The desire of the press to rehabilitate the Clinton Administration is apparently boundless. Now Reuters is reporting that the Bush transition team was given a plan to deal with Al Qaeda that the incoming administration ignored.

How is it that, if the Clinton Administration had such a wonderful plan, they weren't implementing it themselves? Why were they waiting for the Bush Administration to come in?

This is Bravo Sierra.

No BS, it was a brilliant plan. I've got the scoop at my blog...

The Bush administration was much too busy helping Ken Lay and friends to worry about some raghead in Afganistan.

Would that be the same Ken Lay that the Clinton Administration steered contracts to in the 90s?

Idiot.

So much help in fact that Enron went bankrupt while the Bushes refused Rubin's pleas to intervene. Where do I sign up for that kind of help?

FOX reporting that Clinton's own counter-terriorst guy says its false there was no plan just a proposal that was made in 1998 for a 5 year covert op against the Terriorst and it got no further than that. The Bush administration thought it was a bigger problem and wanted a top down review. The question is did Time even bother interviewing him or did they think Carville was enough.

No matter what had happened, or what might happen, you can bet that there is a proposal, scenario, tip, hunch, or study alluding to it in some agent's desk somewhere in the federal government. Ergo, no matter what happens, the press can say that "the Bush administration knew" it would happen.

FOX now reports it was nothing more than a Powerpoint presentation.

The question is did Time even bother interviewing him (Bush) or did they think Carville was enough.

They thought that Cynthina (what did he know, and when did he know it) McKinney had the answers

"
Would that be the same Ken Lay that the Clinton Administration steered contracts to in the 90s?

Idiot."

Come on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the gang in Washington, Republicrats and Democans all, haven't been too bright about our foreign relations or the way our corporations have been doing business. The economy is in meltdown, the war on terrorism is running down and Bush is on vacation. Whats wrong with this picture? Sorry if I got your knikkers in a twist.

I'm no big fan of Republicans in general, but we are now living with the consequences of the last several years of an administration that was clueless (or worse) on foreign policy, and pumped up an economic bubble that collapsed on Bush's watch.

I have a lot of differences with the Bush Administration, but talk about his coziness with Enron is just stupid.

"I have a lot of differences with the Bush Administration, but talk about his coziness with Enron is just stupid."

Maybe it is not the best example of the kind of activity that appears to be the fairly systematic looting of a lot of big and potentially productive corporations by ruthless executives and their accountants, all of whom seem to have more political influence than you or I.
Still, it looks like both the first Bush, Clinton, and then Bush Jr. dropped the ball big time, and little Bush still hasn't figured out just how dangerous Islam is to the U.S. and the rest of the world. None of our recent leaders seem to have had a clue, and the current crop is still in the dark, or at least it looks that way from here.

Don't bother with Simberg when he's on one of his periodic "I'm an independant who just happens to love Bush and never miss a chance to bash Clinton even when I'm sadly wrong" kicks. The entire original post is so tainted with myopic partisan invective that it's not worth a detailed demolition. After all if Clinton had gone after Al-Q in September 2001 then that would unfairly hand an electoral issue to Gore and Simberg would be shortisghtedly bemoaning that action as another instance of Clinton perfidy.

Andy,
How exactly could Clinton have gone after Al Qaeda in Sept 01? If my memory serves me, he was out of office by then.

Regardless, if Clinton didn't think that the:
- bombing of two of our embassies
- bombing one of our military ships
- a murder spree at the front gate of the CIA by an islamist terrorist
- and the first attempt at the world trade center
were enough to go after Al Qaeda prior to Sept 11, why should Bush have done it?

I hate Clinton because he did nothing to protect the united states when we were attacked. If he had, we would have responded to the above after each incident. I care not a fig that he was a democrat. I care intensely that he was a morally corrupt coward who never took a stance on terrorism until he needed to try and distract the public from an investigation of his perjury.

By contrast, the FIRST time we were attacked on Bush's watch, he retaliated. And you have the gall to suggest that he should have done something earlier, when you're willing to give a pass to Clinton for never having done a damn thing to prevent terrorist attacks in the previous 8 years? Now who's 'tainted with myopic partisan invective'?

what Celeste said.