Wednesday, March 24, 2004
"So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda."
" Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline"
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
From Bob Woodward's book "Bush At War", page 39.
"Until September 11, however, Bush had not put that thinking [that Clinton's response to al Qaeda emboldened bin Laden] into practice, nor had he pressed the issue of bin Laden. Though Rice and others were developing a plan to eliminate al Qaeda, no formal recommendations had ever been presented to the president.
"I know there was a plan in the works. . . . I don't know how mature the plan was," Bush recalled. . . .He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point [before that date], but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem."
So what is up for debate????
The administration didn't do enough, they funded some ops or kept Clinton strategy in place and this didn't happen until the summer. So far Clarke hasn't flip-flopped or changed his story, Bob Woodward who's very Pro Bush quotes the President: "He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus". "Virtually nothing" Clarke is quoted as saying and if you read the whole transcript he is repeating what Bush did, that's fair but was it half assed attempts at attacking terror?
Do you honestly think that the Bush administration WOULDN'T change policies implemented by the Clinton Administration? Much like No Child Left behind leaving it unfunded or lying about the price of his new prescription drug bill it fits the pattern these guys follow: Make a big stink about changing Washington than under fund, or ignore what they have done, if it works reap the benefits if not blame it on someone else.
Still having problems?
Are you going to talk trash about your boss on National TV or undermine your job and the Presidents job? He just repeated what the Administration yet the key question is: *DID they ignore the problem* *Was Iraq more of a focus than terrorism before and after 9/11? *. You are going to spin your position not to make the President look like a punk or undermining your job, that's bad policy if I had someone put me through the shredder in a briefing like that he would be gone that day.
I know how it feels to spin things you don't agree with, if you have ever worked in the business world you will have to put "Pretty faces" on things. It sucks but it needs to be done in order for you to survive as long as it's just not you making up stories or just lying through your teeth. I understand him better after reading the transcript, I relate to him more.
The Administration was involved with PNAC and focused on Iraq from '97 to the election so what changed when Bush took the oath of Office?
|
" Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline"
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
From Bob Woodward's book "Bush At War", page 39.
"Until September 11, however, Bush had not put that thinking [that Clinton's response to al Qaeda emboldened bin Laden] into practice, nor had he pressed the issue of bin Laden. Though Rice and others were developing a plan to eliminate al Qaeda, no formal recommendations had ever been presented to the president.
"I know there was a plan in the works. . . . I don't know how mature the plan was," Bush recalled. . . .He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point [before that date], but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem."
So what is up for debate????
The administration didn't do enough, they funded some ops or kept Clinton strategy in place and this didn't happen until the summer. So far Clarke hasn't flip-flopped or changed his story, Bob Woodward who's very Pro Bush quotes the President: "He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus". "Virtually nothing" Clarke is quoted as saying and if you read the whole transcript he is repeating what Bush did, that's fair but was it half assed attempts at attacking terror?
Do you honestly think that the Bush administration WOULDN'T change policies implemented by the Clinton Administration? Much like No Child Left behind leaving it unfunded or lying about the price of his new prescription drug bill it fits the pattern these guys follow: Make a big stink about changing Washington than under fund, or ignore what they have done, if it works reap the benefits if not blame it on someone else.
Still having problems?
Are you going to talk trash about your boss on National TV or undermine your job and the Presidents job? He just repeated what the Administration yet the key question is: *DID they ignore the problem* *Was Iraq more of a focus than terrorism before and after 9/11? *. You are going to spin your position not to make the President look like a punk or undermining your job, that's bad policy if I had someone put me through the shredder in a briefing like that he would be gone that day.
I know how it feels to spin things you don't agree with, if you have ever worked in the business world you will have to put "Pretty faces" on things. It sucks but it needs to be done in order for you to survive as long as it's just not you making up stories or just lying through your teeth. I understand him better after reading the transcript, I relate to him more.
The Administration was involved with PNAC and focused on Iraq from '97 to the election so what changed when Bush took the oath of Office?
|
