To ignore that Clinton had 8 years to deal with the issue and Bush had been in office 8 months before 9/11 while trying to blame 9/11 on Bush is revisionist history. The 9/11 Commission found that the Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999.

I was responding to another poster, not you.

To ignore that Bush had 8 years to deal with a declining economy and a "lost decade" and Obama had been in office only months while unemployment continued to rise and to blame Obama or declare a program "failed" even before it is fully implemented is not revisionist history yet..its just partisan bullshit.

/end threadjack

That doesnt change the facts.

Clinton went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Sudan in 98; other opportunities did not go forward because the intel was not deemed to be actionable by analysts.

Clinton provided a memo to Bush with a sense of urgency to address al Queda and it was ignored for nine months.

Clinton created Alec Station to go after Bin Laden and Bush disbanded it and diverted resources to Iraq.

<sigh> Yup the partisan BS is still alive and well. As you were...

That's just partisan bullshit.

Facts are hard to deny...so go with the "partisan is alive and well" and "partisan bullshit"... :thumb:

You can't re-write history, no matter how hard you try. Clinton failed Bush and the Nation when it came to 9/11. Bush failed to put more efforts into what Clarke had to say and Clarke was on his way out the door and not happy about it. Read his first book. Quite telling but the guy obviously had a chip on his shoulder because he was not kept on after the transition. I doubt Bush could have told you who Clarke was in the 8 months after he took office. Clinton sure knew who he was.

And you cant rewrite Clarke's Jan 25, 2001 memo to Rice (pdf)

Or the December 2000 Strategy Document for Eliminating al Queda (pdf)

Both ignored at the highest levels of the Bush administration for nine months.

Memos, strategy documents....facts...are a stubborn thing.

ok so if Bush ignored if for 8 months then the same is true of Clinton, except it was for 8 YEARS.

Bullshit.

Bin Laden was viewed simply as the money man until 1997 by all the intel and not directly involved or leading terrorist acts....and then Clinton authorized a finding for the CIA to take him out..twice...and it failed.....so blame Clinton. He failed.

Did you even read the Clarke memo or strategy doc....or did you ignore it like Bush/Rice?

I ignored it - like I'm trying to do with you.

God forbid reading actual source documents.

Ignoring the facts wont change them. :D

Ok, so over 3 years vs 8 months. Your guys still failed.

Nothing in those documents state that there is a threat of further actions against the US mainland. Did you even read your own posts? And according to one of them AQ was identified as a source of increased interest in 1996.

In the post of a supposed single commo with Rice, the memo merely ends with 4 questions. Not definitive findings about what should be done. Not recommendations on the part of Clarke or the Clinton Administration. So where's Waldo?

Clinton was completely consumed with Monica and his legal troubles and could not focus on international terrorism.