Rice: Clinton Claims 'Flatly False'

Secretary Of State Challenges Ex-President's Record On Fighting Terror

(CBS/AP)  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Bill Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue al Qaeda, saying in an interview published Tuesday that the Bush administration aggressively pursued the group even before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.

The newspaper published her comments after Mr. Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al Qaeda leader killed.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Mr. Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Rice disputed his assessment.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.

Asked about Mr. Clinton's comments Tuesday, President Bush declined to comment.

"I don't have enough time to finger point," he said at a joint White House news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Rice also took exception to Mr. Clinton's statement that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming officials when he left office.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," she told the newspaper, which is owned by News Corp., the same company that owns Fox News Channel.

In the interview, Mr. Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'

---

Public Eye: The Clinton-Fox News Tussle
Calculated Strategy or Genuine Outrage? What Do you Think?

---

Rice portrayed the departure of former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke differently, saying he "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security."

The reference to the Cole related to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

The interview has been the focus of much attention – drawing nearly 1.2 million views on YouTube and earning the show its best ratings in nearly three years.

Rice questioned the value of the dialogue.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton saw it differently.

"I just think that my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take this," she told Newsday Monday.

Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Mr. Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after al Qaeda?"'

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.

[energyecon]

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

[oregon1936]

Condaleeza Rice came into government with the Bush administration along with a whole pack of people from the PNAC. They have allways spoke with one voice, and are completely predictable as to what they are going to say. This is particualarly strange in a person with Condi's credentials. She has a PHD, and was provost for Stanford University, yet she parrots the same words that are being repeated by all of the Neocons. The truth doesn't matter to a one of these weirdos, as long as they can pursue their ideology.

[leemiller38]

Rice is a known liar and patsy for the Bushies. Why would anyone believe her? As I recall she had to be coaxed to read the subject of a memo in front of a Senate hearing. The memo's title warned-- al Qaeda planning to attack in the U.S. A memo she and Bush ignored. He while on vacation cutting brush. WHY? Why do these people have any credibility? Why is there not a zero approval rating for Bush? Clinton told the truth about what happened--Just read Richard Clark's book or see his interview on 60 minutes in 2004. Right-wingers apparently do not like facts and truth but choose to belief what they want to. Clinton was justifiably angry at these attempts to slime him when Bush is the incompetent one.

[rdallen1]

Bush, Chaney, and Rice suckered this nation into a family vendetta, destroying Colin Powell in the process. Iraq did not harbour Osama or his terrorists and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush II was obcessed with Sadam from the time he tried to kill Bush I and his only mission in Iraq was to dethrone Sadam. The Bush II mission was accomplished as Bush II proclaimed from the deck of the USS Lincoln but Iraq was really a five act play to his dismay.

[energyecon]

Testimony from the 9/11 Commission with supporting link shows the lie Rice is telling:

snip

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Two days after Rice's March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February."

snip

Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001.

snip

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

[yankeegal2]

Are Americans upset that the democrats didn't challenge the same intelligence? Bush and Condi were lying and all the democrats were misled by them? Yikes-seems like we know who can think for themselves and who can't.

[abbe7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0LPthw2eI&eurl=

[pelepoe]

just out of curiousity when did rice come on board with bushs team? Right from the begining? my point being was she there at the turn over or when bush didnt know the heads of states or where they lived. so how can condi say who did a beter job? am I wrong I could be?

[flolake]

We the people have seen this combative, denying and self promotional behavior out of the former Pres. in the past. Few of us will forget his angry tone and jabbing finger motion(s)which was too familiar by now. Once you've seen an impressive scene, which no doubt was an attempt to perpetuate a lie, several red flags are raised by this most recent "tantrum".

To get caught "red handed" is one matter, to lie about the red paint on your hand(s) is another issue entirely.

Bottom line: November elections. I am inclined to do the old out with the old & in with the new. With a lame duck Pres. and pronounced global instability, we urgently need to tip the balance of the Senate and whittle away at the House. Enough of re-runs of "The Dog & Pony Show".

[mwe3wm]

I want to thank CBS for this forum.

There was not a simple question asked by Chris Wallace to President Clinton. There were a series of questions that were positioned to imply blame and be confrontational. Instead of asking "Why did you not do more?" and phrasing it as "Could you have done more? or "What did you do to address terrorism? would have been better for an interviewee of such stature.

Michael Edwards
Texas