Condi Rice v. Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton, and the Truth: (Puke Republic Barf Alert!)

The New Republic ^ | September 26, 2006 | Spencer Ackerman

[.cnI redruM]

OK, Condi: Stop lying about the plans your administration inherited. Or rather, declassify NSPD-9 so everyone can know whether you're telling the truth. Let me explain.

Bill Clinton pounced on Chris Wallace on Sunday for implying that he didn't do enough to take out Al Qaeda. In his response, he singled out plans that then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and the CIA drew up at the end of the Clinton administration for attacking the jihadis in Afghanistan. Those plans, which the Bush administration inherited, were never acted upon before 9/11, despite Clarke's and CIA Director George Tenet's sense of urgency. Instead, the Bush administration sat on them through an interagency process of refinement that Clarke considered pitiful. That process resulted in a classified document called NSPD-9 that went for Bush's signature a few days before 9/11.

In an interview with the New York Post yesterday, Rice insisted, "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda." This has been her strategy since Clarke first went public in early 2004: to quibble over the meaning of "comprehensive." The problem with that strategy is that, whatever the Bush administration was contemplating doing before September 11 about Al Qaeda, Clarke--who worked for the National Security Council--was its primary author and driving bureaucratic force. Attack Clarke and Rice attacks her own plan. So the only option she sees is to suggest, again and again, that NSPD-9 is significantly different from Clarke's 2000 plan. (Read about that here and here.)

NSPD-9 has never been released. Jamie Gorelick, the 9/11 Commission member, hinted during testimony that Rice's characterization of it is incorrect, and Richard Armitage agreed with her. (I was one of very, very few reporters in the room when this happened.) But because NSPD-9 is classified, she couldn't go into detail. Last year, Clarke's 2000 plan, the genesis of NSPD-9, was declassified in full. If Condi made one phone call, she could have Bush declassify NSPD-9 and then this whole dispute would be settled. Clinton and Clarke would be exposed as liars, right, Condi? So how about it?

[.cnI redruM]

NRO has wasted no time reponding to this deracinated insausiance on the part of The Puke Republic....

>>>But it is very seriously misleading to suggest that the Clinton administration left behind a plan that would have overthrown the Taliban, destroyed al Qaeda, or stopped or even interfered with the 9/11 attacks. And it is fair to note that the steps they did recommend to their successors were steps they had declined to take themselves, not just in 2000, but over the whole period 1998-2000.

Rice (and York) have the better of the argument. <<<

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmFjODc5NjZjNDIxYThhM2RjMTQzMTI5OTQxYmY2NTk=

[IncPen]

We're supposed to believe that the Clinton administration, which trashed the White House offices on their way out the door (prying the W keys off the computers) thought it necessary to help the incoming administration by putting together intelligence on terror.

Sorry, Bill.

I don't buy it.

[roses of sharon]

Remember when Clarke lied to the 9/11 commission stating that Condi had never ever heard of OBL or AQ?

It was big news that day.

On WJR in Detroit, Mitch Albom played an interview he did with Condi during the 2000 campaign, he asked her about OBL and she talked a long time about their plans to begin working with Pak to remove the Taliban and ultimately OBL.

Clarke was obviously playing for the MSM cameras that day, it was just one of the many smears to come.

[mainepatsfan]

I'm having 90's flashbacks with the MSM so quickly rallying behind Bubba's talking points.

[.cnI redruM]

Spencer Hackerman is the starstruck intern who needs a new set of Presidential Kneepads.

[scooby321]

"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."

Bush, he added, took action on several "issues that had been on the table for a couple of years," such as instituting a new policy in Pakistan that convinced Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban" and boosting "CIA resources . . . for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda." "

These are very important points from Clintons "expert".

this was before he was anti bush on not getting a promotion

[JustDoItAlways]

Some of the history from one of Congress' reports on 9/11.

In August, 2001, the US Ambassador from Pakistan met with the Taliban in Afghanistan (we did not have diplomatic relations with them) and demanded that they turn over Bin Laden. They laughed it off of course.

On September 5 and 6, 2001, the entire National Security Council met to discuss what actions would be taken against the Taliban and military intervention/invasion was the most talked about option.

Members of the National Security Council were to meet with Bush on September 13th, 2001 to go over the options for military intervention against Afghanistan if they did not turn over Bin Laden.

[zeugma]

i think someone in the media needs to bring up the fact that Clinton had less meetings with the director of the CIA than any president previous or since.