AND YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION THESE GUYS?

Neal Nuze ^ | 4/6/04 | Neal Boortz

[NotchJohnson]

Let's review.

You are former president Bill Clinton. Your chief anti-terrorism guy, Richard Clarke, says that Al Qaeda was an absolute top priority during the final years of your term. In fact, Richard Clarke writes a book and testifies under oath telling everyone who will listen how focused you were on Al Qaeda while you were president.

So .. it's the end of your eight years in the White House. December, 2000. You are writing a report detailing your views on the major security threats facing the United States as you leave office. The report, which Richard Clarke helped you write, is 45,000 words long. That would be 168 pages using Microsoft Word, and if published as a book it would be about 220 pages long. Now that's quite a lot of words describing what you think are the major security concerns the next president needs to be aware of. And guess what? In all of those 45,000 words you don't mention the name "Al Qaeda" even one time. The greatest security concern facing America; isn't that what Richard Clarke said? And you don't even mention it one time in your report? Richard Clarke says that Condi Rice looked confused when he mentioned Al Qaeda ... but he didn't manage to get any reference to Al Qaeda included in your final report on security threats?

What do you expect the American people to think? No ... wait. I'll tell you what they think. They think Richard Clarke was lying. They think he lied when he said that Al Qaeda was one of your top national security priorities. Now, after hearing this about your final report, they not only think Richard Clarke was lying, now they know he was lying.

Nice going.

[NotchJohnson]

Clintoon was more pissed off at a few agry white guys or maybe some people who were Christian.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
34	Utah	120.00	5	24.00			90.00	4

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[cripplecreek]

"Clintoon was more pissed off at a few agry white guys or maybe some people who were Christian."


I think Louis Freeh will confirm this to be true.

[Enterprise]

Well, lying liars. Screw up badly and point the finger at someone else. I've worked with people like Clarke.

[Alberta's Child]

Does anyone have a link to this document, or at least a thorough summary of it?

[Made In The USA]

Should this story be proven true, can't say that the absurdity of Mr. Clarke / Mr. Clinton's statements about Al Qaeda being a 'top priority' will STILL never be questions by the mainstream media.

Nor will most of the simple minded spoon fed thought processing Americans begin to finally comprehend how much DAMAGE x42 did.

[CheezyD]

The Washington Times has the story.

"The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm

[Maria S]

Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report
By James G. Lakely
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040406-121654-1495r
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 6, 2004

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress -- 45,000 words long -- makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.
Miss Rice, who will testify publicly Thursday before the commission investigating the Bush and Clinton administrations' actions before the September 11 attacks, was criticized last week for planning a speech for September 11, 2001, that called a national missile-defense system a leading security priority.
President Bush yesterday denied the accusation that his administration had made dealing with al Qaeda a low priority.
"Let me just be very clear about this: Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack," Mr. Bush said, adding that after September 11, "the stakes had changed."
"This country immediately went on war footing, and we went to war against al Qaeda. It took me very little time to make up my mind," he said. "Once I determined al Qaeda [did] it, [I said], 'We're going to go get them.' And we have, and we're going to keep after them until they're brought to justice and America is secure."
Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will meet with the commission in the coming weeks behind closed doors, but a date has not been set. Meanwhile, the president said he looks forward to hearing Miss Rice defend the administration in a public forum.
"She'll be great," Mr. Bush said. "She's a very smart, capable person who knows exactly what took place and will lay out the facts."
The Clinton administration's final national-security report stated that its reaction to terrorist strikes was to "neither forget the crime, nor ever give up on bringing the perpetrators to justice."
The document boasted of "a dozen terrorist fugitives" who had been captured abroad and handed over to the United States "to answer for their crimes."
Those perpetrators included the men responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center, which the intelligence community largely thought by late 2000 to be the work of operatives with links to al Qaeda. Listed among those brought to justice was a man who killed two persons outside CIA headquarters in 1993, and "an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago."
Several high-ranking Bush administration officials, and the president himself, have faulted the Clinton administration for treating global terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not recognizing that bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998.
Mr. Bush often notes that about two-thirds of al Qaeda's thousands of members -- including many key leaders -- have been either captured or killed since the attacks, and that 44 of the 55 top Iraqi officials under Saddam Hussein in a deck of cards have been "taken care of."
The liberal Center for American Progress yesterday echoed Mr. Clarke's criticism of the Bush administration by publishing a timeline of statements that it says proves the current White House national security team did not make fighting al Qaeda a priority before the attacks.
"If they were developing some big strategy of fighting terrorism, it's not reflected in their words," said John Halpin, director of research for the center.
"We wanted to go back and document all the public statements, given some of the discrepancies of what happened before 9/11 and some of the recent news from Richard Clarke," Mr. Halpin said.
In Mr. Clarke's best-selling book "Against All Enemies," he writes that during a transitional briefing in January 2001, Miss Rice's "facial expression gave me the impression that she'd never heard the term [al Qaeda] before."
But the Clinton administration's final national security document, written while Mr. Clarke was a high-level national security adviser, never mentions al Qaeda.
"Clarke was on the job as terrorism czar at that point," said a senior Bush administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He played a significant role. His concerns should have been well-known."
High-ranking Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, have testified that Mr. Bush wanted to stop "swatting at flies" and take a more aggressive approach to terror.
The Bush administration official noted that the planning of the September 11 attacks happened while Mr. Clinton was in power, and said the commission's probe has turned into a search for blame.
"It's a shame we are not focused more on moving forward, instead of about who was concerned more," he said.
The official said he found the lack of bin Laden and al Qaeda references in the final Clinton terror assessment interesting, but downplayed such "word-counting games."
"We don't measure progress or response [to terrorism] by how many speeches, words, utterances or meetings were held on a particular issue, but by action taken," he said.

[Reagan Man]

From the same article:

Yesterday in a speech at the Brookings Institution, noted Bush-hater and preeminent moron Teddy Kennedy gave a partisan election-year speech slamming President Bush on just about everything he could think of. That's right...Teddy Kennedy...the patron saint of all that is well and good in the Democratic party.

"... preeminent moron Teddy Kennedy..."

LMAO

[jackbill]

A link to the full document is at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1112186/posts?page=1

[MikeJ]

This may be another:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

[NotchJohnson]

What do you remember from the Clinton Administration? besides scandal, what did they do? It was a bunch of this and that but the word terrorism never came up.

[King Prout]

he-ain't-dead-till-ya-step-on-'im bump

[torchthemummy]

Guarranteed this will be mentioned in the opening statement by Condi on Thursday. She will also add that she had given a speech that included, if not highlighted, Al Queda in Aug. 2000.

[amom]

ping.

[onyx]

he-ain't-dead-till-ya-step-on-'im bump


Over here yall.
Stunning.

[King Prout]

he-ain't-dead-till-ya-step-on-'im bump

glad to see that you like my new bumptag ^_^

[onyx]

That I do.
That I do.
Nice Southern twang about it.

[MeekOneGOP]

[ladyinred]

I wonder if Clinton wrote anything about TWA flight 800 or OKC in his little review?