Go Back   The Liberty Lounge Political Forums > Liberty Lounge Discussions > The Floor

Political Forum Click HERE to register your free account and become a member of our community today!
Register to Post a Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-26-2006, 04:18 PM   #1
ipsa Scientia Potestas est
 
motivez's Avatar

Pragmatist
North Carolina
motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!

Condi lies in order to rebut Clinton

Summary: CNN and the Associated Press reported without challenge Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's misleading response to former President Bill Clinton's recent assertion that the Bush administration failed to adequately address the growing terrorism threat during the eight months prior to September 11, 2001.

Media Matters - AP, CNN uncritically reported Rice's misleading response to Clinton interview

In a September 25 discussion with the New York Post editorial board, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice purported to debunk former President Bill Clinton's recent assertion that the Bush administration failed to adequately address the growing terrorism threat during the eight months prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Rice's counter-arguments -- that the Bush White House "was at least as aggressive as" the Clinton administration, that counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke was not demoted, and that the White House did not receive a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy from the outgoing Clinton national security team -- do not stand up to scrutiny. Nonetheless, news outlets such as the Associated Press and CNN have reported her remarks without challenge.

On the September 24 edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox Broadcasting Co. aired a taped interview between host Chris Wallace and Clinton, which included a contentious exchange regarding his administration's record on terrorism. During this discussion, Clinton conceded that he "tried and failed" to stop Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but noted that the Bush administration "had eight months to try; they did not try." Clinton further stated, "When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted."

In a September 26 article, New York Post correspondent Ian Bishop recounted Rice's comments to the newspaper the previous day:

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false -- and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

[...]

"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months -- things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke -- the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" -- had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

[...]

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

But Rice's claim that the Bush administration's efforts "in the eight months was a least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years" is rebutted by the 9-11 Commission report -- the document she cited as the basis for her rebuttal. Indeed, as the weblog Think Progress noted, the report details how the Bush White House failed to react forcefully upon receipt of the now-famous August 6, 2001, CIA memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S." The memo stated that, although the FBI had "not been able to corroborate" a 1998 report that bin Laden was seeking to "hijack a U.S. aircraft," "FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." The 9-11 Commission stated that it "found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."

By contrast, the 9-11 Commission report recounted the Clinton administration's far more aggressive response to a similar CIA memo received in 1998, titled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks." From the report:

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports.

Rice's subsequent claim that, contrary to Clinton's assertion, Clarke was not demoted by the Bush administration is simply false. While her statement that Clarke retained his post as counterterrorism czar until after 9-11 is technically true, it ignores entirely the fact that Rice herself "downgraded" that position upon taking office, as Clarke explained in his book,Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, 2004), and as Media Matters for America noted. According to Clarke, in January 2001, Rice stripped him of principal status, a move that excluded him from the National Security Council Principals Committee. From the book:

Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the Coordinator be a member of the Principals Committee. No longer would the CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] report to the Principals, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator be supported by two NSC Senior Directors or have the budget review mechanism with the Associate Director of OMB [Office of Management and Budget]. [Page 230]

Clarke's exclusion from the Principals Committee had significant consequences. No longer a "principal" himself, Clarke had to lobby Rice and others in order to organize a meeting of the committee on the Al Qaeda threat. While he first requested the meeting on January 25, 2001, nearly eight months passed before it finally occurred -- a week before 9-11.

In her remarks to the Post, Rice further claimed that the Clinton national security team did not pass on a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy," as Clinton had asserted in the Fox interview. But again, the 9-11 Commission report contradicts Rice's claim. According to the report, near the end of 2000, the CIA and the National Security Council drew up policy papers that laid out anti-terrorism strategies for the succeeding administration. While the report said that the CIA/NSC memo, known as the "Blue Sky memo" was not "discussed during the transition with incoming top Bush administration officials," its ideas were nonetheless presented as options by the CIA to the Bush administration. Clarke and his staff also drafted a counterterrorism strategy memo in the waning days of the Clinton administration, which the 9-11 Commission described as "the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan" -- a paper written by Clarke in 1998 laying out a strategy to "immediately eliminate any significant threat to Americans" from the "Bin Ladin network." The commission wrote that the policy paper produced by Clarke in 2000 -- titled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida [sic]: Status and Prospects" -- "reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options."

Clarke, the report noted, presented his policy paper to Rice and other senior national security staffers when he requested the principals committee meeting on Al Qaeda:

Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her -- and the new President -- to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need ... a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.
And, here's the blog they linked up top:

Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s

This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.
DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]
Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: “I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We’ve been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.”

Last edited by motivez; 09-26-2006 at 04:30 PM..
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 09-26-2006, 04:21 PM   #2
ipsa Scientia Potestas est
 
motivez's Avatar

Pragmatist
North Carolina
motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!

I'll put my response here to not make the initial post any longer.

Anyway, here's more of those facts about what Clinton said being "accurate", and what Condi / most conservatives are responding with being "inaccurate".

I doubt opposing people will ever come to any agreement on this -- The right has staked far too much on being able to use Clinton as a whipping boy for everything that's gone wrong while they were in control of Congress.. It's all his fault, etc, etc.. they deserve no responsibility because Clinton was getting blowjobs while this or that was happening.

I think another interesting aspect is the lack of critical thinking and analysis on the parts of the major media organizations like the Post, or AP.. etc.. we should demand better from them. It shouldn't be only bloggers who are out there doing that type of thing.. on both sides of the spectrum.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 09-26-2006, 04:26 PM   #3
Banned
 
ballz2wallz's Avatar

Conservative
Government is another way to say Better Than You
ballz2wallz has a spectacular aura about them

No link?
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 09-26-2006, 04:30 PM   #4
ipsa Scientia Potestas est
 
motivez's Avatar

Pragmatist
North Carolina
motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!

Tons of links in the post supporting their assertions, I'll edit in one for the main article though. With all of the link adding I did I forgot that one
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 09-26-2006, 04:50 PM   #5
Banned
 
ballz2wallz's Avatar

Conservative
Government is another way to say Better Than You
ballz2wallz has a spectacular aura about them

I'll post others' quotes to show how ridiculous it is to bash biased sources:

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft View Post
..... despite the risk of sounding trollish. There are independent fact checking organizations.

To be frank, I think it is fairly damning for the liberals to come out with an immediate rebuttal of rice's accusations on the left wing slant of CNN.
Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent View Post



mediamatters.org fact checking Rice's speech.

They are really trying to damge control this one and spin it. Shows you how much this hurt them.
Nonetheless, I think I'm gonna wait til we have a nice comprehensive list of what's really been done and what hasn't. It's gonna be a while before everything comes out. I don't know much about what really went down and what didn't.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 09-26-2006, 04:51 PM   #6
ipsa Scientia Potestas est
 
motivez's Avatar

Pragmatist
North Carolina
motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!motivez Has a place in history!

MediaMatters is partisan, but hardly incorrect in their analysis. When they're wrong, they post it on their "Corrections" page. It's more credibile than GOP.com.

They fact check and provide links to every assertion they made. Care to disprove one?

edit: wow i screwed up that spelling badly, wtf.

Last edited by motivez; 09-26-2006 at 04:59 PM..
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 09-26-2006, 11:49 PM   #7
Braccae tuae aperiuntur.
 
JaJae's Avatar

Reform Party
NJ
JaJae is the Vice President!JaJae is the Vice President!

They're both full of shit. Clinton was a horrible anti-terror president and before 9/11 Bush was just as bad. It's a shit flinging match between who's the bigger screwup. The fact is, they're both stupid. Condie and Clinton are stupid for making such ridiculous statements.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 09-27-2006, 12:03 AM   #8
Master Debator
Election Moderator
 
DosEquis's Avatar

Democrat
Omaha, NE
DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!

this bit was just on Daily show
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Register to Post a Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
clinton, rebut, order, lies, condi

Go Back   The Liberty Lounge Political Forums > Liberty Lounge Discussions > The Floor



Thread Tools



SEO by vBSEO

vBulletin 3.7.4 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge