Rumsfeld Says Administration Focused on Terrorism From Outset

American Forces Press Service ^ | March 23, 2004 | By Kathleen T. Rhem

[Calpernia]

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld joined other high-ranking officials in the Bush administration March 22 in disputing claims made by a former White House counterterrorism official.

Former antiterrorism chief Richard Clarke alleges in a new book and has said in interviews that President Bush and his advisers were slow to recognize the threat posed by al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and were too preoccupied with attacking Iraq to respond appropriately after the attacks.

"The (National Security Council) began the process of working through a plan to deal with al Qaeda from the early days of the administration," Rumsfeld said outside the Pentagon March 22. The secretary spoke briefly to media representatives while welcoming Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to the building.

He specifically pushed back at comments from Clarke regarding Iraq. Rumsfeld explained that the United States had concrete reasons to focus on Iraq even in the early days of the administration.

"We were having our planes shot at on a regular basis in Operation(s) Northern Watch and Southern Watch," he said. "We were concerned about the fact that that was the one place on the face of the Earth where a country, in this case Iraq, was firing on aircrews of the United States and the United Kingdom that were enforcing U.N. resolutions.

"So there's no question that there was discussion about Iraq, and it was in that context," he added.

In his brief remarks, Rumsfeld described his own personal drive to combat terrorism, noting he was an envoy to the Middle East when 241 U.S. Marines were killed in a 1983 terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

"I've been interested in and concerned about and involved in one way or another in the problems of terrorism," he said.

He also reminded reporters of his focus immediately after returning to the Pentagon for his second stint as defense secretary. Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, Rumsfeld's main task was to transform the U.S. military forces "from being capable of dealing with just armies, navies and air forces" to focusing more on "asymmetrical threats, including terrorism," the secretary said.

"That has been a focus of ours from the outset."

Rumsfeld is expected to testify today before the federal commission investigating terrorist attacks on the United States.

[Enduring Freedom]

GO RUMMY!

[Calpernia]

"The (National Security Council) began the process of working through a plan to deal with al Qaeda from the early days of the administration," Rumsfeld said outside the Pentagon March 22. The secretary spoke briefly to media representatives while welcoming Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to the building.

Private Mail to be added to or removed from the GNFI (or Pro-Coalition) ping list.

[sheltonmac]

"The (National Security Council) began the process of working through a plan to deal with al Qaeda from the early days of the administration," Rumsfeld said...

Huh?

[bolobaby]

Here's what I love about this whole argument...

Earlier, the demonrats were complaining that the Bush administration was focusing TOO MUCH on terror and not enough on the economy. Now that the economy is improving, they are complaining that the Bush administration didn't focus enough on terror.

Disingenuous? Yep.

Typical? You betcha.

[JohnGalt]

Seeing as the United States was sending money to the Taliban government as late as May 2001 in exchange for "cracking down on the opium trade", I can't say this statement makes much sense.

[stylin_geek]

I'm thinking Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter will be writing about Richard Clarke in the near future. Should make for quite the amusing bloodletting. Perhaps Mr. Hitchens might have something to say, too.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

SOD Rumsfeld, what do you have to say about this latest

campaign from the Clinton gang-led DNC, John F. Kerry

(Vietnam Veteran, unpopular with his peers), anti-American

Old Europe, greedy NGOs who appease terrorists (+ UN),

and their mainstream PR agents?

 

"Don't believe it.  That and a buck fifty get you a ride on the subway."

 

Why would Bill Clinton wait until Dec. 19, 2000, the day after the Electoral College elected George W. Bush, to march to the UN and ask Kofi and co. to slap new, harsher sanctions on the Taliban in Afghanistan if they didn't hand over Bin Laden - which the UN promptly, and with no fanfare from their allies in the newsmedia, voted to do - agreeing to give the Taliban a thirty-day grace period, long enough for Clinton to skip out the back door of the White House, just in time for Pres. Bush's Inaugeration Day?

[joesnuffy]

Nice speech...but with our borders wide open and millions of illegal aliens, narco terrorists with Mexican Army security teams making unchecked incursions on US soil...

Its a lot like a politican making a great moving speech...with his fly open

[Calpernia]

Wow. I wonder how Ted Carpenter managed to interpret Taliban funding from here.

[blackie]

Rumsfeld ~ Bump!

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

[Calpernia]

Yeah, this initiative must all be smoke and mirrors.

[Coop]

If this attack of Clarke's is indicative of what the Dems will be offering throughout the campaign, they are in BIG trouble. Weak!

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[Coop]

Seeing as the United States was sending money to the Taliban government as late as May 2001 in exchange for "cracking down on the opium trade", I can't say this statement makes much sense.

Right or wrong, cracking down on the opium trade reduces Al Qaeda's funding. Makes sense to me.

[Coop]

Seeing as the United States was sending money to the Taliban government as late as May 2001 in exchange for "cracking down on the opium trade", I can't say this statement makes much sense.

So you're advocating the SecDef take over border patrol?

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS

[sheltonmac]

Right or wrong, cracking down on the opium trade reduces Al Qaeda's funding. Makes sense to me.

Well, then one could argue that al Qaeda is more of a threat now...

Afghanistan Opium Production at Highest Levels
Heroin Smuggling on the Rise in Afghanistan
U.N. Fearing Higher Opium Production in Afghanistan

[Coop]

If that were its only source of funding, and if funding were the only measure of effectiveness, absolutely.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

United States Department of Defense. News Transcript On the web: http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040322-secdef1303.html Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact: http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html or +1 (703) 428-0711

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

Monday, March 22, 2004 5:30 p.m. EST

---

Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability at Honor Cordon

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: We had good discussions and had a chance to review the progress being made and I must say that I find the progress being made in Colombia to be impressive. The leadership there is focused and determined and courageous and has my respect and admiration.

 

Q. Mr. Secretary could you comment on the importance of increasing the number of military personnel in Colombia?

 

RUMSFELD: Well that is a question being considered by the Colombian government and the United States government and the Department of State and the Congress. There are a lot of people in discussions now and we’ll see what finally comes out.

 

URIBE: And I want to thank Secretary Rumsfeld for your continuing help to Colombia.

 

Q. Mr. Secretary others in the administration spoke out today [inaudible] the very beginning this administration did not understand or fully address the threat from terrorism or al Qaida. How would you answer that?

 

RUMSFELD: Well I think that any number of people in the administration responded to that and have answered it. Clearly having been the Middle East Envoy after the Marines were killed in Beirut, Lebanon in the 1980’s I’ve been interested in and concerned about and involved in one way or another in the problems of terrorism and you should remember that above all when we came into this Pentagon three years ago we began the process of helping the department move from being capable of dealing with just armies navies and air forces and focusing more on the asymmetrical threats including terrorism. That has been a focus of ours from the outset. The work, as Condi Rice mentioned this morning, the NSC began the process of working through a plan to deal with al Qaida from the early days of the administration and so it seems to me…the comments that struck me as unusual are the ones about Iraq. Because if you think about it, we were having our planes shot at on a regular basis in Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch. We’re concerned about the fact that that was the one place on the face of the earth where a country, in this case Iraq, was firing on the aircrews of the United States and the United Kingdom that were enforcing UN resolutions. So there’s no question that there was discussion about Iraq and it was in that context.

 

Q. Mr. Clarke alleges that you were pushing to bomb Iraq immediately after 9/11 in response to that attack.

 

RUMSFELD: I think you’re mistaken. I can remember, in fact I said publicly in a press briefing, that – I think the way I put it was – someone asked about targets in Afghanistan and I said: “we’re not running out of targets, Afghanistan is.” I think I said something to that effect. The problem was that if you think about Afghanistan is that it had years of being damaged through civil war, through occupation by the Soviet Union, through drought and there were relatively few terrorist targets that one could go after from the air. That’s why we immediately began the pressure to put forces on the ground and I can certainly remember saying that Afghanistan did not have many targets because at some point when you dealt with the terrorist training camps you begin to just go back at them and bounce in the rubble and that doesn’t accomplish much in fact the cross benefit of that is notably adverse to the United States.

 

RUMSFELD: I’m a little cold. I’ll take one last question.

 

Q [Inaudible] Mr. Secretary others in the Administration have spoken out today -- [blank spot] -- from the very beginning this Administration did not understand or fully address the question of terrorism and al Qaida. How would you answer that?

 

RUMSFELD: That’s just not true. I mean the fact of the matter is the President decided to go into Afghanistan, we did. It was an enormously successful activity it took a relatively short period of time. The al Qaida training camps were destroyed, pressure was put on the al Qaida and the Taliban was thrown out of power and we now have a success story in Afghanistan with a new government, a new constitution and elections to be held later this year. That’s obviously what took place. I can’t speak for everyone in the building, it is true we were talking about the fact our planes were being shot at in Iraq but in terms of connecting it the way some seem to want to do it seems to me would be a misunderstanding of the situation.

 

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040322-secdef1303.html