Effectively you're arguing about what the definition of *IS* is.
Welcome to DC.
Do I think they presented something to her. Sure. Do I think they considered it a comprehensive plan, no.
And there is others who enjoy this little semantic game
"I think Condi Rice has at least an arguable case that it's short of a plan," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a security analyst at the Brookings Institution.
Mr. O'Hanlon called Mr. Clarke's memorandums a set of "very dry data points. There's not a heightened sense of, 'Now our homeland is at risk.' "
But Matthew Levitt, who was an F.B.I. counterterrorism analyst in 2001, disagreed. He called the 13-page strategy memorandum "a pretty disturbing document."
Mr. Levitt, now director of terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that whether the document constitutes a "plan," as Mr. Clarke averred and Dr. Rice denied, is "a semantic debate." But he said the experience of reading the original documents for the first time Friday left him with a strong impression of the danger Al Qaeda posed.
So is it a lie or a version of truth that you disagree with?
Yes this is semantics.
And in the end, this "plan" wouldn't have done a damned thing. Even the guy who wrote it said so. So regardless of which side of the truth your on, it really doesn't matter.
Todd has brought out some of the better ones, though. Becasue some of these were used to prep for the war. Hang her for those.