Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report


By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



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.

Was he under oath?

http://www.injusticeline.com/perjury.html

Bump wow after all those people riding the Clarke wagon nobody seems to have a response.

Doesn't seem like much to respond to.

Seems like minutia to me. ONE policy paper from the Clinton administration fails to explicitly mention OBL or Al Qaida, so Richard Clarke is a liar?!?!?! Is that the inference?

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

I haven't followed all of the discussions here on this subject. But I still see what I heard pointed out on the news somewhere. Those who were against the war before, are behind Clarke, and haven't changed their minds. Those who supported it, are ignoring Clarke, and still support it.
I don't think this whole thing has made one difference either way. It's just another way to waste our tax dollars. We're in Iraq, 9/11 happened, we went into Afghanistan, none of this is gonna change any of that. Let's just get on with it. Hell, they still haven't decided who really shot Kennedy after all these years and "investigations". Give it a rest, I say. Get on with the buisness at hand.
I'll now put on my asbestos suit

__________________
past MB rides:
'68 220D
'68 220D(another one)
'67 230
'84 SD
Current rides:
'06 Lexus RX330
'93 Ford F-250
'96 Corvette
'99 Polaris 700 RMK sled
2011 Polaris Assault
'86 Yamaha TT350(good 'ol thumper)

It seems if Clarkes dog did hunt he would have addressed Al Qeuda 1 YEAR BEFORE 9-11.

Maybe he it's good that HE did apoligize.

Actually, no one seems to be challenging Clarke's take on the Iraq issue all that much. Most of the flack is in regard to 9/11, in which Clarke has merely expressed his opinions. Some of it seems legitimate to a point (everyone's entitled to his/her opinion), the rest feels like deflection. I am not particularly pleased with this blame game -- it's unproductive and should stop here and now. As much as I appreciate the man's perspective on Iraq, I am personally disturbed by his role in regard to getting the blame ball rolling.

Yes, what you said, regardless of which "side" you're on.

__________________
past MB rides:
'68 220D
'68 220D(another one)
'67 230
'84 SD
Current rides:
'06 Lexus RX330
'93 Ford F-250
'96 Corvette
'99 Polaris 700 RMK sled
2011 Polaris Assault
'86 Yamaha TT350(good 'ol thumper)

I have previously stated that the only ones to blame are the guys who flew the planes into the WTC.

What my point is, there is a media circus and in the center ring is the blame game maybe 60 minutes should be asking these questions.



is that not blame?

We are not in disagreement on this point.

MedMech,

I agree. It's good that he apologized. The rise of Muslim terrorism happened wholly on his watch in one role or another.

Also agreed. Blame game is stupid. Terrorists are the one's that need to be crucified, not our own government.

As far as who thought what was urgent or a priority is just 2 shades of the same color to me. The end result is that both administrations weren't able to stop the attacks regardless of what they "thought." I'm sad to see it reduced to mincing words.

anybody who can type all that addled tripe from the washington times has too much time on his hands. It dowsn't prove anything. Go out and polish your cars.

was whizzing by a small rural car lot and there's a 83 240d with only 72K on it. Nice green exterior and tan interior. looks real good. the clutch pedal hardly worn. $2800. I've got to see if the wife can tolerate one more MB

The clarke vs bush thing will end soon enough. and who doesn't lie in the go'vt? we have cleaner water skies less pollution yada
yada yada. so it goes....

__________________
71 220D 169K wrecked
83 240D 118K sweet 4 speed
91 350SDL (one of the 60% good engines) 156K
84 300d (loaner to my sister) 189K
79 300SD (partswagen)
86 420SEL partswagen
70 220d (partswagen)
68 280s GASSER!!! under construction now
85 300sd 310K miles winter beater car retired
93 300d 2.5 turbo 168K wife's car
83 280SL euro 5 speed 155K
69 250S newest project 54K

It seems like plenty of people had time to watch 60 minutes, what did they prove?

How bout Tom Selleck for president? Pretty smart guy, kooler than hell? And he hates Rosie O'Donnell, got my vote.

Ya know you got it. My wife and I were pondering who would be the best Rep. President, and our main conclusion was an actor would be best based the fact that people don't care about the substance it's the delivery.

Since psuedo intellects like to judge people solely on his/her writing or speaking style a good actor would be a shoe in. Clinton was one of the best public speakers I've ever seen one was even better, The Gipper.


Magnum for Prez.!!