Richard Clarke sent this memo to Condi Rice in January 2001:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

Along with this attachment:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20attachment.pdf

As well as a still-classified military-ops strategy for combating AQ with Rice.

Take the time to read these. Then take the time to read what Clarke said about the response he got from these:

"Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

--------

Fact is, Clinton tried to get bin Laden. And when he did, he was criticized by republicans who were more interested in impeaching the president than taking on bin laden and al Qaeda.

Clinton took the AQ threat more seriously than Bush. Clinton did more and left Bush with a plan that he did nothing with despite urgent warnings from Clarke. We don’t know whether or not action by Bush would have prevented 9/11. But we do know he did not try. Clinton did try. Republicans didn't care and are now attacking Clinton for doing nothing. Reprehensible.

You missed something rather important, Shipless. Daily briefs given to President Clinton in 1998 stated that al Qaeda and Osama had plans to attack within the United States, using hijacked aircraft. What action did HE take to deal with that threat?

Additionally, Clinton said to Chris Wallace that he left a comprehensive plan with Richard Clarke for dealing with al Qaeda. That was false too. There was no "comprehensive" plan. There was a flimsy outline, doofus!

Additionally, Shipless, do you have a documented copy of that so-called comprehensive plan?

Retired spy:

Did you read this:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20attachment.pdf

There was a plan, a plan that was being implemented when the administrations changed. A plan that the CIA estimated would take 3-5 years to dimish AQ to the point where they weren't a real threat to the US if adhered to. Bush ignored it.

You can call the the plan flimsy if you like, but the fact is, Bush did nothing with this plan until september 11, despite Richard Clarke's urgent warnings that action needed to be taken.

Don't forget there was also a mil-ops plan written in '98 that was given to Rice that still has not been declassified.

Repeat talking points all you like. I'll stick with the facts.

"What action did HE take to deal with that threat?"

Read the attachment link. It outlines all they did as well outlines the plan for future action.

Mark: "First, Clinton shouldn't have needed a note. Our country was attacked repeated during his administration, and he did nothing about it."

Retired Bond wannabe: "Daily briefs given to President Clinton in 1998 stated that al Qaeda and Osama had plans to attack within the United States, using hijacked aircraft. What action did HE take to deal with that threat?"

So guys, did these conditions - us having been attacked, and the alleged daily brief of more attacks to come - suddenly disappear the day Bush became president? If the US was attacked during the Clinton presidency, why wouldn't Mr Action Figure W want to sping into action before 9/11? If there were memos during the Clinton presidency that Osama was going to attack, why didn't National Guard Boy do something about it until after 9/11? With all that recent history of an al-qaeda threat out there when Bush came into office, you'd think thwarting terrorism would have been his number one priority.

However, instead of taking up a vigrous pursuit of al-qaeda that you all say Clinton failed to do, W 1) sent considerable funds to the Taliban who were hosting and funding al-qaeda, 2) muzzled and marginalized Richard Clarke, the foremost terrorism expert in the adminstration, and 3) was exclusively obsessed with a missile shield corporate welfare project.

Mark: "First, Clinton shouldn't have needed a note. Our country was attacked repeated during his administration, and he did nothing about it."

Retired Bond wannabe: "Daily briefs given to President Clinton in 1998 stated that al Qaeda and Osama had plans to attack within the United States, using hijacked aircraft. What action did HE take to deal with that threat?"

So guys, did these conditions - us having been attacked, and the alleged daily brief of more attacks to come - suddenly disappear the day Bush became president? If the US was attacked during the Clinton presidency, why wouldn't Mr Action Figure W want to sping into action before 9/11? If there were memos during the Clinton presidency that Osama was going to attack, why didn't National Guard Boy do something about it until after 9/11? With all that recent history of an al-qaeda threat out there when Bush came into office, you'd think thwarting terrorism would have been his number one priority.

However, instead of taking up a vigrous pursuit of al-qaeda that you all say Clinton failed to do, W 1) sent considerable funds to the Taliban who were hosting and funding al-qaeda, 2) muzzled and marginalized Richard Clarke, the foremost terrorism expert in the adminstration, and 3) was exclusively obsessed with a missile shield cum corporate welfare project.

Shipless should take to heart the words of his idol Richard Clarke....''there was no plan given to the new adminstration'' And remember Aarontime, Clarke himself asked to be transferred to be in charge of the new technology section. So, I guess he marginalized himself. Read his book you liberal boobs.

Dick,

I'd like to see some context to that quote, a link perhaps?

Everything I've found says a plan was presented to the Bush adminstration:

Here's another example:

January 25, 2001: Clarke Presents Plan to Roll Back al-Qaeda, but Response Is Delayed Richard Clarke. [Source: Robert Flores/ Defense Information Systems Agency]
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke submits a proposal to National Security Adviser Rice and “urgently” asks for a Cabinet-level meeting on the al-Qaeda threat. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 230-31] He forwards his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 “Delenda Plan” (see August 27, 1998). He lays out a proposed agenda for urgent action:
Approve covert assistance to Ahmed Shah Massoud’s Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]
Significantly increase funding for CIA counterterrorism activity. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]
Respond to the USS Cole bombing with an attack on al-Qaeda. (The link between al-Qaeda and that bombing had been assumed for months and is confirmed in the media two days later.) According to the Washington Post, “Clarke argue[s] that the camps [are] can’t-miss targets, and they [matter]. The facilities [amount] to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda’s human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?” No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002]
Go forward with new Predator drone reconnaissance missions in the spring and use an armed version when it is ready. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]
Step up the fight against terrorist fundraising. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]
Be aware that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are not just a potential threat, but are a “major threat in being.” Additionally, more attacks have almost certainly been set in motion. [PBS Frontline, 10/3/2002; Washington Post, 1/20/2002] Rice’s response to Clarke’s proposal is that the Cabinet will not address the issue until it has been “framed” at the deputy secretary level. However, this initial deputy meeting is not given high priority and it does not take place until April 2001. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 230-31] Henry Shelton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman until 9/11, says, “The squeaky wheel was Dick Clarke, but he wasn’t at the top of their priority list, so the lights went out for a few months. Dick did a pretty good job because he’s abrasive as hell, but given the [bureaucratic] level he was at” there was no progress. [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004; Benjamin and Simon, 2002, pp. 335-36] Some counterterrorism officials think the new administration responds slowly simply because Clarke’s proposal originally came from the Clinton administration. [Time, 8/4/2002] For instance, Thomas Maertenson, on the National Security Council in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, says, “They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration. So anything [that administration] did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it.” [New York Times, 3/24/2004; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 3/25/2004]
Entity Tags: al-Qaeda, Taliban, Northern Alliance, Condoleezza Rice, Richard A. Clarke, Thomas Maertenson, Ahmed Shah Massoud, Henry H. Shelton, Clinton administration, Bush administration, Central Intelligence Agency

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a012501clarke

Daily briefs given to President Clinton in 1998 stated that al Qaeda and Osama had plans to attack within the United States, using hijacked aircraft. What action did HE take to deal with that threat?

I'm glad you asked. Page 128 of the 9-11 Commission Report:

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports.

"Clinton tried to get bin Laden. And when he did, he was criticized by republicans"

These are talking points without substance. If not please provide the evidence for either one of these assertions??? Links please.

Assuming that there was a plan that would take 3-5 years to implement, as you alledge, what good would it have done during the eight MONTHS prior to 9/11?

Also if this supposed plan was written in 1998...WHY DIDN'T CLINTON IMPLEMENT IT when he had the chance????

Let's see 1998 plus 3....uhhh why...Shaazaammm that's 2001!!!!

So what you are saying is that Clinton could have prevented 9/11 but decided not to. Finally we agree!!

Hoist by your own petard...pinhead.

Shipless admits that this "plan" would diminish AQ in something like 3 to 5 years. In testimony Clarke agreed that even if it had been implemented immediately after Bush took office, it would not and could not have affected 9/11.

Clinton says he tried to kill Bin Laden. Interesting. He didn't think he had enough evidence to detain him, so he decided to kill him instead?

Willie points out a hightened security effort at NY airports, for an undisclosed period of time. Is he claiming that Bush rescinded those efforts? That Bush or anyone in his administration weakened security? At any airport? Did Clinton screen for Arabs? Did Clinton change rules on what could be carried on airplanes?

He says that "The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines..." Did the adminstration in 1998 also dismantle the Gorelick "wall" dividing and separating the various agencies, encouraging or even allowing them to share information? (Because if it did, those in Able Danger didn't know about it.) Did the Clinton administation inform flight schools of any potential danger?

The thing is, the Left is not content to be realistic and simply understand that no one, prior to 9/11, really had a grip on the problem. No, they need a demon, so they demonize Bush. And at the same time they sanctify Clinton.

But no single thing Bush did, or didn't do, comes close to the mess created by the fears of the Clintons regarding the detainment of Bin Laden, and their subsequent refusal to do so. Nothing.

Well, phnxbmed, this what Byron York had to say about the strikes against bin laden:

"Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action [launching cruise missles at bin Laden] set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy."

Perhaps, Shifty is referring to this document written by Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke, just before he left office.

Titled:
"A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR A GLOBAL AGE
THE WHITE HOUSE DECEMBER 2000"

(Search and read it for yourself, look it up on the internet like I did. Instead of having it handed to you....it is called "research")

OK......

The opening paragraph......

"As we enter the new millennium, we are blessed to be citizens of a country enjoying record prosperity, with no deep divisions at home, NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS ABORAD, and history's most powerful military ready to defend our interests around the world. Americans of earlier eras may have hoped one day to live in a nation that could claim just one of these blessings. Probably few expected to experience them all; fewer still all at once."

Comprehensive plan? For what? This last report doesn't seem to reference terrorism as an "external threat abroad". Hmmmm.......

In fact, "Usama" is only mentioned FOUR, count 'em FOUR TIMES. "HIS TERROR NETWORK" gets scant mention -- ONCE! The name Al Qaeda IS NEVER USED!!! NOT ONCE!!!!

Comprehensive plan? Against WHO?!? You would think that a man who had "a comprehensive plan against Osama bin Laden would mention this in this final report. You would think that someone who took bin Laden a serious threat and a real threat would mention him and his "network" more than four times in 84 pages and thousands of words.

Interestingly, there is this little tidbit:

"For this reason, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam's regime."

Hmmm...it seem Clinton supported regime change in Iraq and establishing a democracy in Iraq. Slow and difficult process.......the only solution? Wow! I guess he and his fellow democrats really do have short memories.

Remember, Clinton did establish a plan for removing Saddam, that he did not act on....but thankfully someone did.

Shifty, it is a shame that Clinton and Clarke, who you claim was "focused" and "aware" of the threat from Osama. Their final report says otherwise.

OK, this is the THIRD time I'm posting this link. Tired, try looking at the links I've posted before you claim to be handing me the information I've already posted on here TWICE!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20attachment.pdf

This does not include another mil-ops plan that remains classified.

"Hmmm...it seem Clinton supported regime change in Iraq and establishing a democracy in Iraq. Slow and difficult process.......the only solution? Wow! I guess he and his fellow democrats really do have short memories."

Clinton supported regime change through supporting opposition inside Iraq... NOT through invasion. Hence the slow and difficult process line.

Don't believe me? This is from the Republicans' 2000 platform:

"In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act, the clear purpose of which is to assist the opposition to Saddam Hussein."

We ALL know, the Clinton's are quite edept, at telling us what is, is. They are BOTH, very good at seeing what the polls are daily, and readjusting their duties to suit the day. It was proven time and time again, and in this quest to now get Hillary into the Whitehouse, they both will say and do anything to bring that plan to fruition. It was part of the deal from the beginning with these two....him first, then it's her turn to "rule the people"....These two are such liars, and cons that only look to the power,
money and ego they attain by being in the seat of
the highest office in the land. I wonder how long
it will take, for people to realize once and for all, what these two are really all about. You would think, the way they tried to squash the tv movie, "Path to 9/11", and his latest outburst with Wallace to energize their base, people would realize they are still trying to write their OWN history. I do not believe that history will be all that kind to these two phonies/power-mongers.

Shifty, there is a BIG BIG BIG difference between "strategy" and "plan", as titled in your reference.

Again, why isn't Al Qaeda mentioned in the December 2000 document? If they were such a serious threat why aren't they mentioned in Clinton's strategy report? Why such scant mention?

Oh, I love your "This does not include another mil-ops plan that remains classified.".

Wow, two can play that game.....

"Bush has other secret and classified plans to defeat Osama, Al Qaeda and any other terrorist group that comes into existence."

...that was sure easy! Shifty.

So, Ships if you get those quotes will you beg forgiveness and have a terrorist accomplish his task with you? What is the liberal perspective on Al Qaeda's own comments? As you know it has been said Bush has taken his eye off the ball, and instead of pursuing Al Qaeda he has put our attention and resources into this Iraqi war. Dems and libs trying to discredit the war and as many reasons not to get rid of Saddam as they can. Supporters of the terrorists and proudly unpatriotic, they now wish to apply rights to the killers. However, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq has moaned and complained we have killed over 4,000 Al Qaeda in his hood (Iraq). Doesn't sound like taking the eye off the ball to me....but he should put his eye on the dems and defeat this unpatriotic political party once and for all. My ancestors, all former dems, would defect as fast as you can say 'shipless'.

First off, you can call me anything you like, but my name is Shipley.

Second:

"Shifty, there is a BIG BIG BIG difference between "strategy" and "plan", as titled in your reference."

Oh really? Who's the one peddling BS now?

Here's the definition from dictionary.com:

4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy

The first words? "A plan."

And don't give me "it's only the 4th definition." It's the most apt definition out of the four to what we are talking about.

And Tired, that strategy was given to the Bush administration and he IGNORED IT.... until 9/11, when most of THE PLAN was implemented. You can call it whatever you like, but the Clinton administration worked on this, left it for Bush and it was ignored.

And Tired,

Scroll down to the end of page 8 and read "Bringing the Strategy to Completion: The Next Three to Five Years"

It lays out what programs had been started under clinton to achieve the goal of neutralizing AQ and also lays out what programs need to be implemented to make sure that goal is met in the next three to five years. That's a plan.

Still, "Bush was given a plan.......", eh Shifty?

Still using that same old talking point. Eight years versus eight months with a Democratic controlled Senate who stood in Bush's way at every turn. Still doesn't explain why Al Qaeda is NEVER mentioned in his Global Strategy document written, by Clinton and Clarke, in their last months of office. You can't argue with "NO OVERRIDING EXTERNAL THREATS ABROAD" written in their own words.

Shifty also wrote: "Clinton supported regime change through supporting opposition inside Iraq... NOT through invasion. Hence the slow and difficult process line.....signed Iraq Liberation Act."

Tell us something we DON'T know. We all know he signed the ILA. This is ANOTHER example of Clinton's INACTION against terrorism. Exactly, what was done? What parts of the act were implemented and which one were NEVER carried out?

But you proved my point, Clinton and the democrats supported regime change in Iraq. Period. It is a shame that politics takes precedence......

Still a strategy or plan is USELESS unless acted upon and Clinton did not act on his own plans or strategies..........

.....eight years Shifty. You can't argue eight years of treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem.

shipley, Is that all you've got????

Byron York is a journalist not a GOP leader. Journalists get to criticize remember???

And are you saying that the multi-miliion dollare waste of cruise missles on mud huts in Afganistan illustrates how "Clinton went after Bin Laden" you must be joking, that was pathetic...and his motoves could certainly be questioned.

But I noticed that you failed to address why Clinton didn't implement the plan created in 1998. You obviously fail to see the logic hole in your desperate effort to defend Clinton.

Almiranta: you are a real hoot when it comes to twisting facts. You not only have messed up your house without a plan to get it back in order again (a trademark of neocons), you have also messed up your facts.

The Gorelick memo and the ensuing guidelines had nothing to do with military intelligence. Those documents addressed communications among divisions within the Department of Justice, more specifically: between the FBI and the Criminal Division within the Justice Department. The Republican senator Slade Gorton, a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented intelligence sharing in an August 18 letter to the editor in the Washington Times:

the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.

Moreover, the "wall" that conservatives accuse Gorelick of enacting had been operative well before Gorelick took office. The Gorelick memo provided the "basic architecture" for the 1995 guidelines that formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place since the early 1980's.
Read the entire Letter to the Editor before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Okay, Shifty, I'll let Richard Clarke speak for me.........

"Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

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.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

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: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

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.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

------------------

Sorry, Shifty, looks like history and the facts are on our side.....AGAIN!

Sorry to burst your little bubble Tobsy, but in a ‘background briefing with a handful reporters’, the interviewed is not under oath. This is what Clarke has said about that briefing:

"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he said. "As a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents."

Clarke was being loyal. Every experienced journalist knows that a "background briefing" is not the same as testimony under oath. An experience journalist should always be aware that a "background briefing" can and will be used for propaganda and deceiving the journalist.

Moreover, instead of some statement in a "background briefing", we've got copies of the original printed sources for backup. Nothing beats spin or even false testimony under oath, than original printed sources:

•  Richard Clarke's memo to Condi Rice in January 2001
• Attachment