It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2001 Memo To Rice Contradicts Statements About Clinton, Pakistan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Once again, the BUsh Administration finds itself with it's foot in it's mouth. Just a day after making statements to the press that former President Bill Clinton's claim of a viable plan of fighting al-Qaeda was false, comes the discovery that a memo from Richard Clarke had been recieved by Secreatry Rice, just five days after Bush was sworn into office detailing ways of combating both al-qaeda and for securing Pakistan's assistance in the war on terror.


A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after becoming National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements she made to reporters yesterday..

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told a reporter for the New York Post on Monday. "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."

Rice made the comments in response to claims made Sunday by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that his administration had done more than the current one to address the al Qaeda problem before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. She stopped short of calling the former president a liar.

However, RAW STORY has found that just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. www.rawstory.com...


This is a very interesting read and just goes to show that we can not trust anything that Bush or his adminstration tell us.




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I get the point you and Raw Story are trying to make here; however, I would caution against weaving limited—and frankly, not very good—evidence into some blanket of lies and deception.

Make fun of me or my politics all you want. Call me names and write me off if you will; but, think about what I'm writing for a moment or two.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told a reporter for the New York Post on Monday. "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."


There are two main parts to this quote. First, and perhaps the most important point in this quote is this:

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,"

The emphasis is mine, and there is a reason people use qualifiers like "comprehensive." She clearly indicates, through her use of that qualifier, that there must have been some plan left from the previous administration. It just wasn't comprehensive. There is a significant difference between that and "we didn't get no plan."

And, I just finished reading the memo. She's right. How long was the 9/11 commission report? How about the Warren commission’s report? Do you really consider 13 pages to be comprehensive? If I were your boss and asked you for a comprehensive strategy on anything, let alone something serious like this and you brought me 13 pages, I'd probably fire you immediately, particularly if half of it is just a rehash of what we did about it earlier and how it went.

Speaking of that...if you read the report, you'll note that for the first eight pages or so, it is little more than a light refresher on what the U.S. had been doing to combat al-Qaeda, and how those actions had been working out. That is not a strategy. That is a status report.

You can't outline a comprehensive strategy in two pages. So in the second part of her quote...

"Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."

She is absolutely correct as well. Two pages of little more than bullet points doesn't constitute a comprehensive strategy. Instead, it is basically a white paper that says, "here are some basic ideas we should think about expanding in the future into an actual strategy." By Raw Story's own words...

This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies


Addressing strategies are not creating strategies. Limited text and bullet points are not comprehensive.

It was a nice try, but it doesn't fly. Don't you think your credibility—and Raw Story's—would be improved if your focus was on major areas where the Bush administration has failed/lied/cheated/stole/whatever, than on these nit-picky things that just serve to distract us all? Wouldn't we be better served by an opposition that appears rational, reasonable, and focused, rather than appearing to be a bunch of vultures, waiting to swoop onto any tidbit of negativity, no matter how rotten, all the while screeching like harpies about anything and everything the man does or say?

I'd way rather vote for the first guys.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar

"Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."

She is absolutely correct as well. Two pages of little more than bullet points doesn't constitute a comprehensive strategy. Instead, it is basically a white paper that says, "here are some basic ideas we should think about expanding in the future into an actual strategy." By Raw Story's own words...

This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies


If you are going to disagree with my post, at least do it honestly, not by taking quotes out of context as you did in the above segment. The actual quote was that,

,,

"this document devotes over 2 of it's 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.


Sounds to me exactly what Rice was talking about. In addition, as stated in the article this was a memo which detailed the existing strategy in place during the Clinton administration and suggestions on how the Bush administration could carry it forward.


It was a nice try, but it doesn't fly. Don't you think your credibility—and Raw Story's—would be improved if your focus was on major areas where the Bush administration has failed/lied/cheated/stole/whatever, than on these nit-picky things that just serve to distract us all? Wouldn't we be better served by an opposition that appears rational, reasonable, and focused, rather than appearing to be a bunch of vultures, waiting to swoop onto any tidbit of negativity, no matter how rotten, all the while screeching like harpies about anything and everything the man does or say?


You mean the way the Bush admistration attacks anything that Clinton or the Democrats have to say regarding the war, the economy, etc.? The word rational and reasonable are two words that don't belong in the same sentance with the name Bush.


I'd way rather vote for the first guys.


That's your right... and I have the right to disagree with you and vote for the other guys.


[edit on 9/27/2006 by Stormrider]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The BUSH administration did more tha ALLOW the terrorists this attack, than they did to stop them.

Clinton became aware of the threat and advised this new government but they FAILED to activley use the information at hand.

Both of them had a chance to activley end the aleqaeda branch..
but it was on bush watch.. when he was ADVISED of the plan coming, he was advised where they were training.. yet he failed to swoop.

No matter how much evidence comes out against this regime.. there's awlays a savvy comment to push it aside without actually answering the critics...


when are we going to remove this regime?



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Respectfully, Stormrider, honesty is exactly what I’m after here. I shortened the quote because the portion I cited was germane. The rest was not. It doesn't matter if she is talking about a plan for Pakistan or a plan for Tahiti. What matters is that she said there were no comprehensive strategies, and she was correct.

The portion I cited specifically states that the memo and accompanying document address strategies. That is the key here. There is a difference between presenting a strategy and discussing how you should have one.

It sounds to me, and forgive me if I am mistaken, that you have simply read the Raw Story article and taken their word for it. I went one further and read the actual memo and accompanying _/b], both of which may be accessed through the Raw Story article. The Raw Story article is correct that the document only addresses strategies. It doesn’t present anymore than a few bullet points and a few paragraphs on any of the discusses strategies, let alone the one for specifically dealing with Pakistan.

In the future, if you are going to openly question my honesty, please be sure that you are also being honest. I doubt you honestly believe that a few bullet points and a few paragraphs that cover about 1.5 pages of a 13 page document constitute a comprehensive strategy. If you do believe that, then we have bigger problems.

Let’s be honest though, shall we? Do you, in fact, believe that a comprehensive strategy for dealing with terrorism Afghanistan via complex diplomatic maneuverings in Pakistan can be adequately set out in 2 pages or fewer?

Think carefully about what I’m saying and what I’m asking. I have no problem with you, nor your source, nor Dr. Rice, nor this memo. My only concern is that this memo and accompanying _/b] DO NOT serve to illustrate any dishonesty in the Bush administration. In fact, the memo and document are exactly what one would expect based upon Condi’s statement. They are completely consistent with one another.

Again, for the record, here is where you are going wrong:


Originally posted by StormriderIn addition, as stated in the article this was a memo which detailed the existing strategy in place during the Clinton administration and suggestions on how the Bush administration could carry it forward.


The emphasis is obviously mine. The memo absolutely did not detail anything, which you would know, had you read the memo and the accompanying document, rather than just taking the word of Raw Story (as we all do from time to time).

It was a memo for crying out loud. By it’s very nature, it lacks detail. So does the other document. Therefore, it cannot be comprehensive. If it is not comprehensive, it means Rice was correct when she said they were not left with a comprehensive plan.


Originally posted by StormriderYou mean the way the Bush admistration attacks anything that Clinton or the Democrats have to say regarding the war, the economy, etc.? The word rational and reasonable are two words that don't belong in the same sentance with the name Bush.


Yes, that’s exactly what I mean, and at what point did I condone this? Perhaps you should take a moment to read up on Feeding the White Elephant.

And, relax, buddy…Assuming you already voted for the other guy (and he lost, remember…) perhaps it’s time to start thinking about how to help that other guy improve his chances, so he doesn’t lose again and again and again. Even if you didn’t vote for, it’s probably safe to assume that you don’t want anyone connected to the present administration elected in 2008.

Step 1 is listening when reasonable people—with little concern for either party or any administration—tell you something isn’t working, or is unattractive about your position. Ignoring that step just guarantees disappointment.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
If Clinton had a "Comprehensive Strategy" for combating terrorism - it apparently didn't work. We were struck more times under Clinton by terrorists that at any other time in US history!


By the way, a memo is NOT a comprehensive strategy. A memo, short for memorandum, is defined by Webster as "A brief record written as an aid to the memory." Hmmm... that just doesn't sound very comprehensive to me.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
than on these nit-picky things that just serve to distract us all? Wouldn't we be better served by an opposition that appears rational, reasonable, and focused, rather than appearing to be a bunch of vultures, waiting to swoop onto any tidbit of negativity, no matter how rotten, all the while screeching like harpies about anything and everything the man does or say?


Oh...I thought you were talking about Clinton at first. If the Republicans would have been more interested in terrorism than a BJ, maybe Clinton could have done something? Talk about harping on what the man does or says. I'm not justifying Clinton either but come on....this goes far beyond partison politics IMO.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
If Clinton had a "Comprehensive Strategy" for combating terrorism - it apparently didn't work. We were struck more times under Clinton by terrorists that at any other time in US history!


Let's look at it this way. How many people (citizens) died while on Clinton's watch as oppossed to Bush's watch? I think you'll get a much more important view of these terrorist attacks.

Bush....3,000 + US citizens.

Hmmm....Clinton.....hundreds (if even)...not sure but i know it wasn't in the thousands.....and none on US soil.

So, who actually looks better now when you think along these lines?


By the way, a memo is NOT a comprehensive strategy. A memo, short for memorandum, is defined by Webster as "A brief record written as an aid to the memory." Hmmm... that just doesn't sound very comprehensive to me.


Already been answered. It was a memo describing the strategy....not the strategy itself.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
You're being disingenuous at best...

www.nationalreview.com...

Is it only the death toll that counts? Give me a break!
When were the 9/11 attacks planned? When did the terrorists enter the country? Under which administration did they train on US soil? Who did Jamie Gorelick work for when she built the intelligence wall between foreign and domestic surveillance and intelligence sharing? Who failed to take advantage of Bin Laden's capture?

Defending Clinton's record on terrorism just shows how very little you know about the subject matter! Believe me when I tell you that I am not a big Bush supporter and am continually appalled by this current administrations constant mis-steps on the matter - but come on! Logic, reason and honest debate yields that Clinton's record with respect to fighting terrorism was abysmal at best!



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Like I said before. I'm no Clinton fan either. I was just pointing out that none of the terrorist attacks happened on US soil when Clinton was in office. The biggest one ever happened on US soil when Bush WAS in office.

And yes, the death toll does count IMO. Unless you're a military guy and think along the lines of "collateral damage", I would hope that the death toll counts to you also.


but come on! Logic, reason and honest debate yields that Clinton's record with respect to fighting terrorism was abysmal at best!


I never said it wasn't abysmal. It was. The thread is about Condi Rice lying (again) to the people of the press. Let's stay on topic.

Edit: I'm wrong.....I forgot about '93 WTC bombing...my bad. That was under Clinton and on US soil.....

[edit on 9/29/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The thing that is funny to me is all these people on the the "blame Clinton for 911" bandwagon are only speaking about all this horrible misstakes Clinton made prior? This whole thing is merely to deflect the real issue. It is undeniable that both Pres. have a hand in the blame to varying degree's depending on your outlook. Regardless though, it happened - it happened under Bush, and rightly or wrongly it seems a majority of people feel that Bush has been less than truthfull. It doesn't matter where a memo becomes a detailed note - what matters is that Bush was undeniably aware of the threat. Bush didn't do anything, or enough, or worse helped in some manner, that ultimately allowed the attacks on 911 to happen. All of which culminated in the recent charade in the House and Senate.

Seriously, who cares what happened 6 years ago at this stage? American's have killed more innocent people in Iraq now, on a quest that is looking like an undenaible lie - a lie it also appears they told knowing they were lies or at least exhaguration. Those people now have very valid reasons to what to kill you, no doubt many will try - but even that is irrelevent if you lose your Country while they try to figure out a way to get to you - heck at the rate the US is going it is going to be freer over there anyway.

If the US can't pull their stuff together soon, I am not sure it ends without a lot more lose of lives.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The COMPLETE and ACCURATE record of history will assign the appropriate blame. That being said, it is only an HONEST accounting of history that will a.) assign the appropriate blame and b.) provide data for future scholors to analyse to hopefully avoid repeating history. I cannot, and will not, tolerate Clinton, or anyone for that matter, attempting to rewrite history to the benefit of their legacy.

Yes, Bush has mangled his foreign policy in respect to terrorism, but "At least he tried"
to use Clinton's argument. It is evidently clear that Clinton did very little to nothing to either a.) address terrorism or b.) protect us against it. His lack of policy on the matter emboldened them enough to believe that a 9/11 style attack was not only possible, but a strategic neccessity. The preparations for such an attack took place under Bill Clinton on US Soil.

That being said. I don't agree with the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against non-terrorist states either. That has seen an increase in terrorism, but now we are obligated to finish what we started over there.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
the finger pointing by these two administrations is getting more pathetic and childish by the day.

Clinton's mishandling of Osama has been discussed enough. Bush's mishandling of everything, including pretzels and bicycles, has been discussed enough. They both f**ked up big time and both are trying to lay blame elsewhere.


I think Clinton should stop allowing himself to be dragged into this mess. He screwed up. So did Bush. It's over. Rather than try and figure out ways to blame the other guy, they should move on and try and find ways to avoid something like this ever happening again.

I did find it it kind of telling that Clinton did the angry finger wagging/pointing when he was being grilled on Fox. Anyone remember the only other time he did the finger wag? That's right, during his "I did not have sexual relations with that girl" speech.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Kozmo,

Why stop there? Why not blame Reagon for his share in supporting that region, in fact maybe it was Washingtons for forming the US to have Bush, Reagon, Clinton, Nixon, et el. I am not saying that it is blameless, quite the contrary - I am saying they all have some blame to shoulder. My point was that regardless on the situation that lead up to 911, what has transpired after is what has been truly damaging to both your international reputation and the serenity of your population - both of these being the result of what appears to be at best gross incompetetnce causing death, and at worst a directed series of events that caused death. Either way America as a nation has much mor pressing issues such finding some comman ground between the two political party members(can't we all get along) to have some kind of unified front to take back your government, because these recent events are merely the narrow edge of the wedge.

"Staying the course" is something else I have never understood. If one definition of a smart man is "someone that learns from the mistakes others make, so he doesn't have to make them himself", then isn't a definition of stupid be "someone who makes mistakes and doesn't learn from them"?, Isn't that exactly what "staying the course" represents? The soldiers aren't helping nearly enough to justify them being there to maintain the non exsistant peace, especially in light of new polls that say 60% of the population support bombing the troops. But they aren't there for the Iraq people anymore than they were sent there for WMDs - they were sent there, they are there and manyhave died there for asissts - which is why I think this whole situation is perverse.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Awesome thread but IMO the Republican's in this thread need to check themselves and make sure they are American's first. If you read Richard Clark's book (I know, somehow it's not pertinent or trustworthy or however else you want to classify it) or more importantly listen to his testimony before the 9/11 commission you will see that he attempted, from day one of the Bush administration to get the material on terrorism in front of the Principals.

Simply based on that testimony and what's written in his book (and not even to mention the book by Paul O'Neill) this administration failed at every turn when it came to terrorism. I don't have links handy but I have heard rumors that the transition team was just not interested in discussing anything with the then outgoing Clinton Administration. Failures, every one.

The real issue is that you are being misdirected at every turn. And this administration even told you they were going to do it. An aide was quoted as saying they would "manufacture they're own reality instead of reacting to the reality" or something to that effect.

Support Bush all you want but you're supporting the terrorists if you do. (I figured I'd try a play out of this administrations play book there. I don't think I have it down yet.
) Try being American's for a change!



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake

Why stop there? Why not blame Reagon for his share in supporting that region,


When Reagen withdrew our troops from Beirut after the attack on the barracks he sent a message to terror organizations that, yes, the mighty US can be pushed back. Had he been more aggressive after that attack, perhaps the mindset would have been different so he does deserve some blame as well.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Exactly, you can blame every President, or even person, for errors of the past that in retrospect seem obvious but hindsight and 20/20 and all that. That is why I am not sure why anyone cars whether Rice lied, if she didn't then she sure has heck in the past so what's the diff? This entire admin has been questionable from the very start, just for a moment think about all the fibs, half truths and out and out lies they have been caught in. Sure they usually have an excuse or try and slip by with symantic BS - To say Rice didn't lie because her notice was on a memo as oppossed to a formal and therefore never received the information is dishonest.

Rice lied - Who cares? Bush lied - Who cared? Cheney lied - Who cared? Your freedoms in the Patriot act were curtailed - Who cared? The consitution is being rewriten without aproval from the people - who Cares? My simple opinion is if something isn't done in a America soon, there will come a time when the only option will be violence and that will truly be a very sad day, because then we can truly say that the experiment of civilization will have failed.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
The COMPLETE and ACCURATE record of history will assign the appropriate blame.


I didn't want to quote the whole post. I agree with everything you've said kozmo. I'm just getting sick of the Republicans trying to place all the blame on Clinton. He did a major blunder......but so did Bush. That's all I'm saying. And I'm getting sick of everyone lying (Clinton, Rice, Bush etc.) to CTA (Cover Their Arse). Like my signature says.........better words have never been spoken IMO.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
intermission:
bush sings U2


back to the debate



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Wish I could hear it at work. I'm almost done for the day so maybe if I remember to watch it, I'll do that tonight. It looks funny. Thanks for the laugh in advance.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join