Now comes Anonymous who writes:
"bin Laden determined to strike"..............
That was ignored when WHO? was President?
Now in the context of the article, I really don't know. But since the fact that 9/11/01 was during Bush's first term, the snarky intent of the know nothing question is clear. I would mention that Clinton was President for 8 years, and Bush had been President for not quite 8 months, but such facts never seem to penetrate the minds of someone who ask such dumb questions, so I must resort to facts and links.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
In case Anon has forgotten, Clarke was Clinton's NSA, so I think he would know. And that point is very damning, don't you think? No plan after 8 years, WTC I, US embassies being blown up, USS Cole hit...etc.....????? But let's go on.
(Clarke) And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent
So Clinton had no plan, but they had a strategy. Now remember. A strategy is not a plan. They did have a policy. And the Bush Administration decided immediately to pursue that policy. And...
(Clarke)And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
So here we have the Bush Admninistration taking action within two weeks that the Clintons had let lie for 8 years. Do you like that?? No? I thought you would be grumpy. Have some more.
(Clarke)And then (Bush)changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
The above come from this article/
Now, much has been made of the PBA of 8/8/01 in which Bush was told about the threat, but in which he appeared to pay little attention. Did you ever think it was because he already knew about it? Read the following. It quotes Condi Rice:
(Clarke)"At the special meeting on July 5(2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
Well, well. Thirty four days before 8/8/01 and about two months before 9/11, we have Bush's NSA calling all the troops together and given them a warning of a clear and present danger.... Did it work? No.
But don't give me this sh*t that Bush's administration, and Bush, wasn't doing anything. And no charge for the education.
And if you really want to scratch your head, we have this March 1997 interview with bin Ladin by CNN's (then) Peter Arnnet. It follows.
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
That is as clear a declaration of war against the US as could be, yet the Clinton Administration chose to ignore it. Why such gross ignorance??
That is the question, dear Anon. Why such ignorance??? Both then, and now by those
on the Left who think we can do business with such people.
Well, well. Thirty four days before 8/8/01 and about two months before 9/11, we have Bush's NSA calling all the troops together and given them a warning of a clear and present danger....
ReplyDeleteSupposedly, just after a CIA briefer presents President Bush the later infamous PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”(see August 6, 2001), Bush tells the briefer, “You’ve covered your ass, now.” This account is according to journalist Ron Suskind, whose 2006 book “The One Percent Doctrine”And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer. ‘All right,’ he said. ‘You’ve covered your ass, now.’ [Suskind, 2006, pp. 2; Washington Post, 6/20/2006]
You are correct, telling someone that they've covered their ass isn't the same as ignoring what they presented.
Since you've quoted Richard Clarke so much, let's include this tidbit:
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will later suggest that 9/11 might have been stopped “if [National Security Adviser] Rice and the president had acted personally, gotten involved, shaken the trees, gotten the Cabinet members involved when they had ample warning in June and July and August that something was about to happen.… [Rice] said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al-Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet. She admitted that she didn’t convene the Cabinet. And as some of the [9/11 Commissioners] pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks.” [ABC News, 4/8/2004]
I'm sorry that you find the truth so offensive.
Clarke was selling a book and is pushing speculation.
ReplyDeleteRice's meeting was real.
Clarke's conclusion is speculation, but his observation that they didn't do what the Clinton Admin did in 1999
ReplyDeleteis correct.
As for Ms. Rice, she stated that despite 40 face-to-face meetings about AQ, neither her boss or herself called a Cabinet-level meeting about the matter.
You want to continue along this line?
Perhaps you can't read...
ReplyDeleteShe had the FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Coast Guard, FAA and Immigration, plus the CIA had sent the information.
Yes, I'm happy with that. Perhaps she should have included Treasury... but wait... she had the Secret Service... Justice... well she had the FBI...
You are grasping for straws. Bush has many things to be critical of, but this isn't one of them.
Tell me. Why did Clintonm ignore OBL's warning to Arnett??
You can't deny the basic facts I stated, other than to make a snarky comment on my reading ability, which of course negates all that I wrote that contradicts your version of reality.
ReplyDeleteYou are grasping for straws. Bush has many things to be critical of, but this isn't one of them.
Really?
The Commission recalls, “The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al-Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said bin Laden had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way (see August 6, 2001). As best he could recollect, [National Security Adviser] Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis’ surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence (see May 30, 2001). He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.” The 9/11 Commission will conclude that they could find no evidence of any further discussions or actions taken by Bush and his top advisers in response to the briefing (see Between August 6 and September 10, 2001)
and, as a former CIA man noted:
Former CIA official Larry Johnson will similarly comment, “At a minimum, the details in the 6 August PDB should have motivated Rice to convene a principals’ meeting. Such a meeting would have ensured that all members of the president’s national security team were aware of the information that had been shared with the president. George Bush should have directed the different department heads to report back within one week on any information relevant to the al-Qaeda threat. Had he done this there is a high probability that the FBI field agents concerns about Arabs taking flight training would have rung some bells. There is also a high probability that the operations folks at CIA would have shared the information they had in hand about the presence of al-Qaeda operators in the United States.” [Tom Paine (.com), 4/12/2004] There will be one cabinet-level principals meeting to discuss terrorism on September 4, 2001, but no evidence has been released suggesting the PDB or the possibility of al-Qaeda attacking the US was discussed
As for Clinton, he has stated his regret several times at not doing enough to get OBL, whereas GWB has said:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
heh - I understand that Larry Johnson will always find something to attack the Bush administration about, it is his new career....
ReplyDeleteAnyway you slice it you can't hide the fact that Bush was taking action, as the 7/5 meeting shows.
That he got angry with a CIA briefing that contained no additional information and was just what he called it, a CYA probably ordered after the 7/5 meeting showed that Rice was putting everyone on notice is not surprising.
You also can't deny what Clarke said in his interview on Fox. He was clear that their was no plan, and Bush started working on the issue within days of his swearing in.
If you are determined to assign blame, you should start with an FBI that wouldn't look at a hard drive and an infamous "chiense firewall" memo that came out of the Clinton Justice Department.
In meantime:
Why did Clinton ignore the interview??
Why didn't Clinton arrest OBL when he had a chance?
Clinton let it slide and people died...