March 30, 2004

Excerpts from the 9-11 Interim Report
Posted by McQ

While perusing the 9-11 commission interim report, I came across this ... emphasis is mine:

By early 1997 intelligence and law enforcement officials in the U.S. government had finally received reliable information disclosing the existence of al Qaeda as a worldwide terrorist organization. That information elaborated a command-and-control structure headed by Bin Ladin and various lieutenants, described a network of training camps to process recruits, discussed efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and placed al Qaeda at the center among other groups affiliated with them in its “Islamic Army.”

This information also dramatically modified the picture of inchoate “new terrorism” presented in the 1995 National Intelligence Estimate. But the new picture was not widely known. It took still more time before officials outside the circle of terrorism specialists, or in foreign governments, fully comprehended that the enemy was much larger than an individual criminal, more than just one man, “UBL,” and “his associates.”

For example, in 1996 Congress passed a law that authorized the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations that threaten the national security of the United States—a designation that triggers economic, immigration, and criminal consequences.

Al Qaeda was not designated by the Secretary of State until the fall of 1999.

So al Qaeda was finally, officially identified as a terrorist organization which was a threat to the US in 1997. One assumes Richard Clarke was in on this.

You'd guess then, based on Clarke's testimony that terrorism was the Clinton administrations highest priority that they immediately took action to eliminate the threat or at least neutralize it.

Yet it was not until 2+ years later that al Qaeda was actually designated as such by the Clinton administration.

So it took Clarke and the Clintion administration 4 years to identify al Qaeda, and once identified, almost 3 more years to get the organization designated as one which threatened the national security of the US? Even after they identified al Qaeda as implicit in the Khobar Towers and Embassy bombings?

Why? No answer's been given for that question.

Yet Clarke continues to claim that somehow the new Bush administration should have recognized in 7 months what it took him and the Clinton administration 7 years to put together.

They took 7 years to tie OBL to the organization al Quada. 7 years. If this doesn't speak VOLUMES concerning the price we paid for gutting our intelligence capability during the Clintion years, I don't know what does. And let us not forget, Kerry wanted to cut it back even further.

Remember as well, this is the SAME intelligence apparatus the Bush administration inherited from Clinton. Remember too that the Bush administration, per Clarke, immediately increased the budget 5 fold in an effort to "eliminate" al Qaeda.

But that's not the real kicker. We now have a terrorist organization which has been designated as a threat to the NATIONAL SECURITY of the US, and the Clinton administration does what about it? It does this:

While Afghanistan became a sanctuary for al Qaeda, the State Department’s interest in Afghanistan remained limited. Initially after the Taliban’s rise, some State diplomats were, as one official said to us, willing to “give the Taliban a chance” because it might be able to bring stability to Afghanistan. A secondary consideration was that stability would allow an oil pipeline to be built through the country, a project to be managed by the Union Oil Company of California, or UNOCAL.

Translation? So the guy who blew up Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the two African Embassies is in Afganistan along with the bulk of his terror organization and we know it, but the extremist authoritarian Islamic regime presently in Afganistan (i.e. the Taliban) "might be able to bring stability to Afganistan" so we'll essentially ignore it. And besides, there's a chance we might benefit from an oil pipeline if we give them a "second chance".

Amazing. That's the CLINTON administration (namely Albright) giving OBL a pass ... not Bush. Its Albright's department wanting to give the Taliban, and thereby al Qaeda, a "second chance".

And they did ...

We call it "9/11".

TrackBack

Comments

This is great analysis. The specifics give flesh to my overall impression that of Clarke's many lies the one which is the most outrageous is that "Clinton gave the threat of terrorism the highest priority." As to the alleged neglect of Bush I won't pay for Clarke's book so someone else is going to have to enlighten me. Does Clarke specify even one counter-terrorism suggestion he made to the Bush admin which was ignored?

Posted by: Terry Gain at March 30, 2004 05:22 PM

Terry ... I haven't read his book either (frankly I feel the same as you do about buying it) but I'm under the impression it wasn't the fact that they didn't follow his suggestions, but more about the SPEED with which they proceeded. Its my impression he felt the speed with which they attacked the problem didn't display the proper "urgency" in his opinion.

Posted by: McQ at March 30, 2004 05:28 PM

So he says, but even if he felt that there was a lack of urgency why would any intelligent fair minded person trust his feelings (if indeed these are his feelings) when Dr. Rice's facial expression gave him the impression that she had never heard of al AL Qaeda (or so he says)

Posted by: Terry Gain at March 30, 2004 06:50 PM

Obviously he'd missed here interview in 2000 when she discussed Bin Laden at length.

Couple that with the fact that 5 days after the Bush administration took office Clarke was pushing a military strike in Afganistan against AQ (that's in my latest post about the use of the military pre 9/11).

Perhaps you can see why she looked at him with a bit of a jaundiced eye.

Posted by: McQ at March 30, 2004 06:55 PM

This connection with UNOCAL is interesting...wonder what kinda donation they made to the DNC prior to this negotiation with the Taliban for the pipe line rights? Is there a connection there to what Albright & Clinton decided? Inquiring minds want to know...

Posted by: Alan Macomber at March 31, 2004 03:17 AM

Alan...inquire no more. Hamid Karzai (the president of Afghanistan installed by the Bush administration) is a former CIA operative and former Unocal employee. Incidentally, Unocal withdrew from the pipeline project after the US bombed Afghanistan in 1998. A new framework for the pipline was signed in Dec 2002.

Posted by: Becky at April 5, 2004 12:44 AM

Sorry, Becky, but you've been reading the moonbats again. UNOCAL - which was part of a consortium, although the largest player - withdrew after years of unproductive negotiations on the specifics of the pipeline plan. They withdrew because Afghanistan was simply too unstable, and too dangerous.

And they have not expressed the slightest bit of interest since.

That "new framework" you cite? Go look for new details on it. It was nothing more than a deal signed among neighboring nations to "agree to pursue a pipeline deal". They haven't gotten interest...certainly not from UNOCAL.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 5, 2004 05:22 AM

Heh...I like that -- the moonbats. It's true, I tend to get mired in the conspiracy theories now and again (one of the reasons I enjoy your blog -- it helps to keep me balanced).

However, construction has already begun on the BTC pipeline. It is expected to be completed next year. Though it sidesteps Afghanistan, which remains too unstable, Unocal remains a major player. The project never died.

Posted by: Becky at April 5, 2004 09:49 AM

Wait, let me get this straight. UNOCAL is involved in building a pipeline? Shocking.

Since this pipeline to which you refer doesn't pass through Afghanistan, it's hardly "the same one". In fact, the deal to do that pipeline was signed before Afghanistan and Pakistan and Turkmenistan even signed their deal to pursue another pipeline.

So, again, it's not the same thing.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 5, 2004 10:20 AM