Skip to comments.January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat
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 ...
Where is the "Oh No Not this s*&t again" pic?
This begs the question: Why didn't Clarke call for an immediate meeting with Clinton and Gore?
Recycle is right. There's nothing new here.
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.....
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.
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.
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?
Is this like saying : "We will attack somewhere in the world" and now it's Bush's fault?
Move along, nothing to see here.
This article mentions twice that the threats were for overseas, not on U.S. soil.
Didn't everyone know this after the first WTC bombing in 1993?
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
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.
Here we go again. SOS! The MSM is the laziest bunch of a-holes taking space up on the planet known to man.
I didn't know the Twin Towers were part of the Islamic world.
The media is despicable in its attempts to smear the President.
dejas vu all over again?
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.
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!
I am pretty sure everybody already knew he was a threat over there. So what? What did this have to do with 9/11?
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.
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.
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.
If you read this memo here:
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.
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."
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!!
"This begs the question: Why didn't Clarke call for an immediate meeting with Clinton and Gore?"
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.
"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.
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.
OMG, where is Cynthia McKinney when you need her?
Or the Pentagon, or the US Capitol building.
Expect the Bush DUI story to resurface again too. They have nothing else to do sit on the lazy a$$ and recycle old material.
Good Point. Either that, or they are stupid.
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.
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.
This again??? I guess next will be the guard thing again. Oh well, gives those dunder heads something to do.
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.
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?
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.