CNN: White House April 2000 Terrorism report DOES NOT EVEN MENTION Al Quaeda.

CNN ^ | April 30, 2001 | CNN State Department producer Elise Labott and Correspondent Andrea Koppel

[Not a 60s Hippy]

The Bush administration still did not have their appointments approved by the congress on 9-11. The Democrats were delaying, stalling and obstructing everyone they could! This forced Pres. Bush to use Clinton people until he could get his own team in place and also caused a distraction to getting down to business.

[Libertina]

But they purposely did NOT mention Clinton...so that the people will naturally assume it is about the Bush administration (since they are now the ones being raked over the coals.)

[FairOpinion]

"The State Department once again re-designated Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of international terrorism. "

===

But I thought there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and terrorism -- all the Democrats say so NOW.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Hmm. No mention about China's PLA and the Taliban.

This Feb., 1999 report from http://www.rediff.com/ has the details.

"Taliban-China deal puzzles diplomats," by Tara Shankar Sahay in New Delhi

The diplomatic community in South Asia is puzzled by a military co-operation agreement signed between the Taliban militia in Afghanistan and the People's Republic of China.

Diplomatic sources said the agreement was signed on December 10 [1998] and that the agreement was not signed between the two governments but between the Taliban military commanders and representatives of China's People's Liberation Army.

According to the agreement, the PLA has agreed to:

i) Repair and maintain equipment captured by the Taliban militia from adversaries.

ii) The PLA would assist in raising and training the Taliban armed forces. Initial, 25,000 troops are to be trained.

iii) The PLA would provide training facilities for the Taliban's air force pilots.

iv) The PLA would provide from its own funds about 10 million US dollars to improve infrastructure for the Taliban armed forces.

v) Initial training and maintenance of equipment are to done at Taxila in Pakistan.

In return, the Taliban has given an undertaking that it will not provide any training to Chinese Muslims in China's Xinjiang province and that it will assist the Chinese authorities maintain places of worship and madrasas as in China.

Diplomatic sources indicated that the agreement has been brokered by Pakistan to provide the Taliban with some sorely-needed legitimacy. The Chinese authorities have yielded to pressure from Islamabad since Beijing has found it difficult to control the unrest among the Uiigur Muslims in Xinjiang. They said if the Chinese deal with the Taliban works, Beijing would be able to get matters settled without "actually dirtying its hands".

Senior Indian diplomats pointed out that the agreement provides an outlet for the Taliban to launder its drug money through Chinese banks. The Taliban has indicated it's positive about this opening the Chinese has given it and the militia is currently willing to meet any demands from Beijing.

There are indications that the Taliban militia may open an office in Beijing to meet the requirements of Chinese personnel who wish to visit Kandahar, Kabul and other important places in Afghanistan.

[end excerpt, my emphasis]

Did the Chi-coms tell Clinton and dem Rats that they'd cut funding for the DNC if Clinton's State Dept. said anything about the PLA-Taliban military agreement? Maybe the China connection is why OBL got a pass from Clinton? Just asking.

[cookcounty]

Please explain this scrambled article. It talks about the "2000" report (Clinton was President until 2001) and then describes Powell as Sec/State. This is a bit jumbled. Does "last year" refer to 1999?

[plain talk]

We should attack Clarke's arguments, not how much money he's making.

BTW, what exactly are Clarke's "arguments"? So far all I've seen highlighted in our wonderful media is Clarke's OPINION that the Bush WH wasn't taking terrorism seriously enough. Other than a partisan opinion I haven't seen much. Just wondering.

[faithincowboys]

Well, I guess I was being very generous. His arguments appear to be "Clinton was a hardcore anti-terrorist, He (Clarke) was the only guy who could've prevented 9-11, Bush was fixated on Iraq, Bush should've preempted osama in Afghanistan but didn't, Bush's people were incomprehensibly uninterested in Al Qaeda before 9-11, and that Iraq isn't part of the WOT--that it makes terrorism worse."

They should attack it point by point, show how inept Clarke was in countering terrorism, show how Iraq could be transformative for the region and reduce terror and expose how bad Clinto-Gore were on terrorism. In addition, you show how he has made contradictory statements.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Great catch! Thanks for the ping!

[The_Reader_David]

Maybe it's not surprising that the Clintonistas didn't mention al Qaeda in their terrorism report. After all they were very eager to provide their European cohort with air support to take control of half of Bosnia and then to steal Kosovo, the spiritual heartland of Christian Serbia.

[plain talk]

Thanks. That sounds about right. What's interestig to me is that most of these so-called points of Clarke's are just opinions and a point of view (strikingly similar to the dems propaganda they are using to influence the upcoming election!). I'm real surprised the Bush folk's are not doing a better job of handling this. There's no meat to his arguments. And it's made by a partisan democrat - with a grudge - who is selling a book. Think how Clinton would have dealt with this.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

But Al Queda was the #1 priority according to Clarke, but of course on Timmy Russert today he said Mideast Peace Deal, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq were Clinton Admin priorities.

Not to mention keeping Hillary and Bill out of legal trouble and pardoning his criminal donor buddies.

[Jorge]

But they purposely did NOT mention Clinton...so that the people will naturally assume it is about the Bush administration (since they are now the ones being raked over the coals.)

But Bush wasn't even in office in 2000, so I don't know how anyone could think it is refering to him. (except maybe the Dumbocrats)

[McGavin999]

You might be interested in this one.

[McGavin999]

They can't "disappear" it, it's in FreeRepublic's archives.

[Gkubly]

I was wondering who would catch that Bush didn't take office until Jan 2001.

[eggman]

Great find. Here is more.

I decided to check the Dems 2000 party platform to see just what a high priority fighting terrorism would have been had Gore been elected. They devoted 3 paragraphs at the end of the platform to battling terrorism. Here is the only metion of Bin Laden. There was no mention of al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, or the Taliban all of which grew from non-issues at the beginning of Clinton's first term to the core of terrorism in 2000.

Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack.

Looks like Gore might not have heard of al-Qaeda. Forward Engagement? Is that like a preemptive strike?

[ladyinred]

Oh Homer, this is a great find!

Drip, Drip, Drip, Swoosh! This is the flood exposing Clarke's obvious lies, perjury, and political agenda!

[GOPJ]

bump

[ladyinred]

It appears this article was written in April of 2001, and is not a new one doesn't it?