Replies

"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...)

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.