'If you think a plan to deal with terrorism can fit on 14 pages then I'll refer you to what I said to Sean "Yes, I definitely think you're dumb... ...Add a 0 to the end of 14 and then you might be at the start of what could be considered a "plan". A book report might be 14 pages. An essay might be 14 pages. A plan to deal with terrorism is not 14 pages.' draginol.

really draginol, simply contesting the name of the document does not change its content. whichever way you try to spin it - a strategy was developed for dealing with al qaeda and that strategy was forwarded on to the bush administration. something which you seek to deny simply because it does not fit your own definition of what constitutes a 'plan'. moreover, clinton himself does not even use the term 'plan' in the interview. he uses the term 'strategy' which leaves little doubt to the document he is referring to.

'Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of Al Qida: Status and Prospects.’

a 'strategy' draginol, as defined by the oxford english dictionary, is 'a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.' in denying that there was a 'plan', as defined by your own terms of reference, the implication is that no strategy existed at all. in doing so you seek to elide the fact that a strategy for dealing with bin laden and al qaeda was not only developed, but was provided to the bush administration. quite clearly, as the link shows, the evidence refutes this.

www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/condi-rice-liar-stupid_b_30511.html

your quibbling over semantic differences in terminology in order to maintain your own distortion of facts is simply sophistry draginol. your inability to gracefully concede that you are wrong and apologize to seanconners simply reflects your hubris.

If you think a plan to deal with terrorism can fit on 14 pages then I'll refer you to what I said to Sean "Yes, I definitely think you're dumb."

It works (or doesn't as the case may be) for the EU. By convention no document is longer than 15 pages becauses the translators don't have the time to handle anything longer. Business still gets done and action is still taken despite the limited page numbers. Of course language is more precise there (for translation reasons again).

mr. roberts, whatever.  If you think a 14 page *anything* counts as a plan/strategy that a future administration could execute on then there's really no  point to discussing the point further.

If you want to assert that a 14 page document constitutes a legitimate thing that a future administration could make use of then we have so little common ground that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The issue isn't semantics. The issue is whether the Clinton administration provided a future administration with a plan/strategy that could actionably be put into place. A 14 page document is not going to have the necessary research, logistics, and data necessary to really  make use of. It would likely be essentially an opinion piece.

If Mr. Roberts had bothered to watch the interview or had remotely an objective mind on the issue, he would understand that the implication given was that the Clinton administration had gotten together and put together some sort of "plan" or ("strategy") that could be handed off and executed on.  A 14 page "strategy" might work for the Underpants gnomes but it is not a viable, actionable plan.

Mr. Roberts, I'm not sure if you're just hopelessly obutse or simply so partisan that you are blinded against perceiving common sense.

 

'mr. roberts, whatever. If you think a 14 page *anything* counts as a plan/strategy that a future administration could execute on then there's really no point to discussing the point further.' draginol

according to your rationale draginol, the larger the document the more important it is. accordingly anything less therefore can be dismissed as insignificant based on size. content is apparently is no longer important - size is everything. how novel. perhaps it is some new form of paper envy.

'The issue is whether the Clinton administration provided a future administration with a plan/strategy that could actionably be put into place.' draginol.

no draginol. you are attempting to conflate, in absolute terms, the meaning of strategy as if it is synonymous with its immediate execution. this is a nonsense. any strategy necessarily needs to be broad and flexible enough to contain political contingencies. i draw your attention to the oxford definition of strategy: it is 'a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim. the document's title declares nothing less: 'Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of Al Qida: Status and Prospects.’

further, clinton made no other claim other than that a strategy was provided to the bush administration. nowhere does he explicitly state that that strategy was designed for immediate application. you are simply asserting interpretive opinion as fact.

this appears to be the same logic that condoleeza rice uses to justify her own administration's failure to adequately respond to 9/11. fifteen pages is not a plan - they are 'actionable items'. denial is sought through semantic sleight of hand. simply changing the definition of the document changes its value. condoleezza rice's - and your own, denial - perpetuates the perception therefore that no significant preparation for dealing with al qaeda took place. this is, as the document itself shows, patently not true.

ultimately however, it is simply part of a much larger argument that similarly cannot be explained away by spin. richard clarke's memo in january 2001 is unequivocally clear in the urgency of its position:

'We urgently need such a Principals level review on the al quida network... ...al quida is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. Rather, several of our regional policies need to address centrally the transnational challenge to the US and our interests posed by the al qida network.'

moreover, the threat was clearly reiterated a month prior to 9/11 in the now notorious pdb - 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US'

www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

the bush administration not only had a strategy to work on and further develop, but the urgency of that threat had been declared in no uncertain terms. twice. this is the fundamental difference between the clinton and bush administrations failure to respond to the events of 9/11. the imminent threat of attack WAS known. the bush administration's response, however, was to demote richard clarke and downgrade terrorism as a priority. in light of the subsequent events such actions were irresponsible and incompetent at the very least. in this context, rice's continual denial cannot be seen otherwise than a mendacious attempt to downplay that responsibility. it appears she is in good company.

Mr. Roberts thinks that one can put together an actionable strategy document to fight global terrorism in 14 pages.

That's all that I think needs to be said on that.

This is why left-wingers are not thought to be viable when dealing with serious issues.

As a side note since it was brought up: The memo about "Bin Laden determined to strike US" has been debunked so many times (it was just reiteration of previous memos -- terrorists want to attack US. Duh.).  It has nothing to do with the topic at hand though and I have already stated that Bush was no better than Clinton prior to 9/11.

I listed Clinton's 5 major claims from the interview. All we from you left-wingers is that you think a 14 page memo/document/whatever constitutes a strategy for fighting global terrorism.  The most charitable thing I can say about that is that we'll have to agree to disagree.

'Mr. Roberts thinks that one can put together an actionable strategy document to fight global terrorism in 14 pages. That's all that I think needs to be said on that.'

your rhetorical approach draginol is characterized by a consistent changing of interpretation and reframing of this argument. first, you erroneously accuse seanconners of calling a memo a plan - even though the distinction between his two quotes was clear.

you then authoritatively state that a plan cannot be defined by a 14 page document since it fails some predetermined size requirement as if the veracity of the strategy's contents is somehow dependent on its size and is invalidated otherwise. on whose authority do you base that assertion draginol and where is the substantiating evidence?

you then categorically redefine the strategy in terms of it being 'an actionable strategy document to fight global terrorism'. it is a redefinition that is blatantly false. it would seem you have a gift for expressing the very things that you seek to criticize draginol.

nowhere does clinton define the document as being an 'actionable strategy'. that is your subjective interpretation. indeed the very notion of the phrase 'actionable strategy' is a tautology. a strategy by its very nature is potentially actionable. it is the form that the action may take that is of importance. the action in this context does not preclude the further development of the strategy. taken the age of the document, and the subsequent change in administration in the interim, it is quite obvious that clinton did not assume that it would not need to modified and updated in line with subsequent changes of events. once again i reiterate draginol, nowhere does clinton make any assertion as to the immediate applicability of the strategy. those are words you are seeking to impute to his claim in order to support your own specious argument.

neither does clinton make any such universal claims about global terrorism. both in the context of the interview and his referencing of richard clarke's book he is specifically referring to bin laden and al qaeda. the very title of the strategy is unambiguous in this matter.

'All we from you left-wingers is that you think a 14 page memo/document/whatever constitutes a strategy for fighting global terrorism.'

no draginol, i do not need to interpret the 14 page document as constituting a strategy. indeed, i am not trying to make the document anything other than what its title clearly states: 'Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of Al Qida: Status and Prospects.’ it is you that has been consistently seeking to reinterpret and redefine the meaning of the term throughout this thread as the basis of your own sophistic argument.

neither have i made the claim that the document constitutes 'a strategy for fighting global terrorism'. these are fictitious inventions of your own making in order to shore a fallacious argument based wholly upon semantic manipulation. of which, the most charitable thing that can be said, is that your facility to traffic in fabrication and factual distortion is worthy of condoleezza rice herself.

I listed Clinton's 5 major claims from the interview.

so what...i was arguing specific points and all you have done is try to change the subject, reframe the debate to your liking, and insult me.

go to hell...you are wrong and cannot even be big enough to admit it. this is why the republicans are losing their grip on power...arrogance and incompetence fueled with a state of denial.

sans the "he was obsessed" thing...which was more about when republicans were accusing him of wag the dog than a literal quote of anyone's...you have failed to make any points that hold water except in your talking point filled head. the somolia thing isn't even germaine, and you've broken everything down to where you repeat yourself 3 times on 1 point. and like "mr roberts" said...since when does the length of a document equal it's importance...the aug 6 PDB was 1 or 2 pages if i remember correctly, and it seemed pretty important.

playing semantics games don't cut it with me. but maybe they do to a guy who seems to be proud of lookin like a 14 year old dungeons and dragons geek. the one thing you have yet to do is actually provide any evidence here that makes sense to anyone but you. nor have you even addressed the fact that there is absolutely no evidence the bush team actually gave a damn about bin laden or al quaeda before 9/11. there is plenty of evidence showing bill tried things, but none for bush. and that was the point. you have failed brad.

i see ya wrote your own article with your GOP talking points neatly laid out...and put it right up top....good for you!



keep talkin brad....you are doin great,,,,really!

oh,,,and you are wrong on the somolia thing,,,,it's not what i was discussing, but here...

President Clinton gave a speech on Oct. 8, 1993, to argue against the demands from the conservative right that we withdraw immediately from Somalia and to explain why it was vital that we stay. This is part of what Clinton said in his speech: "And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission ... Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: 'Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution' ... So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right." Republican senators attempted to force an immediate withdrawal and then ultimately compromised on a compelled withdrawal in six months. As but one example, from a Senate floor speech by Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, on Oct. 6, 1993: "The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home ... It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home." Sen. Robert Dole, in a Senate speech, on Oct. 5, 1993: "I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with -- I do not know how many Members were there -- 45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close." Contrary to neoconservative myth, the U.S. did not run away from Somalia at the first sign of violence. Rather, we stayed six months and even increased our troop levels, but only because President Clinton fought and battled to do so in the face of right-wing demands that he cut and run immediately.

here's some republican quotes for ya and some things backing pres clinton up,,,,

GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993


I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993


Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.


GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993


I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:


All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.


President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal


And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.


Sen. John Kerry, Senate floor speech, 10/7/93, supporting Clinton's anti-withdrawal position


But, Mr. President, I must say I have also been jarred by the reactions of many of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress. I am jarred by the extraordinary sense of panic that seems to be rushing through this deliberative body, and by the strident cries for a quick exit, an immediate departure notwithstanding the fact that what we are doing in Somalia does not bear any resemblance to Grenada, to Panama, to Iraq, and most importantly, to Vietnam. . . .

We must recognize that any decision that we make about Somalia is not just a decision to get our troops home. It is not just a decision about looking out for the interests of the United States. There are extraordinary ramifications attached to the choice that we make in the next days in the Congress and in this country. . . .

Mr. President, we are in a situation now where withdrawal would send the wrong signal to Aidid and his supporters. It would encourage other nations to withdraw from the U.N. effort in Somalia and no doubt would result in the total breakdown of the operation and possibly the resumption of the cycle of famine and war which brought the United States and other members of the international community to Somalia in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, the Bush administration committed us to this operation. We, as a nation, have accepted this responsibility. We should not panic and flee when the going gets rough. If we are going to withdraw, we have an obligation to do so in a responsible manner, in a way that does not undermine the operation or leave the Somali people to a worse fate. I think the President's plan, as currently outlined, will allow us to step aside responsibly.

New York Times article, October 6, 1993, by then-reporter Thomas Friedman


As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening operation swept Congress. . . . But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were unclear or unrealistic.

It is not clear whether the critics can assemble sufficient votes to pass a law requiring Mr. Clinton to stop the operation. But Congressional anxiety, already high, has been fueled by a wave of constituents' telephone calls reflecting outrage over the prospect of a new hostage crisis, and television pictures of Somali crowds dragging a dead American servicemen through the streets. . . .

Mr. Christopher said the United States wanted to withdraw its forces when possible, "but not before our job is done of providing some security."


New York Times, October 6, 1993


A wave of hostility toward the military operation in Somalia swept Congress today, forcing the White House to send two Cabinet secretaries to Capitol Hill to try to calm critics and plead for additional time to formulate a new policy.

"It's Vietnam all over again," said Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, who is in a group of conservatives calling for quick withdrawal from Somalia. . . .

Mr. McCain, a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, said of Mohammed Farah Aidid, who has been blamed for attacks on United Nations peacekeepers: "We should tell Mr. Aidid that we want the Americans back. Otherwise he will pay sooner or later. Then we should come home."


As always, no matter how many times it occurs, it is truly disturbing how there seems to be no limit on the false propaganda and rank historical revisionism which can be disseminated by this administration and its followers and uncorrected by our national media.


cmon brad....admit you are wrong.

Pretty silly diversion to be saying that Bush's administration should have "immediately" done what Clinton's hadn't done in 8 years. All the "evidence" so meticulously selected by Sean here is more damning of Clinton than Bush, if anyone is to be damned, unless you spin it backwards.