Rice claims Bush adminstration "at least as aggressive" on terror as Clinton pre-9/11

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is insisting that the Bush administration was at least as aggressive on terrorism as the Clinton administration, pre-9/11.

Notice she's not making any unqualified assertions about Bush being any more aggressive than Clinton, because that's not even a credible claim anymore. I take this as a sign that Democrats are finally putting Republicans on the defensive about their national security record.

Even the claim that the Bush administration was "at least as aggressive" is false, however. Actually, as Julia notes, former Attorney General John Ashcroft slashed counter-terrorism pre-9/11 and demoted counter-terrorism as a priority compared to his predecessor.

As the Guardian reported in 2002, AG Ashcroft did start flying in private jets instead of on commercial airlines in July of 2001, but counter-terrorism for other people just wasn't on his radar, so to speak:

In the late 90s the threat of a terrorist attack on US soil became a near obsession in the Clinton administration, particularly in the justice department under Janet Reno. But her successor had other ideas.

On September 10 last year, the last day of what is now seen as a bygone age of innocence, Mr Ashcroft sent a request for budget increases to the White House. It covered 68 programmes, none of them related to counter-terrorism.

He also sent a memorandum to his heads of departments, stating his seven priorities. Counter-terrorism was not on the list. He turned down an FBI request for hundreds more agents to be assigned to tracking terrorist threats.

Nevertheless, he began using a chartered private jet to travel around the country, rather than take commercial airliners as Ms Reno had done. A justice department spokesman said this was done as a result of an FBI "threat assessment" on Mr Ashcroft, but insisted that the assessment was not specifically linked to al-Qaida.

But Mr Ashcroft stopped using commercial flights in July, just as the intelligence "chatter" about a possible al-Qaida strike on US soil was getting louder.

According to yesterday's edition of Newsweek, he had a showdown on counter-terrorism with the outgoing FBI director, Louis Freeh, in the spring of last year in Quantico, Virginia, at an annual meeting of special agents.

People at the meeting said the two disagreed fundamentally on their priorities.

Mr Ashcroft's agenda comprised "basically violent crime and drugs" and when Mr Freeh began to talk about his concern about the terrorist threat facing the country, "Ashcroft didn't want to hear about it".

Pre-9/11, Ashcroft was more interesting in raiding medical marijuana clinics than fighting terrorism.

Comments

[Matt]

The truly sad and scarry thing is that Ashcroft, in many ways, turned out to be one of the more sane and serious members of the Bush whitehouse. I know that doesn't set the bar high, but still.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

"Let the eagle soooaaaarrrr..."

[Count Zero]

1984: That was so wrong! LOL!

[Aunt Deb]

Rice is saying they were at least as aggressive as Clinton had been. But all along, the Bushites have been saying that Clinton did nothing. So, there you are then.

[The Phantom]

--She's not making any unqualified assertions about Bush being any more aggressive than Clinton, because that's not even a credible claim anymore--

Well after fighting half of Red State last night in defense of Clinton, allow me to advise you that Bush took out the Taliban govt in Afghanistan, an action more than a few libs thought was just horrible. That sounds pretty damned aggressive to me.

This is one issue that Americans may not be able to discuss intelligently at all. The Republicans start from the premise that Clinton is the devil who did nothing, and the Dems can't get the premise that Bush is the devil who did everything wrong. Its so not pretty.

[Alon Levy]

Well after fighting half of Red State last night in defense of Clinton, allow me to advise you that Bush took out the Taliban govt in Afghanistan, an action more than a few libs thought was just horrible.

Well, yeah, but not that many more than a few. The only one I know who has any clout is Michael Moore, whose views on foreign policy are as far as I can tell indistinguishable from Noam Chomsky's.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

1984: That was so wrong! LOL!

Posted by: Count Zero

:D

[cfrost]

Oh Dr. Rice/ Madam EXXON just shut up and stick to your piano and origami.

Re: "Let the eagle soooaaaarrrr...", lyrics and audio for this immortal classic here. And while we’re at it, a link to the swingin’ sounds of the beehive state's own Senator Orrin Hatch.

[The Phantom]

AL

Many of our European friends, who supposedly were "unified in support and sympathy" were very against the action in Afghanistan. I do remember having a very in your face discussion in Zurich over this very issue. The two Swiss at the dinner table were furious at the "unilateral" (not ) invasion of Afghanistan, while the Brits and me supported the move.

Even if Iraq had never happened, many in the world community would have turned on us over Afghanistan. We had the finest sympathy imaginable so long as we sat crying on the corner and did nothing.

Criticize Bush's strategy all day long, clearly there is a lot to work with there. But its just silly to say that Bush has not been aggressive.

[Count Zero]

"Criticize Bush's strategy all day long, clearly there is a lot to work with there. But its just silly to say that Bush has not been aggressive."

No, you're right, Bush was aggressive in that move, and I think at the time the entire country supported him on it. Hell, I supported the issue, though looking back afterwards, I can say it accomplished nothing. Hell, even Clinton destroying camps with the cruise missles accomplished nothing. A terrorist network isn't something you can destroy with a cruise missle and call a day. You have to completley dismantle their capability to do harm, subvert them so they are afraid to contact anyone for fear of being caught, and that can't be done with a missle, or destroying a training camp, and it certainly doesn't matter which administration does it. The only reason they do it is as a show of demonstration to the American public they are trying.

[mudkitty]

They don't call her CondiLieza for nothing, you know.

Someone (out there) should create a youtube clip of all of condi's lies all strung together like a popcorn garland at xmas.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>And while we’re at it, a link to the swingin’ sounds of the beehive state's own Senator Orrin Hatch.

Are you serious? OK, I'll look at that later. Too funny.

[Mike]

Regarding the recent comments about Bush being aggressive - yes, he went into afghanistan but I believe this misses much of the point. Clinton's frustration with the criticism he is receiving is that the Bush administration was not aggressive BEFORE 9/11. Something interesting to note is how quickly we went into Afghanistan after 9/11. The kind of ground work required for that takes a long time, clearly they used info and planning from the Clinton administration...

[Alon Levy]

Many of our European friends, who supposedly were "unified in support and sympathy" were very against the action in Afghanistan. I do remember having a very in your face discussion in Zurich over this very issue. The two Swiss at the dinner table were furious at the "unilateral" (not ) invasion of Afghanistan, while the Brits and me supported the move.

Indeed, most liberals, even in Europe, are between the two extremes of eschewing any military invasion and viewing the military as the primary solution to terrorism. The invasion of Afghanistan was an astounding success in terms of destroying Al-Qaida, though not in terms of democratizing or stabilizing the country or scoring a psychological victory by capturing Bin Laden. 9/11 produced a confluence of events that changed Jihadism from a global terrorist organization to a network of loosely affiliated local organizations. Good old-fashioned police work is more effective now than it would have been if the US hadn't attacked Afghanistan.

[The Phantom]

--the Bush administration was not aggressive BEFORE 9/11--

OK, noted.

[Count Zero]

The invasion of Afghanistan was an astounding success in terms of destroying Al-Qaida, though not in terms of democratizing or stabilizing the country or scoring a psychological victory by capturing Bin Laden.

Was it? I think that's open to debate. Spain, Jakarta, Britain and a slew of other terrorist activity would say otherwise. I think it did very little other than act as a psychological comfort to people after 9/11.

[The Phantom]

Count Zero

No, it was a severe loss to Al Queda. They had free reign over a country, and had training facilities in the open, etc. And to have that go away was not a good thing for them.

There have certainly been the terrosist incidents you describe ( do you mean Jakarta or Bali?), but the London subway bombs were not Al Queda related as far as anyone knows.

This is not the type of organization that can ever be destroyed in its entirety. But if you can take one of their major assets away from them, that's work worth doing.

[Alon Levy]

Count Zero, I dealt with that issue on 9/11's fifth anniversary.

The invasion of Afghanistan crippled Al Qaida, but failed to score a psychological victory; Bin Laden then used that to his advantage, inspiring Islamists to commit terrorist attacks.