A Strategy's Cautious Evolution (Bush worked on plan to eradicate Al Qaeda pre-9-11)

Washington Post ^ | Jan. 20, 2004 | Barton Gellman

[FairOpinion]

At 1:30 on a Wednesday afternoon, two weeks after receiving the nod as Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice walked into a room...

Rice told him (Clarke) first, he said, that the dangers appeared to be greater than she had known.

"Her second reaction was 'What are you going to do about it?'‚" Clarke said.

.......

(Clinton info provided to Condi Rice:)

One of those came in a handwritten note, covering less than a page. The lined paper had nothing on it but three names and three telephone numbers – the Pentagon's top career specialists on terrorism.

.........

Rice, by this account, thought "the last administration had made a major mistake after the embassy bombings by saying we're going to war on terrorism and then not doing it. And she thought it would be much better to take the reverse tack, which was to say nothing and do it."

.....

Sometime in early spring...Bush is said to have replied: "I'm tired of swatting flies. I'm tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I want to take the fight to the terrorists."

....

....Some of the Bush administration's strategists were now describing the new policy as a crucible for terror, from the Latin word for a pot and flame hot enough to melt metal into slag. They did not want al Qaeda rolled back or eroded. They wanted it gone-a molten puddle, nothing more. Another of the word's modern meanings applied equally to them: a severe test.

By June 7 they had reached a form of words for their goal that remained largely intact through Sept. 4. It would be U.S. policy to eliminate al Qaeda as a threat to the United States and to friendly governments. The strategy called for a multiyear and multifaceted effort involving diplomatic, economic, intelligence, law enforcement and, if necessary, military efforts.

[FairOpinion]

Part 1 (also at link above)

Part 2

It's a very long article -- the excepts above represent very tiny excerpts indeed.

No need to sign in to read these -- highly recommend reading them -- besides the obligatory liberal spin, it contains important information showing that Bush and his administration did indeed take Al Qaeda very seriously and planned a strategy to eradicate them, not just swat them occasionally, as the Clinton policy was.

It also shows that the Clinton Administration handed Condi Rice a handwritten one page note with people's phone numbers -- that was their "big warning".

[FairOpinion]

Sorry -- I made an error -- this article appeared on Jan. 20, 2002, not 2004.

[FairOpinion]

I posted some excerpts -- also one I just found, from the same article:

"Sometime in early spring...Bush is said to have replied: "I'm tired of swatting flies. I'm tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I want to take the fight to the terrorists."

[EllaMinnow]

Bumping and marking for a morning read. I remember reading this when it first came out.

[FairOpinion]

I think people need a reminder -- this totally refutes the Dems despicable accusations.

And it's an article from the Washington Post, so they can't even blame it on the "right wing media".

[FairOpinion]

Just want to make sure you don't miss this -- totaly debunks the Dems accusations.

BTW -- your statement on the front of FR is wonderful! :)

[Southack]

[EllaMinnow]

I've added Woodward's book - I think it's called "Bush at War - to my re-read list. If I'm remembering it correctly, it refutes all the claims Clarke is making now.

[jwalsh07]

Try this on for size.

[Miss Marple]

Yes, it does. Woodward got the transcripts of the meeting at Camp David, and it shows that while some people were concerned about Iraq, Bush directed them to concentrate on Afghanistan.

[Spruce]

Using the sketchy bits available, I find the current strategy effective to the point of worry.

[EllaMinnow]

That's what I thought. I'm going to dig up my copy of Bill Sammons' "Fighting Back" and see if he mentions Clarke at all.

[FairOpinion]

But fortunately this time the Bush administration is fighting back immediately. I wish they started to do that a year ago, when the Dems started to lie about Iraq. I think because Bush didn't fight back at the time, it emboldened the Democrats.

But this time they are not getting any free passes.

If the Bush administration refutes their lies immediately and keeps refuting them, every time the Dems make the accusations, I think Bush will win. But we can't relax for a single moment.

[alnick]

Al Qaeda 'game plan' on Bush's desk Sept. 9- NBC

[COEXERJ145]

Bump

[max_rpf]

I think the strategy is better than that. Bush is not going on the defensive, never has, notice that he fires a counterattack rather than allow himself to get drawn in.

[FairOpinion]

"Al Qaeda 'game plan' on Bush's desk Sept. 9- NBC
Reuters | May 16, 2002


WASHINGTON, May 16 (Reuters) - Only two days before the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, President George W. Bush was given a "detailed war plan" to dismantle Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, NBC News reported on Thursday. "



Thanks for posting this -- this is the other article I was looking for.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

part 2 does seem to come up for me.

But I may have read it by going to page 2 from page 1.

[FairOpinion]

I just wanted to make sure people don't stop after page 1, because they have page 2 just as a small inconspicous link and there is lots more good stuff on Page 2.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OK, doesn't this refute some of the current comments from Clarke?

[FairOpinion]

This article refutes all of Clarke's claims completely.

[nopardons]

Clarke is a liar and a poseur, who's getting his teeth kicked in.

[cyncooper]

Bump for debunking Clarke

[happygrl]

Never forget that the transition from the Clinton Admin to the Bsuh Admin was affected by the 2000 Election Fiasco.

When I think of the way that the Democrats toyed with the transition of power, the word treasonous comes to mind.

Don't think that al-Qaeda wouldn't like to take advantage of another political siege in Washington, or somewhere in the West.

Election 2000 gave them an example of what "muddying" the waters could do for them.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Systematic attempts by the RATmedia to de-legitimize Bush's election convinced the terrorists that the country would not be behind the President.

Systematic attempts by the RATmedia convinced the terrorists that Bush was a dimwit who would not be able to respond to their attacks.

How many deaths of our soldiers in Iraq are due to the systematic attempts by the RATmedia to undermine our efforts there and encourage our enemies to fight on in order to reduce the people's support for the war?

[happygrl]

You are absolutely right; the continued besmirching of President Bush leads the enemy to think that it's only a matter of time, say the elections this fall, before the American public will turn on our president, therefore they continue the assaults on our troops and on the Iraqis.

As VP Cheney has stated, this is the most important election of our lifetimes.

[cyn]

What sick self absorbed people clinton's employees remain. It's never about what's good for the country (even after 9/11 tragedy!), it's what's good for their resumes.

I'm glad you posted this to separate thread. I emailed it to Rush and Hannity after you posted it to the thread Mon, but lol, it sounded like Rush was already loaded for bear against the scuzbucket rat.

[FairOpinion]

I hope that Rush and Hannity not only attack Clarke for the scum he is, but also point out that he is factually inaccurate, i.e. is lying -- and earlier records, such as this article, from the Washington Post, no less, proves that his accusations are lies made up out of whole cloth.

I wonder what Kerry promised him.

[cyn]

"factually inaccurate" -- lol!

or what the Clintons promised him if he didn't.