Condi Rice Is A Liar (Says Clinton Didn't Leave Strategy for Al Qaeda When She Was Given TWO Documents from Clinton Era)
Well color me surprised here! Condi Rice is a proven liar.
In an interview with the New York Post, she says that the Clinton Administration did not leave the Bush Administration a comprehensive plan for fighting Al Qaeda. She told the New York Post: "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_re_us/rice_clinton)
Sorry, Condi. That's a lie!
The Bush Adminstration was actually given TWO documents relative to the fight against Al Qaeda, that had been prepared during the Clinton Administration.
On January 25, 2001, just FIVE DAYS after Condi Rice assumed her role as National Security Adviser, White House Counterterrorism official Richard Clarke (who had also served in the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations), sent Condi Rice a memo "urgently" asking for a principles-level meeting to discuss Al Qaeda.
To his memo to Rice, Richard Clarke attached two documents, a 2000 strategy paper, and one from 1998 known as the "Delenda plan."
He wrote in his memo to Rice:
"Attached is the year-end 2000 strategy on al Qida developed by the last Administration to give to you. Also attached is the 1998 strategy. Neither was a "covert action only" approach. Both incorporated diplomatic, economic, military; public diplomacy and intelligence tools. Using the 2000 paper as background, we could prepare a decision paper/guide for a PC review."
(Read the entire declassified text of Richard Clarke's memo to Rice here: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf)
Additional resource:
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/26 @ 05:33 PM — (Reply)
I would think that instead of trashing him, you would be thanking him for being a faithful career civil servant who went to work everyday wondering what more he could do to keep this country safe.
He is NOT some partisan hack just trying to sell books.
Even more, though, I find it curious that you haven't even responded to the issue at hand, which is that Condi Rice LIED. She is on record telling the New York Post that the Clinton Administration did not leave a comprehensive strategy for combatting terrorism. Yet, the FACT is that the Clinton Administration left behind not one, but TWO strategy documents, which Richard Clarke provided to Condi Rice on January 25, 2001, FIVE DAYS after she assumed her position as National Security Adviser.
I bet you didn't even bother to read the declassified memo that Richard Clarke wrote to her on January 25, when he attached both strategy documents from the Clinton era.
Condi Rice has been caught in another light. THAT is the issue you need to be addressing here, instead of trashing the man who GAVE Condi Rice those strategy documents from the Clinton era. The man who on January 25, 2001, "urgently" asked for a principles-level meeting to discuss Al Qaeda.
And have you even read his book?
Comment by SMillard— 2006/09/26 @ 06:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/26 @ 07:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/26 @ 07:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/26 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 07:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/26 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/26 @ 07:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/26 @ 07:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 07:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/26 @ 07:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 08:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/27 @ 08:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/26 @ 07:30 PM — (Reply)
How about that last choice - Skull or Bones. Cousins Bush or Kerry. Rich bastard or Rich bastard. I felt like it really mattered about as much as a preseason game.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 07:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/26 @ 07:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 07:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/26 @ 07:17 PM — (Reply)
What could Bush have done about the USS Cole?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/26 @ 08:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 08:25 PM — (Reply)
You're sitting up here baselessly attacking Richard Clarke, and not dealing with FACTS.
The fact is that YOUR Secretary of State lied to you today. She told you the previous administration did not leave her a plan. And you've just been presented with a declassified memo that shows that was not the case. It shows that she was presented with TWO strategies for dealing with Al Qaeda. Yet, you won't even address the issue of your secretary of state's lying.
I think you need to ask yourself what would be the purpose of her lying about not receiving a plan. What is she hiding, Barry?
Comment by SMillard— 2006/09/26 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Two days after Rice's March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February."
- Richard Clarke
I don't understand why they couldn't they have been done while Clinton was in office?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/26 @ 08:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/27 @ 04:04 PM — (Reply)
dugg did you see the interview?
Clinton: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?"
Clinton was pres during the USS Cole bombing.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/26 @ 08:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/26 @ 08:35 PM — (Reply)
I will start a list of attacks on US soil since 9/11.
1.
2.
3.
Prior to 9/11
1. Kenyan Embassy
2. Tanzanian Embassy
3. USS Cole
4. The first WTC bombing
In just the embassies alone more were wounded than died on 9/11.
I don't think the Dems or Republicans did enough leading up to and including 9/11.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/26 @ 08:42 PM — (Reply)
They did not certify Al Qaeda's responsibility for the Cole, until after Clinton left. Once they did certify, Richard Clarke provided them with a plan for responding to the Cole attack, which BushCo. refused to do. But why let a few pesky facts get in your way, right?
Comment by SMillard— 2006/09/26 @ 08:51 PM — (Reply)
As long as Clinton saw it as a criminal issue rather than a war issue he wasn't going to do anything.
The 9/11 commission said that Al-Queda was at war with us and we weren't at war with them. Despite the embassy bombings being clearly linked to Al Queda Clinton could have put Clarkes plan in place prior to Clinton leaving. I haven't used any rhetoric and I have behaved myself. As long as your facts make you happy then they must be true.
President Clinton Said He Left "Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy" For President Bush:
Former President Bill Clinton: "[I] left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Clinton And Bush Administration Officials Agree "There Was No War Plan ... Turned Over":
Former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "Now, the second question you asked - which comes off the Time Magazine story, I think, was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. If I could address that. The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had - I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information - what was going on and what situations they faced. Number one among those was terrorism and Al-Qaeda, and I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly so I'm not violating any pr ivate conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." (Sandy Berger, Select Committees On Intelligence, U.S. Senate And U.S. House Of Representatives Hearing, 9/18/02)
Richard Clarke In 2002: "[T]here was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." (Richard Tomkins, "WH Throws Own Words Back At Clarke," United Press International, 3/24/04)
"[T]here Was A Strategy In Place Dating From 1998 That The Clinton Administration Had Not Acted On." (Richard Tomkins, "WH Throws Own Words Back At Clarke," United Press International, 3/24/04)
Unnamed Former Clinton Administration NSC Official: "There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism ... It was certainly not a formal war plan. It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration's ongoing efforts and threat assessments." (Byron York, "Clinton The Anti-Terrorist," National Review, 9/2/02)
"A Senior Bush Administration Official Denies Being Handed A Formal Plan To Take The Offensive Against Al-Qaeda, And Says Clarke's Materials Merely Dealt With Whether The New Administration Should Take 'A More Active Approach' To The Terrorist Group." (Michael Elliott, "They Had A Plan," Time, 8/12/02)
In case you missed my earlier comment I have said Dems and Republicans weren't exactly thinking about Bin Laden. In the 2000 election nary a word was said by either party.
Richard Clarke is hardly the objective writer you wish him to be.
Richard Clarke Had Close Ties Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 2004 Campaign And Was Used By Liberal Groups Trying To Defeat President George W. Bush:
Richard Clarke Repeatedly Praised John Kerry During The Height Of The 2004 Presidential Campaign. "Richard A. Clarke ... credits Kerry with having seen beyond the national-security tableau on which most of his colleagues were focused." (Matt Bai, "Kerry's Undeclared War," The New York Times, 10/10/04)
Clarke: "He was getting it at the same time that people like Tony Lake were getting it, in the '93-'94 time frame ... And the 'it' here was that there was a new nonstate-actor threat, and that nonstate-actor threat was a blended threat that didn't fit neatly into the box of organized criminal, or neatly into the box of terrorism. What you found were groups that were all of the above." (Matt Bai, "Kerry's Undeclared War," The New York Times, 10/10/04)
Kerry/Edwards Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers Called Clarke His Best Friend Of 25 Years. CNN's Judy Woodruff: "At today's White House briefing secretary Scott McClellan called Rand Beers, quote, 'Clarke's best buddy.' So I guess the first question is are you best friends with Mr. Clarke?" Kerry Adviser Rand Beers: "Dick Clarke and I have been friends for 25 years. And, yes, I think we're best friends." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 3/22/04)
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/26 @ 09:06 PM — (Reply)
it wasn't a "comprehensive plan", it was a "real comprehensive plan", therefore it wasn't comprehensive.
love the BUSHCABAL'S revisionist his-story, or in this case "her"-story.
what a bunch of shit.
the Defense/WAR dept. loves enemies, cause ya goota have an enemy to keep Halliburton etc rak'in in dollars.
yee-ha! "mission accomplished" yee-ha!
Comment by The Real Truth— 2006/09/27 @ 05:42 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/27 @ 05:48 AM — (Reply)
could real truth please explain the difference between a real comprehensive plan and a real plan?
perhaps you address the issue instead of applying old stale uninformed lying rhetoric.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/27 @ 07:49 AM — (Reply)
Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chambliss was perplexed. “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times,” Chambliss told NR, “and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.” If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?
Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”
A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”
“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”
“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
“There was no new plan.”
“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “
“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”
“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”
“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”
Amid all the controversy, some former Clinton-administration officials began to pull back on their story. One of them — who asked not to be named — told NR that Time didn’t have it quite right. “There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism,” the official said. “It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn’t have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration’s ongoing efforts and threat assessments.” That, of course, was pretty much what the Bush White House said had had happened all along.
in addition
RICHARD MINITER wrote:
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/27 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/27 @ 08:43 AM — (Reply)
The FBI didn't "certify" bin Laden as a bad guy in 1999? Then why was he on their Ten Most Wanted List?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/27 @ 08:34 AM — (Reply)
I agree jim. the time for pointing fingers is over. Now what are we to do about it?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/27 @ 11:27 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/27 @ 11:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/27 @ 03:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/27 @ 03:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/27 @ 03:59 PM — (Reply)