Posted on 09/26/2006 6:08:31 AM PDT by teddyballgame
In fact, a 1999 Clarke after-action memo - the one top Clinton aide Sandy Berger later stole from the National Archives - identified national-security weaknesses so "glaring" that only sheer "luck" prevented a cataclysmic attack back then.
And, as Clarke told the 9/11 Commission publicly, there was nothing the Bush administration could have done that would have prevented the attacks.
Sure, he tells a different story now. But that, he admitted, is because of his opposition to the Iraq war, which he believes distracted from the War on Terror.
Secretary Rice was a lot more honest, explaining yesterday that there was no full-scale War on Terror "the way that we're fighting it now" - by either administration - before 9/11: "We just weren't organized as a country, either domestically or as a leader internationally."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
ping
I agree, I think she's MUCH smarter than him. Smart enough not to be hurt by his cunning.
"Back then, he said: "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. . . . [a] plan, strategy - there was no, nothing new."
Indeed, Clarke said, the Bush team in 2001 "changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."
Bush, he added, took action on several "issues that had been on the table for a couple of years," such as instituting a new policy in Pakistan that convinced Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban" and boosting "CIA resources . . . for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda." "
These are very important points from Clintons "expert".
One report said that the stolen papers had to do with Clinton helping Muslims in Serbia and Bosnia.
Those Muslims were Mujahadin from Afghanistan and Chechnya. Clinton took their side against Christians from the former Yugoslavia,
..and the fact that he has a bug up his butt about being passed up on the Homeland Security post...(check the time line and his kerry like flip-flop)
Doogle
"They had eight months to try, [and] they did not try," Clinton shouted. "I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since."......but then I let him go (twice)
"all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now"....."now?" did we have a lull in the attack and are now renewing it?
". . . 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke,"....Could it be the fact that he was a bumbling, incompetent idiot, that couldn't find his own butt with both hands?
I'll bet Condi could kick Bubba's but physically in addition to vocally.
If true, this is hugh! Thank Bubba for digging up this old grave. Maybe you should put some ice on that interview.
I think Bubba has really stepped in it. The Dems are on a full court press (Begala, Carville, Dean) all making the rounds, acting like this is a great rallying cry for them. I don't think so - I think this is puting the spot light clearly on the Clinton Administration's inadequecies on the WOT.
True enough but only part of the story. Presidents come and go but the Congress is forever. They sat idly by while the islamofascists attacked us for 30 years and did nothing but stick their collective thumbs up their collective butts.
Probably the memo itself wasn't important, as what was written on it...something from Clinton like "Well, we sure got lucky! Har, har! Now use this to blame the GOP and show us as tough on terror. Signed, POTUS."
"Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing."
She thinks we're fighting a "full-scale war?"
Now THAT would be a dream debate....Condi and the Slick One! Having Ann Coulter interview him on Fox would be even better!
Now THAT would be a dream debate....Condi and the Slick One! Having Ann Coulter interview him on Fox would be even better!
We already know exactly what Berglar took and why...pay close attention to the last para on the Clarke/Kerrick memo. From Ashcroft's testimony:
The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 — with luck playing a major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.
In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. [My note: AD info?]
Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.
It falls directly into the AD timeline. In that same post, I note that what Sandy Berger stole was the versions of the after action report:
The missing copies, according to Breuer and their author, Richard A. Clarke, the counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration and early in President Bush's administration, were versions of after-action reports recommending changes following threats of terrorism as 1999 turned to 2000. Clarke said he prepared about two dozen ideas for countering terrorist threats. The recommendations were circulated among Cabinet agencies, and various versions of the memo contained additions and refinements, Clarke said last night.
Therefore, they were never provided to the Commission, as evidenced by the Commission Report footnotes (#769):
46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:
Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.
Then the Clarke/Kerrick memo peaked my interest and I found this (#784):
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.
Condi is willing to take a hit and win in the end. Poor Bubba squeals like a stuck pig if his overnight polling numbers drop down a point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.