Contradicting Bill President Bush says Clinton placed little emphasis on terrorism

Interestingly, this jives EXACTLY with the Richard Clarke tape that Jim Angle turned up!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

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.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. 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 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.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then 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.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. 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.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

It depends on which President you ask.

Tough decision. The straight shooter or the convicted perjurer.

Let's see:

1. I broke a long stand gentleman's agree between the two parties, when in 1992, instead of staying out of the news during the Republican Convention, I shamelessly did everything I could to steal news coverage.

2. After using the liberal media to my greatest advantage, I was elected. During my inaguartion all the sound equipment was stolen, hundreds of thousands worth.

3. Within days of taking office I set out to inflict division in the military by promoting homosexuals under a thinly-disguised program. My wife used White House miltary staff as her own personal bell-hops.

4. The people I employed all had a particular distaste for the miltary and Secret Service. We are documented to have our lovely daughter refer to these people as "pigs."

5. Whenever it suited me, I used military backdrops to make me look patriotic. Of course my staff stole things like robes and other memorabilia off that air craft carrier, he he.

6. My best lying was only begining. Hell, I had the press eating out of my hand. Like at all those White House press conferences. That same ones where guys like Dan Rather said he loved my wife and I.

7. When I really screwed up, like not providing armor to those guys in Somalia, someone else too the blame. Same was true when we toasted those people in Waco.

8. I did a great job of denying that terrorism existed, even threw people off with all that militia and Limabught stuff. Of course that broad from Oklahoma almost got an Iraq connection. But none of my buddies in the press will follow up.

9. Osama? Hell, he was a tough one. And when I wasn't thinkin about Monica, I worked harder than I ever did trying to catch him.

What, you saw those drone photos? You heard me tell an audience that I couldn't take him from those that offered to turn him over?

He, he. That wasn't me, man. It musta been Bush!

If I were Bush, I'd have added that clinton is also a rapist and traitor and see if TIME would quote that too.

Yes. But the Administration should NOT be disparaging Ashcroft for releasing the Gorelick memos. Rather GWB should be vocal about her and her involvement.

Agree completely. The President always takes the high road and gets skewered by the Rats for doing so. I get so upset with his focusing on good intentions such that he loses in the PR wars. I suspect its his belief in the Lord and the idea that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But it still infuriates me that he does strike back more often than he does.

My own interpretation of President Bush's saying to the early-departing Kerrey, "Keep your spirits up": Bush's facts had just demolished Kerrey's accusations about the administration. Bush's remark could very well have been, "Cheer up, Kerrey!"

BINGO!

Time would have to publish a special edition.

When given the choice as to who is lying, will the American people choose Clinton, the Impeached Prevaricator, or Bush?

Introducing Bill Clinton perjurer-in-chief, the titular head of all law enforcement in the country ... sworn to uphold the laws of the nation who never felt the law of the land applied specifically to him, or, those closest to him in the democ"Rat" party.

very funny

Clinton's concern about terrorism in 1996.

Symbolism or substance?

On post six I linked the terrorism bill passed in 1996.

Yes. But the Administration should NOT be disparaging Ashcroft for releasing the Gorelick memos.

Maybe the Whitehouse had plans to use the memos in a manner that did not include public disclosure. I can imagine a scenario where some deputy undersecretary's aide has a private conversation with the commission members vis-a-vis the memos. It actually might have had more impact on the commission to do it privately than to allow the biased media to run interference for them. Usual human nature is to fear the unknown more than the known. If it had been done as a private matter, the commission members would fear what might happen if it became public.

So Kerrey frolics on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Kean yuks it up with Imus.

I cannot take these clowns seriously.

I intended to post my belief that the left-right divide is well beyond settling peacefully but I guess these matters are just things to amuse our "ruling class." They do not respect us as citizens. We are just an audience to be entertained. I am going to take some rotten tomatoes with me from now on when I vote.

I beg to differ. Clinton spent an immense amount of time thinking about terrorizing women.

Hysterical!!!!

I can't believe President Bush said that to Kerrey as he departed. I think it was a shot across the bow; Bush knows Kerrey left disappointed...

The fact is that Bush rarely uses the words "Clinton" or "previous administration". The same can't be said of the Clintons. That's honor exhibited in two short sentences.

I believe Bush'll bring out the heavy artillery if Hillary is "pushed" into the campaign (ha - "pushed"!), but until then, there's no need to get stuck in the past; it's the future that's important, and I want one.

How much of a warning did Bill Clinton give incoming President George W. Bush that Osama bin Laden posed a grave danger?

My theory on this has always been that as Willard handed over the keys to the front door to the WH on inauguration day (figuratively speaking of course), Willard mumbled something to the effect of;

"George by the way, there's this Bin Laden guy, you might want to check him out. See ya George, I have a party to go to - lots of chicks there. Oh, and you might want to clean that sink in the Oval Office study real good (snicker-snicker), ta-ta."

Any 'sources' willing to talk to Time are not to be believed!

Interesting take on the issue. However, I don't think this administration is into this type of devious manipulation. They appear to be much more straight forward in their actions.

The Clinton's were too busy gutting the White House to make a useful transition. I bet Clinton was also light on information as to hopefully help G. Bush fall on his face. The last administration was as condescending as any I have seen.

This is even funnier . . .

The following is the "official" Clintonista re-write of pre-9/11 history being passed around the internet (I don't pretend that the Bush team deserves an A+ for counterterrorism efforts pre-9/11, but this assessment is riddled with errors, peppered with lies, full of omissions, and tied up with wishful thinking. Clinton did a lot of talking, sometimes committed things to paper, but failed to implement, failed to follow through, and did everything possible to sweep the terrorism problem under the rug):

Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton

President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition.

-- Clinton sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism

-- Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Of Clinton's efforts Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism says: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort"

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001: -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger and Louis Freeh about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed Clinton for 9/11.