On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”
In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”
In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.
This has all the smell of Clinton's people cutting the rug out from under Berger's feet & focusing all the blame and finger pointing at Berger. Now we know why Clinton was laughing.
And here I sat and watched an entire press conference yesterday from the 911 commission, and though this was in their report, not one of those shlubs thought it important to mention?
Where was bubba? Last I heard, the president made these types of desicons.
COMMANDER-in-Chief vs. National Security ADVISOR
"No" may be written in the margins [if this report is accurate] but the question remains:
Whose draft is it written on & whose handwriting/initials are beside it?