Wasn't this the same time we sent the Taliban money as a thank you for destroying some poppy fields? http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm Oh yes it was... to the tune of 43 million dollars.
"Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat." Yup, she blamed Clinton alright.
I'm not sure she blamed Clinton, but this is political damage control after everything that came out from Clarke over the weekend. I don't know why she'd have any other reason to write the Washington Post and basically reiterate what everybody already knows without providing any real new information....
"We now know that the real threat had been in the United States since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years." It's called reading between the lines.
I take as much fun as anybody from piling on to the current Admin but the idea that Rice directly -- or even indirectly -- is blaming Clinton for 9/11 was inserted by the writer of the article, not Rice herself. She infers that the problem existed in 1999 but that's not even close to the same as saying Clinton was responsible.
I didn't get that impression. It may have been what she was thinking, I'm certainly not the one to guess at that, but I don't think this is great "read between the lines" material. It seems like a pretty honest statement actually.
Jeez, you are really making a stretch here. One could also argue that she blames Bush in the same sentance as Clinton was president for about 16 of the 24 months before 9-11 and Bush was president for almost 8 months before 9-11. So technically, based on your observation Condi blames Clinton 2/3 and Bush 1/3.
Actually Mike,I watched the 9/11 hearings today. Powell, Cohen, Rumsfield andAlbright were on today. None of these heavy hitters came out and blamed either administration with total fault for 9/11. As a matter of fact, the person who's name that came up time and time again was Clarke's. Every person questioned today blew holes in every accusation that Clarke made. Rumsfield was pretty funny.
The whole hearings are a farce. As can be expected in an election year, the issue has become politicized...on both sides, with everybody pointing the finger back and forth. Fact is, prior to 9/11 nobody could've realistically conceived what actually happened. Thus, all the Monday morning quarterbacking that is going on serves no purpose. There were obviously missed opportunities on both sides to stop Al Qaeda.
I'm not even sure what anyone expected them to do, either. Come out and proclaim "yep, we're the ones. We're the ones who blew it" Sorry." ? Something tells me nope. And it seems that both sides are attempting, so far at least, to keep the finger pointing out of it. Until someone provides far more interesting evidence that results in a bit more mumbling and stuttering from either administration this is going to be a very uninteresting week.
Well said Ian. This about sums it up, and almost everyone really knows this deep down, but in order to save their jobs, and "play politics" it becomes an issue... I dont really blame Clinton for not following up on multiple tips on OBL. Intelligence was sketchy/and or dated, and it risked opening a can of worms if it indeed involve civilians casualties without actually getting him.. At the same time, I dont blame Bush for any action taken in Afghanisan. Libs love to use the excuse that we "got distracted" by Iraq. It simply isnt true.
I'm Dutch and obviously not as well informed as you on the hearings, but I did see Rumsfeldt on Dutch television this morning uttering words similar to 'Iraq was a more attractive target than Afghanistan because, well, there's just more to shoot at in Iraq'. Now this is the type of reasoning that would horrify me as an American voter, and which would definitely make me question my leaders. Which is why the hearings are useful in my opinion. As for the politicising of issues: of course that's what's going on, but that doesn't mean the issues become less important, and that doesn't mean you should ignore them altogether. All issues of the slightest importance are politicised, after all. If you want to trivialise issues that are being politicised you might as well trivialise everything.