I told you not!

This completely undermines the charge that Bush ignored warnings about Osama bin Laden:

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 Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.

Monday morning quarterbacking is, I suppose, to be expected in politics. But when you say "I TOLD YOU SO!" I think it helps if that's true.

Glenn Reynolds, as usual, covers this well, noting that Captain Ed is all over the above report. Adds Glenn:

I don't fault the Clinton people for not catching on before I did.

But I do fault the people who are peddling the absurd story that Clinton had this terror thing under control until Bush screwed it up. That's partisan twaddle, and a real disservice in time of war.

I don't fault them or Bush (sworn in earlier that year after post-election delays) for not knowing, or not anticipating 9-11. I do fault anyone who screams "I told you so!" after 9-11 whose priorities before 9-11 were such things as the "drug war" and the "cyber war."

I don't think "I told you so!" will be a winning strategy for Kerry, either.

posted by Eric on 04.06.04 at 04:58 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/915



Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I told you not!:

» Clinton Team's Scant Attention to Al Qaeda from The Galvin Opinion
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. [Read More]
Tracked on April 6, 2004 07:16 PM



Comments

Well, that Times article would "completely undermine" those charges if it wasn't so incredibly misleading. Although the paper cited above does not mention al Qaeda by name, it certainly does address the issue of terrorism in general (something the Washington Times conveniently left out). Which suggests it was certainly a much greater priority than a missile defense shield or your above-mentioned "war on pornography.

Domestic and International terrorism _are_ the main issues, yes? After all, it's called "the War on Terror," not "the War on al Qaeda".

John   ·  April 7, 2004 07:29 AM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits