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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
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]

To: finnman69
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.

Clarke was right about that, btw, that we needed to provide more support for the NA (which Clinton didn't do and Bush did do).

Clarke was right about a number of things. If it weren't for his outsized ego and unremitting self-absorption he might have made much more of a contribution.

51 posted on 02/11/2005 9:25:43 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Iluvlabs not libs

nice post


52 posted on 02/11/2005 9:27:26 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Bingo!


53 posted on 02/11/2005 9:27:50 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I've just taken the trouble of examining Clarke's original memo-with attached tab.

It calls attention to AQ,but does NOT suggest it is an immediate threat to the US.

What Clarke seems to be sulking about is the fact his info-originally presented to the Clinton administration in 2000-and "passed on" (without action of any sort) to the Bush administration-did not merit an immediate meeting.Poor Clarke had to wait until SEVERAL OTHER pressing issues were addressed,and did not get his meeting until Sept. 4th.

The 9-11 Commission-after he wound up his flamboyant appearance-asked him if anything he had to report would have done anything to PREVENT 9-11. He admitted-reluctantly-it would NOT.


54 posted on 02/11/2005 9:28:22 AM PST by genefromjersey (So much to flame;so little time !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iluvlabs not libs
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.

Not (quite) true. Clarke came very lose to recommending just that in his Millennium Plot after action report. Did Clarke not want to draw attention to that document? Did he know at the time of this testimony that Berger had attempted to filch and destroy copies of it?

55 posted on 02/11/2005 9:29:49 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Thank you. My first by the way I have been lurking for over a year, you guys are the best. The most intelligent forum I have read.


56 posted on 02/11/2005 9:33:59 AM PST by Iluvlabs not libs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: pissant



57 posted on 02/11/2005 9:35:42 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

Here's another point that everyone seems to be missing:

Let's stipulate for the moment that this threat was specific to the United States. How many OTHER threats were there to the United States from various terror organizations in just the previous WEEK?


58 posted on 02/11/2005 9:47:04 AM PST by Zhangliqun (What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

You mean Sandy "Chuckles" Berger - "A little song, a little dance, a bunch of secrets down my pants."

Most likely he knew what Berger was up to and avoided mentioning the document


59 posted on 02/11/2005 9:48:42 AM PST by Iluvlabs not libs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
OMG, where is Cynthia McKinney when you need her?

I hear Michael Moore might do some kind of movie about this...

60 posted on 02/11/2005 10:01:42 AM PST by talleyman (E=mc2 (before taxes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 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