I don't mean this as a defense of Clinton or criticism of Bush, but in all fairness, what did Bush do regarding Bin Laden in his first 8 months. Granted a new administration needs time to get set up and it would be unrealistic to see them make major moves in the terrorist issue that was somewhat below the surface at the time. However, if we find what Clinton did inadequate can we defend what Bush did not do?
You can't be serious.
Do you know what Clinton did to the Military during his 8 years.....do you???? And, then, see the post a few above this about Clinton's CIA briefings....
He increased the budget for counterterrorism by 5X.
Thanks! I really needed a good laugh before retiring for the evening.
The answer to the question about what the Bush administration during the first 8 months is of course
"not much". Clinton had eight years of avoidance and denial prior to Bush. And Bush made a big mistake by keeping ANY relations with ANY of Clinton's holdovers.
A great deal fell on Bush's head on 9-11, and our entire political system and 99% of our "representatives" were revealed to have been unable or unwilling to protect us, which is their FIRST responsibility. There has been an enormous and relentless game of catch-up ever since, and it may go on for many years more. I can't see it cooling down, or simplifying itself anytime soon.
I believe the report that was to lead to the proper change of policy was placed on Bush's desk on 9/10/2001. You heard the phrase along the lines of stop treating it like swatting flys, right?
Some people may have already responded that Bush was okaying arming the UAV's so they could kill bin Laden on sight, something the Clinton administration had forbidden doing.
All those reports you heard after 9/11 that "Bush knew" were based on his developing plans to taken out bin Laden and the Taliban if necessary to rid Afghanistan of bin Laden. On one hand (a couple years ago) they cited these plans to claim that Bush was planning to invade Afghanistan all along (to build an oil pipeline for his buddies in the oil business) and staged 9/11 to get us to go to war, and on the other hand they say Bush knew nothing and made no plans.
Libs are Marxists or dupes.
First, as I recall Clinton's former running mate decided to throw the ballot process out of kilter and with all the wrangling George Bush had no transition time.
Second, since Bin Laden was nowhere near the top of Billy boy's need to do list, his administration did not bother to mention that this was top priority.
Third, Bill Clinton's leftovers, I mean holdovers and policies (remember Jamie Gore-lick's Wall of CIA/FBI separation), did everything they could to disrupt George Bush's new administration.
It was months before George Bush could even get his people approved by Congress. This problem continues even this day.
Bill Clinton had eight years since the first attempt on the World Trade Center to do something -- anything. He let Bin Laden attack us again and again with no response but some pitiful missiles into a tent after warning people sympathetic with Bin Laden that he would be attacked. The only reason he launched the attack in the first place was to divert attention from the problems caused by his real number one pursuit.
Now as fqr as a defense of George Bush -- the only time during his administration that he was tested, he responded with force. If Bill Clinton had done a fraction of what George Bush did when the towers were first attacked, instead of shouting from the mountain tops about a peace dividend and gutting the military as he did, we would not be in the situation we are in now.
There are obviously a great many things you either aren't aware of, or don't recall.
First, the typical transition period should have begun shortly after the November elections. That did not occur, due to the continuous recounts, etc. There were several news reports that the Clinton White House was refusing to brief the Bush Transition Team on top secret issues, under the guise that the Presidency was still in question; hence, President Bush was not receiving the same security briefs that Vice President Gore received.
The transition period typically takes several months. In this instance, the Bush administration had just a few weeks to patch their government together. Clinton's crew did more damage on the way out, passing a whole host of last day Executive Orders that Bush had to address, tearing up the White House, damaging computers (remember all the White House keyboards had to be replaced because they pried the W key off of them - Michael Dell shipped hundreds of keyboards to the White House to replace them?). Time wasted, wasted, wasted!!!
Then Jim Jeffords jumps ship and the Democrats come up with their "power sharing" plan for the Senate? Or the spy plane that crashed in China? Or the political patty-cake the Dems played as Bush tried to install his permanent staff? How the media repeatedly bashed the President while newspapers were still counting dangling chads after January? The constant crowing by the MSM about how could the President reach across the aisle? The MONTHS that were wasted on this sh*t?
But the worst was Jamie Gorelick, that creature who SHOULD have been brought BEFORE the 9-11 commission instead of sitting on it, and her now infamous "wall of separation" between the CIA and the FBI. Let us not forget some of the horrible changes that took place within the intelligence agency under Clinton and Director Deutch, where the intelligence community was DOWNSIZED. (Presidential Decision Directive PPD/NSC - April 23, 1996). As early as 1994, even the left-leaning Federation of American Scientists had this to say about Clinton's handling of the intelligence community:
"The new Board will consist of representatives of the major national security agencies including CIA, DOD, State, Energy, Justice, and OMB. Evidently, however, the Board will not have any new authority to define policy, and existing bodies will not lose any of their authority. 'Nothing in this directive amends or changes the authorities and responsibilities of the DCI, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Energy, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, or Director of ISOO.'
"In lieu of anything that could be called a policy decision, the directive cites four guiding principles identified by the Joint Security Commission in its year-long study (S&GB 33):
our security policies must realistically match the threats we face and must be sufficiently flexible to facilitate change as the threats evolve.
our security policies must be consistent and enable us to allocate scarce resources effectively.
our security standards and procedures must result in the fair and equitable treatment of all Americans upon whom we rely to guard our nation's security.
our security practices and procedures must provide the security we need at a price we can afford.'
Of course, the nation did not need a Presidential directive (or a Joint Security Commission) to determine that security policies should be realistic, fair and cost-effective. What is needed is a mechanism to achieve these common sense goals at a time when there is no official consensus about the nature or magnitude of the threats we face, or about who will set the standard with which security policies will be made consistent."(Secrecy & Government, Issue Bulletin #38, August, 1994)
Hmmmm, so, let's see, incompetent personnel, poor policy decisions, incomplete or unshared information, all left overs from Clinton. Precious months wasted while the Dems hogged up the television, played power games, and picked their *sses. MSM bashing the President while he did he best to run the country and build momentum to get things done, all the while fighting to get his folks installed in KEY, NECESSARY positions for the government to run effectively.
We can fill pages and pages worth of information, but it's all out there, so start digging. But if you can't see the difference between Clinton and Bush with just this as a starting point, no amount of facts are going to help you.
What 8 months? Seems I remember the dimrat Clinton out going people wouldn't' turn the keys to many of the offices and buildings from which the government is run and in which is the information - Don't I remember that even Cheney had to set up in another building for some months? (Not to mention the outrageous shenanigans for weeks and weeks of chad counting - that also delayed the incoming party getting information to get prepared...and do you really think the docs Berger stole and destroyed were the only ones? Remember how the computers, even in the White House, had been trashed???
And then, in President Bushes very first few weeks, there was the China/P3 incident - which Pres. Bush handled with perfection. (I wonder if that flight crew might not still be captive in China had Clinton or another rat been in office.)
So "in all fairness", if you have information that says the Clinton gang left pertinent information that the new administration could use - let us know.
I believe they put every stumbling block they could in the way...
I think you attribute a little backward thinking... i.e., Clintons failure to do anything about the growing Al-Qaeda threat allowed 911 to transpire. Now after 911 George W. Bush acted... unlike Clinton i.e., he responded, took it to them, called them out etc. Had Clinton done this after WTC I in 93 there would not have been a WTC II in 01. That is the bottom line and also don't forget that GW was sworn in in Jan 01 and was heavy in it with the Chinese in May because of the P-3 that clipped the Chinese MIG and went down in Hunana. I was intimately involved in that diplomatic effort and we got everyone of our aircrew back unharmed and repatriated... So in other words GW was on no cake walk from the begining.
You can try and shift the focus to a criticism of GW but it won't fly. This is about many missed opportunities by the Clintons to nab OBL, and they failed miserably.
Bush can be criticized for leaving in place the intelligence people that the Clintons had placed. Bush left it to Tenet to track OBL and AQ while he was trying to get a handle on the power levers of his presidency. He was snowed under by a hostile obstructionist Senate, a growing recession, and a lingering election fiasco, so naturally he would defer to Tenet. But yes he could stand criticism of playing too nice with the Clinton appointees and position holders that were allowed to stay in place.
But history will judge the Clintons much more harshly because contrary to the perjurious ex-President's claim of having tried to get OBL (with a compromised cruise missile attack), he was able to get OBL on several occasions and refused to do so.
President Bush didn't treat 9/11 as a local POLICE PROBLEM; but, that's EXACTLY how Clinton treated the '93 bombing of the WTC.
During Clinton's eight years, al Qaeda attacked the WTC, our troops in Somalis, two American embassies in Africa, and blew a hole in the USS COLE. Clinton IGNORED all of that as well as OBL's declaration of war on the USA in 1996. And you call all of that "inept"?
Besides trying to get his presidency up and running, after having be severely hampered and delayed by the Clinonista horde, what, exactly, did President Bush have to deal with in his first eight months and just what, specifically from OBL and/or al Qaeda?
Go back to 1993....THAT HIT WAS OUR MAINLAND!!
See sections 6 and 8.