Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat
Reuters ^ | 2/11/05 | JoAnne Allen

Posted on 02/11/2005 8:42:28 AM PST by pissant

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush (news - web sites) until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The memo dated Jan. 25, 2001 -- five days after Bush took office -- was an essential feature of last year's hearings into intelligence failures before the attacks on New York and Washington. A copy of the document was posted on the National Security Archive Web site on Thursday.

The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), had been described during the hearings but its full contents had not been disclosed.

Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration, had requested an immediate meeting of top national security officials as soon as possible after Bush took office to discuss combating al Qaeda. He described the network as a threat with broad reach.

"Al Qaeda affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan (news - web sites), Central Asia, North Africa and the GCC (Gulf Arab states). Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see al Qaeda as a direct threat to them," Clarke wrote. (snip) The memo also warned of overestimating the stability of moderate regional allies threatened by al Qaeda.

It recommended that the new administration urgently discuss the al Qaeda network, including the magnitude of the threat it posed and strategy for dealing with it.

The document was declassified on April 7, 2004, one day before Rice's testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. It was released recently by the National Security Council to the National Security Archive -- a private library of declassified U.S. documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 2001; alqaeda; bushknew; clintonswatch; commies; mediabias; nsa; nsamemo; oklahomacity; prequel; rice; richardclarke; somalia; terroristsfordems; twa800; usembassies; usscole
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
The MSM is going to recycle the "Bush Knew" crap again and again. WE MUST CRUSH THE TRAITOROUS MSM AND EXPOSE THEIR F***ING DISTORTIONS. Richard Clarke is a charlatan of the 1st order and Reuters is a pathetic collection of self-hating communists.
1 posted on 02/11/2005 8:42:28 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pissant

Where is the "Oh No Not this s*&t again" pic?


2 posted on 02/11/2005 8:44:07 AM PST by day10 (Rules cannot substitute for character.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

This begs the question: Why didn't Clarke call for an immediate meeting with Clinton and Gore?


3 posted on 02/11/2005 8:44:21 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Recycle is right. There's nothing new here.


4 posted on 02/11/2005 8:44:46 AM PST by Huck (I only type LOL when I'm really LOL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: day10

I don't believe this for a minute....more of the loony libs proganda....stupid idiots can't win, why don't they leave this country and let us live in peace.....


5 posted on 02/11/2005 8:45:18 AM PST by HarleyLady27 (Prayers ease the heavy burdens of the living....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Even if the White House had full knowledge of the attacks, only targeted "profiling" of passengers would have stopped the hijackers at the airport gates. Guess who is against "profiling"? Course the media will never point this out.


6 posted on 02/11/2005 8:45:22 AM PST by happyathome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: day10

Didn't Bush not get into the white house till Feb.? Also, he was in the middle of the Dems. obstructing all of his cabinet picks.


7 posted on 02/11/2005 8:45:39 AM PST by Holicheese (This is Hockey East)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Let's see. AQ affects policies .... Other leaders see AQ as a threat ...

I missed the part where he said AQ was a threat to the US?


8 posted on 02/11/2005 8:45:51 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: day10

Is this like saying : "We will attack somewhere in the world" and now it's Bush's fault?
Move along, nothing to see here.


9 posted on 02/11/2005 8:45:59 AM PST by americanbychoice2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat

Was this memo by any chance found near a Texas Kinko's?
10 posted on 02/11/2005 8:46:38 AM PST by COBOL2Java (If this isn't the End Times it certainly is a reasonable facsimile...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Good point...


11 posted on 02/11/2005 8:46:41 AM PST by March I up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant

This article mentions twice that the threats were for overseas, not on U.S. soil.


12 posted on 02/11/2005 8:47:01 AM PST by KJC1 (Liberals are to America what undertows are to swimmers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
al Qaeda represented a threat

Didn't everyone know this after the first WTC bombing in 1993?

13 posted on 02/11/2005 8:47:08 AM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

This article is totaly misleading. The only thing it sates is that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world. We already knew that. Where does it mention anything about airlines being used as missles? What a load of recycled crap


14 posted on 02/11/2005 8:47:08 AM PST by slowhand520
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: day10

15 posted on 02/11/2005 8:47:44 AM PST by Recovering Hermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant
The memo dated Jan. 25, 2001 -- five days after Bush took office --

And what was in that memo that couln't have been in any memo Clarke wrote after the US Embassy bombings in Africa in 1998? The Clinton administration had its whole administration to deal with terrorism and it didn't. The first WTC bombing occurred just six weeks after Clinton took office. The Embassy bombings happened about 2 1/2 years before he left office.

16 posted on 02/11/2005 8:47:45 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
This will be hugh; Richard Clark has all the qualities of a dog except loyalty.
17 posted on 02/11/2005 8:48:10 AM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Here we go again. SOS! The MSM is the laziest bunch of a-holes taking space up on the planet known to man.


18 posted on 02/11/2005 8:48:46 AM PST by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world,

I didn't know the Twin Towers were part of the Islamic world.

The media is despicable in its attempts to smear the President.

Regards, Ivan

19 posted on 02/11/2005 8:49:12 AM PST by MadIvan (One blog to bring them all...and in the Darkness bind them: http://www.theringwraith.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


20 posted on 02/11/2005 8:51:00 AM PST by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

dejas vu all over again?


21 posted on 02/11/2005 8:51:25 AM PST by nuconvert (No More Axis of Evil by Christmas ! TLR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

They are not lazy. They are working overtime to distort the truth and blemish the Prez. They are getting their asses handed to them by events, so they are in desperate search for smears.


22 posted on 02/11/2005 8:51:27 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pissant
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world

And Bush didn't immediately invade Afghanistan, set up overseas detention and interrogation facilities, pass the Patriot Act, obtain Congressional authority to conquer Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein?

What was he waiting for? I'm sure the Democrats would have been most supportive!

23 posted on 02/11/2005 8:51:51 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

LOL.


24 posted on 02/11/2005 8:52:40 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pissant
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world

I am pretty sure everybody already knew he was a threat over there. So what? What did this have to do with 9/11?

25 posted on 02/11/2005 8:53:39 AM PST by Lekker 1 (A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul [G.B. Shaw])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Of course, the libs and the MSM would have been screaming bloody murder if Bush did this in, say, August 2001. Typical libs, they would be absolutely lost if they weren't complaining about something.


26 posted on 02/11/2005 8:54:03 AM PST by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pissant
a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush (news - web sites) until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Yes, this is true. The critics did say that.

But the critics were wrong. Bush was paying attention to al Qaeda in early 2001. So why does Reuters publish articles about what the critics thought rather than the truth. Could it be they have An Agenda? The answer is of course they do and that is why it is really a waste of time using Reuters for anything except opposition research.

27 posted on 02/11/2005 8:54:11 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Didn't they already try this-multiple times?

WORD TO LIBERALS! BUSH DID NOT CAUSE 9-11!!

You people are truly sick and treasonous. You side with Al-Quida. You side with Saddam Hussein. You side with al-Zarquawi. You side with the U.N.'s pack of murderers and thieves.

You have no soul. This is EVIL. And you DARE to assume you can speak on issues of Faith and moraility when you have none.


28 posted on 02/11/2005 8:54:14 AM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

If you read this memo here:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

You can see NO mention of any possible terrorist plot on the US. In fact the primary issue addressed is the threat of the Northern Alliance being defeated in a Spring Taliban/Al Qaeda offensive that would free up Al Qaeda fighters to fight in other regions.


MEDIA BIAS HEADLINE. More Bush Knew crap.


29 posted on 02/11/2005 8:54:26 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

What does this mean?

"The strength of the network of organizations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of U.S. policies, including Iraq policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."


30 posted on 02/11/2005 8:54:37 AM PST by Perdogg (Rumsfeld for President - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
WORD TO LIBERALS! BUSH DID NOT CAUSE 9-11!! You people are truly sick and treasonous. You side with Al-Quida. You side with Saddam Hussein. You side with al-Zarquawi. You side with the U.N.'s pack of murderers and thieves. You have no soul. This is EVIL. And you DARE to assume you can speak on issues of Faith and moraility when you have none. Unfortunately I only expect it to get worse. These people are disgusting, despicable creatures. This mass hysteria and lunacy must end or I fear that our country is going to get mighty 'uncivil' one day.
31 posted on 02/11/2005 9:00:18 AM PST by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pissant

The AP and Reuters are the most anti-USA rags in the newspaper establishment and they need to be dealt with! AP and Reuters are terrorists sympathizers who would just love to see the US destroyed! They are our enemies!!


32 posted on 02/11/2005 9:02:11 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

"This begs the question: Why didn't Clarke call for an immediate meeting with Clinton and Gore?"

Good question.


33 posted on 02/11/2005 9:02:38 AM PST by citizencon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I don't see anything where he says they were a DIRECT THREAT TO US! Also, no mention of what was said at the Sept. 4, 2001 meeting.

Also, did he ever discuss this with Clinton? If not, why not? If so, why didn't Clinton act on it?
34 posted on 02/11/2005 9:03:25 AM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: frankiep

The good news is if the country "gets mighty uncivil oneday" I know what side will win. ANd it ain't the side supported by the MSM quislings.


36 posted on 02/11/2005 9:04:17 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred

"I don't see anything where he says they were a DIRECT THREAT TO US!"
_________________________________________

The whole point of Reuters is to scream their F**king ridiculous headlines across the world, and hope nobody reads the article and realizes what BS they are spewing.


37 posted on 02/11/2005 9:06:54 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pissant

The person who deserves the blame for 911 and the US governments totally incompetent response to YEARS of terrorist attacks on Americans in the US and abroad is the one never mentioned in regard to terrorism. Had Bill Clinton effectively addressed Islamic terror after the first WTC bombing in 1993 perhaps 911 could have been prevented.

To believe the liberal news media , terrorism didn't even exist until George W. Bush was elected.


38 posted on 02/11/2005 9:08:36 AM PST by MisterRepublican (Liberalism kills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

OMG, where is Cynthia McKinney when you need her?


39 posted on 02/11/2005 9:09:10 AM PST by teenyelliott (Soilent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I didn't know the Twin Towers were part of the Islamic world.

Or the Pentagon, or the US Capitol building.

40 posted on 02/11/2005 9:12:29 AM PST by steveegg (The secret goal of lieberals - to ensure that no future generation can possibly equal theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: day10

Expect the Bush DUI story to resurface again too. They have nothing else to do sit on the lazy a$$ and recycle old material.


41 posted on 02/11/2005 9:14:41 AM PST by ladtx ( "Remember your regiment and follow your officers." Captain Charles May, 2d Dragoons, 9 May 1846)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant
More revisionist nonsense. Bin Laden and AQ were a known threat since the mid-90s. Bin Laden issued two fatwas against the US 1996 fatwa and 1998 fatwa. In addition, AQ attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 causing over 5,000 killed or wounded and the USS Cole in 2000 to name just a few transgressions. The idea that the Bush administration had to be warned about AQ is nonsense. The real question is why didn't the Clinton administration do anything about it except launch a few cruise missiles at some tents in the desert?
42 posted on 02/11/2005 9:15:55 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Good Point. Either that, or they are stupid.


43 posted on 02/11/2005 9:17:53 AM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27

Oh heck, the memo just says - Lets have a meeting. The liberals "solution" for everything.

It also does not discuss a potential attack on the US mainland.


44 posted on 02/11/2005 9:18:18 AM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pissant

You know this stuff amazes me...don't we remember the mess that Bush took office with? Now, up until this point who was in office? Let's see wasn't it Bill Clinton? Somewhere the Clinton Administration had some responsibility for this mess. But it always appears that slick Willy gets passed over.


45 posted on 02/11/2005 9:18:41 AM PST by LADYAK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

This again??? I guess next will be the guard thing again. Oh well, gives those dunder heads something to do.


46 posted on 02/11/2005 9:19:56 AM PST by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
This begs the question: Why didn't Clarke call for an immediate meeting with Clinton and Gore?

Well, Clarke did produce the after action report on Al Qaeda's "Millennium Plot," which included specific recommendations. Problem was the Clinton admin ignored it (until last year when Berger tried to sneak the copies out of the archives in his briefcase, underwear and socks) and never briefed the Bush admin about it.

47 posted on 02/11/2005 9:20:43 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant

First of all its not a newly released document. It was used as a basis for Condi's testimony before the 9/11 commission.

Second, here is Clark's own testimony about this memo:

SLADE GORTON, Commission member: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be perhaps a little bit faster?

CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.

GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else's part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

CLARKE: That's right.


48 posted on 02/11/2005 9:23:41 AM PST by Iluvlabs not libs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: pissant
Preparing for The Next Pearl Harbor Attack (JUNE 2001, Bush team addressing terrorism threat)
50 posted on 02/11/2005 9:24:06 AM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson