Now this is something i've been commenting on her for years. About how the incoming bush Administration downplayed counterterrorism in favor of SDI and dismissed Clinton and Sandy Berger as "being obsessed with Osama" when both Berger and Richard Clarke tried to warn them on the growing danger of Al queda. And how the Bush Administration downgraded counter terror from a Cabinet level position. As per "9/11: The Secret History" and other reports.

Plus i've documented her how the Congressional Republicans opposed many of Clinton's counter terror bills and even when Clinton tried to hit one of Osama's camps. "Wag the dog" they said. That was Clinton's Pre-9/11 mindset.

That phrase "pre-9/11 mindset" gets thrown around a lot, in conservative neocon circles especially. Well, here's a clear view of John McCain's pre-9/11 mindset, from a 1998 Mother Jones interview:

 Quote:
You not only have had combat experience in Vietnam, but you were also a prisoner of war. When you look at terrorism right now, with people like Osama bin Laden, do you have any reservations about watching strikes like that?

You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before. And where there is a parallel with Vietnam is: What's plan B? What do we do next? We sent our troops into Vietnam to protect the bases. Lyndon Johnson said, Only to protect the bases. Next thing you know.... Well, we've [under Clinton - whomod] declared to the terrorists that we're going to strike them wherever they live. That's fine. But what's next? That's where there might be some comparison.


Interesting, isn't it? Well, what do we do next, Sen. McCain? Ready to spill your "secret plan" yet? This goes to the heart of not only McCain's judgement, but given the fact that Clinton was on the ball and saw Osama as a much bigger threat than John McCain, the Republicans, and George Bush did back in 2000, this goes to the heart of Republican judgement in general. The quote is undeniable. McCain says that the threat of Al qaeda was overstated by the Clinton Administration. And that was the reaction of the Republicans up until September 11, 2001. Then suddenly they tried to scramble to be the party that is on top of anti-terror and the Dems of being the ones with the pre-9/11 mindset.. Read the TIME article, we fought Al queda after 9/11 with the Clinton/Clarke plan!

 Quote:
In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the [Clarke] proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."


Yes yes, the Cole. Read the TIME article. Yes yes Monica Lewinsky. I'm not saying Clinton didn't have his own personal weaknesses and errors in personal judgment. But in matters of national security, he sure was a lot more prescient than John McCain or George Bush were at the time.

And being the party of terrorism AFTER the fact rather than before, is just flailing and reacting and not of actually having any vision or imagination. Just like being the "regulator" AFTER the economic crisis doesn't hide the long history of being the deregulator beforehand. To be fair, no one could have predicted the scope of 9/11. but it sure would have helped if everyone could have had their eye on the ball and not just came up with catchy slogans and false accusations of being the guys asleep at the switch, after the fact.

To me it just sounds like the way they describe a Rove tactic. Turn your opponents strength into a weakness and turn your weakness into a strength. And from that McCain interview and the TIME article, i see they turned Clinton being "obsessed with Osama" into the Republicans being the party of terrorism and keeping you safe.