hmmm..wasnt BUsh in charge on 1/25/01?? the almighty leader

[reeds]

January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat


By JoAnne Allen

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.

"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 (news - web sites) policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."

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.

The meeting on al Qaeda requested by Clarke did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001.

[Drbio]

It's so nice that libidiots such as yourself can ignore all of the paper trail on the Clintoon administration and then bash Bush for not acting on this. It's the same libidiots that would call the President an incompetent money waster if he were to scramble national guardsmen etc today based on a perceived threat which did or didn't eventually materialize.

Must be nice playing three sides of a coin.

[MavKikiNYC]

I agree with Reeds, for once.

Bush should've acted earlier to clean up the mess left by Clinton and his utterly incompetent administration.

If only he'd known where to start.......

[vinnieponte]

Just read the whole thing at cnn. Cant say anymore, it speaks for itself.

[reeds]

"It's so nice that libidiots such as yourself can ignore all of the paper trail on the Clintoon administration and then bash Bush for not acting on this"

Who should we blame? Oh thats right- Clinton...you conseridiots ignore the simple fact- bush was in charge!! Your leader F'd up but its Bills fault

[FishForLunch]

I did not know that Alqeda became hostile to the US only when Bush was sworn in for the first term. These "must be Bush's fault liberals" are deeply affected by the loss of John Kerry. Time to see your neighborhood shrink.

[dude1394]

Does clarke have another book out or something?

[EricaLubarsky]

In hindsight every president shoudl have done something different. I can't blame Clinton and I can't blame Bush for what he did or didnt do in regards to terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Attacks were few and far between, not on US soil, and not very deadly.

It was just accepted policy that terrorism was a priority but it wasn't serious. There were many threats by Osama Bin Laden and other groups that never happened.

In hindsight, should Bush have immediately pulled out all the stops, declared martial law, grounded all planes, and doubled the police force? Yeah. Were there some small things that the president did wrong as far as making the airlines and airports aware? Yes. Did Clinton do any better? No. And we have no evidence of any reports that Clinton got. For all we know, Clinton could have gotten the same report, and the plot either didnt go off or because of dumb luck, the attack was prevented. There would have been a lot of hindsight conjecture had an attack on American soil occured under Clinton.

BUT, we can take that hindsight and improve the future. We can see that terrorist attacks are possible on this soil and fund the correct police force. We can see the troubles that occured when Israel was created, and we can see what short-sighted meddling in foreign countries can do in the long run. That is what should educate us and that is what we should take away from the attacks.

I personally think that the majority of the decisions that Bush has made were wrong, but to piddle over stupid shit? That's not going to get anyone anywhere and its the problem with the democratic party.

[reeds]

"I personally think that the majority of the decisions that Bush has made were wrong, but to piddle over stupid shit? That's not going to get anyone anywhere and its the problem with the democratic party."

Good to hear you feel Bush made decisions..but to call it piddling over stupid shit? Tell the families of the 9/11 victims its stupid shit...exactally...its not too "stupid shit" to them

[FishForLunch]

Lets see who would you blame for 9/11 Alqeda or Bush. Liberals would balme Bush, Alqeda was obviously provoked by the infedel Bush Administration.

[Drbio]

I am thoroughly enjoying reading vinniepuss and reeds whining. I guess the Bush victory making THEIR President just stings so badly that they can do nothing but cry like little bitches. It's absolute pure free entertainment.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
In hindsight every president shoudl have done something different. I can't blame Clinton and I can't blame Bush for what he did or didnt do in regards to terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Attacks were few and far between, not on US soil, and not very deadly.

It was just accepted policy that terrorism was a priority but it wasn't serious. There were many threats by Osama Bin Laden and other groups that never happened.

In hindsight, should Bush have immediately pulled out all the stops, declared martial law, grounded all planes, and doubled the police force? Yeah. Were there some small things that the president did wrong as far as making the airlines and airports aware? Yes. Did Clinton do any better? No. And we have no evidence of any reports that Clinton got. For all we know, Clinton could have gotten the same report, and the plot either didnt go off or because of dumb luck, the attack was prevented. There would have been a lot of hindsight conjecture had an attack on American soil occured under Clinton.

BUT, we can take that hindsight and improve the future. We can see that terrorist attacks are possible on this soil and fund the correct police force. We can see the troubles that occured when Israel was created, and we can see what short-sighted meddling in foreign countries can do in the long run. That is what should educate us and that is what we should take away from the attacks.

I personally think that the majority of the decisions that Bush has made were wrong, but to piddle over stupid shit? That's not going to get anyone anywhere and its the problem with the democratic party.

PLEASE NOTE:
There is neither cussing nor name calling in this post. Erica, please edit it. I read these threads for entertainment, and level-headed, fair minded evaluations are just boring. You won't get any replies to your post, either. Throw some mud, dammit. You must be one of those conservo-liberal pansies.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

PLEASE NOTE:
There is neither cussing nor name calling in this post. Erica, please edit it. I read these threads for entertainment, and level-headed, fair minded evaluations are just boring. You won't get any replies to your post, either. Throw some mud, dammit. You must be one of those conservo-liberal pansies.

Yeah EL, the political forum is for unreasonable partisan semantics. 'Middle-of-the-road' like comments are simply uncalled for. Don't act all high and mighty - just play the blame game like the rest of us savages.

[Ninkobei]

Hey, anti-bush people, why stop at blaming Bush? If you can blame one person you might as well blame the entire work force. While you're at it lets blame God, too. Oh, and don't forget about blaming Osama Bin Laden, I think he should bear the brunt of it. We're all one country and you can't blame someone else without yourself being to blame. Hey why doesn't someone blame you? You should have risen through the political ranks and became president so you could have stopped it.

[mavsman55]

Agreed. I think the Bin Laden administration is more responsible for 9/11 than any of our presidents.