Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (14406)	10/29/2003 6:04:34 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793619

we don't have enough money for that attitude Ish. The state has almost 70 billion in outstanding bonds.

To: Ish who wrote (14406)	10/29/2003 6:05:41 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793619

I raised my eyebrows at the statement by Clinton when he made it. Figured his "20/20 hindsight" was pushing the "edge of the envelope" with his memory of what he said. I knew it was the kind of thing that Bush could not respond openly to. But was probably privately fuming about. But the people around him are talking. NRO _____________________________________________ Warning B.S. Clinton almost certainly lied about his bin Laden warning. By Rich Lowry, NRO What warning? That's what head-scratching Bush-administration officials were wondering after Bill Clinton said a week or so ago that he had warned incoming President George W. Bush about the threat from Osama bin Laden. According to Clinton's account, he tried to convince Bush to abandon his other national-security priorities to focus on al Qaeda during an "exit interview" with the newly elected president. "In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and national missile defense," Clinton remarked. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden." Clinton maintained that his inability to budge Bush was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had." This is almost certainly a lie. A Bush official familiar with the meeting and its content says it focused on other foreign and domestic matters. According to the official, if al Qaeda came up at all, it was in passing as President Clinton lobbied Bush on other matters, most importantly North Korea. Clinton thought it was crucial that Bush maintain his administration's soft-touch approach to North Korea even though — as we would learn soon enough — Pyongyang had already made a mockery of Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework by starting a secret nuclear program. Clinton also made pleas for his pet domestic programs. The Clinton misstatement of his posture in that "exit interview" is part of the attempted revisionism by the Clinton team of its terrorism record (which I dissect in my new book Legacy). This effort reached its previous height in a Time magazine cover story in August 2002 that reported that there was a Clinton "plan" to fight al Qaeda that was passed along to the Bush team. This too proved false. A former Clinton official told NR's Byron York after the Time report: "It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan." In testimony before Congress, former Clinton national-security adviser Sandy Berger said the same thing: "There was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." In any case, Clinton's "plan" now is to find every opportunity to try to divert attention from his failures in the war on terror. Consider yourself warned . . . nationalreview.com