NYT: Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda

By PHILIP SHENON

Published: March 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 19 — Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation — and how the new administration was slow to act.

They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.

snip

What is at issue, Clinton administration officials say, is whether their Bush administration counterparts acted on the warnings, and how quickly. The Clinton administration witnesses say they will offer details of the policy recommendations they made to the incoming Bush aides, but they would not discuss those details before the hearing.

"Until 9/11, counterterrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House," said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut."


more at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/politics/20PANE.html?ex=1080363600&en=cdbdbcb46ac69914&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

If not, I hope to hell someone leaks it to the public.

That's what the local station said, anyway.

blaming democrats: "There was no contemplation of any military action after the millennium plots, and there should have been," said Bob Kerrey, a Democratic member of the commission and a former senator from Nebraska.

"The Cole is even worse, because that was an attack on a military target," he said. "It was military against military. It was an Islamic army against our Navy. Just because you don't have a nation-state as your adversary doesn't mean you should not consider a declaration of war."

How exactly do you have an Islamic army if they have no country??? And who do you declare war against?

"How exactly do you have an Islamic army if they have no country??? And who do you declare war against?"

You don't. You spend enormous amounts of taxpayers money to chase shadows. All the while, your corporate cronies get filthy rich.

The point is not to "win the war," silly. It's to belly up to the feeding trough for as long as possible.

God Ble$$ America...

Like you can never end a War on Drugs. Well, you could make the drugs legal, but you can never make terrorism legal. So it's always available to whip up the fear of the people. Great stuff, huh?

The Clinton administration witnesses may face difficult questions at the hearings about why they did not do more to deal with Qaeda immediately after the Cole attack and the discovery the previous winter that Qaeda terrorists had come close to coordinated attacks timed to the Dec. 31, 1999, festivities for the new millennium.

"There was no contemplation of any military action after the millennium plots, and there should have been," said Bob Kerrey, a Democratic member of the commission and a former senator from Nebraska.

I'm sorry, Bob, but that just doesn't tie in with:

Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? The attack occurred on Oct. 12, 2000; 17 American sailors were killed. The Clinton Administration wanted to declare war on al-Qaeda. An aggressive military response was prepared, including special-forces attacks on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But Clinton decided that it was inappropriate to take such dramatic action during the transition to the Bush presidency. As first reported in this magazine in 2002, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and counterterrorism deputy Richard Clarke presented their plan to Condoleezza Rice and her staff in the first week of January 2001.

Taken from http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,600843,00.html

was busy pushing the lie about how the Clinton people "trashed" the WH before they left. Their goal was to the terrorize the outgoing administration. They didn't give a shit about the safety of the 'Murcan people!

Like investigating the destruction of the WH. I believe that cost for the investigation dinged the taxpayers $250,000 to find out that the repair bill for 8 years of the Clinton administration cost $7,000.

And let's not forget the missing "W" keys. Hmmmm, missing....AWOL! Perhaps the Clinton's were sending us a message?

Marc Rich pardon.

Clinton and his people probably didn't want to get into this but since some repuke talking heads attempt to blame the previous administration AND that Bush and Cheney does it on a sly way thru fundraisers, then the Clinton people will not be silent anymore.

Good!

Which is coming out on monday as an expose of the information provided to the Bush Admininstration for the eight months prior to 9/11 including the possibility of Al Qaeda terrorists hijacking a passenger plane and flying it into Washinton DC or a skyscraper as information which the Clinton Administration provided to the incoming Bush Administration. I har heard that the Clinton Administration was ready to back up Clarkes expose with testimony and interviews with members of Clintons Anti-terrorism team, but didnt expect it this quickly.

The entire story was covered in Al Frankens lateest book but with Frankens reputation, it was duly ignored by those in power in D.C.

This will put a very interesting spin on Bush's strength as defender against terrorists.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,600843,00.html

Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? The attack occurred on Oct. 12, 2000; 17 American sailors were killed. The Clinton Administration wanted to declare war on al-Qaeda. An aggressive military response was prepared, including special-forces attacks on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But Clinton decided that it was inappropriate to take such dramatic action during the transition to the Bush presidency. As first reported in this magazine in 2002, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and counterterrorism deputy Richard Clarke presented their plan to Condoleezza Rice and her staff in the first week of January 2001.

Berger believed al-Qaeda was the greatest threat facing the U.S. as Clinton left office. Rice thought China was. What were President Bush's priorities? Was he aware of the Berger briefing? Did he consider an aggressive response to the bombing of the Cole or to the al-Qaeda millennium plot directed at Los Angeles International Airport—which was foiled on Dec. 14, 1999? Did he have any al-Qaeda strategy at all? Rice, who has not yet testified under oath, decided to review counterterrorism policy; the review wasn't completed until Sept. 4. A related question along the same lines: Why didn't you deploy the armed Predator drones in Afghanistan? The technology, which might have provided the clearest shot at Osama bin Laden before 9/11, was available early in 2001. But the CIA and the Pentagon squabbled about which agency would be in charge of pulling the trigger. The dispute wasn't resolved until after 9/11. Were you aware of this dispute, Mr. President? Why weren't you able to resolve it?

..but there is a part of me that really wants to see this hit the fan!
I want to see those SOB's squirm!

Sibanetta

Al Gore