A less partisan view: Bush, Clinton Varied Little on Terrorism

[Chuckiechan]

I think this view may be a little more even handed...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ar26&printer=1

I wonder how many places give book refunds?

[Knothead]

I had suspected as much. For the reason that, prior to 9/11, terrorism wasn't a huge priority; for me, or you, or either administration.

There were a few scattered incidents overseas, but let's face it: when those planes hit the towers, we were instantly radicalized on the issue of terrorism!

That's why I always found it disingenuous (at best) to hear the present administration's claims that they were "pursuing much more aggressive antiterrorism policies even before 9/11...yada, yada..."

They were doing more or less what was done previously. Which worked just fine until...

IMO, of course.

[osprey4]

Good point, Knothead. Reminds me of the quote...

When all is said and done, more is said than done.

The thing that I find frustrating about the whole Sept 11 Commission is that it produces far more hot air than anything else. Is anyone REALLY interested in fixing the problem rather than the blame?

[Chuckiechan]

I don't think you can fix any problem in an election year!

[Gomer]

One idiot started an unnesessary war, the other idiot did not.

[MTAtech]

I'm willing to wait until the commission finishes its work before judging.

What theYahoo articles said, wa that the Bush Admin. took 8 months to formulate what was basically the same plan that the Clinton Admin left. We must ask, what may have happened if the Clinton plan was carried threw from day one? We'll never know.

[Chuckiechan]

Had the Clinton plan been followed they probably would have nuked us by now...

Clinton wanted to push them around the desert, buy not actually do any thing to them. It was only a matter of time until we shot up the wrong tent and got thrown out of wherever.

I like hot pursuit like what is going on now on the Paki / Afgan border. Real consequences for real crimes.

[Pexster]

I saw Clarke on Larry King earlier. When asked which of the four presidents he worked for was the most effective against terrorism, he replied Bush I, because as a former CIA director, he was a professional intelligence guy who also had the respect of a great number of other world leaders.

[Chuckiechan]

I don't think it was a respect thing. He probably had photos of world leaders with little boys, dogs, cats, mice, snakes, mistresses, and other inanimate objects being as he was once head of the CIA...

George Senior knew where the bodies were buried so to speak...

[MTAtech]

It seems the point you are making Chuck, is that there wasn't much difference between the Clinton and Bush Admins. That may be true, but it means they were both moving slowly, not, as Colin L. Powell said, the administration had, as Mr. Powell put it, come "in fully recognizing the threat" and "went to work on it immediately."

The Washington Post said (Editorial) today, "

the findings of the commission, which released three detailed staff reports chronicling with painful clarity how both Mr. Bush and President Bill Clinton had missed the chance to act against al Qaeda before it was too late. The reports essentially confirm one of Mr. Clarke's central charges: that the new administration came into office focused on issues other than terrorism in 2001, put al Qaeda on a slow track of policy review and didn't adopt an offensive strategy until days before Sept. 11. To his credit, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage conceded the central point, that "we weren't going fast enough."

So, let's not be dishonest Mr. Powell. The Bush team is marketing Bush as if terrorism was top priority but the were asleep at the wheel.