Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush cancelled Clinton's antiterror directives on 2-13-01

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 06:59 PM
Original message
Bush cancelled Clinton's antiterror directives on 2-13-01
>>>> Clinton's full directives:
President Clinton's Presidential Decision
Directives (Including Counterterrorism Policy (FEMA abstract and Federal Response Plan )21 Jun 95
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/index.html
and Presidential Review Directives, National Science & Technology Council.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/prd/index.html
*********************

Bush cancelled it here:

> http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm <

SUBJECT: Organization of the National Security Council System
This document is the first in a series of National Security Presidential Directives. National Security Presidential Directives shall replace both Presidential Decision Directives and Presidential Review Directives as an instrument for communicating presidential decisions about the national security policies of the United States.

<snip> The National Security Act of 1947, as amended, established the National Security Council to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. That remains its purpose. The NSC shall advise and assist me
<snip> The NSC shall meet at my direction. When I am absent from a meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may preside.

<snip>
The Vice President and I may attend any and all meetings of any entity established by or under this directive.

<snip>
The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, at my direction and in consultation with the Vice President and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Defense, may establish additional NSC/PCCs as appropriate.
<snip>

The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished.

<abolished>
The oversight of ongoing operations assigned in PDD/NSC-56 to Executive Committees of the Deputies Committee will be performed by the appropriate regional NSC/PCCs, which may create subordinate working groups to provide coordination for ongoing operations.

<abolished>
The Counter-Terrorism Security Group, Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group, Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness, Consequences Management and Protection Group, and the interagency working group on Enduring Constitutional Government are reconstituted as various forms of the NSC/PCC on Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness.
<snip>

<more abolishments -- so we don't get info we don't want>
Except for those established by statute, other existing NSC interagency groups, ad hoc bodies, and executive committees are also abolished as of March 1, 2001,

<snip>
To further clarify responsibilities and effective accountability within the NSC system, those positions relating to foreign policy that are designated as special presidential emissaries, special envoys for the President, senior advisors to the President and the Secretary of State, and special advisors to the President and the Secretary of State are also abolished as of March 1, 2001, unless they are specifically redesignated or reestablished by the Secretary of State as positions in that Department.

This Directive shall supersede all other existing presidential guidance on the organization of the National Security Council system. With regard to application of this document to economic matters, this document shall be interpreted in concert with any Executive Order governing the National Economic Council and with presidential decision documents signed hereafter that implement either this directive or that Executive Order.

<SIGNED BY GEORGE W. BUSH 2-13-01>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. thanks for the post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kikosexy2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Remember...
The Bushies' slogan is "Anything but Clinton". The Clinton administration had a plan to go after Osama and Al Qaeda. The Bushies wanted no part of "anything Clinton". The Bushies slept, the terrorists crept, we wept--sucks doesn't it??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Now why would he do that?
Considering what the Clinton team told them about the threat and how serious it was, how is this possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. because
9/11 was the best thing to happen to the Bush administration
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Exactly, you don't get your shiny new "Pearl Harbor"
by stopping the attack.

You get it by Letting It Happen On Purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. "you're with us or against us"
no president could ask for a better mandate than that, especially after 'winning' the closest election ever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Yep. That's how they claimed the mandate they didn't get in the election.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. How much damning evidence is enough?
They also demoted the position of counter-terrorism czar. Etc.

Looks more like they gutted the antiterrorism effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EdGy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. so
Why isn't the media jumping on this?

(yes, just rhetorical, I'm not expecting an answer)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. That's why we have to be the ones to spread this info
to every forum, board and local news outlets that we can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. But W said today: Tenet briefed me on terrorism every day
Edited on Tue Mar-23-04 07:44 PM by robbedvoter
So, no plausible deniability here - he did it - knowing the dangers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yep.....He did .....But will the Panel air this out???.....most likely not
All the evidence is out there and it will be interesting
to see the staging of what the panel wants the American
public to know.

It is evident that Bob Kerry hasn't done his homework and
is constantly parading on Clintons mis doings.

The only thing I fault Clinton on is not knowing that Osama
was still working for Bush Sr.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. this is too complicated for Joe and Jane Sixpack
much less the nation's "journalists"


It is clearly the place where they de-emphasized counter terrorism, but they could argue that the system they replaced it with was better than what Clinton was doing.

(This claim would not be true, but the media would take it at face value and drop the issue.)

good spot.

We need this information for the trials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. Must be why Gen. Kerrick quit working counter-terror in summer, 2001.
On the difference between the Clinton Administration and the smirking moron's:

... Comparing the two in the Washington Post, Lt. General Donald Kerrick, who had come from top posts on the Joint Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency to manage Clinton's National Security Council staff and remained at the NSC nearly four months after Bush took office, noticed a big difference on the approach the two administrations took towards terrorism: "Clinton's Cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden in the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000, had met 'nearly weekly' to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, 'candidly speaking, I didn't detect' that kind of focus, he said. 'That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact.'"

http://www.geocities.com/purplesage23/theyknew.html

BTW: Thanks to you, blm, and Sy Hersh I remembered Gen. Kerrick's name and what he said! Keep up the good fight, blm! Down with the BFEE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Heh...you're welcome.
I spread the Don Kerrick quotes around forums for months before the media caught on.

Remember when Begala finally saw it at MWO and used it on Crossfire? Woohoo!!! Those were some days, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 20th 2024, 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC