9/11 commission today: Bob Kerrey laid into the Clinton Adm. for

[Postman]

not taking harsher military action against Al-Qaeda.

Doesn't this move by Kerrey give even MORE credibility to Richard Clarke's argument that neither administration (Clinton, Bush) was heeding his advice?

Clinton is not running for re-election, Bush is. And Bush is wrapping himself in 9/11 to glide him back into the WH. Attacking the Clinton administration only gives strength to Clark's assertions that Bush ignored the threat for 8-9 months.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Good point. If Clinton was such a "failure" in the WOT

what did Bush do to improve upon it? You'd think the USS Cole would have been fresh on their minds, and revenge imminent.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Kerrey was a hypocrite on this point because he didn't give support

to the Clinton Administration during Kosovo. In other words, Kerrey is being duplicitous

[Tim4319]

3. To piggy back.

I have not heard anyone refute the testimony Madeline Albright gave, saying that they did not receive any support from the congress or the Pentagon when the Clinton Administration wanted to bomb Al Qaeda.

Also, Richard Clarke mentioned daily meetings the Clinton Administration would conduct. Did these meetings stop when Bush took over?

[papau]

4. Yes - those meetings stopped in Feb 01 - but they discussed Star wars!

Damn good thing the media gave us the Adults in Charge

:-(

:-)

[xchrom]

5. the clinton folks had to be polite

but they wanted to give a big fuck you to the repuke controlled congress for the vicious attacks they had to deal with the whole time they were in washington.
kerry came off severe and to the point but there was obviously an undercurrent re: the repuke congress.