Meanwhile, Here In Reality...

E.J. Dionne has a little trouble with his recent history in his latest column:

Why Bill Clinton Pushed Back

Bill Clinton's eruption on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend over questions about his administration's handling of terrorism was a long time coming and has political implications that go beyond this fall's elections.

By choosing to intervene in the terror debate in a way that no one could miss, Clinton forced an argument about the past that had up to now been largely a one-sided propaganda war waged by the right. The conservative movement understands the political value of controlling the interpretation of history. Now its control is finally being contested.

Finally?  Does Dionne really think this is new?  Apparently he does - this is the only example of Democratic attempts to write history that he notes:

Moreover, when Democrats, notably former House minority leader Richard Gephardt, finally put their heads up in the late spring of 2002 to ask questions about that Aug. 6, 2001, memo warning of the possibility of terrorist attacks, the Republican pushback was furious.

Oh, please - in 2002 Gephardt was (I'll bet) joining in on the Sandy Berger fantasy as told to TIME magazine and retracted by Berger a bit later.  Berger's story to TIME was that Richard Clarke, terror czar, had delivered a comprehensive plan to Condi Rice when the Bush team took over in 2001.  Later Berger backpedaled, telling a Congressional committee this:

But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.

Just to resolve the confusion - Clarke turned over what might be called a proposal.  Since it had not been reviewed, approved, budgeted and staffed by the relevant arms of the bureaucracy, including but not limited to State, Defense, and Treasury, calling it a "plan" would have been wildly premature.  In fact, By Sept 10 the Bush team had adopted many of the Clarke proposals, although that was not exactly timely; that said, earlier adoption probably would not have disrupted the hijacking plot.

Moving on, the Democrats tried to revive the "Clarke had a plan" theme during the Kerry campaign, which overlapped neatly with the 9/11 hearings that starred Richard Clarke; Clarke also introduced the notion that terror had no higher priority under Clinton but was back-burnered under Bush.  This notion was also beaten back.

Evidently these episodes did not register with Mr. Dionne.

Comments

[Semanticleo]

'Evidently these episodes did not register with Mr. Dionne."

Wrong issue, Maguire. It's the tone, stupid.

When Bush would extend his claw with the
words "work with me", he meant 'do it my way, or else." That was the tone. The words mean diddly.

When Clinton(and Boxer, the next day) responded to the same old Fox-style bullshit with hard casing, the reporters were taken aback. They weren't expecting an acerbic response. They were used to the same old
'comity-for-comity's sake' the Dems are known for. That approach is what the Reps
have exploited so well and re-packaged as,
'weak'.

Like I always say, 'it's all about ass. Either you lick it, or you kick it'(borrowed from some forgotten movie).

[SteveMG]

This is an odd thesis by Dionne.

How do conservatives go about, in Dionne's words, "[C]ontrolling the interpretation of history"?

Through their command of the news media and academia? And control of publishing firms? The myth- and story-making machinery of Hollywood?

And, again according to Dionne, "Now its control is finally being contested."

Now? Contested? Before Clinton's angry response, the left wasn't contesting history?

I don't doubt - obviously - that conservatives have resources and influence that enables them to shape the view of history. But for someone to argue that this ability has been uncontested until Clinton's outburst is silly.

So conservatives instead of standing athwart history yelling "Halt!" are now, uncontestedly, redirecting it?

Which is why Bush's approval ratings are at that Olympian heights of 42%? And we'll not mention the public's love of how the Republicans are running Congress.

If the Right is, without contest, controlling the interpretation of history, someone ain't getting the message.

SMG

[boris]

SMG, the post immediately before yours illustrates the paradox. The psychosis runs deep.

[Other Tom]

The Clinton misstatements of the factual record in his intemperate remarks have been devastatingly exposed. (My personal favorite was his assertion that the right-wingers had ridiculed him for being obsessed with bin Laden. I have a standing offer to provide illicit favors to anyone who can identify a single such person.)

[Neo]

The myth- and story-making machinery of Hollywood

Every movie, for TV or theater has been greeted with "Too Soon", or worse. Except for "Fahrenheit 9/11" (by some guy who went as an honored guest to which convention ?).

[Crew v1.0]

Let's review. Sandy Berger testified before the sainted 9/11 Clatch that there was no handoff of a comprehensive plan, yet recent heart patient WJ Clinton is getting red-faced and huffy claiming to the contrary.

This is nothing other than brutal swift-boating by Clinton of his former NSA memo-socker, and I won't tolerate it. Sandy, 4TLOG, keep speaking truth to power, and Bill, stop crushing Socky Berger's dissent.

[Neo]

“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”

“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

“There was no new plan.”

“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “

“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”

“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”

Before the 9/11 Comission Clarke seemed to have another story (which matched what was in his book). Revisionism ?

[Neo]

background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters

“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered.

[SmokeVanThorn]

All well and good, Neo, but Semanticleo wants to know: What was Clarke's TONE when he said that?

[Pofarmer]

Has anybody got any comments from anybody in the Bush administration blaming Clinton or the Democrat's for 9/11, or any of the othere terrorist attacks, for that matter? Cause I sure don't remember any, and I'm too lazy to dig tonight.

[Karl]

Pofarmer asks:

"Has anybody got any comments from anybody in the Bush administration blaming Clinton or the Democrat's for 9/11, or any of the othere terrorist attacks, for that matter?"

Dionne ceratinly doesn't. He cites Rush Limbaugh, who apparently occupies the same type of position as then-Minority Leader Gephardt in Dionne-land.

[Karl]

Also, prior to the Limbaugh op-ed, we were treated to ABC News anchor Peter Jennings second-guessing President Bush on 9/11. Then-Salon (and now ABC News) correspondent Jake Tapper was blaming Pres. Bush on 9/12.

Because the country was so unified back then.

[Neo]

If you follow link, you will determine that the "no plan" reference was in regard to the USS Cole.
Further down you can find reference to the "strategery" the Clinton folks left behind, more specifically, the plan (or lack thereof) to take out UBL in Afghanistan.

background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

[maryrose]

Expose Clinton and Hil for the congenital liars they are and always have been. Hil voted against the detainee bill. That one's going to back and bite her on the rear-end. It shows she's soft on terrorism and in the hands ogf the lefties. Publicly she's triangulating and does it with less finesse than the master Clinton.

[danking70]

"Berger's story to TIME was that Richard Clarke, terror czar, had delivered a comprehensive plan to Condi Rice when the Bush team took over in 2001. Later Berger backpedaled, telling a Congressional committee this:

But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."

Funny, looks like Berger was mis-quoted by reporters when asked to testify.

Shades of Wilson.

[Neo]

Berger usually comes clear when confronted, as with the docs in sox matter, but left unfettered he reverts to old Clinton era methods.

[danking70]

Neo, I really want to know what he destroyed from the National Archives.

[JM Hanes]

Semanticleo:

"The words mean diddly."

Projecting, are we?

[Neo]

The National Archives claims Berger only had "copies," not originals

[dick]

Neo,

And the difference in classification of "copies" vs the classification of originals is what, exactly. As I recall from my time in the Pentagon the copy bears the same classification as the original. I am still discombobulated that Berger got away with as much as he did. If I had done what he did when I was at the Pentagon in the early 1960's I might now be getting out of Leavenworth.

Dan we waterboard the clinton officials to get the truth out of them? I would be so in favor of that one!!

[Neo]

Berger should not have taken them, but it must be very interesting which docs he thought were important enough to risk jail time to take out copies.

[JM Hanes]

Neo:

I'd be interested in knowing whose copies Berger took. I don't know about anybody else, but I rarely read anything of importance without a highlighter and a pen for margin notes.

[Neo]

Came across this gem over at NRO Corner.

A surprise guest at the meeting was Bill Clinton, whose agenda seemed to be protecting his wife. But things didn't work out quite as planned. When Guy Saperstein, a retired lawyer from Oakland, asked Clinton if Democrats who supported the war should apologize, the former President " went fucking ballistic," according to Saperstein. Forget Hillary, Clinton said angrily during a ten-minute rant; if I was in Congress I would've voted for the war. "It was an extraordinary display of anger and imperiousness," Saperstein says.