The Secret Plan: Re: Re: Re: I sure do miss Clinton.

» Frank_Monaldo - Re: Re: Re: I sure do miss Clinton.

The point of the original article was not to chastise the Clinton Administration for its actions with respect to protecting the US against terrorism. What was or wasn’t done is an interesting, but separate issue. Rather, it was a critique of an attempt to salvage a Clinton legacy, by suggesting that there was a serious secret plan to go war with al-Qaeda that might have been implemented if Gore were elected. I am not criticizing Clinton for failing to begin such a pre-emptive attack. I am not sure any president would have attacked al-Qaeda in a massive pre-emptive way without the provocation of the attacks on September 11. My criticism is of those trying to fraudulently shore up the reputation of the previous administration, at the expense of the next administration.

It is not clear what generalizations can be drawn about the anti-terrorism efforts of the current Administration in the first nine months of its Administration. We do know that during the Clinton Administration, the human intelligence efforts of the CIA were curtailed. Clinton-era regulations made it more difficult to use informants that were nasty characters.

But perhaps I am wrong. I read today that the Clinton Administration was aggressive, perhaps overly so, in sharing intelligence information with federal prosecutors. Such sharing depends upon obtaining the permission of a federal court. That court is now upset, because the FBI and Justice Department misled or lied to the court 75 times. Ashcroft apparently was not so aggressive in getting what he wanted from the court. According to a Washington Post editorial on July 23, 2002:

"Attorney General John Ashcroft is not blamed [by the court] for these transactions. Most or all of the misstatements appear to have take place during the prior administration, and the court notes that the department and bureau wrote new rules last year to ensure the accuracy of FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] applications. The judges, moreover, appear to have no complaints about the quality of applications since September 11."

The statement is made that, “the claim that Bush is busy with the job of president while at his vanity ranch, is laughable.” I beg to disagree. Indeed there was an important national security meeting this week, while Bush is “on vacation.” Indeed, while on vacation the president has been crossing the country stumping for Republican candidates.

It is a measure of how well Bush is doing, that the amount of vacation he takes is an issue.

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo