and Condi's response For The White House
Over the weekend, news junkies were treated to a series of "back and forths" concerning former President Bill Clinton's interview with Fox news anchor Chris Wallace. Wallace, claiming e-mails had forced him to ask the questions, pressured Bill Clinton over what he did to stop terrorism and Al Quaeda during his tenure. Clinton resonded with emotion, pointing out where he tried, but regrettably failed. he also pointed out that his counterterrorism chief presented the next administration with their plan to stop Osama Bin Laden. Condelezza rice fired back, claiming that no such plan had been offered and that they were at least as aggressive on terrorism before 9/11 as the Clinton team.
which is true? Let's check some records....
According to the 9/11 commission, generally regarded as the primary source in looking for established and evidenced facts in matters concerning terrorism, shows us the following...
As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] 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 …[including] 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-and control 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.” [p. 197]
Clarke, who also worked for the Bush administration, wrote Condoleezza Rice a memo as soon as the Bush administration took office, stating, “[W]e urgently need…a Principals level review of the al Qida network.” His request was denied.
Hmmmmm....sounds like a plan to me. Score, Clinton 1 / White House 0
But what about Clinton's claim that the Bush administration was neglegent in dealing with terrorism and more focused on their own agenda, topped by "anti-ballistic" missile defense plans that were popular in the cold war, which had ended a decade before.?
Here, there is lots of evidence to support Clinton's claim. Read on...
Bush Said “Most Urgent Threat” Was Ballistic Missiles. In a speech on May 1, 2001, Bush said, “Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.” [Bush, 5/1/01](thinkprogress.org)
also...
Bush’s Priorities Did Not Include Al Qaeda. “After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04]
Frank Gaffney, conservative columnist, showed where the priorities were in his column on March 13, 2001, entitled "The Bush Doctrine"...
For example, last week he served notice on South Korean President Kim Dae Jung that the latter's so-called "Sunshine Policy" of detente with North Korea could not be safely pursued with a regime in Pyongyang that was an unreliable partner in disarmament and other agreements. He pointedly contradicted Communist China's lies concerning the involvement of its nationals in beefing up Saddam's air defense network -- so as to make it a more lethal threat to American personnel patrolling Iraq's skies. And he has explicitly condemned the genocide-, terrorist- and slavery-sponsoring regime in Sudan. More to the point, President Bush is appointing experienced individuals to key Defense and State Department posts who have for three years urged the United States to recognize a provisional government of Free Iraq and strip Saddam's regime of the trappings of international legitimacy. While the messages sent by various statements about "smart sanctions" and renewing international inspections of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs have been confusing, to say the least, the sorts of steps long advocated by senior members of the new Bush team would -- if adopted as part of a comprehensive effort -- have the greatest chance of undermining and ultimately bringing an end to the Iraqi despot's hold on power. Other enemies of freedom around the world are also worthy targets of a Bush Doctrine challenging their legitimacy. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Russia's Vladimir Putin, Libya's Muamar Quadafi, Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez come to mind.
Less than a week before 9/11 the emphisis was all on missile defense and what the russians were up to...
If enough legislators are rattled or bamboozled by the cacophony of arguments against missile defense, they may vote to cut or otherwise hobble Mr. Bush's missile defense program. That would have a decidedly pernicious effect on the Russians. As former SDI director and arms control negotiator Amb. Henry Cooper has noted, the Kremlin will have no further incentive to agree jointly to end the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty regime that precludes development, testing and deployment of effective U.S. missile defenses. This would compel the President to proceed, as he has vowed to do, unilaterally. The moment of truth on missile defense has arrived. Congress should not be distracted from the historic task at hand of defending America by those whose efforts to bleed the Bush anti-missile program to death risk a far bloodier fate for all of us.
and of course, the Iraq issue was viewed like this before 9/11....
At his press conference last Thursday, President Bush reiterated a commitment he has made repeatedly in recent months: Saddam Hussein will not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As the President put it: "The primary goal is to make it clear to Saddam that we expect him to be a peaceful neighbor in the region and we expect him not to develop weapons of mass destruction. And if we find him doing so, there will be a consequence."
Frank then stirs the nuclear rumours around...
it appears his arsenal includes more than just chemical and biological arms. Dreadful as these are, the Butcher of Baghdad may also have acquired atomic and perhaps even thermonuclear weapons, as well. It has been universally recognized that, given the well-established state of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs before Operation Desert Storm and the international inspections that followed it, Saddam could resume production of various toxic chemical agents and strains of lethal viruses in fairly short order once he forced the withdrawal of inspectors with a mandate to conduct intrusive on-site monitoring. (This actually was the best-case assessment; given the comprehensive secretiveness and inveterate deviousness of the Iraqi regime, it is entirely possible that its covert programs in these areas were actually never suspended.) Of even greater concern, however, was the prospect that -- left to his own devices -- Saddam would quickly reconstitute his bid to build at least crude atomic weapons. If a report in the Sunday Times of London is accurate, however, Saddam already has as many as three such weapons and perhaps as many as three of the far more powerful thermonuclear ones. The Times article, entitled "Was this Saddam's Bomb?" draws upon a wealth of circumstantial evidence and debriefings of Iraqi defectors
But Gaffney is confident the new team will take decisive action against Iraq...
As National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice put it on Thursday: "The President made clear when he was running for President that he did not believe that the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty furthered the non-proliferation goals that we do think are extremely important because it was not verifiable, because it didn't include certain parties, and because it certainly did nothing about the states that we are most concerned about...." Any further thought of resuscitating this treaty should now be moot. Finally, these revelations -- taken together with other evidence that Saddam is back in the weapons of mass destruction business -- oblige Mr. Bush to make good his threat that there will be "consequences." Fortunately, many of his senior advisors (including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense-designate Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State-designate Richard Armitage, Under Secretary of State-designate John Bolton, Under Secretary of Defense-designate Dov Zakheim and a number of others said to be under consideration for top posts [notably, Zalmay Khalilzad, Jeffrey Gedmin and Douglas Feith]) have developed a blue-print for such consequences.
Gaffney wrote dozens of columns in 2001 before September 11th. Over and over again he praises the Bush team for ignoring treaties, trying to build more missles to fight russia and china with and like the administration, had been itching to go back to Iraq since 1991. Gaffney, in his columns is confident, if not smug about the prospects of taking Saddam out before 9/11 based on false evidence and lies.
Not once, during the administrations 1st 8 months in office, does the conservative mouthpiece for the administration mention Osama Bin laden or terrorism as any kind of threat, or even at all.
It was clear where this administration's priorities were, and where they were not.
Score Clinton 2 / White House 0
In looking around, I have yet to find any references by the administration pre-9/11 to Al Quaeda or Osama Bin Laden. I have checked dozens of conservative columnists, the speeches given by the president and senior officials and can find absolutely nothing. When Clinton did take military action against Bin Laden, he was criticized of "wagging the dog" by many republicans, including some in congress.
Bill wins, hands down.