Report: Plan to Fight Al Qaeda Approved Pre-9/11

Sun Aug 4,12:59 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A plan for the United States to attack al Qaeda languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved just a week before the Sept. 11 attacks on America, Time Magazine reported on Sunday.

The proposals, developed in the final days of the Clinton administration, were presented to the Bush administration's new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice ( news - web sites), in the opening days in January 2001, the magazine said. The plan was 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 process between the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. 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 decision-makers until late April.

The resulting draft presidential directive, which Bush officials told Time was redesigned not to "roll back" al Qaeda but to "eliminate it," was approved by Bush national security deputies on Sept. 4, 2001, just a week before the hijacked airliner attacks that killed some 3,000 people in New York and Washington, Time said.

The 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 what was happening in the terror camps run by Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) -- to fly over Afghanistan ( news - web sites).

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

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 a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the al Qaeda sanctuary provided by the Islamic Taliban regime.

-- DUMBYA = ONE SCANDAL AFTER ANOTHER (INCOMPETENCE @ NEGLIGENCE. CORRUPTION), August 05, 2002

Answers

Yeah, and Clinton is going to "lay down his life" for Israel if it is attacked by Iraq. LOL.

-- (roland@hatemail.com), August 05, 2002.

If Clinton had the plan, why didn't he follow through with it? Because he's all talk and no action, the little slime.

-- One Who (knows@what.he.did), August 05, 2002.

"One who knows" makes a very good point. On the other hand, I think this story will really hurt the Bush Administration.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), August 05, 2002.

Why would anyone believe anything coming out of the Clinton administration that dealt with the military. I heard a sound bite with Clinton saying, "Mogadeshu wasn't my fault". What? Who sent our troops there, ya moron? The guy cut the military because he didn't believe we needed one and then he comes along with a plan. This guy had eight years, was given Bin Laden on a silver plater, and did nothing to get him. Clinton is an asshole and anyone who believes differently is also an asshole.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 05, 2002.

If you really think before you speak Errorton, it's not much of a point at all. The attack on the US embassy was late in 98. It took some time for intelligence gathering and formulating the plan, which Clinton completed in just over a year, not bad at all. His term was finished then, so there wasn't anything he could do at that point, except give it to King Dumbass and hope for the best. Of course anytime you give responsibility to a dumbass you can always hope for the best, but you really should expect the worst, which is exactly what we got.

-- (Dumbya@carelessly.negligent), August 05, 2002.

Trollboy is really on fire this morning. Starting the week off with an awesome barrage of bullshit. Yeeeha!

-- (roland@hatemail.com), August 05, 2002.

If Clinton had the plan, why didn't he follow through with it?

From the article: "The proposals [were] developed in the final days of the Clinton administration..."

Be honest now, if Clinton had launched a major military offensive in his last few days in office, and then simply handed it over to Shrub as a work in progress, can you imagine the howl of criticism that would have been raised from every Republican throat - including yours?

I can hear it now - "Clinton, the rat bastard, couldn't let his successor set his own foreign policy, but perfidiously committed him to yet another ill-considerd foreign adventure, even though Bush specifically promised during the campaign to retreat from this kind of 'world's policeman' role for the USA."

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 05, 2002.

LN, since you didn't respond on the previous thread (Clinton had more deployments), I'll assume you have no contradictions to my valid assertion.

I'll respond to your post above. "Be honest now, if Clinton had launched a major military offensive in his last few days in office, and then simply handed it over to Shrub as a work in progress, can you imagine the howl of criticism that would have been raised from every Republican throat - including yours? . . . to yet another ill-considerd foreign adventure"

Absolutely, there would have been a tremendous rash of criticism. Why did Clinton prepare this 'superb' plan in his final days of office? To have a legacy. Why didn't he prepare it after seventeen of our sailors were blown up in Yemen? He had no clue what to do. Why didn't he prepare it after civilians died in the first WTC bombing? He had no clue what to do. Why didn't he prepare it after our helicopter was shot down? He had no clue what to do. So of course, if in his final days, after eight years of attacks from terrorists, he launched some retaliation, he would have been criticized. It's been completely apparent to everyone, except his penis suckers, that he had no cue how to handle the military. He didn't know a mission from his butt hole and he'd surely have killed our troops with any kind of attack. It would have been a disaster of epic proportions.

". . . even though Bush specifically promised during the campaign to retreat from this kind of 'world's policeman' role for the USA."

And Bush has kept his promise of retreating from 'policeman' roles. Can you tell the difference, LN? I didn't think so.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 05, 2002.

LOL, too funny!!

Talk about "no clue", you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about!! You really should learn to read, then start studying the facts before you blabber your stupid pie hole.

-- mr. handyman (fixing@dim.bulbs), August 05, 2002.

OK, let's play the game. Let's say that Clinton left Bush with a comprehensive strategy to eliminate Al Qaeda. Let's say that the only reason Clinton didn't implement the strategy himself is because he didn't have the time. Further let's say that Bush didn't implement the war strategy legacied to him by a hostile administration because he did not appreciate its prescient brilliance until 9/11 overtook him.

So where's the beef? Bush is now doing what Time magazine (that paragon of journalistic integrity) claims that Clinton already mapped out for him. Why, therefore, don't Democrats support the Bush efforts enthusiastically, confining their criticism to "it's about time"?

Would a President Al Gore have used the Clinton plan to get Al Qaeda? Not likely. The "Clinton plan" was marely a contingency plan. One of many. Nothing of substance would have been done about Al Qaeda and friends by anyone of either party until a 9/11 type provocation.

Probably nothing of substance will be done about Iraq either until an equivalent atrocity occurs here or in Israel or somewhere. Maybe not even then.

We await your leadership, Democrats.

-- (lars@indy.net), August 05, 2002.

Maria, you may assume whatever your heart desires. It may not have occurred to you that it is summer and I do not spend all my time near a computer, all aquiver to answer you.

However, since you bring it up, it does not seem to me a valid criticism of any president to say that he sent troops to more places than previous presidents. Perhaps more places needed such interventions than during the terms of other presidents. What matters more than such empty statistics is results.

Can you point to any bad results from Clinton's deployments that you particularly deplore? Can you make a reasonable case that the particular result you decry was connected to Clinton in any way? Or unique to Clinton's deployments, as opposed to those of other presidents?

Also, Clinton served 8 years, while many other presidents have served only 4; was this taken into consideration in your claim for Clinton's preeminence in numbers of deployments, or was this fact conveniently passed over in silence?

Lastly, if you fail to answer these questions, what assumptions should I draw?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 05, 2002.

“Can you point to any bad results from Clinton's deployments that you particularly deplore?”

All of his ‘deployments’ and ‘agreements’ were goat fucks of the first order:

Haiti

Somalia

Iraq

Korea

Kosovo

Bosnia

The ‘Military’ hated this trailer-trash draft dodger and pinko war protester with a passion. Of course, Little Nipper has no reference point here being a weepy eyed liberal who never served his country, unless you count his stint as night window boy at Wendy’s.

-- What (do@U.think?), August 05, 2002.

DUMBYA KNEW ABOUT SEPT 11TH AND DID NOTHING! DUMBYA KNEW ABOUT ENRON AND DID NOTHING! DUMBYA IS SUPPOSEDLY IN A WAR BUT WHAT DOES HE KNOW, NOTHING! JUST LIKE THE PUGS WHO VOTED FOR HIM!

-- DUMBYA (A@KNOW.NOTHING), August 05, 2002.

At least the 'pugs' could punch the chads out of their ballots. ; )

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), August 05, 2002.

A repug who likes blow jobs??

-- (huh? @ how'd. that happen?), August 05, 2002.

What do U think,

You included Somalia. Sorry, bubba. It was Bush senior who authorized that deployment in December of 1992, about 1 month before Mr. Clinton took the oath of office.

Also, simply calling every one of Clinton's troop deployments "goat fucks" and then listing the names of the countries involved is a content-free argument. If you want to make a point you have to work at it, lil' fella. You have to say what happened in each place that constitutes a "goat fuck" in your oh-so-estimable opinion.

You know the drill. Present facts. Assemble them in some kind of rational order. Interpret them. Draw a conclusion. Just like the pointy heads do, you big galoot.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 05, 2002.

TROLLBOY IS NOW OFFICIALLY A SHOUTER!!. Just when you think he couldn't become a bigger twerp, he becomes............a bigger twerp.

-- (roland@twerpmail.com), August 05, 2002.

LN is absolutely right. For example, Kosovo. If we hadn't acted there, little Hitler would still be tearing up that part of the world with sickening genocide.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), August 06, 2002.

This is all pretty silly. If Dubya had been president during clinton's time he'd have done the same nothing. If Clinton were president now he'd be blaming dubya. What's real is that WE wouldn't have put up with anything preemptive whether at our airports or abroad. The Pogo syndrome again my friends.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), August 06, 2002.

"This is all pretty silly."

That's what Condoleeza said about the Clinton plan, and now 3000 are dead. Just goes to show you, never put a dumb nigger in charge of national security.

-- Free (nut@case.analysis), August 06, 2002.

For example, Kosovo. If we hadn't acted there, little Hitler would still be tearing up that part of the world with sickening genocide.

Peter, why is it OUR job to clean up the messes in Europe? Why must OUR young men risk their lives when the people of Europe act like pussies? Frankly, I think Europeans deserve to be ground under the jackboot of petty tyrants if they don't have the balls to handle the situation themselves.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeeD@yahoo.com), August 06, 2002.

Maria, you may assume whatever your heart desires. . . all aquiver to answer you.

I know I can assume whatever; thanks for you superfluous approval. You berated me with, "Bad Maria! Making up facts again. Bad girl!" So I post a link that shows exactly how accurate I am and you don't respond, except some time later dripping with sarcasm. Nice LN.

Can you point to any bad results from Clinton's deployments that you particularly deplore? I already have in the post above, please read before mooning me.

Can you make a reasonable case that the particular result you decry was connected to Clinton in any way? He was the president at the time who ordered the troops to go in.

Or unique to Clinton's deployments, as opposed to those of other presidents? Yes, shoulders died when there was no purpose or mission. At least the other presidents had the good sense to identify a mission and an exit strategy prior to deployments.

Also, Clinton served 8 years. . . was this fact conveniently passed over in silence? The facts are presented in the link, if you had bothered to read it when you so demanded me to post it. I'll repeat more deployments than the previous three administrations combined. If someone knew anything about our history, they would concluded more in the eight years of Clinton's regime, than the previous sixteen.

Lastly, if you fail to answer these questions, what assumptions should I draw? You can provide nothing but sarcasm, nice tactic. Now why don't you answer my direct question, above? Oh that's right, you have no clue.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 06, 2002.

Baldy, are you calling me petty?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), August 06, 2002.

Of course, shoulders didn't die but soldiers and sailors did.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 06, 2002.

Maria, the criticism that soldiers and sailors died can be applied to every other president who has sent soldiers and sailors into battle. And as I remember it, very few soldiers or sailors died as a result of Clinton's deployments. As for missions and exit strategies, Bush senior pushed us into Somalia with neither.

As a matter of fact, I've read criticisms of Clinton in this very forum, taking him to task for not deploying ground troops to punish Osama after the African embassy bombings, but rather firing cruise missiles into Afghanistan.

As for your other comments, my remark about your making up facts was well merited by your own words. It was in direct response to your incorrect assertion that Clinton had deployed "more troops" than the 3 previous presidents. You said it. It was dead wrong. I took you to task. You corrected yourself.

Merely being president when something goes awry during a troop deployment does not make you directly responsible for the mishap. For example, significant numbers of casualties in the Gulf War were a result of "friendly" fire. Does that mean Bush The Elder should be held directly responsible for their needless deaths?

I can't recall the title of the thread where all this was discussed the first time, and where you posted the link, so I can't go check in on it to see if I "demanded" that you post any links of any kind. However, the previous three presidents were Bush senior, Reagan and Carter. Between them (from memory alone) they sent troops into: Iran, Lebanon, Grenada, Nicaraugua, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Somalia. Clinton From memory alone) sent troops into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti.

I know that US 'advisors' have been sent to Peru and Columbia (and maybe other Latin American countries) as part of the 'drug war'. I can't say for certain if this was first done under Bush or Clinton, but I would observe these deployments are squarely in line with the drug policy pursued by Bush and the Republicans and probably enjoyed Republican support in Congress.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 06, 2002.

Maria, the criticism that soldiers and sailors died can be applied to every other president who has sent soldiers and sailors into battle. And as I remember it, very few soldiers or sailors died as a result of Clinton's deployments. But those who did die were paraded through the streets in utter disgrace. Too bad you don't remember those pictures. LN yes soldiers die as a result of war, as you so thoughtfully noted, but Clinton had no purpose being there with no exit strategy. As a matter of fact, the military wanted to salvage something from that deployment and Clinton stopped them from doing so. So he left accomplishing nothing. You asked, "Can you point to any bad results from Clinton's deployments that you particularly deplore? I have.

As for missions and exit strategies, Bush senior pushed us into Somalia with neither. Please back this up with facts.

As a matter of fact, I've read criticisms . . . but rather firing cruise missiles into Afghanistan. I'm glad to see you can remember when people criticize your beloved president. But can you see why the criticism is warranted? Of course not. It's because once again he had no clue. He had no mission or objective. He didn't know what to shoot or why to shoot; he just did. And everyone knew it except for you.

. . . Clinton had deployed "more troops" . . . It was dead wrong. I took you to task. You corrected yourself. I admitted my choice of words was incorrect but you'll still be blinded by your beloved president. You'll remain just as clueless as he.

Merely being president when something goes awry during a troop deployment does not make you directly responsible for the mishap. Of course it does.

For example, significant numbers of casualties in the Gulf War were a result of "friendly" fire. Does that mean Bush The Elder should be held directly responsible for their needless deaths? Of course they do and this just exemplifies your cluelessness about the military's mission.

I can't recall the title of the thread where http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cdi.org%2Fissues%2FUSForces%2Fdeployments.html

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 12, 2002.

Is there an exit stratagy on this "war on terror"?

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), August 12, 2002.

Cherri: Like we never should have gotten into the war on terror?

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), August 12, 2002.

Seattle is a nest of terrorists. Cherri is their Commissar of Agi-prop.

She is constantly monitored. She is a marginal player. When the time is propitious, she will be terminated.

That is our exit strategy.

-- (Tom Ridge @ my big.desk), August 12, 2002.

LN, Merely being president when something goes awry during a troop deployment does not make you directly responsible for the mishap.

I've reread your response and the depth of your knowledge is astounding. Does Commander-in-Chief mean anything to you! The fact that you don't know how ridiculous this statement is ot that you even made this statement show how ignorant you are in subject area. But you have the right to display your ignorance.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 13, 2002.

Ted Rall is on the right track but he does not see the true dimensions of the 9/11 conspiracy.

People, awaken before it's too late!

-- (Damian Putin @ pale.rider), August 13, 2002.

You need more proof? This says it all, imbeciles.

-- BWAAAHAAAHEEEHAAWW (have you hugged @ pug.today?), August 13, 2002.