Rice warned of Al Qaeda threat before 9/11

[the number 42]

Suppressing freedom of information is only credible if you can trust those in power to act on your behalf in a manner that you would if you had that information.

"White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke warned then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that al Qaeda was an "active, major force" that needed immediate attention. The communiqué was written five days after President Bush took office in 2001".
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4494777

 

[russ_watters]

The memo may be new, but the content is not. We already know they had multiple vague warnings about Al Qaeda. Don't you remember, one of Clinton's turnover briefs went something like: 'I didn't do anything about Al Qaeda, but you should'?

 

[BobG]

You always hear how information that would have tipped us off to 9/11 was available, but our security and intel system was just to bureaucratic and inefficient to put the dots together.

That may be somewhat fair, since the purpose of our security agencies is to do just that, but what you don't hear mentioned is just how much information, both good and bad, circulates through the system. We've made huge improvements in our ability to collect and store data (not just security and intel data), but that just makes analyzing all of that data all the more challenging.

I give Bush a lot of flak for his decision to invade Iraq and just because, when you look at his life overall, he's a loser who wouldn't even be elected dog catcher if not for being Bush 41's son, but blaming him for 9/11 just isn't fair. There were some general policy mistakes made over the years, including the Clinton years, about how to handle Bin Laden, but most of those were more an acceptance of political realities than real mistakes (i.e. - going into Afghanistan and cleaning out Bin Laden's training camps would have been the most effective thing to do, but you sure couldn't have justified that to America or the rest of world before 9/11).

 

[loseyourname]

It's not like 9/11 was the first time Al Qaeda attacked an American interest. We knew they were a threat.

 

[SOS2008]

I give Bush a lot of flak for his decision to invade Iraq...but blaming him for 9/11 just isn't fair.

The rise of terrorism was very well known. With regard to the PDB of August 6, 2001, over a month before 9/11, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" indicating that Osama bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners, the fact is that Bush has struggled to keep the PDB from the public.

What I remember at the time was a goofy guy on a golf course, and the track record of incompetence since has been appalling. This man would never have been re-elected if it hadn't been for 9-11. It has made some question if the attack was more than just being derelict of duty...

 

[Gokul43201]

It's not like 9/11 was the first time Al Qaeda attacked an American interest. We knew they were a threat.

No, it wasn't like old times.

On June 21, I believe it was, George Tenet called me and said, 'I don't think we're getting the message through. These people aren't acting the way the Clinton people did under similar circumstances.' And I suggested to Tenet that he come down and personally brief Condi Rice, that he bring his terrorism team with him.

And we sat in the national security adviser's office. And I've used the phrase in the book to describe George Tenet's warnings as ‘He had his hair on fire.’ He was about as excited as I'd ever seen him.

And he said, ‘Something is going to happen.’

 

[loseyourname]

So you agree with me that we knew Al Qaeda was a threat?

 

[the number 42]

My impression is that yes, Al Q has been a known threat for some time (although Moore suggests that it is more a label popularised post hoc by the Bush Admin to cover the activities of disparate groups), but the nature of the threat was now different, either in kind (imminent rather than suspected) or degree (major activity rather than minor).

To reframe my original question, do you feel safe knowing that the Bush Administration fumbled national security once already? Would you feel safer if you personally received the type of information that Rice et al did not act upon? This is why I think this is a freedom of information issue as much as national security.

 

[SOS2008]

To reframe my original question, do you feel safe knowing that the Bush Administration fumbled national security once already? Would you feel safer if you personally received the type of information that Rice et al did not act upon?

Yes, we knew Al Qaeda was a threat. Yes, Bush dropped the ball on his watch.

However, we know the venerability of our homeland security, and that there is no such thing as being "safe" no matter who is at the helm. Maybe the question should be: Why hasn't there been another attack? Would another attack strengthen or destroy this administration's position? Efforts to disrupt imperialism, such as the violence in Iraq is a better approach for them.

 

[russ_watters]

You always hear how information that would have tipped us off to 9/11 was available, but our security and intel system was just to bureaucratic and inefficient to put the dots together.

Minor point of clarification (I don't think you'll object) - while there were dots that could have been connected (such as tips that Middle-Eastern men were taking flying lessons and weren't particularly concerned with landing), this memo was not one of them.

My impression is that yes, Al Q has been a known threat for some time (although Moore suggests that it is more a label popularised post hoc by the Bush Admin to cover the activities of disparate groups), but the nature of the threat was now different, either in kind (imminent rather than suspected) or degree (major activity rather than minor).

To reframe my original question, do you feel safe knowing that the Bush Administration fumbled national security once already? Would you feel safer if you personally received the type of information that Rice et al did not act upon? This is why I think this is a freedom of information issue as much as national security.

At face value, your question is misleading and unfair unless you can show that "the nature of the threat was now different," or that Clinton's response to the threat was inadequate. My perception (Bush's perception) is/was that the they are/were a major threat, but in 2001, that threat was little different from during Clinton's term. And you and I both know that the world would not have accepted a pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan early in 2001. Remember, 9/11 was not the first time Al Qaeda bombed the WTC.

So to answer your question, yes, I feel safe. I feel safe because I know we have a President who responds to threats. I did not feel safe under Clinton - seeing the terrorism going on then, I honestly felt, at the time, that we were sitting on a bomb, waiting to go off. Though I doubt even Clinton would have avoided invading Afghanistan in 2001, the question you should ask yourself is: would Bush have invaded Afghanistan in 1993?

 

[SOS2008]

So to answer your question, yes, I feel safe. I feel safe because I know we have a President who responds to threats.

I'm so glad we are no longer in a MAD cold-war world with a trigger-finger President surrounded by his yes-man/woman, group think administration (per case studies of Bay of Pigs vs. Cuban Missile Crisis). As for 9-11, ANYONE would have reacted as Bush did, including going into Afghanistan--that's a no-brainer. The problem has been that the focus was shifted away from Afghanistan so quickly to take our country down a path of over-extension with lies and deception. Even earlier Presidents have expressed concern, which probably would include Reagan if he was still alive.

 

[Gokul43201]

So you agree with me that we knew Al Qaeda was a threat?

Either you're playing dumb here or I didn't provide enough background.

There is always the threat of a large seismic event in the pacific northwest, but when you start measuring significantly higher levels of acidity in spring-water, it's time to act.

It was this kind of threat level that had Tenet's "hair on fire". He hadn't been that way all along.

 

[Gokul43201]

Though I doubt even Clinton would have avoided invading Afghanistan in 2001, the question you should ask yourself is: would Bush have invaded Afghanistan in 1993?

Don't you mean 1997? There is no way Bush would think of invading Afghanistan in 1993 ? On what basis would he justify this invasion?

PS : Russ indulging in hypotheticals ! What is this world coming to ?

 

[russ_watters]

Don't you mean 1997? There is no way Bush would think of invading Afghanistan in 1993 ? On what basis would he justify this invasion?

PS : Russ indulging in hypotheticals ! What is this world coming to ?

Its not much of a hypothetical: 1993 was the first time Al Qaeda bombed the WTC! That's when they learned that a truck-bomb next to a column in the basement was not enough to bring them down. They also learned that its not a good idea to report the van stolen after you blow it up...

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0408c.asp

Interesting and apropos article.

and another:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2800297.stm

The bottom line is that I firmly believe Clinton would have invaded Afghanistan had he been president on 9/11. But he was president on the warm-up attack which, had it worked, could have been an order of magnitude worse.

 

[Moonbear]

Hindsight is always 20/20. There still remains a world of difference between knowing they were planning something, somewhere in the US, soon and knowing precisely what was planned, what the target was, what the weapon was, which people were going to carry it out (not generally Al Qaeda, but which memers, and who are all their members?), how they would carry it out, and on which day and time in order to counter that attack or prevent it.

 

[Gokul43201]

1993 was the first time Al Qaeda bombed the WTC! That's when they learned that a truck-bomb next to a column in the basement was not enough to bring them down. They also learned that its not a good idea to report the van stolen after you blow it up.

This may be reason to call for airstrikes/covert action on al Qaeda camps and engage the prevailing "govt" in talks. It's hardly reason to invade the country. Remember, the Taliban government that provided refuge to al Qaeda did not come to power until late in 1996, when they ousted the existing "government" and executed its leaders.

 

[Gokul43201]

I thought this was the point of this thread but just realized that it hasn't been pointed out.

"No al Qaeda plan was turned over [by the Clinton administration] to the new administration."

Isn't that a lie, Madam Secretary ?

 

[the number 42]

At face value, your question is misleading and unfair unless you can show that "the nature of the threat was now different,"

How can I prove that the nature of the threat was different before 9/11 without having reliable information? This is an example of the problem I raised in the opening post: the lack of freedom of information. For the same reason you can't prove that the information available showed the threat to be the same at that time. 'Misleading and unfair' my eye

So to answer your question, yes, I feel safe.

Well what would you do if you couldn't convince yourself that you are safe? Life becomes a lot less cosy, and sleep less easy.

I feel safe because I know we have a President who responds to threats.

Sweet dreams!

 

[Gokul43201]

At face value, your question is misleading and unfair unless you can show that "the nature of the threat was now different"

But this is exactly what Clarke has been trying to convey. Every interview/article/book he's taken/written says that the nature of the threat was different and much more urgent than before !

 

[russ_watters]

Remember, the Taliban government that provided refuge to al Qaeda did not come to power until late in 1996, when they ousted the existing "government" and executed its leaders.

Ok, quick history problem: yeah, Bin Laden was based in the Sudan in '93. So to recharacterize somewhat:

This may be reason to call for airstrikes/covert action on al Qaeda camps and engage the prevailing "govt" in talks. It's hardly reason to invade the country[in this case, it was the Sudan].

Why not? What is the criteria? Actual death toll? Potential death toll? Actual economic impact? Potential economic impact? Level of security breach?

But set that aside for a sec: if Clinton had invaded the Sudan in '93, and/or pursued Bin Laden to Afghanistan (after, say, the Khobar bombing) is there any chance that that could have prevented 9/11?

How can I prove that the nature of the threat was different before 9/11 without having reliable information?

Sorry, but that's your problem, not mine: you're the one who wants to blame Bush for failing to prevent 9/11, while simultaneously saying he's acting too pro-actively with Iraq, and also not wanting to hold Clinton accountable for any of this. That's 3 mutually exclusive positions!

But this is exactly what Clarke has been trying to convey. Every interview/article/book he's taken/written says that the nature of the threat was different and much more urgent than before!

Excuse me? This particular memo is about information turned over by Clinton. If the situation for Bush was different than for Clinton, Clinton couldn't have turned over the info to Bush! See, that's the problem: people are blaming Bush for not acting on information that Clinton also didn't act on. But worse than that, Clinton didn't adequately act on multiple actual terrorist actions during his term. For Bush, this was the first action in his term: he had nothing to respond to before that.

 

[russ_watters]

Arright, since I've had this discussion before, why don't I just fill in the next part:

This particular memo is about information turned over by Clinton. If the situation for Bush was different than for Clinton, Clinton couldn't have turned over the info to Bush! See, that's the problem: people are blaming Bush for not acting on information that Clinton also didn't act on. But worse than that, Clinton didn't adequately act on multiple actual terrorist actions during his term. For Bush, this was the first action in his term: he had nothing to respond to before that.

Well, but Clinton didn't have time, but Bush did, right? That fails for several reasons:

-If it was worth doing, he should have started, regardless of if he could finish it ("it" being whatever Clinton had planned).
-Implimenting the strategy of another President without study is a bad idea - see: Bay of Pigs. And remember, Bush (his advisors) was studying the issue: that's where the "Bush-had-planned-from-the-beginning-to-attack-Afghanistan-and-Iraq" conspiracy theory comes from.
-If Bush had taken action (attacked Afghanistan, created the Homeland Security Amdin, pushed the Patriot Act, etc, etc.), he would have been crucified. I mean - he's being heavily criticized for all those (Except the actual invasion of Afghanistan) even after 9/11. Imagine doing all those things without a 9/11?

No, the time to act was immediately following one of Al Qaeda's previous terrorist acts. That's the only way you can get support for such strong action. Clinton had opportunities (heh, great word - "opportunities" that killed hundreds of Americans), Bush did not.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the OP and this supposed lie: What's the difference between a "plan" and a "strategy"? A strategy comes before a plan. Its general, its not directly actionable. A plan is directly actionable:

Step 1: Invade Afghanistan.
Step 2: Create Homeland Security Dept.
Step 3: Pass Patriot Act.

Clarke's "strategy" was not a "plan." In fact, in the article, he all but admits it: his primary charge is not that his memo was ignored, it was that the response was insufficient: that the Bush Admin didn't work hard enough in the first few months to develop a plan! Ie, that they studied the problem (and they did study the problem) at too low of a level.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ok, quick history problem: yeah, Bin Laden was based in the Sudan in '93. So to recharacterize somewhat: Why not? What is the criteria? Actual death toll? Potential death toll? Actual economic impact? Potential economic impact? Level of security breach?

Sudan perhaps, not Afghanistan - even though al Qaeda did have camps/operations out of there. The Sudanese government was willingly harboring bin Laden; the Afghan "govt" (what later became popular as the Northern Alliance) was opposing the Taliban and al Qaeda and related networks that were gradually gaining power and populairty there. So, under this context you agree that invading Afghanistan would not be justifiable ?

As for your other point, I'll get to it later, but I disagree with what you've just said.

 

[Chronos]

We should have waited until they nuked a US target. If anything, the US ignored terrorist threats far too long. Even Clinton had a spark of awareness that Bin Laden might be a problem. And he was not exactly a geopolitical genius [not that I'm suggesting GWB is]. The ill conceived van bomb attack on the WTC should have set off all the alarms. But no, it only caused minor damage. CNN put engineers on TV to explain why it didn't work and how it could have been done better... how stupid was that? And on 911, how may engineers tried to call and warn them the buildings might collapse? I know a couple.

But all that aside, isn't it amazing nearly all of the hijackers were Saudis? I think it would have made more sense to follow that trail of evidence.

 

[the number 42]

But all that aside, isn't it amazing nearly all of the hijackers were Saudis? I think it would have made more sense to follow that trail of evidence.

Good point. Bush et al didn't react to prevent 9/11, and when they did finally do something he followed the wrong trail.

 

[the number 42]

Sorry, but that's your problem, not mine: you're the one who wants to blame Bush for failing to prevent 9/11, while simultaneously saying he's acting too pro-actively with Iraq, and also not wanting to hold Clinton accountable for any of this. That's 3 mutually exclusive positions!

This is Classic Russ. I love the way you bring Clinton into these discussions, it like a political Tourettes or something. Clinton has nothing to do with the point I am making. You keep using him as a red herring; give it up.

You say that these positions are mutually exclusive:
a/ Bush failed to prevent 9/11
b/ Bush is too 'pro-active' regarding Iraq?
Isn't it perfectly rational to hold both positions? And let's throw in your red herring just for the hell of it.
c/ Clinton is responsible for neither a/ nor b/.
These positions are mutually exclusive? Please tell me how.

Finally, I say that nobody can 100% prove their position due to information being suppressed, and you say that's my problem? Besides this comment sounding a little childish, I see the problem of the suppression of important information as a problem for us all, at least those of us who value truth, freedom, and justice. Restrictions of information allow the Bush Administration to hide behind a smoke-screen of doubt and partial truths, and remain unaccoutable for all kinds of actions (and inactions). In a court of law in England we make decisions not when we are 100% certain, but when the case is proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It sounds as if the Bush Administration didn't act to prevent 9/11 when to others the case for action was beyond doubt, and invaded Iraq when the case for it was entirely in doubt. The case for Bush being a trustworthy leader is doubtful in the extreme.

 

[russ_watters]

Sudan perhaps, not Afghanistan - even though al Qaeda did have camps/operations out of there. The Sudanese government was willingly harboring bin Laden; the Afghan "govt" (what later became popular as the Northern Alliance) was opposing the Taliban and al Qaeda and related networks that were gradually gaining power and populairty there. So, under this context you agree that invading Afghanistan would not be justifiable ?

In '93, perhaps not - since there was still a significant presence there, a limited strike may have been better - but something real needed to be done, both in the Sudan and Afghanistan. In '96 (Khobar towers) or '98 (2 US embassies), certainly an invasion of Afghanistan would have been justified.

Good timeline of events/responses: http://www.disaster-timeline.com/TTLJune1204Irmak_smaller.pdf Please note, this does not include acts against other countries (such as hijackings and bombings) that would have justified international action against Afghanistan.

Btw, if anyone is counting, its been more than 3 years since 9/11. For Clinton, major Al Qaeda terrorist actions came 3, 2, 2(0), and 2 years apart - and 9/11 was less than a year after the Cole bombing.

We should have waited until they nuked a US target. If anything, the US ignored terrorist threats far too long. Even Clinton had a spark of awareness that Bin Laden might be a problem. And he was not exactly a geopolitical genius [not that I'm suggesting GWB is]. The ill conceived van bomb attack on the WTC should have set off all the alarms. But no, it only caused minor damage...

Agreed - that is the point I'm trying to convey here. The timeline shows a pattern of escalating activity that started with a major act that should have been responded to on a similar scale to how 9/11 was responded to.

But all that aside, isn't it amazing nearly all of the hijackers were Saudis? I think it would have made more sense to follow that trail of evidence.

Since Bin Laden is of Saudi descent, its not at all amazing that most of his most trusted followers were. And yes, that's a trail of evidence that was followed.

Good point. Bush et al didn't react to prevent 9/11...

Is that a Freudian slip? Ya want to check the grammar there...?

...and when they did finally do something he followed the wrong trail.

Be specific. What should they have done differently? Are you suggesting Bush should have invaded Saudia Arabia? You are aware that Saudia Arabia kicked Bin Laden and his buddies out, right?

This is Classic Russ. I love the way you bring Clinton into these discussions, it like a political Tourettes or something. Clinton has nothing to do with the point I am making. You keep using him as a red herring; give it up.

Red herring? You seriously can't fathom why Clinton's actions would be relevant here? Clinton had five Al Qadea bombings to react to. Perhaps Bush was just learning from Clinton?? Never act, just react - and only react strongly enough to avoid immediate criticism?

These positions are mutually exclusive? Please tell me how.

Easy:
A. Bush is wrong for be being pro-active (post-9/11) - and I'm not just talking about Iraq- Bush's entire philosophy of pre-emptive action has been criticized.
B. Bush should have been more pro-active (prior to 9/11).

B directly contradicts A. You can't simultaneously be too pro-active and not pro-active enough.

Clinton: far from being a red-herring, Clinton goes a step further:

C. Clinton was right in being reactive.

If Clinton was right for being re-active wrt the five Al Qaeda acts under his watch, then Bush must have been right for being re-active wrt 9/11 (and that's where the "unless" part from before came in). If Bush is wrong for not acting prior to 9/11, then Clinton must also be wrong for not acting prior to the last 4 of the 5.

Finally, I say that nobody can 100% prove their position due to information being suppressed, and you say that's my problem?

Yes. That's a cop-out (for two reasons: 100%?? c'mon, you know such a thing doesn't exist) and you know it. You already have a fully-formed opinion. If the information available (and that includes evidence of suppression of information) doesn't support your opinion, you shouldn't have that opinion. If you want to base your opinion on the lack of evidnce, just say so. I suspect that makes you uncomfortable though, because you know what that sounds like, even though you want to believe it.

It sounds as if the Bush Administration didn't act to prevent 9/11 when to others the case for action was beyond doubt...

That's a big assertion. Substantiate it: first, what, specifically, should have been done pre-9/11, second could it have been done in the pre-9/11 politicial climate, and third, who said we should do it and what exactly did they say? If you're talking about the memos linked in the OP, did you read them? They do not call for direct, immediate action.

...invaded Iraq when the case for it was entirely in doubt.

It was a judgement call. You disagree with Bush's judgement. Fine. Tell me this: if the US had invaded Afghanistan in August of 2001 and 9/11 had not happened, would the world have supported the invasion? Even after 9/11, Bush doesn't get the benefit of the doubt after a judgement call - pre-9/11 I can't imagine that he would get it then. Remember, conspiracy theorists today are still talking like Afghanistan was invaded for an oil pipeline and they use pre-9/11 discussions about invading Afghanistan to show it.

To be quite clear, it is my opinion that pre-emptive action is often the right thing to do, but only reactions are sure to be supported by the public and the world community: Had Bush invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11 (thus preventing 9/11), he would have been crucified. Had Clinton done it as a reaction to one of his terrorist bombings, (thus preventing 9/11, and maybe also the Cole bombing, etc...), he'd have been lauded as a hero.

 

[Bystander]

:(snip)mutually exclusive:
a/ Bush failed to prevent 9/11
b/ Bush is too 'pro-active' regarding Iraq?
(snip).

Hidden assertions: 9/11 was preventable; Hussein was/is benign.

You don't like George, that's tough. "Get over it."

"Charles Martel should have known Mohammed was going to cause problems --- he didn't invent a time machine to go back and kill him in the cradle" type arguments don't resolve anything beyond your politics. You wanta nuke all Islam? Plus the IRA? Plus Basque separatists? Plus East Timor? Plus Tamil areas? Plus who else?

Gripes without alternatives get really tiresome.

 

[russ_watters]

Hidden assertions: 9/11 was preventable; Hussein was/is benign.

Even worse than assertions: assupmtions! One thing's for sure: Hussein is benign now!

 

[russ_watters]

Lemme take a stab at this one:

That's a big assertion. Substantiate it: first, what, specifically, should have been done pre-9/11, second could it have been done in the pre-9/11 politicial climate, and third, who said we should do it and what exactly did they say? If you're talking about the memos linked in the OP, did you read them? They do not call for direct, immediate action.

HERE is Clarke's testimony (a more direct link than in the OP). (this answers the 1st and 3rd, and even Clarke asks the 2nd.)

ROEMER: What else could have been done, Mr. Clarke?

CLARKE: Well, all of the things that we recommended in the plan or strategy -- 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.

SLADE GORTON, Commission member: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

So there you have it - from Clinton's own counterterrorism advisor: Bush could not have prevented 9/11 by acting on Clarke's (Clinton's) recommendations. Its unfortunate that the follow-up question isn't asked: what if Clinton had acted on these recommendations two years earlier?