinks that Bush doesn’t mean what he says, or that he will fail to stay the course if the results of some subsequent opinion poll show he should change. That’s the difference between a person with some solid foundation or bottom and a person, such as Bill, without bottom.

People will follow or obey someone who has bottom–and shy away or go into a protective crouch when dealing with someone who has no bottom. It’s called leadership.

Mike Myers (f8ce82) — 9/27/2006 @ 8:58 am

Pat,

I agree with you that Clarke was being disingenuous when he was sent out to spin while still in the Bush administration and tried to make the hairsplitting semantic distinction between a “plan” and a “strategy.”

You obviously didn’t want to tell your readers that your Clarke quote came from a backgrounder at a time he was being pressured to act the good soldier and spin for the Bushies or face their massive retribution (as he has since he broke ranks). You plainly didn’t give the context because you want to mislead.

Regardless of whether you call it a plan or a strategy, the documentary proof is there and the evidence establishes the minimalist, nonaggressive approach to Al Qaeda taken by Condi and the rest of the Bushies.

[Macswain, we agree that it’s a cheap rhetorical trick for you to “agree” with an assertion I never made. Applying that trick, we also agree that Clarke’s version of facts is situational, meaning what he said to sell a book can’t be trusted. We also agree that you claimed there was a plan without telling people Clarke said otherwise, so by your logic you are trying to “mislead.” We also agree that, by contrast, I was not trying to mislead, since in my original post I gave a link to Clarke’s statement so people could make up their own minds. We also agree that you are prone to reckless accusations of dishonesty. Glad we could come to this meeting of the minds. — P]

Macswain (76d8da) — 9/27/2006 @ 9:56 am

I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she said during an appearance on Capitol Hill.

Um, Sen Cankles, there was one:

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

What was the Clinton Admin response?
Do Nothing.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/27/2006 @ 11:26 am

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’

Hmmm, who to believe?

The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.”

The Ace (22647b) — 9/27/2006 @ 11:29 am

You obviously didn’t want to tell your readers that your Clarke quote came from a backgrounder at a time he was being pressured to act the good soldier and spin for the Bushies or face their massive retribution

You have no proof of this.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/27/2006 @ 11:54 am

You have no proof of this.

He made it up just now. Imagination + faith = lefty proof.

Pablo (cb50c5) — 9/27/2006 @ 11:58 am

Bill Clinton’s first worry is climate change: “It’s the only thing that I believe has the power to fundamentally end the march of civilization as we know it.”
…

“Fascism is always descending on the United States’ but somehow it keeps landing in Europe.”

[…] “What gets them upset is that the United States of America doesn’t practice the same lying hyprocisy that is now central to European lifestyle and worldview. Western Europeans (expecially the soft underbelly and festering sore that is France-Belgium) kowtow to the relics and vestiges of a bygone era.. Europeans call on the United States of America to pay lip service to an outdated and dead Geneva Convention just as they call for the United States of America to ratify an outdated and dead Kyoto Treaty which they gleefully ignore by overshooting all agreed-to limits on emissions, or to support a United Nations which has more to do with worldwide graft, corruption, and pedophilia than world peace.

Ignore weak kneed European bleating. Ignore hypocritical French whining.” – Tom Wolfe

Mark Steyn, 9-21-06:

“A masterful new work on al-Qaeda and 9/11 explains how a loser cult has metastasized”

The true path to 911:

“In an Islamist grievance culture, the tower doesn’t have to be that tall to loom. The tragedy in Wright’s book is that across little more than half a century a loser cult has metastasized, eventually to swallow almost all the moderate, syncretic forms of Islam. What was so awful about Sayyid Qutb’s experience in America that led him to regard modernity as an abomination? Well, he went to a dance in Greeley, Colo.: “The room convulsed with the feverish music from the gramophone. Dancing naked legs filled the hall, arms draped around the waists, chests met chests, lips met lips …”

In 1949, Greeley, Colo., was dry. The dance was a church social. The feverish music was Frank Loesser’s charm song Baby, It’s Cold Outside. But it was enough to start a chain that led from Qutb to Zawahiri in Egypt to bin Laden in Saudi Arabia to the mullahs in Iran to the man arrested in Afghanistan on Sept. 11. And it’s a useful reminder of how much we could give up and still be found decadent and disgusting by the Islamists. A world without Baby, It’s Cold Outside will be very cold indeed.”

A Texan, Frenchman, and an Israeli are captured by cannibals…

someone tell the seethers they are visible (9d2493) — 9/27/2006 @ 12:45 pm

in re: Post#1,

MayBee…I hope you realize that there WAS a PBD entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”, and that Bush received and ignored it.

MayBee there was a little sarcasm attached to her statement, eh?

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/27/2006 @ 12:50 pm

Hey, “The Ace”!

How ya doin’, buddy?

Still think that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was communicating with Osama? Or have you pulled your head out of your ass?

Go back to the page where we had our last discussion and you will find a post that destroys both of these arguments.

After that, come back to me and make the same arguments as though nothing has changed.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/27/2006 @ 12:57 pm

MayBee…I hope you realize that there WAS a PBD entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”, and that Bush received and ignored it.

Lie.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/27/2006 @ 1:21 pm

Go back to the page where we had our last discussion and you will find a post that destroys both of these arguments.

Huh?

Those arguments can’t be “destroyed” as Saddam had WMD and was working cooperatively with al Qaida.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/27/2006 @ 1:22 pm

MayBee…I hope you realize that there WAS a PBD entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”, and that Bush received and ignored it.

Funny how you didn’t comment on the PDB Clinton recieved on the matter, huh?

Gee, I wonder why that is?

If Bush “ignorned” that PDB, why were these actions taken afterwards?

The government moved on several fronts to counter the threats. The CIA launched “disruption operations” in 20 countries. Tenet met or phoned 20 foreign intelligence officials. Units of the 5th Fleet were redeployed. Embassies went on alert. Cheney called Crown Prince Adbullah of Saudi Arabia to ask for help. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice asked the CIA to brief Attorney General John D. Ashcroft about an “imminent” terrorist attack whose location was unknown.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/27/2006 @ 1:25 pm

From today’s WAPO, if anybody’s interested:

Some of Clinton’s statements on Fox have drawn scrutiny. He said that after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, “I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan.” The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, just more limited options such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles or Special Forces. And nothing in the panel’s report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.

Clinton also asserted that the Bush administration “didn’t have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office.” In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the deputies committee and one on Sept. 4, 2001, through the principals committee composed of Cabinet officers.

From an article by Peter Baker (Washington Post Staff Writer) — “Bush and Clinton Teams Debate Pre-9/11 Efforts”
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A12

Hmmm….is the WAPO saying Clinton LIED on Fox the other day??

Ann (ecc990) — 9/27/2006 @ 2:32 pm

D-E-S-T-R-O-Y-E-D.

Just read the damn post. A Senate subcommittee disagrees with you, buddy.

I’m sure that you’re better informed than they are when it comes to matters of national security, though. After all…You’re “The Ace”.

Saying it’s so don’t make it so, so to speak.

So…

So far you are deliberately blind to the truth. So be it. You shall reap what you sew (and so there!)

Spelling Tips for “The Ace”:
1) What’s with the whole “ignorned” thing?
2) Here’s a little rhyme for you, my friend: “I before E except after C”.

I figure that since you refuse to learn anything about current events, you may as well learn how to spell (although your next post will probably insist that there really are two Ns in “ignored”, regardless of what the dictionary says on the subject)

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/27/2006 @ 2:36 pm

It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes.

No, it didn’t. It said al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes, just as terrorists had been doing for decades. It didn’t say anything about using those planes to “strike the USA”.

In any case, all the information in that PDB was several years old, meaning that Clinton had seen it too. All it added up to was a reminder that this guy was still out there, and still intended to do bad things to us, though we weren’t quite sure what. There was nothing to indicate that an attack was coming a month later.

Milhouse (61ed0f) — 9/27/2006 @ 2:41 pm

A Senate subcommittee disagrees with you, buddy.

Which “subcommittee” would that be?

I’m sure that you’re better informed than they are when it comes to matters of national security, though.

Um, no committeee said anything you claim they did.

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:17 pm

Senate subcommittee disagrees with you, buddy.

Which “subcommittee”?

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:18 pm

I’m sure that you’re better informed than they are when it comes to matters of national security

No committeee or “subcommittee” said anything you’re claiming they did.

I figure that since you refuse to learn anything about current events, you may as well learn how to spell

Gee, since you have no substance you’re now talking about typo’s.

Shocker.

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:20 pm

A Senate subcommittee disagrees with you, buddy.

If you’re referring to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is a permanent Senate Committee, their “Phase II” report said (page 10):

The US government did not conduct a similar postwar investigation of Iraq’s links to terrorism. Indeed, the nature of the question of whether or to what extent Iraq was linked to terrorist organizations, including al-Qa’ida, does not lend itself to an on-the-ground fact finding investigation as easily as the WMD case. One is not able to search Iraq for the presence of linkg to al Qa’ida as one can search for the presence of WMD and the industrial facilities capable of producing WMD.

I figure that since you refuse to learn anything about current events,
Hilarious.
Thanks for playing.

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:26 pm

“Two reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee stung the White House last week. The first concludes that Saddam Hussein NEVER HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH ABU MUSAB ZARQAWI OR ANY OTHER AL QAEDA MILITANTS- despite some prewar Bush administration claims to the contrary. The second report accuses Iraqi opposition politician Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress of trying to MISLEAD U.S. INTELLIGENCE ABOUT SADDAM’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. It also shows how reports from INC-affiliated sources were mishandled by several intelligence agencies…”

-from U.S. News and World Report

(Week of) September 18, 2006

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:37 pm

How can you say that no Senate Committee said what I’m saying? I keep showing you a cited source.

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:38 pm

Do you still say that Saddam had WMDs, “The Ace”?
I don’t see you withdrawing any of your previous comments on the matter.

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:40 pm

And by the way, what exactly was the point of a “postwar” investigation? Why bother to see if your reasons are flawed or not if you’ve already decided on a course of action?

Are you sure we’re on the same page here?

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/27/2006 @ 3:46 pm

Two reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee stung the White House last week. The first concludes that Saddam Hussein NEVER HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH ABU MUSAB ZARQAWI OR ANY OTHER AL QAEDA MILITANTS

Um, no evidence of a relationship with Zarqawi is not no relationship with al Qaida.

Unless of course you can’t read.

Do you still say that Saddam had WMDs

Of course he did, he used them, idiot.

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/27/2006 @ 5:24 pm

How can you say that no Senate Committee said what I’m saying

Er, because they didn’t say Saddam had no connections with al Qaida. As you said.

See stupid this:

There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Is not this:
“there was no link between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda.”

Despite your silly insistence otherwise.

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/27/2006 @ 5:27 pm

MayBee…I hope you realize that there WAS a PBD entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”, and that Bush received and ignored it.

MayBee there was a little sarcasm attached to her statement, eh?

I realize there was that PDB with that title and that Bush received it. I don’t agree he ignored it.
However, between Clinton and Bush there were thousands of PDBs, very few of which have been declassified. I’m willing to bet there were hundreds of them with titles implicating Bin Laden and AlQaeda as a serious threat to the US. I hope there were. For Hillary to act as if that ONE with that title was somehow the ONE that would have made Clinton do something special is utterly ridiculous.

MayBee (8aec89) — 9/27/2006 @ 5:37 pm

You plainly didn’t give the context because you want to mislead.

The link to the Document outlining your claim of
“One element of the plan was to respond to the USS Cole bombing” has been posted in this thread. It doesn’t contain any plan for dealing with the Cole bombing. Yet Patterico is ‘misleading? Hilarious.

“Two reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee stung the White House last week.

The reports don’t address contradictory evidence that was excluded

liontooth (178098) — 9/27/2006 @ 5:45 pm

C’mon, you guys, you’re being much too hard on Hillary.

Ol’ Bill Clinton would have stopped the 9/11 attacks just as he prevented the plans to bomb the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers, the U.S. embassies in Tanzania & Kenya, and the World Trade Center in ’93.

Just look at how tough Clinton got with Elian Gonzales at 5AM on Easter morning.
He and Janet Reno sent the Feds in there with guns-a-blazing, just in case little Elian and his posse of teddy bears tried any funny business !
NO four year-old Cuban boys have attempted to harm the U.S. since then—see ?

Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:00 pm

Can any rightie who has blamed Clinton for 9/11 please answer the following:

Does Bush deserve any blame for 9/11? If so, how much? If not, why not?

Billrog (85762a) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:17 pm

I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11.

I blame him for his attempts at revisionist history now. More importantly, I’m tired of those that want to pretend that when it comes to terrorism and Iraq and WMDs, Clinton was never really President at all. Clinton was only President for a booming economy, peace and prosperity, and a world that swooned over him.

MayBee (8aec89) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:21 pm

By revisionist history, you mean his anti-terror record, which means you blame him for 9/11.

Billrog (85762a) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:41 pm

Bill Clinton does not deserve the blame for 9/11, and neither does anyone else but Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda.

However, during his term in office, Bill Clinton’s failure to respond effectively to the series of terrorist attacks emboldened Al Qaeda and lead directly to 9/11.

Black Jack (63943a) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:43 pm

By revisionist history, you mean his anti-terror record, which means you blame him for 9/11.

Can you walk me through your logic there?

MayBee (8aec89) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:51 pm

Bill Clinton’s failure to respond effectively to the series of terrorist attacks emboldened Al Qaeda and lead directly to 9/11.

This means you assign him some blame for 9/11.
Can you answer the question about Bush, please?

Billrog (85762a) — 9/27/2006 @ 6:54 pm

“Does Bush deserve any blame for 9/11? If so, how much? If not, why not?”

I don’t blame Bush or Clinton. I blame the guys that flew the airplanes into buildings and the ground. There wasn’t a whole lot more Clinton would do than lob some missiles into a camp hoping OBL was there because Americans wouldn’t have stood for American blood being spilled. And George Bush certainly couldn’t have done anything more than Clinton did. Hell, people are bitching about security in airports now. Can you imagine what they would have done if any of the security measures in place now had been enacted before 9/11? There’s already enough “Bush is a fascist” shit as there is. I can’t imagine what would have been said if Bush had tried to tighten security before 9/11.

sharon (dfeb10) — 9/27/2006 @ 8:53 pm

Pat,

Condi claims a “plan” on Al Qaeda was not passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. You have decided to support this claim. Yet, we have documents (see the links on #9) of the plan though it is entitled a “strategy.”

I hate to break it to you bro, but some guy named Roget seems to think “plan” and “strategy” are synonymous.

Hey, do you remember when Repugs used to claim to be the party of the plainspoken? Well, I guess those days are long gone … kinda like many old Repug catchphrases like “Balanced Budget Amendment” or “Exit Strategy.”

Next time we debate, I hope you’ll have the decency to play by the rules of English grammar.

And don’t think I didn’t notice your inability to provide any specifics of a substantive response by the Bushies to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.

Macswain (2aadc0) — 9/27/2006 @ 8:53 pm

Macswain, you may have missed my earlier response, appended as it was to your comment. Here it is:

Macswain, we agree that it’s a cheap rhetorical trick for you to “agree” with an assertion I never made. Applying that trick, we also agree that Clarke’s version of facts is situational, meaning what he said to sell a book can’t be trusted. We also agree that you claimed there was a plan without telling people Clarke said otherwise, so by your logic you are trying to “mislead.” We also agree that, by contrast, I was not trying to mislead, since in my original post I gave a link to Clarke’s statement so people could make up their own minds. We also agree that you are prone to reckless accusations of dishonesty. Glad we could come to this meeting of the minds. — P

The answer to all your questions is right there in the link I provided in my first post on this issue, to Dick Clarke’s background briefing to reporters. In it Clarke explains what the Bush Administration had been doing, and says that there was no “plan” (although there apparently was a 3-5 year strategy of “rollback” — hardly the same as the “plan” to hit back after the Cole, and take out Al Qaeda militarily right away, as the Clintonites have implied was passed along).

We agree that it refutes all your silly arguments.

“Bro.”

Patterico (de0616) — 9/27/2006 @ 9:10 pm

Yet, we have documents (see the links on #9) of the plan though it is entitled a “strategy.”

Now that you know where it is, why don’t you actually read it?

but some guy named Roget seems to think “plan” and “strategy” are synonymous.

There is no plan or strategy or whatever you want to call it for responding to the Cole attack as you falsely claimed.

liontooth (178098) — 9/27/2006 @ 10:49 pm

Did Hillary support her husband’s outsourcing to get Osama?

CLINTON: We contracted with people to kill him.

liontooth (178098) — 9/27/2006 @ 11:10 pm

Bro,

My bad … I really thought you knew the facts. Silly of me to assume such.

We have been debating the semantics of the documents passed on to Condi by Clarke and all the while you’ve been assuming that was the only Afghanistan plan Clinton passed on to the Bushies.

Wow, quite shocking. You really were not aware of the military’s plan. You really didn’t know that Clinton, after the attack on the Cole, requested that the military, General Shelton in particular, reevaluate military plans for a quick military strike against Bin Laden. A “phased campaign” including not just Al Qaeda but also Taliban targets was included as was an air campaign of indefinite duration. Clinton was only waiting for the finding of culpability by the FBI or CIA. Unfortunately, that didn’t come until days after Bush took over. Though the military strike plan was passed on, Rummy and Wolfowitz decided not to follow it because they felt a response to the Cole incident was, using their word, “stale” by the time the Bush administration was in place.

Yo, bro, please try and keep up with the basic narrative.

Macswain (2aadc0) — 9/28/2006 @ 12:05 am

Macswain, you crack me up. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your misplaced condescension towards different perspectives than your own. Why do you even come here if all you’re going to do is spot the rug?

Clinton was only waiting for the finding of culpability by the FBI or CIA.

Of course Clinton told you this or made it public before 9/11, right? No, this spin was vomited up as damage control after 9/11 by the previous administration.

Rummy and Wolfowitz decided not to follow it because they felt a response to the Cole incident was, using their word, “stale” by the time the Bush administration was in place.

Link? And not your own blog this time. Not that it may not have been true at the time though… perhaps you’ve forgotten all the obfuscation and nonsense Democrats and former White House personnel were engaging in just as President Bush moved into the White House?

You really were not aware of the military’s plan. You really didn’t know that Clinton, after the attack on the Cole, requested that the military, General Shelton in particular, reevaluate military plans for a quick military strike against Bin Laden.

We plan for stuff all the time, doesn’t make those plans feasible or likely to be used. Remember, the planning was done with the expectation of needing President Clinton’s approval. The objectives and rules-of-engagement most assuredly needed changing once President Bush took office.

Stashiu3 (0da7ed) — 9/28/2006 @ 3:04 am

Macswain, pay attention.

There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Richard Clarke said this. Bubba told you to mloiaten to him. Why do you doubt the truth of this?

Pablo (08e1e8) — 9/28/2006 @ 3:15 am

Though the military strike plan was passed on, Rummy and Wolfowitz decided not to follow it because they felt a response to the Cole incident was, using their word, “stale” by the time the Bush administration was in place.

If there was such a “plan” why wasn’t it enacted by the Clinton Admin?

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/28/2006 @ 4:07 am

Wow, quite shocking. You really were not aware of the military’s plan.

Please provide evidence of this.

And don’t think I didn’t notice your inability to provide any specifics of a substantive response by the Bushies to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.

Please see #27.

And please note:
There were no substantive responses by the Clinton Admin to al Qaida which is why you’re posing that question.

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/28/2006 @ 4:09 am

Wow, quite shocking. You really were not aware of the military’s plan.

Here is what Richard Clarke said:

There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. . . . [a] plan, strategy – there was no, nothing new.”

Indeed, Clarke said, the Bush team in 2001 “changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.”

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/28/2006 @ 4:18 am

BTW, after Clinton got the 1998 PDB, here is how he “reacted”

Yet Clinton’s aides did not want authorizations that could be interpreted by Afghan agents as an unrestricted license to kill. For one thing, the Justice Department signaled that it would oppose such language if it was proposed for Clinton’s signature.
…
etween 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton’s national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The Ace (8d7f7b) — 9/28/2006 @ 4:28 am

Sharon:
There wasn’t a whole lot more Clinton would do than lob some missiles into a camp
60 cruise missiles, I believe.
George Bush certainly couldn’t have done anything more than Clinton did.
Why not? What was stopping him? Is he afraid of what people will think of him? His party (your party) controlled the entire government at the time.
If Clinton could fire 60 cruise missiles at Osama and take the heat about wagging the dog, couldn’t Bush be just as strong? Please tell me why not.
Clinton fired 60 cruise missiles at Osama. He missed, but at least he took aim. Can anyone here tell me exactly how many missiles, bullets, bombs or BBs Bush aimed at Osama pre-9/11?
(Hint: rhymes with Nero, who also fiddled around while his nation was burning.)

Billrog (85537e) — 9/28/2006 @ 5:48 am

Clinton fired 60 cruise missiles at Osama

Lie.

Pleasee =get the facts straight.

Or at least pretend you’re interested in them.

Oh, by the way:

SAMUEL BERGER: We did not target bin Laden, specifically, in this strike. We didn’t know whether he would be in this camp or not. We consider this camp to be a military target. And under these circumstances, we believe that what we did was both appropriate and lawful.

If Clinton could fire 60 cruise missiles at Osama and take the heat about wagging the dog, couldn’t Bush be just as strong?

I answered this yesterday. The fact you can’t acknowledge the relevant facts regarding the matter speaks volumes.

Clinton didn’t “take any heat” either.

Your lies are boring.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 6:00 am

If Clinton could fire 60 cruise missiles at Osama

Could you please provide evidence of this?

Because in Aug 1998 the Clinton Admin launched strikes against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan.

And Sandy Burglar said they did not target Bin Laden.

Thanks in advance.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 6:03 am

“60 cruise missiles, I believe.”

Unless you have a link that says there were 60 missiles, we can assume that that number is a big fat lie like everything else you’ve said.

“Why not? What was stopping him? Is he afraid of what people will think of him? His party (your party) controlled the entire government at the time.”

Neither Clinton nor President Bush could have done more than was done because Americans did not see our country as being at war with anyone. It’s not a matter of presidential prerogative or executive power. It was a matter of what Americans understood and accepted as appropriate behavior. The fact is that Americans (I assume that includes YOU) were stupid enough to think that when terrorists claimed that they wanted to kill Americans, they were talking about some OTHER Americans.

“If Clinton could fire 60 cruise missiles at Osama and take the heat about wagging the dog, couldn’t Bush be just as strong?”

I wouldn’t want my president to take such ineffective action designed to give the appearance of action. But to answer your question, yes, he could have. Why would he do that? So Democrats could scream that he was a “fascist”?

“Clinton fired 60 cruise missiles at Osama. He missed, but at least he took aim.”

He didn’t take aim. He took the minimal action he could.

sharon (dfeb10) — 9/28/2006 @ 6:42 am

Bro,

My bad … I really thought you knew the facts. Silly of me to assume such.

We have been debating the semantics of the documents passed on to Condi by Clarke and all the while you’ve been assuming that was the only Afghanistan plan Clinton passed on to the Bushies.

Wow, quite shocking. You really were not aware of the military’s plan. You really didn’t know that Clinton, after the attack on the Cole, requested that the military, General Shelton in particular, reevaluate military plans for a quick military strike against Bin Laden. A “phased campaign” including not just Al Qaeda but also Taliban targets was included as was an air campaign of indefinite duration. Clinton was only waiting for the finding of culpability by the FBI or CIA. Unfortunately, that didn’t come until days after Bush took over. Though the military strike plan was passed on, Rummy and Wolfowitz decided not to follow it because they felt a response to the Cole incident was, using their word, “stale” by the time the Bush administration was in place.

Yo, bro, please try and keep up with the basic narrative.

Bro, bro, bro, bro, bro.

“There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

What part of that do you not understand, bro?

As Stashiu points out, bro, sure there were military contingency plans, as there always are. And you are correct that Wolfowitz and Rummy believed tit for tat missile lobbing to be a bad idea, and that the Cole attack was “stale.”

Where you are wrong, bro, is to suggest that Dick Clarke walked in with a military blueprint under his arm for taking out Osama and said: we must do this now — and Bush & Co. said no. Clarke has already said that there was instead this 3-5 year rollback strategy, and that is what he recommended — a response at a time and place and in a manner dictated by the choice of the Administration.

Bro.

Patterico (de0616) — 9/28/2006 @ 6:46 am

Can anyone here tell me exactly how many missiles, bullets, bombs or BBs Bush aimed at Osama pre-9/11?

Exactly as many as Clinton aimed at him in 8 years as CinC.

Now, how many has George Bush aimed at him in 6 years as CinC? How about in his first year as CinC?

I dunno exactly, but it’s a LOT, isn’t it? 9/11 didn’t get stale.

Pablo (cb50c5) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:05 am

Please provide evidence of this.

Pleasee =get the facts straight.
Or at least pretend you’re interested in them.

Comment by The Ace

That’s a totally lost cause.

Macswain’s idea of evidence and facts is Keith Oberman.

liontooth (178098) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:28 am

In re: Post #41,

MayBee,
I definitely understand where you’re coming from with this. It’s silly for Hillary to suggest that it was anything other than politics keeping Bill from attacking Bin Laden.

When I wrote that first post, I wasn’t sure that you knew about the mentioned PBD, so…

Point taken, and readily agreed to.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:29 am

Macswain’s idea of evidence and facts is Keith Oberman

Too funny.

Ok, I guess I won’t ask that question anymore!

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:33 am

“The Ace”, Posts #39 and #40,

If you would take the time to finish reading the damn thing you would realize what an idiot you sound like right now.

“Two reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee stung the White House last week. The first concludes that Saddam Hussein NEVER HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH ABU MUSAB ZARQAWI OR ANY OTHER AL QAEDA MILITANTS”

Um, no evidence of a relationship with Zarqawi is not no relationship with al Qaida.

Unless of course you can’t read.

-“The Ace”, putting his foot in his mouth

The only problem with your argument is the word “OR”, followed by the words “ANY OTHER AL QAEDA MILITANTS”.

If Saddam had no links with any Al Qaeda militants, it wasn’t exactly accurate of the Administration to claim that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda militants, was it, my stubborn little friend?

By your logic, I could argue that we should invade France. After all…they have WMDs, and NO LINKS TO AL QAEDA (obvious proof of their ties to the organization).

Damn this baguette-eating menace!

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:42 am

Will at least one sane conservative acknowledge this point for “The Ace”? sharon? Somebody? Anybody? Apparently he and I are failing to communicate… We need a translator OR something.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:42 am

The only problem with your argument is the word “OR”, followed by the words “ANY OTHER AL QAEDA MILITANTS”.

The only problem is:
The report didn’t say that.

Anywhere.

That is called “misreporting”

And I dare you to read the report or cite it and prove me wrong.

Please do.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:49 am

If you would take the time to finish reading the damn thing you would realize what an idiot you sound like right now.

The only idiot here is you.

See stupid, I read the report, you read headlines.

Big difference.

Also, please link to the US News story.

Thanks.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:51 am

in re: “The Ace”‘s challenge:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060910/18whitehouse.htm

Just scroll down, you’ll see the story.
Read it very carefully, then come back and tell me that I’m pulling stuff out of my ass.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:55 am

The first concludes that Saddam Hussein NEVER HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH ABU MUSAB ZARQAWI OR ANY OTHER AL QAEDA MILITANTS

The report says this nowhere.

And I already pointed out how they were in no position to draw these conclusions.

Further, just about every other news agency reported it like this:

There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:55 am

Note: The story is called

“This Just In (Ouch), and More to Come”

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 7:56 am

“This Just In (Ouch), and More to Come

Two reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee stung the White House last week. The first concludes that Saddam Hussein never had a relationship with the now deceased Abu Musab Zarqawi or any other al Qaeda militants-despite some prewar Bush administration claims to the contrary. The second report accuses Iraqi opposition politician Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress of trying to mislead U.S. intelligence about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. It also shows how reports from INC-affiliated sources were mishandled by several intelligence agencies. Republicans said the reports were overstated for political reasons, but more is due from the investigation into how prewar intelligence was used to make the case for war.”

-U.S. News and World Report
September 18, 2006

You are really splitting hairs if all of your claims that “the quote doesn’t exist, butthead”
rest on the fact that the words “now deceased”[in re: Zarqawi] don’t appear in the original post.

For the love of all that is good and holy,somebody call him on this!!

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:01 am

All this back n forth about who did what and who said what in the past is certainly diverting! Diverting from the real issue, that is… what’s the best plan to eliminate these jihadist cockroaches from the planet?

Dubya (c16726) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:25 am

You are really splitting hairs if all of your claims that “the quote doesn’t exist, butthead”
rest on the fact that the words “now deceased”[in re: Zarqawi] don’t appear in the original post.

Huh?
What does this even mean?

By the way, I see you aren’t even bothering to cite the actual report on this.

Now why do you think that is?

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:39 am

Give me a break.

If a source like U.S. News and World Report isn’t good enough for you, I don’t know what is.

If you want to take the time and read through the whole report (all 151 pages or so of it), be my guest.

From what I’ve seen so far, it essentially hands the pre-war intelligence community its ass on a platter.

That aside, are you going to continue to dispute what the article said? Or will you admit that U.S. News and World Report is a credible source, whose word is held to a much higher standard than your word, or mine?

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:46 am

in re: Post #79

The whole point of this conversation, my tunnel-visioned friend, is that the U.S. apparently invaded a country where there were no “jihadist cockroaches” to be found.

Oh, well. We just missed. We’ll invade the right country next time, won’t we?

Besides, bombing Iraq into the Stone Age might have been an improvement, right? HA HA HA HA…

Very, very funny. I’m sure the world thinks so, too.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:52 am

That aside, are you going to continue to dispute what the article said?

YES.

The report issued by SSCI did not say what you, and US News are saying it did.

Nowhere.
And you can’t prove it does.

No other news agency used those words in reporting the matter by the way.

I gave you a link and I also pasted from the report itself demonstrating why it is not possible for them to have concluded what you’re saying they did.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:53 am

is that the U.S. apparently invaded a country where there were no “jihadist cockroaches” to be found.

You mean except for Zarqawi, right?

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:53 am

Oh, well. We just missed

Actually, we didn’t.

By the way, what I find funny is that you don’t reference these reports in regard to Joe Wilson.

Both Phase I and Phase II demonstrate conclusively he’s a liar.

Funny how you don’t mention that, huh?

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:56 am

re: #82, 84
…except ansar al islam, muktada al sadir

re: “…my tunnel-visioned friend…”
The vision should be forward, not backward, my sophomoric “friend.”

Hey Patter EEEE ko — how about starting a thread to discuss and debate tactics to eliminate Islamo-fascist hegemony? (Alas, there will likely be a continuation of the name-calling crap, but there could be some wheat in that chaff.)

Dubya (c16726) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:00 am

Leviticus,

I read the report. It doesn’t say that… anywhere. It does say

“Yet, rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of this investigation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda.”

As written in the minority opinion of four members. So, not only is the quote you claim non-existent, the validity of the report is disputed. Do you like apples? 😉

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:11 am

Ace:

Remember, these are folks who believe that, when choosing between actual polls and exit polls, go with the latter, especially when they “prove” that the people of Ohio really meant to vote for Kerry.

So, if you have to choose between the actual report and USN&WR, of course you should go with whichever makes Bush look worse.

Get with the program, dOOd!

Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:17 am

1st post for tactics/strategy debate:

Since the jihadists make use of Internet to spread their filth (er, “faith”) target their web sites and the companies that host them. Start a global campaign to delete their snuff films from any server, desktop or laptop they are found on. Fine ISPs that host servers containing snuff films.

Put up “jishing” (jihadist fishing) sites to lure them in and install the same keystroke logging and other “gifts” they use on clueless surfers to steal money.

Target the “mules” who trek through the mountains of (er, Tehran) to make the videos of Zawahiri and bin Laden — snuff them either on the way to see the “sheik” or on their way back.

Use electronic pulse weapons to put al Jizzera off the air.

Dubya (c16726) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:28 am

So, if you have to choose between the actual report and USN&WR, of course you should go with whichever makes Bush look worse.

Get with the program, dOOd!

Comment by Lurking Observer

Exactly!!

The Ace (22647b) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:42 am

sharon –

I think I’m with the Giuliana on this (the full text version, not the AP one), but the # of cruise missiles in the attacks seem to have been:

– 70 at the training camps
– 13 at the Sudan site

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/bombings/retaliation.html

jim (a9ab88) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:48 am

Can anyone here tell me exactly how many missiles, bullets, bombs or BBs Bush aimed at Osama pre-9/11?
Exactly as many as Clinton aimed at him in 8 years as CinC.
Unless you have a link that says there were 60 missiles, we can assume that that number is a big fat lie like everything else you’ve said..
From the 9/11 Commission hearings: “Let me go to another question, and that is August ‘98 — the missile attack, 60 Tomahawk missiles more or less, 20 to 30 al Qaeda killed, bin Laden escaped, according to your intelligence with only hours to spare.” The report itself goes into detail on pages 116-117 without mentioning the number of missiles.

Now do you assume everything I say is true?

Billrog (85537e) — 9/28/2006 @ 9:50 am

Billrog,

Did you not read the link in #63? Osama was not targeted. And no, I never assume anything you say is true, much less everything.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 9/28/2006 @ 10:29 am

As Ace has pretty much dis-assembled MacSwain, I’m kind of loath to jump into the fire and beat the crap out of a dead mule, but I must:

I mean, there’s shoe shopping to do while Katrina floods.

Explain to me, dear sir, exactly what duties Secretary of State is expected to do in the event of a DOMESTIC emergency. I fail to see how that ties in to anything you say other than to throw up a straw (wo)man in the attempt to see if it will catch. It will not.

In any event, the pointing of fingers, the recriminations, the laying of blame, is easy to do after the damage is done. Whether it is 9/11 or Katrina, there is always someone who is willing to say they could have done it better.

How many Republicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

One. And the entire Democratic party to tell us that the lightbulb is white, and so screwing it in is racist because it should have been a black light.

otcconan (da2b63) — 9/28/2006 @ 1:41 pm

Back to the original premise of this thread:

Any politician, Republican or Democrat, who thinks they can win election by making statements about what they coulda/woulda/shoulda done if they’d gotten a document with a particular title is simply (lamely) slinging mud. Are you listening Billary?

Focus on winning the future, not winning an argument about the past!

Dubya (c16726) — 9/28/2006 @ 4:04 pm

Sorry wicked witch but you cant turn me into a frog i,ve already been changed into abird SQUAWK SQUAWK

krazy kagu (b1eb84) — 9/28/2006 @ 8:50 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/ap/politics/mainD8K10D9G2.shtml

Here’s another story for you to discount.

The reason I’m not citing quotes from the Phase II Report is that I don’t know how to select text in Adobe (laugh, nobody really cares).

As I said, the report certainly isn’t favorable to the claims made by the Bush Administration.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/29/2006 @ 7:30 am

To Stashiu3,

Right. The gist of the entire 150 pages or so of the report can be condensed into

“Yet, rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of this investigation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda.”

So, essentially, four members of the committee think that the whole endeavor was a big waste of time. Worse, they think that this report is 150 pages of propaganda. That’s why they said

“The Chairman’s additional views in this second report lay out the factual discrepancies, false impressions, and inaccuracies [of pre-war intel]; we support these views.”

-Phase II Report, page 150 of 151

Obviously they agree with nothing the report says.

Also:

“Regarding Iraq’s connections to al-Qa’ida, the high level Iraqi official allegedly said that Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Usama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida. He added that bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq.”

-Phase II Report, page 146 of 151

He’s probably a spy, though.
Don’t listen to him.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/29/2006 @ 7:45 am

Also, read pages 142-144 in re: Saddam’s purported weapons capabilities.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/29/2006 @ 7:49 am

So where is the quote you used? Why are you changing the subject? I said that I read the report and the quote you used wasn’t anywhere in there, adding there is dispute over the agenda of the report and some of the accuracy. You ignore the point of my post, focus on the addendum, and bring up new points. Moving the goalposts a bit much. If everything I debunk from you gets ignored and new claims thrown up instead, why should anyone bother to listen to you?

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 9/29/2006 @ 8:11 am

I read the report and understand that hindsight is 20/20, apparently you don’t. Look at the decisions made based on the intel available at the time. That’s in the report also, don’t just cherry-pick the parts that were learned later.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 9/29/2006 @ 8:20 am

Stashiu3,

A couple of things:
1) I was quoting a US News and World Report article, so reading the Phase II reports may not have turned up an exact quote. I now realize that sources like USNAWR and CBS aren’t good enough for you: My apologies. Thus…

I didn’t ignore your post. I realized that since a lot of you guys think that the entire media has a liberal bias, I would have to start going to source material to be taken seriously, so that’s what I did.

Which leads to my quote from the Phase II reports themselves in re: Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I haven’t read the entire report (yet), as you claim to have, so “debunk” me if I’m wrong: That quote doen’t look very good for the intelligence community or the administration.

2) I don’t understand why you’re mad that I addressed your addendum; What did you expect me to do with it? Ignore it? That wouldn’t have made you very happy, would it?

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/29/2006 @ 9:08 am

You still haven’t read it and you’re taking quotes from it? Maybe that’s why I have little patience for your faulty reasoning and inability to argue a point effectively. I never said I was angry, just that nobody should bother to listen to you because you type before you know what you’re talking about.

And unlike you, I don’t claim something that isn’t true and was easily disproved. I read the report. Try to find the quote you argued about anywhere in there. Until then, we’ll know you don’t have any substance.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 9/29/2006 @ 10:06 am

That quote (in Post #98) is taken directly from the damn report. I’ve apparently read at least part of the report, or I wouldn’t be able to quote it, ever think of that?

Ooooh, good job, you wasted three or four days of your employer’s money reading the entire Phase II report off Adobe Acrobat. Who cares? Half of the damn thing is reiterated from past reports, points thrown in solely so they can be exposed as the lies they were (and still are).

How about you address the quote at hand: “…no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Usama bin Laden or al-Qa’ida”.

Quit dodging the question with your self-righteous bullshit.

Leviticus (43095b) — 9/29/2006 @ 11:06 am

The original quote you argued with Ace is not in the report. Plus, I read the report at home and it certainly didn’t take three or four days (not that there would be anything wrong with that, take your time). Finally, it’s ok to be self-rightous when you’re right. How many times did you claim that quote? Lets see…#29, #35, #36, #71, #72, #75, #78, and #81. Ace and I both told you the report didn’t say that and you kept arguing.

That quote (in Post #98) is taken directly from the damn report. I’ve apparently read at least part of the report, or I wouldn’t be able to quote it, ever think of that?

Hmmm…. now what makes me think your quotes may be suspect? We’re still looking for you to show the first one.

How about you address the quote at hand: “…no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Usama bin Laden or al-Qa’ida”.

Nice try to change the subject again… but you still haven’t addressed the original quote or read the entire report. Once you do I may take you seriously. Sit down and be quiet, you may learn something. Or go back to Kos, I really don’t care. As far as I’m concerned, you and Macswain are both obnoxious trolls who come here only to spot the rug and are probably sockpuppets of actus. Actually, that’s not true since actus can remain calm and occasionally make a valid point, something you also need to work on. Take your smarmy comments, fold them up into very sharp corners, and find someplace useful to put them.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 9/29/2006 @ 11:52 am

“Regarding Iraq’s connections to al-Qa’ida, the high level Iraqi official allegedly said that Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Usama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida. He added that bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq.”

The facts dispute this claim. In 2000, Richard Clarke listed countries al qaeda was operating against, notice the ABSENCE of ‘longtime enemy’Iraq:

– Cell operating in Turkey

– Initial Chief targets were Saudi Arabia and Egypt

– After 1996 focused attention on supporting operations in Bosnia and Chechnya, Dagestan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan

– Subersion of Other Governments: Trained al Qaeda engaged against Algeria, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Philippines, and propoganda spread throughout the Gulf (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE)

liontooth (178098) — 9/29/2006 @ 12:45 pm

Forgot to include these other countries:
– al Ittihad in Kenya and Somalia
– the Abayan Islamic Army of Yemen
– the Palestinian Asbat al Ansar
– increased contacts with the Palestinian rejectionist groups, including Hizbollah, Hamas and Palesine Islamic Jihad
– supports cells in Israel

liontooth (178098) — 9/29/2006 @ 12:56 pm

Regarding Iraq’s connections to al-Qa’ida, the high level Iraqi official allegedly said

And?

So one person makes this claim and you’re pretending the SSCI approves of it?

Please.

Allawi: No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September — atrocities or not, I can’t — vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists.

The Ace (22647b) — 9/29/2006 @ 1:29 pm

Stashiu3,

I NEVER SAID THAT MY ORIGINAL QUOTE WAS FROM THE PHASE II REPORTS.

I cited it, accurately, from U.S. News and World Report. I linked it. What more do you want?

I understand and respect your inclination to prefer the Phase II reports to anything secondhand. No problem.

Take into what the article said (you don’t have to believe it, just read it so you know what it says).

After you’ve done that, address the quote I posted, ACCURATELY, from the Phase II reports.
Don’t say that, because you misread my obviously cited source in previous posts, you won’t even investigate anything I post from now on.

Sounds to me like you’re trying to stick your head in the sand on this one.

I say all of these things with all due respect…just check the stuff out.

Leviticus (43095b) — 10/2/2006 @ 7:39 am

Not sticking my head in the sand at all. I understand where you got the quote, I looked at your link the first time you posted it. When Ace and I tried to correct you, rather than look at what we were saying and checking to see if we might be right, you kept insisting that your source was authoritative. That was very frustrating to me as I did check out what Ace had said when he posted it and tried to bring it to your attention.

Thank you for the more civil tone, I tend to answer snark with snarkier stuff. I really shouldn’t, but I was trying to thoroughly explain what I was saying and getting accused of wasting my employers time hit a nerve. I am always open to discussion and the give and take that is supposed to happen. I even admit when I’m wrong if my position is shown to be mistaken.

To address your point, that quote does not reflect well on the administration. I believe my point about the minority dissenting opinion stems from items like this. I believe the dissenters found it disingenuous to take a 20/20 hindsight view without taking into account that the decisions were made in good faith with the understanding we had at the time. Could things have been done better? I think everyone would agree with that as long as the partisan nonsense was left out. In the Army, we have AAR’s (After-Action Reports) where exercises are dissected ruthlessly to learn as much as possible from them. But people should not be playing the woulda-shoulda-coulda game just to tear down the other viewpoints. It’s easy to Monday Morning Quarterback, not so easy to actually be in the game.

It’s kind of like the WMD arguments… nearly everyone in the world had an almost near-certainty that Saddam was currently developing them. That includes France, Germany, Russia, and several other of the non-Coalition governments. Their position at the time was, “We think he probably does have something, but we want to continue sanctions and inspections for now rather than take the next step” (I’m paraphrasing, obviously) It’s easy enough now to look back at how Saddam stayed on the fence to keep people guessing. I can even understand why he would do that to a degree… if everyone believed that he had an active program, that would have a deterrant effect on both the U.S. and Iran. His miscalculation was essentially believing France and Russia’s assurances that they would exercise the veto in the Security Council, preventing a U.S. military response. He never expected the U.S. to act without the full support of the U.N. and continued to walk that fence until he was pushed off.

To possibly anticipate your next question… Do I believe that everything in the report that was critical of the administration was there because of the partisan agenda? No, much of it is a realistic assessment of how things actually turned out. Unfortunately, separating the valid lessons learned from smears on the administration is difficult. A healthy discussion of the content is needed to learn the valuable lessons buried within the fog. Just my opinion. Thanks again.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/2/2006 @ 8:14 am

Point well taken. I certainly understand the assertions of many that hindsight is, when push comes to shove, worth very little. What’s done is done, and criticism of the past without suggestion of alternatives for the future is…pathetic. I agree with you on this.

I believe that the Democrats in Congress are guilty of this in many, many ways. They would rather criticize the situation in Iraq than come up with a constructive solution; they would rather use the deaths of our soldiers to get elected than spend the time to get them out of a bad situation.
I don’t believe that the Republicans in Congress are any better about exploiting the plight of soldiers these days, but I certainly don’t believe that they are any worse about it.

That said, I must say that, if nothing else, the Phase II reports show that much of the world acted rashly. Time wasn’t taken to truly discern whether the claims of the administration in regards to Iraq were true or false.

This is hindsight. Whether the invasion of Iraq was simply a mistake or whether there was an ulterior motive, what’s done is done. My complaint, now, is that there is no acknowledgement that a mistake was made, no retraction of previous claims. If Bush (and pretty much every damn Democratic congressman) were to apologize for acting rashly, and then to begin proposing a solution for our predicament, they would have my full support.

I don’t believe that this will happen.

in re: USNaWR

Sorry about the failure in communication. I understand that reports about reports are obviously less authoritative than the reports themselves. However, I believe that too much rides on the reputation of magazines/agencies like USNaWR and CBS for them to print stuff that has no basis in reality, and have some authority when it comes to such matters. That was the point I was making, and it seemed to me as though “The Ace” was challenging not whether or not the USNaWR piece was authoritative, but whether or not I was citing it accurately (which obviously left me a little incredulous, and very frustrated).

Leviticus (b987b0) — 10/2/2006 @ 9:28 am

“…and” THEY “have some authority when it comes to such matters.”

Hate it when I do that.

Leviticus (b987b0) — 10/2/2006 @ 9:30 am

It seems as though the country is so divided along party lines that any dissenting opinions produce vicious arguments, and that those arguments must be maintained to the point of desperation in order to produce some form of civilized discussion (as we have just illustrated).

The two party system is destroying us.

Leviticus (b987b0) — 10/2/2006 @ 9:34 am

I think if a Republican or Democrat could admit a mistake without it being used against them in any way possible and to maximum effect, more would be willing to make public their mistakes. If Clinton had just admitted to the public about Lewinsky, it should have had the result of taking any wind from the sails in that issue. Unfortunately, Clinton Derangement Syndrome was (and still is) just as virulent as Bush Derangement Syndrome is now and President Clinton would have been pounced on without mercy. Until we can get rid of “gotcha” politics, we are going to have to carefully examine anything made public. “I question the timing” has become the rhetoric of choice for many in both parties.

I have always respected US News & World Report and would not have thought to fact-check them until Ace’s post. You are right that they should know better now that there are so many in the blogosphere who fact-check everything. Same with the Photoshops… it’s going to get caught now, count on it. Media has taken huge hits in credibility over the past several years and really needs to be more accountable.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/2/2006 @ 9:39 am

I can’t argue with your last points, we are saying pretty much the same things in different ways. A strong third party might be the best thing possible for the current party leadership of both parties.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/2/2006 @ 9:42 am

Amen to the “gotcha” politics stuff.

I think you may have misunderstood my remarks about USNaWR, but first: When you say that The Ace “fact-checked” USNaWR, what do you mean? What exactly did he find that contradicted the story?

From what I’ve read of the Phase II reports, what USNaWR said was, while not exactly on the mark, at least in the ballpark of the truth. What I mean is, they oversimplified the story (how could they accurately depict such a document in one paragraph?), but they weren’t just making stuff up. What they said had a basis in fact.

Let me know what you meant about fact checking, you probably found something I’m not aware of in terms of a contradiction of the USNaWR story.

Leviticus (b987b0) — 10/2/2006 @ 9:52 am

The quote they used was not anywhere in the report, although it is certainly arguable that it summarized some of the content. It would have been more honest of them to say that, rather than imply a quote from the report that was not a quote. There is a definite difference between their quote and the conclusion in the report. The actual report was not as damning as that quote implied. So, the main objection on my part was that taking an already partisan report and slanting it further was not unbiased itself. They also made little mention of the dissenting opinions, although there is half a sentence near the end which they then qualify, which is a form of dismissal. The main thrust of your point was correct, this report was not favorable to the administration, but that wasn’t what Ace and I were saying. Hence, the failure to communicate effectively and the frustration that followed.

Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/2/2006 @ 10:16 am

Agreed. I found numerous conflicting opinions when I examined the report, and to dismiss/ignore the minority, pro-administration view simply because it is such would be the wrong thing to do.

Selah

Leviticus (35fbde) — 10/2/2006 @ 1:02 pm

Interesting commentary about Clinton’s claims and the difference between Democrats’ and Republicans’ view of what GWOT really is and how that stymied Clinton’s supposed attempts to kill UBL.

Dubya (c16726) — 10/5/2006 @ 6:16 am

9/26/2006

Hillary: Bill Would Have Handled Terrorism Better than Bush Did Pre-9/11

119 Responses to “Hillary: Bill Would Have Handled Terrorism Better than Bush Did Pre-9/11”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out