Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism Rice Speech (planned for 9/11) Cited Missile Defense

Washington Post ^ | April 1, 2004 | Robin Wright

[FairOpinion]

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The White House declined to release the complete text of Rice's speech, since it was not given. The White House did confirm the accuracy of excerpts given to The Post, and former U.S. officials provided a detailed summary of the speech.

"The president's commitment to fighting terrorism isn't measured by the number of speeches, but by the concrete actions taken to fight the threat," said James R. Wilkinson, deputy national security adviser for communications, when asked about the speech. "The first major foreign policy directive of this administration was the new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda that the White House ordered soon after taking office. It was eliminating al Qaeda, not missile defense, not Iraq, and not the [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty," he said.

Rice's text noted that Bush appointed Cheney to oversee a coordinated national effort to protect against a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction. At the time, the U.S. concern about terror was heavily focused on Iraq and rogue states, and missile defense was viewed as a weapon against that terrorism -- a different interpretation of the leading threats and responses that would take hold after jetliners hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

[FairOpinion]

This is the article Drudge was referring to earlier.

So now the Washington Post is trying to portray, that just because Rice was giving a speech on another topic, not terrorism, means that Bush was not focused on terrorism.

When in fact from an earlier WP article:

"Rice, by this account, thought "the last administration had made a major mistake after the embassy bombings by saying we're going to war on terrorism and then not doing it. And she thought it would be much better to take the reverse tack, which was to say nothing and do it."

A Strategy’s Cautious Evolution

[FairOpinion]

As a separate link, the WP also has the specific Rice excerpts -- looks like they are trying to twist what Rice said -- she did recognize the threat of terrorism, unlike the way the WP is trying to represent it. She was pointing out the dangers of both terrorism and long range missiles. And she was right -- just think of N. Korea and how they have been also selling those missiles to other rogue nations.

Here is the link to the excerpts obtained by the WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40579-2004Mar31.html

"And that is why in May the president appointed Vice President Cheney to oversee a coordinated national effort to better protect the U.S. homeland against a terror attack using WMD. But why not missile defenses as well?

"Why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open? At the end of the day, do we really want to choose a course of action that gambles with America's security by choosing not to explore the additional measure of security that limited missile defenses could provide?"

[FairOpinion]

Clearly Bush planning to appoint Vice PresidentCheney to oversee and coordinate a national effort against terrorism shows that he indeed put the proper high importance on it.

[tallhappy]

...missile defense was viewed as a weapon against that terrorism -- a different interpretation of the leading threats and responses that would take hold after jetliners hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Interesting. Remember right after 911 the lib establishment began a drumbeat about how we do not need missile defense and that somehow that was proven by 911.

Looks like they want to dredge up that again in time for the Kerry peas and love brigade of 2004.

[MNJohnnie]

Boy they just will not let it go. The American people have demonstrated OVERWHELMINGLY in every poll that they do not buy the DNC directed "News Media" smear job on Bush yet they still cannot give up their desperate hope to find SOME way to hurt Bush with these slanders. But I guess if they want to keep Clarke sucking all the oxygen out of the Kerry campaign, more power to them. They just have not stumbled over the secret. The average American doesn't really care what happened BEFORE 9-11. They are desperately concerned with what has happened SINCE 9-11 and what will happen in the future. EVEN if EVERY one of Clarke's slanders magically was proven, the average American would say "WEll SO WHAT?" Sorry, but no one likes or respects the Monday Morning Quarterback.

[FairOpinion]

And if N. Korea would succeed in launching a nuclear missile and oblitarate LA, the liberals would be saying that Bush didn't pay enough attention to missile defense.

Of course the Democrats were the ones who were against us withdrawing from the ABM treaty, which was precluding us from developing defenses against missiles, even AFTER Putin agreed and said he had no problem with our withdrawal.

[piasa]

More incoming rat droppings...

[FairOpinion]

"They are desperately concerned with what has happened SINCE 9-11 and what will happen in the future. "

Exactly.

Dick Morris wrote an article saying that this whole thing just brings terrorism in the forefront, and no matter what, the Dems can't beat Bush on that issue.

[MNJohnnie]

They are desperately concerned with what has happened SINCE 9-11 and what will happen in the future. "

Exactly.


Not only that, the only people who demand perfection from a US President are his political foes. The American people understand that a President is only human. Too bad our Hysteric Leftist chattering class cannot figure that out.

[jwalsh07]

This is an easy one. Bush simply states that he has a forward looking administration that will not ignore threats anywhere.

Korea has the missiles, China has the missiles. Missile defense is not a luxury in todays world , it is a requirement.

And then let John Kerry and the Slimes and the Post argue that we can only do one thing at a time, which apparently means fighting Al Qa'ida in Tora Bora.

Bush will win that argument every time.

[Howlin]

Just think, we still have John Dean and Bob Woodward's book to go........LOL

I'll post this here, too:

To: Mo1

Dear Mr. Press: Click here for Toon's last National Security Strategy statement from December of 1999.

How much on terrorism do YOU see there?

138 posted on 03/30/2004 5:16:42 PM EST by mewzilla

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[mewzilla]

Dear Mr. Press: Click here for Toon's last National Security Strategy statement from December of 1999.

[MediaMole]

Let's face reality. Until 9/11, terrorism was seen as a sideshow. al qaeda was looked upon as a nuisance that struck in the Middle East and Africa, but wasn't a threat to our fundamental national security.

Even now, a single nuclear missile could kill 100 to 1000 times as many people than the attacks on 9/11.

Nuclear missiles are the only true Weapons of Mass Destruction. We need an effective missile defense. In the long run, rogue states with ICBMs are a far greater threat to our security. If Afghanistan or Iraq had a nuclear-armed ally, we would have been unable to act.

[FairOpinion]

Nuclear missiles are indeed a major threat, and we must be able to defend against them, without a doubt. Clinton cut missile defense funding to almost nothing. Bush pulled us out of the obsolete ABM treaty, got Putin to agree to it, and is putting a lot of effort into fielding that capability ASAP.

All that said, while nobody expected 9-11, the Bush administration did focus on terrorist threat immediatly upon taking office, they just didn't know, as nobody did, that the threat was imminent.

This just underlines what Bush said,that we can't afford to wait until the threat becomes imminent, we must pre-empt it.

[My2Cents]

That the Bush Administration was fully in favor of missle defense in 2001 is not a mystery. That missle defense completely displaced any consideration of terrorism is a blantant and blind assumption.

[My2Cents]

The American people have demonstrated OVERWHELMINGLY in every poll that they do not buy the DNC directed "News Media" smear job on Bush yet they still cannot give up

All the Democrats have are lies. They haven't given up on this one because they haven't latched onto a new one just yet.

Actually, their tenacity in holding onto a tactic that is not working shows both a high degree of inflexibility on the part of the Democrats (and their media lapdogs), and also a tremendous amount of arrogance. On the latter point, I think they keep pounding away on this 9/11 delusion believing that "The American people are surely stupid enough to buy this; we just need to pound on it some more."

[FairOpinion]

The Democrats want to keep looking back, instead of forward, trying to hamper our efforts to fight the NEXT attack.


Terrorists could target SE Asia shipping lanes with ‘crude nuclear device'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1109119/posts

Al Qaeda website urges attacks on Canada
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1109122/posts

And if AQ has a nuclear device, they can set it off here in the US too. The Dems are more interested in grilling our key people publicly, than in letting them do their best to foil the next attack.

[My2Cents]

The Dems are more interested in making political points than winning the darned war! They are visionless, souless, and ruthless in their pursuit of power. Consequently, they are dangerous to the welfare of every American. I'm still thinking that by election day, around 60% of the voters will have figured this out.

[An.American.Expatriate]

former U.S. officials

Clarke & O'Niel??? Who else would have had detailed knowledge of the speech?

[cyncooper]

That's what I was going to point out. I had linked this MSNBC article on another thread where someone had heard CBS radio news cover this latest drummed up story. I then checked to make sure this article had its own thread.

I, too, picked up on the reference to "former officials". It certainly read like the Clarke faction (and we can imagine who makes up that team) have decided to release select excerpts and then spin this, big time.

The White House declined to release the complete text of Rice's speech, since it was not given. The White House did confirm the accuracy of excerpts given to The Post, and former U.S. officials provided a detailed summary of the speech.

And anyone reading the entire article, even the select excerpts given by these "former officials" shows Rice was set to refer to acts of terror as a threat.

[mabelkitty]

They'll find out the hard way - when CNN goes blank; when CBSABCNBC eliminates news from thier line up in favor of more lucrative sitcom programming; when the Air America dies (though it will stay afloat by private cash just to save face); when France's new government starts kissing up to us again, which, by the way, has already started.

Any number of events that will line up at exactly the right time and send the Left into a fourth dimension.