Time Magazine's 'Clinton Plan' Fish Story

Right Wing News ^ | 8/7/02 | John Hawkins

[LibWhacker]

Time Magazine broke a story on August 4th which claimed that the Clinton administration was ready to go to war with Afghanistan and al-Queda over the Oct. 12, 2000 USS Cole bombing. But you see Bush was about to take over and,

"With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen."

Time then goes on to talk about the plan and drops this juicy quote, "In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

Then on page two Time gets down to the dirty of business of blaming the Bush administration for causing 9-11 by not blindly accepting the Clinton administration's plan,

"Could al-Qaeda's plot have been foiled if the U.S. had taken the fight to the terrorists in January 2001? Perhaps not....But there's another possibility. An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide-to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended-just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. Perhaps some of those who had to approve the operation might have been killed, or the money trail to Florida disrupted. We will never know, because we never tried. This is the secret history of that failure."

However the Bush administration tells another tale, one totally at odds with the Time story,

"A recent story suggesting the White House sat on a plan developed by the Clinton administration to rid the world of Al Qaeda is wrong in several key respects, a senior Bush administration official said.

The Clinton administration had no "plan" outlining detailed assessments of the threat from the terrorist network and offering ideas on how to counter Al Qaeda, the official said....The incoming administration heard suggestions by the Clinton security team about a response to the terror groups' potential threat and continued on that path, White House spokesman Sean McCormack said....We were briefed on the Al Qaeda threat and what the Clinton administration was doing about it. These efforts against Al Qaeda were continued in the Bush administration," he said."

"...Officials said that action items given to the Bush administration were proposed to the Clinton administration in 1998. The Clinton White House had two years to come up with a plan encompassing the proposals but did not."

Time Magazine is portraying Clinton as having a detailed plan ready for what amounts to a war against al-Queda while the Bush team is saying that 'Clinton's Plan' amounted to little more than a briefing with a few suggestions. So who should we believe?

First off, the idea that the Clinton administration was ready to go to war against Afghanistan is laughable. Beyond a limited number of arrests and a suspiciously timed attack on an aspirin factory in Sudan and a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, Clinton did very little to combat terrorism in his eight years in office. The Clinton administration also crippled our human intelligence with new rules that didn't allow the CIA to hire "shady" characters and refused an offer in 1996 by Sudan to hand a gift wrapped Osama Bin Laden over to the United States. This is despite the fact that the Clinton administration was provoked several times by al-Queda before the USS Cole attack. There was the 1st WTC Bombing (1993), Somalia (1993), The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1997), & the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (1998).

Yet after all of that, here's how Clinton Advisor Dick Morris described Clinton's view of terrorism,

"...Nothing so illustrates the low priority of terrorism in Clinton's first term than the short shrift he gave the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Six people were killed and 1,042 injured; 750 firefighters worked for one month to contain the damage. But Clinton never visited the site. Several days after the explosion, speaking in New Jersey, he actually "discouraged Americans from overacting" to the Trade Center bombing.

"...Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism."

Now ask yourself how likely it is that Bill Clinton, after eight years of inaction and neglect, was suddenly inspired to start a 'War on Terrorism' by the USS Cole Bombing after ignoring several other attacks of similar or greater magnitude? I think the answer to that question should be obvious...unless you write for Time Magazine.

[unojook]

Ditto Ditto............

[okiedust]

Well, I put no machinations beyond the scope of Clinton, but he would have really liked the attack to come on his watch so he could "shine" and be great. Perhaps the timing was off is all. Remember if this had happened before he left office all the possible scenarios for retaining power. No tin foil here, just logical projection.

regards

[KellyAdmirer]

Clinton would never declare war in the Middle East because it might have disrupted the economy. His vicious attacks on President Bush's handling of the economy is why he was elected, and the fortuitously good market/economic performance during his tenure is the only real thing he can point to as a success during his presidency (of course, subsequent events call some of that into question).

If Clinton had invaded a Middle Eastern country, the oil taps might have been turned off and the economy sent into recession. Then, he would have had nothing to point to except extramarital escapades. In other words, he would have had to show some guts and perhaps alienate some people who voted for him, and he could never bring himself to do that.

President Bush has no such self-imposed restrictions and will make the tough decisions. That is why he is a better man for the Presidency.

[Frank_Discussion]

"It is pretty clear from this article that (1) Clinton had a plan to fight terrorism and didn't and (2) Bush continued with Clintonian half-measures when he came into office."
This article is highly cultivated BS, so what does that make (1) and (2)? The same susbstance.
There was not plan. A laundry list is not a plan.
From what the GWB administration has countered, this is what I imagine happened:
"What is this Mr. Rumsfeld?"
"It's a long list of ideas of how to deal with OBL, sir."
"What kind of ideas?"
"Memos from brainstorming sessions, really. Oh, and here's the threat list." Rummy hands him some papers from the intelligence community.
After fighting down bile, GWB responds: "Do you mean to tell me that THIS is the best set of ideas to counter OBL? After EIGHT years??! Donald, get our sh!t together. We've got to contain this."
"Yes, Mr. President. We're on it."
(Yeah, this is speculation, but it's at least as credible as the Time garbage...)

[1Old Pro]

TIME has ALWAYS been known as the weekly Democrat. This is nothing new.

[Frank_Discussion]

"Clinton would never declare war in the Middle East because it might have disrupted the economy. His vicious attacks on President Bush's handling of the economy is why he was elected, and the fortuitously good market/economic performance during his tenure is the only real thing he can point to as a success during his presidency (of course, subsequent events call some of that into question)."

Fortuitous? Naw, he knew most of what he was doing, of that issue I'm pretty confident. Remember his mantra:

"It's the economy, stupid!"

His admin focused on that at the expense of everything else, and he knew even the artificial nature of the 90's "boom" would bust someday. Nothing else mattered, all was sacrificed on the money pyre. Perhaps the mantra should have been:

"It's the economy? (Stupid.)"

[Frank_Discussion]

Just stating a possibility. No matter what happened in reality, GWB will clean it up. Like all good men, he'll suffer for it too.

[aShepard]

It just took a few months longer for Pearl Harbor to happen than they anticipated.

And, if Gore won the election, then for sure Clinton would have been able to get in on the action, sidestep the mentally challenged Gorebot, and strive for that long lost legacy

[uncbob]

Time doesn't tell you that Bush and Runny had to DE- CLINTONIZE the military before they could consider going to WAR

[uncbob]

Runny should be Rummy

[300winmag]

Don't forget Oklahoma City and TWA 800. In these instances, the US Gov actually covered up for the terrorists.

And Waco, where klinton used more military power against a Christian sect than he ever did against terrorists.

[bray]

To think that a real journalist would believe this drivel is beyond belief??? So what, if someone in the WH had some contingency plan on how to attack Al Quaeda in some back office. BJ was always a hands-on micro manager and if he was to attack Aftrashacan he would do it from bombers at 100,000 ft and not with troops. The military hated him nearly as much as he hated the military and would never let them manage their own war the way GW did.

Time should be banned from ever reporting another story with this one sided propaganda piece for the DNC. Amazing how all the talking heads had all their DNC talking points before this was printed?? Must be tough being a braindead liberal post 911. That 70% approval rating is really driving them over the edge. Looks like DNCTIMEWARNER is going the way of Solon.

Pray for GW and the Truth

[Frank_Discussion]

Sorry, had to LOL!

[cousair]

The story was master minded by Sandy Berger who is an idiot and responsible for a lot of the mis management of the Clinton Whitehouse. Time Magazine is nothing more than another left wing of the Demorat Party. Berger knows what he did, and is trying to rewrite history of the Clinton decade and his part in it. The man who has written the truth is David Horowitz.

[cousair]

When Clinton left office he not only took what he wanted, he trashed the White House. He left a huge plate of garbage for Bush (as the Democrats usually do after their stay in the White House) Bush has been masterful at getting it done, and the press just can't stand it. I love the way they refer to the war as Bush's War...or Bush's whatever. I think America is on to what the press does so well because their ratings are so low. I haven't watch ABC,NBC,CBS or CNN in years. I think it is catching on to THINK FOR YOURSELF!!

[backhoe]

OKCbombing:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using OKCbombing, click below:
	click here >>>	OKCbombing	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

TWA800_list:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using TWA800_list, click below:
	click here >>>	TWA800_list	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

WacoHorror:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using WacoHorror, click below:
	click here >>>	WacoHorror	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Bubba wasn't going to declare war on anyone...and the terrorists knew it.

I heard clinton described recently as Carter with charisma. Nothing underscores this more than your point.

[palmer]

Laundry list is a better word for it than plan. Nonetheless, the threat became crystal clear at 9/11 and various parts of the laundry list were incorporated into Bush's plan at that point.

I believe it is a good plan with success shown in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and against other sources of radical Islamic terrorism. What I worry about is distractions like the axis of evil, particularly Iraq.

My belief is that "state-sponsored" terrorism is a lesser threat than organic Islamic terrorism. States and their dictators are generally not suicidal, they exist for power and enrichment. We need to monitor them, contain them if necessary, but keep focused on rooting terrorists out of their caves and FL homes or wherever else they might be.