Here’s how it’s gonna go . . .
Condi’s going to go testify. She will proceed to rip the Clinton administration a new one over its efforts (rather lack of) in addressing terrorism. And the beautiful part is that the Democrats are playing hardball to get her to do that.
If the Bush administration just came out and said all the stuff she’s going to say, it would be viewed as partisan, election year politics. They come out and say Clinton didn’t do something then beg the question about Kerry being the same (after all, he is a Democrat), then the Dems cry foul. Now, the message will be part of a formal hearing.
At least, that’s my prediction. I’ll bet a beer on it.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:10 am
Uncle:
She will proceed to rip the Clinton administration a new one over its efforts (rather lack of) in addressing terrorism.
So what you’re saying, then, is that she’s going to lie under oath. You’re probably right.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:17 am
I don’t think she’ll lie. I think she’ll definitely have some clinton era documents highlighting the inadequacies.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:20 am
Latest numbers I can find. In 1999, the firearm homicide rate in the US was 3.72 per 100,000; in 1997 in the UK, it was 0.11 per 100,000. So I can see your point — people in the UK are no safer from gun crimes than in the US.
(For the record, the overall homicide rates were 5.70 and 1.41, respectively…)
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:26 am
I assume you meant to post that elswhere.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:29 am
For what it’s worth, since the 1997 ban, crime has consistently gone up in england. I never drew a conclusion between the US and England and realize that correlation does not equal causation. England has worse crime stats that the US (except for murder and rape).
And of course:
http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:39 am
Yes, please move the gun stuff where it belongs.
Re: Rice, we knew as early as late September of 2001 that the Clinton administration had turned over detailed anti-terror plans to the Bush administration, and that the Bush administration ignored those plans. So unless she selectively presents documents (violating the “whole truth” part of the oath), she’s going to have to either lie under oath or re-confirm that.
Oh, and the Clinton Administration was so busy “doing nothing” about terror that they thwarted the Millennium bombing plot, and arrested everyone directly responsible for the 1994 World Trade Center bombings. This isn’t to say that they didn’t make mistakes, but you have to have serious blinders on to believe that they “did nothing” about terror, or to ignore the fact that the pre-9/11 Bush administration did far less about it.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:42 am
I don’t fault either administration with respect to terror or 9/11 (yet!). It’s all partisan witch hunt crap. I’m just saying that election year politics are going to rear their ugly head and the administration is going to say we didn’t want to but congress made us do it!
April 2nd, 2004 at 4:01 pm
I notice Tgirsh leaves out the Khobar Towers, embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole
when mentioning terrorism in the Clinton years.
The Mogadishu model that the Iraqis and foreign insurgents keep trying to emulate is a direct result of Clinton bailing from Somalia.
Clinton’s administration saw attacks every 18 to 24 months. Since 9-11…not one direct attack on our soil or important interests abroad. Not one.
April 2nd, 2004 at 4:54 pm
Drake:
I notice Tgirsh leaves out the Khobar Towers, embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole
when mentioning terrorism in the Clinton years.
Whatever, dude. Those weren’t attacks on US soil. And even if Clinton is to be faulted for those (certainly, to some extent, he is), then what does it say about Bush that he did even less about it, and that it took 3,000 dead New Yorkers to get him to make some time in his schedule to think about it?
Since 9-11…not one direct attack on our soil or important interests abroad. Not one.
The last successful attack on US soil before 9/11 was seven years earlier, but no attack on US soil for two and a half years since is some great success? And if you think there haven’t been any terror attacks on US interests abroad since then, you obviously haven’t been watching enough Fox News.
April 2nd, 2004 at 5:17 pm
“not one direct attack on our soil or important interests abroad. Not one.”
Tell it the families of the dead in Madrid, Bali, and Istanbul.
“Khobar Towers, embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole”
Except that Clarke says that in regards to Khobar Towers:
“Responded to Iran’s role in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack with an unspecified “intelligence operation” intended to deter further Iranian terrorism.”
As for the embassy bombings:
“Responded to the African embassy bombings with strikes on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan, even though he anticipated criticism for the timing”
Oh, but then he was wagging the dog, wasn’t he?
the Cole bombing took place in October of 2000. By December, Clinton had put enough pressure on the Yemenis — no friedns of ours — to arrest six people responsible for it. And I might add that Bush didn’t do even that much after he took office. If anyone is to blame for not acting responsibly in the Cole, its Bush.
“The Mogadishu model that the Iraqis and foreign insurgents keep trying to emulate is a direct result of Clinton bailing from Somalia.”
First, two words: Beruit and Lockerbie. And if you don’t understand, well, that explains a lot.
Second, those tactics have been irregular tactics since time began. if there were Marines sitting in Somalia right now, the tactics in Iraq would be the same, because they are effective tactics for irregular forces. And stomping around the Middle East sure as hell hasn’t scared away any terrorists. Because you cannot scare religious fanatics. They don’t have anything to be scared about because they have convinced themselves that death == heaven.
And, I might add, it was the Republicans leading the charge for removal form Somalia. Nation building was a hobby horse of the Right back then.
April 2nd, 2004 at 6:51 pm
If anyone is to blame for not acting responsibly in the Cole, its Bush.
Thats the biggest bullshit line I have ever read before. Maybe Bush should be responsible for the Korean War and Vietnam while your at it.
April 2nd, 2004 at 9:56 pm
Oh, and the Clinton Administration was so busy “doing nothing” about terror that they thwarted the Millennium bombing plot
A Customs agent had a hunch, somewhat in error, and found explosives where he expected to find drugs. Score one for the Clinton Administration.
and arrested everyone directly responsible for the 1994 World Trade Center bombings.
But passed up opportunities to get those ultimately responsible, leaving them free to continue their attacks.
April 2nd, 2004 at 9:58 pm
Cox and Forkum have a ‘toon regarding the upcoming Rice appearance. Frankly, I think that by the time she’s done, the positions will be reversed.
There’s a poll at
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=plok
regarding the ’08 elections, too.
April 3rd, 2004 at 3:07 am
Justin:
Maybe Bush should be responsible for the Korean War and Vietnam while your at it.
So you equate expecting someone to follow up on something that happened mere months earlier with expecting someone to follow up on something that happened decades earlier?
I’ll ask it again: If Clinton was “weak on terror” and Bush is “strong on terror,” why did it take 3,000 dead New Yorkers to get Bush to even acknowledge terror as a priority?
You may not agree with what Clinton did about terror, but at least he did fucking something! Which is more than we can say about Bush.
triticale:
But passed up opportunities to get those ultimately responsible, leaving them free to continue their attacks.
Maybe so. Again, I never said that the Clinton administration didn’t screw up at times. What I said is that at least they tried. Bush is so concerned with getting bin Laden that he has a whopping 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, with the vast majority of them in Kabul and Kandahar, where bin Laden certainly isn’t.
Meanwhile, Clinton had permanently stationed a sub in the region so that if bin Laden’s whereabouts became known, immediate action could be taken. But hey, that’s “doing nothing,” right?
Then again, why am I being so hard on Bush? It’s not as if he ignored specific warnings that al-Qaeda was planning to crash planes into buildings, or anything…
April 3rd, 2004 at 10:28 am
Damn, I wish I was as funny as this.
April 3rd, 2004 at 12:45 pm
All you need to do is look out the window and make your own decision about what is the right way to combat terror.
Eight years of Clinton gave us results consistant with law enforcement actions…not bad results, but not something I want to do for the next 40 years.
When you clean out an infestation, you destroy nests…you don’t wait for the beasties to come to you one by one.
April 3rd, 2004 at 10:43 pm
Thibodeaux:
Damn, I wish I was as funny as this.
I guess I didn’t realize that was funny. Care to enlighten me as to the source of my own humor? And for the record, I was wrong, there were two subs.
April 4th, 2004 at 12:02 am
How could I enlighten one as wise as yourself?
April 5th, 2004 at 12:50 am
Thibodeaux:
How could I enlighten one as wise as yourself?
For starters, by telling me what the hell you’re talking about. 🙂