About | Portfolio | Backup | Archives | PayPal Tip Jar | Amazon Tip Jar | Shop@Amazon
Advertising


Search BillHobbs.com
Stats, Etc.


TTLB Ecosystem Stats
Powered by FeedBurner


« Not 'Mercs' | Main | UN: Entrepreneurs Good for the Economy »

April 6, 2004

Urgent? Really?

From today's Washington Times.

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.

Big Journalism's performance in covering Clarke, his book, his testimony and the larger issue of the history of dealing with al Qaeda and terrorism has been spectaculary pathetic.

Memo to the press: You can find links to the Clinton document by starting here at Captain Ed's blog and then scrolling up. Captain Ed is providing devastatingly detailed summaries of each section the Clinton document, and proving, once and for all, that Clarke lied when he said the Clinton administration had no higher priority than combating terrorism. [Via Glenn Reynolds, who has a good bit more to say on the subject.]

Posted in War on Terror | Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com
Comments

This will get zero play in the mainstream media, simply because it bears out exactly what the Bush Administration has been saying about Clarke and the previous administration. That is not news to them, that is not helpful to them.

By the time Jade gets done with this report, he'll be convinced a Bush mole wrote it.

Posted by: Ivan at April 6, 2004 11:28 PM

This has admirably been debunked elsewhere.

On the other hand, "terrorism" is mentioned seven times in the introduction alone and 58 times in the main section on "Implementing the Strategy." What's more, in the major section titled "Protecting the Homeland" there are seven primary issues discussed. Two of them are "Combating Terrorism" and "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction."

The Moonie Times is committing the logical fallacy of false specificity. Even so, a report that only mentions OBL four times is four more times than Condiliar Rice was going to mention OBL on 9/11/2001.

Posted by: JadeGold at April 7, 2004 06:45 PM

Keep drinking the Kool-aid, Jade. Condi is shredding Clarke as I type this.

Buh bye, child.

Posted by: Raging Dave at April 8, 2004 01:02 PM
Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!









Remember personal info?






Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):




back to top
Advertising

blog advertising is good for you
Video Ad Slot
To run your video ad here, contact me at bill-at-billhobbs.com
Archives
Blogroll