It is you who should be more critical of your fact checking rather than so critical and insulting of your fellow posters. Your next post to me is a piece of trash and I shall respond shortly.
As for the York article - He was QUOTING Richard Clarke. Do you not believe Clarke said these things? I myself do not put much stock into what Clarke says, but to you it seems like gospel:
A reporter asked: Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to
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 dont 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.