Bush Aides Deny Getting Plan to Fight Al Qaeda [Another 'BUSH-KNEW!!' campaign]

Reuters via WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, August 5, 2002

[JohnHuang2]

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (Reuters) - The Bush White House denied a report on Sunday that the Clinton administration gave it an aggressive plan to take on al Qaeda that languished for eight months because of the change in presidents.

Time Magazine reported on Sunday that a plan to strike at al Qaeda was developed in the final days of the Clinton administration and presented to President Bush's new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in January 2001.

Irritated by the report, which appeared to suggest the Bush administration may not have done all it could to prevent the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people and that the government blames on the al Qaeda network, the White House issued a carefully-worded denial.

"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al Qaeda during the transition," White House spokesman Sean McCormack told Reuters in Kennebunkport, Maine, where Bush spent the weekend at his parents' summer home.

According to Time, the proposals were developed by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush administration and became the point man on terrorism in the Clinton White House.

The draft initiative became the victim of the transition between the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Bush, the magazine said, as the Bush White House instituted its own "policy review process" on the terrorist threat and the proposals outlined by Clarke were not reviewed by top officials until late April.

Time said Clarke's proposals called for the breakup of al Qaeda cells and arrest of their personnel, a systematic attack on the financial support for its terrorist activities and for aid to nations where al Qaeda was operating to fight terrorism. Clarke also wanted an increase in covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the al Qaeda sanctuary provided by the Taliban.

ELIMINATE AL QAEDA, NOT ROLL IT BACK

The White House acknowledged that it reviewed the matter but insisted it did not receive any actual plan and said the strategy its top officials ultimately approved on Sept. 4 -- one week before Sept. 11 -- took a more aggressive stance in seeking to eliminate, rather than contain, al Qaeda.

"We were briefed (during the transition) on the al Qaeda threat and what the Clinton administration was doing about it," McCormack said, saying Clarke later gave Rice more ideas on taking on al Qaeda, prompting her to ask for a policy review.

"The review resulted in a comprehensive strategy approved by the principals committee on Sept. 4 to eliminate al Qaeda and deprive it of its sanctuaries," McCormack said, referring to a committee that includes the U.S. secretaries of state and defense as well as the director of the CIA.

"There was no plan that was handed over," said a White House official who asked not to be named. "The nature of the ideas that were sketched out were for a roll back of al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period.

"We're talking about apples and oranges here," the official added. "Our strategy became focused on eliminating al Qaeda, not trying to 'roll it back,"' the official added.

Time magazine also reported that while concern was mounting by last summer that a major terrorist attack against U.S. interests was imminent, no decision was made to send a Predator drone -- the best possible source of intelligence on the terror camps run by Osama bin Laden -- to fly over Afghanistan.

"The Predator sat idle from October 2000 until after September 11," Time reported.

"The Predator was not flown because we were in the final stages of developing new capabilities for it," a U.S. official told Reuters. The official declined to describe the new capabilities, which could have included arming the drone.

[Quilla]

Had there been a real plan, Clinton and the gang wouldn't have waited a year to air it.

Absolutely. And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.

[JohnHuang2]

And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.

Bingo.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I quit taking TIME seriously a long time ago. Too bad Hugh Sidey is still around to see what's become of it.

[JohnHuang2]

Re: #23 -- My sentiments exactly re: Hugh Sidney. He's one of the few good guys left in journalism.

[alnick]

So why would the Clinton administration wait until their final days to develop this "aggressive" plan to strike al Qaeda when they recognized the threat as far back as 1993?

Bingo. Further, why haven't any of the news articles that I've read about this raised that painfully obvious point?

[alnick]

Had there been a real plan, Clinton and the gang wouldn't have waited a year to air it. Absolutely. And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.

Good point. Chelsea would have immediately thought about that on 9/11 instead of her first thoughts after the attacks being about the tax cuts, as she claims.

[11x62]

According to Time, the proposals were developed by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush administration and became the point man on terrorism in the Clinton White House.


We wonder if Clarke, as "point man on terrorism" ever spoke to or had a meeting with Clinton or Berger, bet his work and warnings were ignored before Jan 2001.

[windchime]

This was probably the opportune time for heralding this "plan". They're hoping for a feeding frenzy during the August recess and wanted this to be the only morsel on which to chew.

I've read criticism of President Bush for the past 19 months for not giving Clinton & Co. their just due. No one would be happier than I to see them get their come-uppance, but just imagine how this "plan" ploy would play if President Bush had spent ONE MINUTE of his time exposing the garbage of the Clintons. The "plan" would be accompanied by accusations of "if he'd spent his time looking out for our security instead of investigating Clinton,etc....". I'm convinced our president chooses his course wisely.

Now, to wait for the next item in the dem arsenal and hope it is recognized for what it is.

[Quilla]

Further, why haven't any of the news articles that I've read about this raised that painfully obvious point?

Neal Boortz has mentioned that over 90% of the mainstream media are democrats. As there are so few true investigative journalists left, today's reporters simply read their DNC faxes and repeat the spin. They don't want to lose what paltry sums they receive for this effortless kneejerk "news" so they back the party of unlimited socialist welfare programs. I consider the media even more dangerous than Hillary! and that's pretty dangerous.

[windchime]

"today's reporters simply read their DNC faxes and repeat the spin"

Correct. The talking points item I've heard this morning are, "President Bush was concerned with strategic missle defense and" ....I can't remember the other item. I'm sure it'll be repeated.

[finnman69]

So, this aggressive plan was not implemented by Semenstain? I guess it was not a big deal then, because Clinton was the most devoted combatant ever in the war on terrorism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[IVote2]

We know this is bogus. If it were of such importance that the incoming president be informed, then why did the Clinton administration delay the NORMAL briefing of the Bush transition team until after the Florida election scam played out?

We need to ask these self-important sycophants why they didn't think this "plan" was of such magnitude involving the very safety of our country that they went outside the normal routine and did not allow Bush the courtesy of information as every other president's administration has done. Wouldn't an incoming president have benefited from knowing this earth shattering information in November and December?

How stupid do these people think we are?

[88keys]

"So, this aggressive plan was not implemented? I guess it was not a big deal then, because Clinton was the most devoted combatant ever in the war on terrorism...."

He was too busy getting ready to jump into the trenches, fight and die for Israel when Iran and/or Iraq crossed the Jordan...so much for "intelligence"!!!!

BWAHAHAHA, back!! ;)

[mrsmith]

"this "story" has ZERO credibility"

Still.

[cincinnati65]

Take the gloves off harder than THAT.

During the transition, the Clinton Administration was more concerned about prying the freakin' "W's" off of keyboards than global terrorism and Osama bin Laden.

[Helms]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104746/posts

[js1138]

But there was no plan, no implementation, only a few unimplemented recommendations.

I've been in enough bureaucracies to know that an action plan is hundreds, even thousands of pages long, has many branching decision trees, and lots of contingency plans.

[ladyinred]

Actually, Clarkes behind the scene testimony pretty much says there was a plan, but it was never carried out. At the end of the administration they reviewed the plan, and did nothing. So this is more lies again.

[Helms]

Chris Matthews is Talking Points Central. Isikoff and Alter and Fineman are in the soup too. Don Imus is losing it and shilling for his boss.

[XBob]

Thanks for the ping on this old thread, which I had forgotten. Apparently there has been no change, and xlintons still can't come up with anything they did, other than bomb an asperin factory and a few tents, and what I said still stands - As I said in #3:

"I read a bit about this so far, and as far as I can determine, the Clinton administration, particularly the NSA idiot, Sandy Berger, never developed a plan, and apparently an old Bush 1, holdover, developed some recommendations finally at the end of the 8 years of inaction by xlinton, and turned it in to Berger, who ignored it.

But there was no plan, no implementation, only a few unimplemented recommendations."

It only reinforces my belief that the whole xlinton administration from top to bottom was composed of absolute idiots.