Rice acknowledges some of her Benghazi info was incorrect but has no regrets

[francoHFW]

NY Times reporter Kirkpatrick just returned from Bengazi and interviewing militia leaders and others.... They all agreed the video was a trigger for the anti-American militias. When they entered the mission they found many tins of propellent for a new generator...Guess what, hater dupes...not much of a plan.

Few Libyans had seen the video, but they all heard the fundie Rush Limbaugh of the ME rail against it and call for protests against US facilities...

No evidence of orders from outside Libya, which would mean NOT terrorists in the true sense..

Don't hater dupes EVER get tired of being lied to, and demonizing our remaining great news sources...

 

[Mustang]

Yeah, that was the line that Obama was pushing. Fools like you fell for it. That's why he needed to lie and say it was a spontaneous demonstration, even though he knew the truth.

What line?

Terrorism IS a tactic. And aside from concerns that I have that ANY terrorist group might get a Nuke, groups like al Qaeda are more of a threat in our minds than in actuality.

.

Six Americans and their families would disagree with you.

More Americans die in one school shooting.

THE point is that al Qaeda, sans nukes, is no existential threat to the USA.

The same was NOT true of the Nazis, the Empire of Japan of 70 years ago, or the Soviet Union of the 1940s through about 1991. And potentially, the same might very well be true of the Chinese in the present.

If conservatives really care about protecting America as opposed to just scoring political points at the expense of Democrats, they would better serve this country if they would address fixing problems, and addressing real threats instead of just trying to undermine the gov't which is tasked with the responsibility of keeping us all safe, regardless of political persuasion.

 

[The Rabbi]

What line?

Terrorism IS a tactic. And aside from concerns that I have that ANY terrorist group might get a Nuke, groups like al Qaeda are more of a threat in our minds than in actuality.

.

Six Americans and their families would disagree with you.

More Americans die in one school shooting.

.

More Americans are killed on highways in road accidents. BUt that isn't really very relevant, is it? We're not doing body counts here. It goes beyond that. Any terrorist incident is unacceptable. But it needs to be faced and dealt with, like Bush did, not swept under the rug, like Clinton and Obama.

 

[Mustang]

Six Americans and their families would disagree with you.

More Americans die in one school shooting.

.

More Americans are killed on highways in road accidents. BUt that isn't really very relevant, is it? We're not doing body counts here. It goes beyond that. Any terrorist incident is unacceptable. But it needs to be faced and dealt with, like Bush did, not swept under the rug, like Clinton and Obama.

I never claimed it's acceptable. But the number of people killed and the property damage inflicted by a particular threat is certainly relevant in much the same way that the resources brought to bear to fight a particular disease is proportional to the death toll or the disabilities the disease inflicts on the population as a whole. That's why both influenza and cancer get more research dollars than a disease with far few fatalities which afflicts far fewer people.

The point is that with the possible exception of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, al Qaeda is NOT an existential threat to the USA. Therefore, I personally resented the constant state of fear that the Bush administration tried to make Americans feel with their color coded duct tape warnings.

To use your example, I'm FAR more concerned about a driving fatality due to drunk drivers or idiots on cell phones texting other idiots on cell phones since, in any given year, many thousands of Americans die or are severely injured as a result of drunk drivers and distracted drivers.

So, from what I can tell, both the Bush and the Obama adminstrations did/are doing a fine job keeping Americans safe in America. Even the attacks on Americans abroad seems to be pretty rare. But that doesn't mean I expect perfection because our gov't can't protect every American everywhere. It's just not doable.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well yeah sure, but carefully crafted but speculative talking points given after a verbal disclaimer during Sunday morning talk shows would hardly be brought up during a Nuremburg type trial. So the reason for bringing up Nuremburg "I was only killing Jews because I was ordered too" non defense was what?

Want to talk about the points, and the differences between them and the facts. Okay, fine

The GOP chose instead to shoot the messenger. It was a cheap shot. Walked up right behind her and shot her in the back.

No, I wont let you get away with that. She lied, flat out. The lawyerly language and all was a cover. She told a falsehood, which Obama repeated weeks later. They knew it was false when they said it. That is the very definition of lie.
The message was a lie. The messenger was lying. Whom would you want to shoot?
Do you dispute that she lied? ANd that Obama lied weeks later when he repeated the same story? And that Hillary also lied when she told the same story?

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

The mental gymnastics that you Obama supporters are forced to perform trying to come up with excuses for the lies that were told to the American people by this Administration are a hoot to watch, Boo. Now it's a "mob riot" following the attack by an extremist militia that killed our Ambassador? So where did the extremist militia go? You seem to think that they went home and THEN a mob upset about a video suddenly appeared and killed our Ambassador? Your attempts at coming up with a plausible explanation for the lies have officially reached the point of FARCE with that scenario!

 

[The Rabbi]

More Americans die in one school shooting.

.

More Americans are killed on highways in road accidents. BUt that isn't really very relevant, is it? We're not doing body counts here. It goes beyond that. Any terrorist incident is unacceptable. But it needs to be faced and dealt with, like Bush did, not swept under the rug, like Clinton and Obama.

I never claimed it's acceptable. But the number of people killed and the property damage inflicted by a particular threat is certainly relevant in much the same way that the resources brought to bear to fight a particular disease is proportional to the death toll or the disabilities the disease inflicts on the population as a whole. That's why both influenza and cancer get more research dollars than a disease with far few fatalities which afflicts far fewer people.

The point is that with the possible exception of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, al Qaeda is NOT an existential threat to the USA. Therefore, I personally resented the constant state of fear that the Bush administration tried to make Americans feel with their color coded duct tape warnings.

To use your example, I'm FAR more concerned about a driving fatality due to drunk drivers or idiots on cell phones texting other idiots on cell phones since, in any given year, many thousands of Americans die or are severely injured as a result of drunk drivers and distracted drivers.

So, from what I can tell, both the Bush and the Obama adminstrations did/are doing a fine job keeping Americans safe in America. Even the attacks on Americans abroad seems to be pretty rare. But that doesn't mean I expect perfection because our gov't can't protect every American everywhere. It's just not doable.

You understand it's a war, right? It isn't like muggers in a city. That's what made Bush so brilliant and Clinton and Obama so stupid. They dont' get that part.

 

[Mustang]

More Americans are killed on highways in road accidents. BUt that isn't really very relevant, is it? We're not doing body counts here. It goes beyond that. Any terrorist incident is unacceptable. But it needs to be faced and dealt with, like Bush did, not swept under the rug, like Clinton and Obama.

I never claimed it's acceptable. But the number of people killed and the property damage inflicted by a particular threat is certainly relevant in much the same way that the resources brought to bear to fight a particular disease is proportional to the death toll or the disabilities the disease inflicts on the population as a whole. That's why both influenza and cancer get more research dollars than a disease with far few fatalities which afflicts far fewer people.

The point is that with the possible exception of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, al Qaeda is NOT an existential threat to the USA. Therefore, I personally resented the constant state of fear that the Bush administration tried to make Americans feel with their color coded duct tape warnings.

To use your example, I'm FAR more concerned about a driving fatality due to drunk drivers or idiots on cell phones texting other idiots on cell phones since, in any given year, many thousands of Americans die or are severely injured as a result of drunk drivers and distracted drivers.

So, from what I can tell, both the Bush and the Obama adminstrations did/are doing a fine job keeping Americans safe in America. Even the attacks on Americans abroad seems to be pretty rare. But that doesn't mean I expect perfection because our gov't can't protect every American everywhere. It's just not doable.

You understand it's a war, right? It isn't like muggers in a city. That's what made Bush so brilliant and Clinton and Obama so stupid. They dont' get that part.

Bush "got" that it was a war? How so? I ask because he sure didn't do shit about it after coming into office. In fact, Bush didn't even do squat about the bombing of the USS Cole which happened less than a full month before the election. Further more, Bush appeared to be so incredibly unfocused on the threat from al Qaeda that Condi Rice was actually scheduled to give a speech on SDI on the day of the attack in response to what she and others in the administration perceived as a continuing threat from the former Soviet Union which no longer existed as a political entity. In other words, the Bush folks were focused on continuing to fight the Cold War which had ended a decade before. I guess that's what happens when you appoint an expert on Russia and the Soviet Union to the post of NSA instead of someone else whose expertise was on terrorism or other newer threats.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, I wont let you get away with that. She lied, flat out. The lawyerly language and all was a cover. She told a falsehood, which Obama repeated weeks later. They knew it was false when they said it. That is the very definition of lie.
The message was a lie. The messenger was lying. Whom would you want to shoot?
Do you dispute that she lied? ANd that Obama lied weeks later when he repeated the same story? And that Hillary also lied when she told the same story?

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

The mental gymnastics that you Obama supporters are forced to perform trying to come up with excuses for the lies that were told to the American people by this Administration are a hoot to watch, Boo. Now it's a "mob riot" following the attack by an extremist militia that killed our Ambassador? So where did the extremist militia go? You seem to think that they went home and THEN a mob upset about a video suddenly appeared and killed our Ambassador? Your attempts at coming up with a plausible explanation for the lies have officially reached the point of FARCE with that scenario!

The only thing they got wrong was there was no protest in front of the Building before the attack started.

 

[Sallow]

Six Americans and their families would disagree with you.

More Americans die in one school shooting.

.

More Americans are killed on highways in road accidents. BUt that isn't really very relevant, is it? We're not doing body counts here. It goes beyond that. Any terrorist incident is unacceptable. But it needs to be faced and dealt with, like Bush did, not swept under the rug, like Clinton and Obama.

Wait, what?

You are comparing highway accidents to a deliberate act of murder?

And Bush didn't deal with shit. He sent the military to massacre scores of innocent people while Bin Laden watched porno.

Obama dealt with Bin Laden.

 

[Sallow]

More Americans are killed on highways in road accidents. BUt that isn't really very relevant, is it? We're not doing body counts here. It goes beyond that. Any terrorist incident is unacceptable. But it needs to be faced and dealt with, like Bush did, not swept under the rug, like Clinton and Obama.

I never claimed it's acceptable. But the number of people killed and the property damage inflicted by a particular threat is certainly relevant in much the same way that the resources brought to bear to fight a particular disease is proportional to the death toll or the disabilities the disease inflicts on the population as a whole. That's why both influenza and cancer get more research dollars than a disease with far few fatalities which afflicts far fewer people.

The point is that with the possible exception of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, al Qaeda is NOT an existential threat to the USA. Therefore, I personally resented the constant state of fear that the Bush administration tried to make Americans feel with their color coded duct tape warnings.

To use your example, I'm FAR more concerned about a driving fatality due to drunk drivers or idiots on cell phones texting other idiots on cell phones since, in any given year, many thousands of Americans die or are severely injured as a result of drunk drivers and distracted drivers.

So, from what I can tell, both the Bush and the Obama adminstrations did/are doing a fine job keeping Americans safe in America. Even the attacks on Americans abroad seems to be pretty rare. But that doesn't mean I expect perfection because our gov't can't protect every American everywhere. It's just not doable.

You understand it's a war, right? It isn't like muggers in a city. That's what made Bush so brilliant and Clinton and Obama so stupid. They dont' get that part.

Yeah it was like muggers in the city.

In that the muggers didn't represent or were agents of another city.

Wiping out Dallas when the muggers were from Toledo isn't a good idea either.

But essentially? That's what Bush did.

 

[TooTall]

I never claimed it's acceptable. But the number of people killed and the property damage inflicted by a particular threat is certainly relevant in much the same way that the resources brought to bear to fight a particular disease is proportional to the death toll or the disabilities the disease inflicts on the population as a whole. That's why both influenza and cancer get more research dollars than a disease with far few fatalities which afflicts far fewer people.

The point is that with the possible exception of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, al Qaeda is NOT an existential threat to the USA. Therefore, I personally resented the constant state of fear that the Bush administration tried to make Americans feel with their color coded duct tape warnings.

To use your example, I'm FAR more concerned about a driving fatality due to drunk drivers or idiots on cell phones texting other idiots on cell phones since, in any given year, many thousands of Americans die or are severely injured as a result of drunk drivers and distracted drivers.

So, from what I can tell, both the Bush and the Obama adminstrations did/are doing a fine job keeping Americans safe in America. Even the attacks on Americans abroad seems to be pretty rare. But that doesn't mean I expect perfection because our gov't can't protect every American everywhere. It's just not doable.

You understand it's a war, right? It isn't like muggers in a city. That's what made Bush so brilliant and Clinton and Obama so stupid. They dont' get that part.

Bush "got" that it was a war? How so? I ask because he sure didn't do shit about it after coming into office. In fact, Bush didn't even do squat about the bombing of the USS Cole which happened less than a full month before the election. Further more, Bush appeared to be so incredibly unfocused on the threat from al Qaeda that Condi Rice was actually scheduled to give a speech on SDI on the day of the attack in response to what she and others in the administration perceived as a continuing threat from the former Soviet Union which no longer existed as a political entity. In other words, the Bush folks were focused on continuing to fight the Cold War which had ended a decade before. I guess that's what happens when you appoint an expert on Russia and the Soviet Union to the post of NSA instead of someone else whose expertise was on terrorism or other newer threats.

The USS Cole bombing happened on Ot 12, 2002 and Bush did not take office until Jan 20, 2001. It was Clinton's responsibility to 'do something' about it or give a plan of action to Bush.

Since you are guessing, I will mention that the Al Queda operatives were in the US, some of them taking pilot training, well before Bush took office. I remember the PC policy in place at the time, established by the Clinton administration, that condemned anyone being targetted because they were a muslims. They called it racial profiling and it was strictly forbidden.

 

[Mustang]

You understand it's a war, right? It isn't like muggers in a city. That's what made Bush so brilliant and Clinton and Obama so stupid. They dont' get that part.

Bush "got" that it was a war? How so? I ask because he sure didn't do shit about it after coming into office. In fact, Bush didn't even do squat about the bombing of the USS Cole which happened less than a full month before the election. Further more, Bush appeared to be so incredibly unfocused on the threat from al Qaeda that Condi Rice was actually scheduled to give a speech on SDI on the day of the attack in response to what she and others in the administration perceived as a continuing threat from the former Soviet Union which no longer existed as a political entity. In other words, the Bush folks were focused on continuing to fight the Cold War which had ended a decade before. I guess that's what happens when you appoint an expert on Russia and the Soviet Union to the post of NSA instead of someone else whose expertise was on terrorism or other newer threats.

The USS Cole bombing happened on Ot 12, 2002 and Bush did not take office until Jan 20, 2001. It was Clinton's responsibility to 'do something' about it or give a plan of action to Bush.

Since you are guessing, I will mention that the Al Queda operatives were in the US, some of them taking pilot training, well before Bush took office. I remember the PC policy in place at the time, established by the Clinton administration, that condemned anyone being targetted because they were a muslims. They called it racial profiling and it was strictly forbidden.

Nonsense. There was an investigation launched into who caused the bombing.

Aside from the early ambiguity about who was responsible, ANY action by Clinton less than a month before the election would have been met with howls of wag the dog and claims that Clinton was trying to give Gore an edge in the election by taking the focus off the candidates and their platforms. Frankly, Clinton bent over backwards to make sure there could be no accusation of using military force to give Gore an edge by making him a VP who was directly involved in national security issues while Bush just appeared to be campaigning and couldn't really take the kind of pot shots at a sitting VP that he otherwise would be able to make.

But once the election was over and the preliminary investigation was conducted, Bush had a clear road to take action. But he didn't do didley. What was his excuse?

 

[francoHFW]

When was cole again lol...

 

[tinydancer]

The video cover story with a "spontaneous" protest was a complete and utter lie.

Ham, Panetta, Dempsey and an untold number of senior Pentagon officials have testified that they knew shortly after the attack began that this was a terrorist attack.

This is on record. The Administration knew this was a terrorist attack and yet they went out and lied repeatedly.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

The mental gymnastics that you Obama supporters are forced to perform trying to come up with excuses for the lies that were told to the American people by this Administration are a hoot to watch, Boo. Now it's a "mob riot" following the attack by an extremist militia that killed our Ambassador? So where did the extremist militia go? You seem to think that they went home and THEN a mob upset about a video suddenly appeared and killed our Ambassador? Your attempts at coming up with a plausible explanation for the lies have officially reached the point of FARCE with that scenario!

The only thing they got wrong was there was no protest in front of the Building before the attack started.

Why do you continue to peddle this obvious lie? The facts are well known. Everyone on the ground knew instantly it was a planned attack. They communicated that information up the chain. Everyone in the administration who was privy knew that as well. And yet they lied for weeks about it afterwards.

 

[francoHFW]

The video cover story with a "spontaneous" protest was a complete and utter lie.

Ham, Panetta, Dempsey and an untold number of senior Pentagon officials have testified that they knew shortly after the attack began that this was a terrorist attack.

This is on record. The Administration knew this was a terrorist attack and yet they went out and lied repeatedly.

bs- They said they THOUGHT it was a terrorist attack or at least an act of terror or an attack. lol. Two days later, of course, Rice knew more. And 4 days ago, our intel is even SURER of the SAME THING. NICE TRY RUNNING OVER TO THIS THREAD LOL...

Feb 23, 2014- ''RICE: First of all, there's an FBI investigation, which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that's-- that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation.''

Susan Rice Calls Out Conservative Media: It's "Patently False" That Administration Misled On Benghazi | Blog | Media Matters for America

ALSO LYING, THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN, NEW DELHI TIMES, THE China News Service, EVERYONE BUT the bought off charalatans of Murdoch, Moon, the Kochs, Adelson etc etc etc. Seriously, how dumb can dupes get...the 20 percent TOTAL HATER DUPES...

HA HA

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush "got" that it was a war? How so? I ask because he sure didn't do shit about it after coming into office. In fact, Bush didn't even do squat about the bombing of the USS Cole which happened less than a full month before the election. Further more, Bush appeared to be so incredibly unfocused on the threat from al Qaeda that Condi Rice was actually scheduled to give a speech on SDI on the day of the attack in response to what she and others in the administration perceived as a continuing threat from the former Soviet Union which no longer existed as a political entity. In other words, the Bush folks were focused on continuing to fight the Cold War which had ended a decade before. I guess that's what happens when you appoint an expert on Russia and the Soviet Union to the post of NSA instead of someone else whose expertise was on terrorism or other newer threats.

The USS Cole bombing happened on Ot 12, 2002 and Bush did not take office until Jan 20, 2001. It was Clinton's responsibility to 'do something' about it or give a plan of action to Bush.

Since you are guessing, I will mention that the Al Queda operatives were in the US, some of them taking pilot training, well before Bush took office. I remember the PC policy in place at the time, established by the Clinton administration, that condemned anyone being targetted because they were a muslims. They called it racial profiling and it was strictly forbidden.

Nonsense. There was an investigation launched into who caused the bombing.

Aside from the early ambiguity about who was responsible, ANY action by Clinton less than a month before the election would have been met with howls of wag the dog and claims that Clinton was trying to give Gore an edge in the election by taking the focus off the candidates and their platforms. Frankly, Clinton bent over backwards to make sure there could be no accusation of using military force to give Gore an edge by making him a VP who was directly involved in national security issues while Bush just appeared to be campaigning and couldn't really take the kind of pot shots at a sitting VP that he otherwise would be able to make.

But once the election was over and the preliminary investigation was conducted, Bush had a clear road to take action. But he didn't do didley. What was his excuse?

So you're saying Clinton deliberately took actions that endangered Americans for political gain? Yeah, probably true.
Of course he failed to do much about any of the other terrorist incidents, the African bombings, the first WTC bombing, etc. So I think you're lying here.

 

[tinydancer]

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

The mental gymnastics that you Obama supporters are forced to perform trying to come up with excuses for the lies that were told to the American people by this Administration are a hoot to watch, Boo. Now it's a "mob riot" following the attack by an extremist militia that killed our Ambassador? So where did the extremist militia go? You seem to think that they went home and THEN a mob upset about a video suddenly appeared and killed our Ambassador? Your attempts at coming up with a plausible explanation for the lies have officially reached the point of FARCE with that scenario!

The only thing they got wrong was there was no protest in front of the Building before the attack started.

The White House aka The Home of the Whopper didn't get anything wrong. They lied.

 

[tinydancer]

The video cover story with a "spontaneous" protest was a complete and utter lie.

Ham, Panetta, Dempsey and an untold number of senior Pentagon officials have testified that they knew shortly after the attack began that this was a terrorist attack.

This is on record. The Administration knew this was a terrorist attack and yet they went out and lied repeatedly.

bs- They said they THOUGHT it was a terrorist attack or at least an act of terror or an attack. lol. Two days later, of course, Rice knew more. And 4 days ago, our intel is even SURER of the SAME THING. NICE TRY RUNNING OVER TO THIS THREAD LOL...

Feb 23, 2014- ''RICE: First of all, there's an FBI investigation, which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that's-- that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation.''

Susan Rice Calls Out Conservative Media: It's "Patently False" That Administration Misled On Benghazi | Blog | Media Matters for America

ALSO LYING, THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN, NEW DELHI TIMES, THE China News Service, EVERYONE BUT the bought off charalatans of Murdoch, Moon, the Kochs, Adelson etc etc etc. Seriously, how dumb can dupes get...the 20 percent TOTAL HATER DUPES...

HA HA

Charlotte Lamb was the woman who was listening to the audio live and in real time.

General Ham knew it was a terrorist attack. Panetta knew it was a terrorist attack. General Dempsey knew it was a terrorist attack.

There was no protest. It's all a lie perpetrated by the White House. Rice is in CYA mode. As well she should be.

Hey knock yourself out though.

Because basically what you are saying is that all these top Generals, the Secretary of Defense, and all these senior Pentagon officials are lying when they testified that this was without a doubt a terrorist attack.

And they testified that they knew it immediately.

 

[BlindBoo]

You understand it's a war, right? It isn't like muggers in a city. That's what made Bush so brilliant and Clinton and Obama so stupid. They dont' get that part.

Bush "got" that it was a war? How so? I ask because he sure didn't do shit about it after coming into office. In fact, Bush didn't even do squat about the bombing of the USS Cole which happened less than a full month before the election. Further more, Bush appeared to be so incredibly unfocused on the threat from al Qaeda that Condi Rice was actually scheduled to give a speech on SDI on the day of the attack in response to what she and others in the administration perceived as a continuing threat from the former Soviet Union which no longer existed as a political entity. In other words, the Bush folks were focused on continuing to fight the Cold War which had ended a decade before. I guess that's what happens when you appoint an expert on Russia and the Soviet Union to the post of NSA instead of someone else whose expertise was on terrorism or other newer threats.

The USS Cole bombing happened on Ot 12, 2002 and Bush did not take office until Jan 20, 2001. It was Clinton's responsibility to 'do something' about it or give a plan of action to Bush.

Since you are guessing, I will mention that the Al Queda operatives were in the US, some of them taking pilot training, well before Bush took office. I remember the PC policy in place at the time, established by the Clinton administration, that condemned anyone being targetted because they were a muslims. They called it racial profiling and it was strictly forbidden.

The DoD's investigation wasn't complete until Jan, 2001. But you're right Clinton should have told the Israelis and Palestinians to solve their own fucking problems and acted against al Qaeda and the Taliban. If he had we might not have been saddled with President Bushes monumental strategic blunder in the ME.

Clintons' plan of action was ignored by the incoming Bush people. However, it was carried out following 9-11-2001.