WP: Bush, Clinton Varied Little on Terrorism

[kskiska]

By Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen
Saturday, March 27, 2004; Page A01

For all the sniping over efforts by the Bush and Clinton administrations to thwart terrorism, information from this week's hearings into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks suggests that the two administrations pursued roughly the same policies before the terrorist strikes occurred.

Witness testimony and the findings of the commission investigating the attacks indicate that even the new policy to combat Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts, developed just before Sept. 11, was in most respects similar to the old strategy pursued first by Clinton and then by Bush.

The commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

Clarke did not respond to efforts to reach him for comment yesterday.

Bush officials have claimed that their al Qaeda strategy took eight months to develop because it was significantly more aggressive and sweeping than the tactics employed by the previous administration. "Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in an op-ed article published in The Post earlier this week.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28272-2004Mar26.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

1. This article is a pile of crap...

...the Clinton Administration was significantly more active in their efforts against Al Qaeda, and they left behind an in-depth report on what should be done to combat terrorism in the future. The NeoCon Junta completely rejected that report and downgraded Clarke's role from a cabinet-level advisor to that of a secondary player.

[DAGDA56]

2. Oh, Look!...

It's Dana Milbank again...why do I have that name stuck in my head in the neurological negative file?

[The Zanti Regent]

7. Read the Daily Howler

Bob Somersby details what a lying asshole Dickhead Dana is at

http://www.dailyhowler.com

[dae]

3. They must've been watched Clarke's testimony on Fox,

so it could be interpreted for them.

[gbwarming]

4. Bwaaaaak! "rump group"

What the heck is a 'rump group'? When I heard that term used in testimony I assumed they were saying 'RUNT group', as in very small, sickly, undersized, inneffective. Typo?

"The White House quickly sought a new strategy that would eliminate al Qaeda, not roll it back or try to contain it," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the National Security Council. While the Clinton administration said it wanted to "roll back" al Qaeda into a "rump group," Wilkinson said the Bush plan to "eliminate the threat" of al Qaeda meant something different. "It's a contrast between simply responding to attacks and going out and seeking threats where they hide and plot," he said.

[demgrrrll]

5. What a load of crap. How do these people sleep. Someone made

the point that journalism was once a working class profession which
fought for the underdog and the little guy. It seems that now the
journalists see themselves as part of the upper echelon and want
to maintain those ties rather than report the truth.

[w4rma]

6. Front page bullcrap. (nt)

[bagnana]

8. this is such a load. How can they LIVE WITH THEMSELVES?

I hate Dana Milbank for this. After hearing the 9/11 testimony and reviewing the news how can THE WP possibly reach this conclusion? CLINTON PREVENTED Y2K DISASTER!!! 9/11 HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH!!! BUSH WENT ON A 1 MONTH VACATION BEFORE 9/11!!! Bush allowed 9/11. Clinton did not respond to terrorism by bombing an unrelated country. Bush did. What is the fucking comparison!!! God these people make me sick. They are the reason Bush was not revealed for the warmongering right wing ass that he is, before 2000. "Bush and Clinton were the same." AAAAAAGUH!!!!!!

[Piperay]

9. NO, there is a BIG BIG difference

there was NO September 11 during Clinton's watch!

[leQ]

11. i said about the same thing in my letter to WaPo

saying that the difference also was that clinton didn't have the barrage of warnings that something 'BIG' was about to happen.

[lebkuchen]

10. I attended the FBI Association's convention in the summer of...

'95 or there abouts at the Marriott in DC, when Christopher Cox bestowed awards and kudos on two FBI agents in particular for their work in thwarting the bombing of LA International Airport. Certainly, Congressman Cox recognizes the difference between the Clinton Administration's and Bush Administration's efforts in fighting terror.

[robbedvoter]

12. "they all did it" whenever BFEE does something wrong - remember Enron?

As soon as ken Lay connection to W was pointed, suddenly Clinton, dems became big Enron clients in the media. It's the Nader "there's no difference" defense...:-(

[UpInArms]

13. this is basic regurgitation from the

Stratfor Weekly that came in my email box in the night.

It was an apologist piece that pissed me off.

Given that the United States had been involved in combat
operations in Iraq for more than a decade, one would hope that
the first topic on President Bush's foreign policy agenda would
have been Iraq. What else would it have been? Bush shared the
view of the previous two presidents that halting operations was
not possible and bringing Hussein's government down was a major
U.S. foreign policy goal. The new administration obviously
conducted an early review of how to bring closure to the U.S.
Iraq policy.


In this review, it would have been noted that the Clinton policy
had failed to achieve the stated goals. Continuing the policy of
ineffective combat and covert operations coupled with sanctions
was soaking up U.S. military and intelligence resources without
achieving any goal. Bush accepted Clinton's premise that simply
walking away was not an option. That left only intensified
military options, the most certain of which would be an invasion.


Anyone thinking about Iraq in the spring of 2001 knew that the
Clinton policy could not continue indefinitely. Obviously one
faction was going to argue that since the United States could not
walk away, the only solution was an invasion. That appears to be
what several people thought, including Donald Rumsfeld. What is
most noteworthy is that they were -- for the time being at least
-- overruled. There was no invasion, nor any buildup in the
region for an invasion. Bush decided, essentially by default, to
continue Clinton's Iraq policy.

This is utter and total crap. That the *Co administration immediately ceased the bin Laden hunt is far more damning - we would ask John O'Neil about it but he died in the WTC attack.

These people need to pull the collective heads from their asses and look at the situation in an unbiased and non-partisan fashion.

The April 2001 Terrorism Report was definitely different - they had ceased to focus on al Qaeda and were "moving on" to their own agenda of the oil fields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

:puke:

[gulliver]

14. "no evidence of new work on military capabilities or plans"

The commission said that "there is no evidence of new work on military capabilities or plans." That contradicts Rice and the rest of the Bushies -- damningly in my opinion.

And the article says that the Bushies just kept using the same policies as Clinton. It doesn't say anything about the priority given to them at the presidential level. The policies were on Clinton's front burner and created under Clinton. The Bushies adopted the same policies, but Bush apparently gave them no effort at the top levels of government.

Bush blew it. What Clarke said still stands.

[Bandit]

15. Clinton had Daily meeting with his Counter-terrorism task force

How many meetings did the Bush*/Cheney Counter-Terrorism Task Force have previous to 9-11. The answer is ZERO no meetings at all. Zip Nada, None, but the Bush* and Clinton Administrations were the same in their dealings with terrorism. Ya Right! :shrug: Whatever, just consider the source.

[swinney]

16. except

One was obsessed with Al Q and other asked who he?

[donotpassgo]

17. Well, maybe...

this'll shut the Repugs up a bit. If this article is accurate than the "It's Bill Clinton's Fault" line goes down the toilet.

[frank frankly]

18. Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen--FUCK YOU that is not true by any stretch

lying fuckers

bushco did NOTHING. clinton did SOMETHING.

where the hell did you get that headline?

go write for the national review, you goon hacks.

[frank frankly]

19. how much did they get paid to write this shit?

because my oh my was it used PROMINENTLY today by the sunday whorible press

[JohnOneillsMemory]

20. Milbank was on Nat'l Petroleum Radio this morning peddling this shit.

On the Sunday am edition of National Petroleum Radio, they phone interviewed Milbank as their weekend summary of the week's events at the 9/11 Commission Hearings.

The audio clip montage of the newsweek included * making his 'no WMD under the furniture' joke at the Radio and TV Correspondents's dinner and the entire room breaking out in belly laughs. A horrible horrible sound.

This shows the sensitivity of the current press to mass murder.

Milbank said "both admin's followed the same policies so they can stop pointing fingers at each other."

Fucking Milbank and NPR.

'Nothing to see hear, just a petty domestic spat. Move on.'