How will we answer this one?

I was told at work today about this and I just now got to checking it out. This could be a real problem for Clarke credability.

snip....

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.


More.....

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm


I dont like this and am afraid it could do damage. I spent my time tonight finding this and need to go to bed now.

I will check in tomorrow morning or afternoon to see if any respond.

I am a newbie to DU and fairly new to the net so sorry if I am making myself seem dumb. Night all and thank you for being here!!!

Welcome to DU. I have to tell you though that posting Things That Could Make Dems Look Bad and asking how we are to counter it is a favorite tactic of trolls. It is the kind of thing you probably don't want to do until you have a posting history that makes it clear where you are coming from.

:hi:

I guess that makes my thoughts and findings wrong. That is such a great way to be seen!!!! You think I am an idiot cause I didnt find this site earlier then You did!!!! Thanks again!!! You made me feel real happy to speak freely on DU.... NOT!!!!

I posted something I thought was important. Goodnight TK and DU

do I eat the worm? naaaaa

If I knew a burglar was breaking into your house, would you need to be told more than once? This is just more idiotic RW spin. Welcome to DU and don't worry about trivial bs from the wingnuts. ;-)

....would take the time to read the Hart Rudman report, which gave them everything they needed to know about bin Laden and how to take him out in great detail.

Silly man.

Thats why I worry and it is nice that you all think newbies are idiots. Thanks oldies!!!!

you spelled the word "credibility" wrong in your post.

I have observed that almost all freeper trolls (i.e., RW types who come over here posing as Dems) have terrible grammar and spelling. When I saw that mistake, I initially thought the same thing they did -- it fits the profile of a freeper.

However, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

My answer to your question is that President Clinton had a much more sensible response to terrorism than Bush has. Bush has created new terrorists all over the planet. President Clinton captured, tried, and convicted those responsible, for example, for the first WTC bombing.

Cheney said on Limbaugh's show that Clarke was "out of the loop." Well, there you go. They kept their TERRORISM ADVISER "out of the loop," by their own admission. That says it all. Terrorism-fighting is not their priority. Political gain is.

Consider the source, the Times is the paper on the right and the Post is the paper with writers on both the right and left and in the center.
The following post may help with your answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x472267

It was Clintons report. I was trying to do something to bring attention to a possible problem. Sorry all, I as a newbie will keep my mouth shut from now on, sorry again!!!

And for CB: Consider the source. Public record is one thing. An opinion (published or not) of that record is not a fact. It's still just an opinion. And the WT loves to cut, paste and extrapolate out of context to shape their POV.

Knowing that, grasshopper may grow a leg. :-)

Welcome to the big tent of DU.

and all on its own and is part of the 80% of clintons papers that bush has held back clainming executive privilige.

i cant buy something like that til more comes to lite. and certainly not in the place to "trust" bush is gonna get self in trouble and let clinton look good

i think this perfectly goes along with bush only selecting what to give to the committee

First, I remember a thread here very recently where this subject was addressed as only very knowledgeble duers can. Not being one of those, and being (temporarily) without my star, I can't search nor relay most of those great points.

Having said that, here is one paragraph from the report, followed by a link to the actual report itself. It is a must read in light of the attempted smear campaign by the rabid right who have nothing else to offer. Anyway...

----

We have also seen international engagement enhance our ability to address asymmetric threats to our security, such as acts of terrorism and the desired procurement and use of WMD by potential regional aggressors. International counterterrorism cooperation, for example, led to the pre-emptive arrest of individuals planning to terrorize Americans at home and abroad celebrating the Millennium. Engagement efforts have already assembled an impressive record of international cooperation to harmonize legislation on terrorist offenses, conduct research and development, and create databases on terrorism....

to the specific page:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_part1.htm

to the entire report:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

----

How many times is "Terror" or "Terrorist" mentioned in that one paragraph? Not to mention "agressors."

My guess is, bush and the gang both didn't care what the POTUS that preceeded him had to say, and didn't understand a word of it.

Anyway, bookmark either this thread, or the link itself for future reference.

:D

right always using mistakes made by the Clinton administration to justify screw-ups by the Bu$h administration. I for one don't find this a very reasonable excuse, they came to office claiming to be better.

Could Clinton have done more? Probably

Does this justify Bu$h doing less? No chance, no how, no way.

:hi:
Don't feel you have to "keep your mouth shut". Most DUer's are very nice to newbies and welcome them. Sorry, too tired to respond to your post tonight, just wanted to say hi.

and the repukes criticized him and accused him of wagging the dog.

So how can anyone accuse Clinton of ignoring Al Qaeda?

plates already. Keep watching the threads somebody will bring it up and answer it. I think I heard a re buttal on Air America the other day. If it becomes an issue you'll see it here :hi:

come out from under your bridge and get some sun . . .

... from the Clinton era which include references to al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, et al...

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59534-2004Apr7.html

If you want to refute the argument posted above, you could start by demanding that the Bush White House open up the entire Clinton record on terrorism for examination, rather than just cut-and-paste, at the Administration's choosing, items which cast the former administration in a negative light. And the Administration could begin by ceasing the practice of their shameful "blame everyone else, 'cause it's not our fault" brand of politics.

From Thursday's Washington Post:

9/11 Panel - Bush White House Withheld Papers - Commission Is Demanding Terrorism-Related Documents From Clinton Era

Excerpt:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks announced yesterday that it has identified 69 documents from the Clinton era that the Bush White House withheld from investigators and which include references to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and other issues relevant to the panel's work.

The White House turned over 12 of the documents to the commission yesterday, officials said. But 57 others, which were not specifically requested but "nonetheless are relevant to our work," remain in dispute, according to a commission statement. The panel has demanded the documents and any similar ones from the Bush administration.

You can't just say that 4 mentions of a name isn't enough without knowing what was written in those 4 mentions, and what else was written in the report about terrorism.

And took the Washington Times' absurd method of counting words as an indication of the content of the report rather than reading the report itself (what kinds of simian half-wits could approve of such a infantile methodology?), they have been led very far astray. However, they obviously have the characteristic of most Right Wingers, who have been rendered intellectually deficient in the era of the Bush soundbite. Rather than thinking, they say stuff like "Those people hate freedom. We love freedom." And that seems to be enough for the simpering and self-enslaved right-wing in this country, who are a shameful spectacle to behold, and bring nothing but dishonor on our great traditions as a people - dishonoring especially their own forebears who likely fought for their so-called freedom to enslave themselves in this manner.

That said, you can tell them to read the damn report, rather than the laughable description of it. You can forward them this link:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

If they do read it, they will see that terrorism is practically featured in the report, and that everything Clarke was saying about the Clinton years is not only accurate, but openly reflected throughout the report. These brain-dead monkeys you work with - supposing they can tolerate more than 2 straight minutes of reading - should be fully satisfied that everything Clarke said was accurate after reading the report.

Than anyone in the $hrub administration mentioned him prior to 9-11.