White House April 2001 Memo: Focus on bin Laden a "Mistake"

White House, 4/01: Focus on Bin Laden "A Mistake"

A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1.

Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."2.

The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9/11 was not the only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent3. Specifically, the Associated Press reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions"4. Meanwhile, Newsweek has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism prior to 9/115. When "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Sources:
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004.
CNN, 04/30/2001.
Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry, ABC News, 05/16/2002.
"Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11 attacks", Detroit News, 07/01/2002.
Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002.

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03262004.html

This really could be damaging......and I'm a pessimist!

immediately.

i like to send him "tips" like this:)

This story isn't valid (see reply 40 and others)--please wait for better ammo. The last thing this story needs is easily dismissed pro-Clarke stuff that will imply the more valid stuff is also weak.

responding to an Ann Coulter question with some Hannity propaganda re. Condasleaza Rice?

I was attacking Coulter and Hannity. They say a 2000 Rice interview where she mentions Bin Laden proves she had heard of al Qaeda.

There was a lot of publicity about BIN LADEN but "al qaeda" was a fairly unknown phrase at the time.

The print media and TV don't mention this document. I think this is the "smoking gun."

The drips have finally become a torrent that will wash the neo-con garbage out of DC.

I prefer mine WELL DONE!!!!!!

"How would you like YOUR Bush Administration?"

FBI man might not get the joke.

Inside and Out and then straight into the garbage can!

This is going to help bury these guys.

Shout it out!

Has this been verified elsewhere?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So I can't really claim this is non-biased. I just passed this link and text along after seeing it newly posted on another political message board I read regularly.

I expect it'll be confirmed soon, but we'll see.

I urge you to subscribe to their well-sourced daily email newsletter.

:hi:

If it clarifies this issue, I'd like to point out that the government's annual reporting period may have more to do with its fiscal year parameters, than those of the * Admin, which you rightly pointed out was only three months *old* -- not 3 months' of *activity*.

Which usually runs April 1 of one year to March 31 of the next.

The annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report is submitted in compliance with Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(a), which requires the Department of State to provide Congress a full and complete annual report on terrorism for those countries and groups meeting the criteria of Section (a)(1) and (2) of the Act.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

There apparently is no exception in the law for an incoming administration not interested in or not up to speed on fighting terrorism.

know all about this. FBI was pulled off the job of pursuing OBL.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The cite to the April 2001 CNN story has no link on the Misleader site. Grrrrre. Stiil .. I think Chimpy's toast.

Now all that's left to ask is:

Will CNN carry the story?

&

How will Fox try to spin it so it looks good for chimpy?

It would certainly seem to vindicate Clarke pretty much, and drive a stake through the heart of the beast. But I've never heard of a "previously forgotten" report. Recently discovered, just released, previously undisclosed, but "previously forgotten?" I'm hoping it was just very sloppy writing that slipped by an editor, but it makes the story sound illegit.

I hope you'll forgive me. For some reason, I've grown quite cynical over the last few years.

Must hyperblast media with this.

Also Frist at www.senate.gov

and Hastert at

www.house.gov

wankers

If y'all want to comb through it:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/

Usama bin Ladin

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2432.htm

it's on all these pages:


http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2419.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2420.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2418.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2434.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2444.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2450.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2438.htm

<snip>



By Ted Bridis / Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions, officials say.

<snip>

Rice has described the work of the council's Counterterrorism Security Group, directed by Special Assistant Richard Clarke, which met several times each week during July and August. By Aug. 6, Bush received a briefing report with the heading, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States." The report discussed the possibility of traditional airline hijackings.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0207/01/politics-526326.htm

It makes you wonder what they talked about the other 98 times. The article says:

"Bush's principals committee was focused on missile defense, Iraq, China, international economic policy, global warming and the U.S. stance toward Russia"

One wonders if it was mostly Iraq.

I cannot find any reference on CNN. Googling everything represented as a direct quote is also a bust.

For those interested in forming their own conclusions, here's what I assume is the report in question. (I'm guessing because the report isn't specifically identified by title in this post)

There's no search function, but I didn't see Bin Laden named in what I looked at.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/

and search for term bin Ladin (netscape function) he appears in Asia Overview, Overview of State Sponsored Terrorism,
Al Q also.

still looking.
dp

There are several mentions of UBL and Al-Qaida. Mostly in section on middle east.

But nothing to reflect people running around with hair on fire.

.....how it's DUn! :evilgrin:

Bullshit my ass! :) I remember when this was reported ON CNN!

THis may not be the smoking gun. The misleader sight has not made it clear enough with the supporting docs.

This reminds me of the airplane movie in which all the passenger line up to take a whack at the hysterical passenger. Bush is gonna be a human pinata!

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/

Relevant paragraph:

Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."

Does the length matter? That isn't the same as saying not being there at all. Good find, though.

"Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."

and Bush wants us to worship him as our Commander in Chief!

"United Nations Resolution 1333, imposing stricter sanctions against the Taleban until it hands over bin Laden and stops its support for terrorist activity, is cited as progress in the international effort against terrorism."

... conveniently not mentioning that the United States was giving $43 million in "no-strings attached" aid to the Taliban for discouraging the opium trade.

It seems to me that even on an international level, the U.S. thought drugs were a much bigger problem than terrorism.

It also seems likely that the U.S. was probably the single biggest foreign sponsor (financially speaking) of the Taliban.

It also seems, ironically, that it was the United Nations taking the hardline against terrorism (and specifically the Taliban and Bin Laden) via this resolution, and the U.S. acting in direct contradiction of this resolution.

Do you have a linky?

with their opium crop. They agreed to stop production, of course they had a year's supply socked away. They suckered bush out of all the money.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

snips:

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building,"

And all their families!!!!

And to the BBC....so the British can see plans at hand.

These two alone should warrant an immediate
independent investigation into their true intentions
on the matters of the 911 catastrophe!!!!!

thanks for the link!

If it is a report on 2000 terrorism.


A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."


Was this person quoted from Clinton's time or Bush's?

(Edited after further consideration and research)

Let's not get too excited. The more I look at this, the sloppier it looks.

The CNN quote is of some interest (thanks, EarlG - Post #28 in this thread). Unfortunately, the quote came from a confidential source and not a published report, so that's not too strong. At any rate, as troublemaker points out, the reference was to how much play bin Laden was given in the annual report--which is an indication of the administration's focus or lack thereof, but doesn't directly reflect policy.

The other sources cited contain information that's damning, but already part of the public discourse on Bush and 9/11. So I have to agree with those who've pointed out that there's no real smoke coming from this gun.

The McClellan press conference transcript contains virtually nothing relevant to the claim being made, and the other sources wouldn't generate any new heat at this point, either.

We must be rigorous in verifying stories and sources before going off half-cocked and sending stuff around that can be easily debunked by the far (f)right.

For a minute, I suspected that misleader.org was a plant by the Republicans. But according to a search of the Network Solutions whois database, it's registered to Eli Pariser and moveon.org. They need to do a better job of fact checking before publishing stuff.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2001/2571.htm

bin Laden's name is nowhere in the Briefing.

Here's the CNN link

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/04/30/us.southasia/

it was not in the US edition - only Asia

:wtf:

The link above ("Here's the CNN link http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/04/30/us.southasia /") is about the Clinton era 1999 report (May 2000 release) not the 1st Bush report (20000; May 2001 release)

Seems to me the link

<http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/04/30/us.southasia/>

is propably the more accurrate of the two.

My mother mad ethe mistake of sending me one of those BS anti-Kerry e-mails (about him mistreating a pilot while on a POW/MIA visit to Vietnam) with a whole bunch of her friends and such. This crowd is in it's 50's to 70's and most are probably Bush supporters save for one who became a DU'er.

I send one e-mail a day starting with "Hey look....." and try to use very reputable sources, ones they might trust. This one was too good to pass up.

This all points to simple ineptitude and/or indifference. Which may be enough to get these bozos out of the WH.

But it does not address what I and others here feel about the terrorist attacks of 9.11.

Complicity at worst, deliberate obfuscation at best.

Yes, we need the BFEE out of power. But to see anything less than criminal charges against those responsible for allowing or enabling these attacks is a grave disservice to this nation.

Have we considered that they are hanging out the picture of incompetence as a cover for something far more sinister?

Will we be satisfied with this tease of Justice and closure?

Never forget, they said. Damn straight. I won't.

We just need to bring it all under the same roof
and get an independent panel to do a thorough investigation.

Thanks, CIA--but don't blow your was before November--we have a way to go!

:headbang:
rocknation

Remember NYC, republican convention, shameless exploitation of 9/11. That one is not going to play well with the electorate.

Will those repugs really want to step on their sinking ship?

Disclaimer: I take a back seat to no one in my desire to see Bush out of office, but...

This story is garbage. The money quote is out of context and--even worse--altered! Th quote refers to how much publicity to give Bin Laden in the report, not to overall efforts against Bin Laden.

This is part of the incoming Bush admin's desire to not personalize Bin Laden, reflecting the attitude in a 1990s Heritage Foundation report that I read but cannot find anymore. I personally disagree with the Bush view, but that doesn't justify this distorted "article"

____________
From the CNN link:

Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/

___________
From the MoveOn piece:

"When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.""

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03262004.html

Still digging...

In reading the report and the comments regarding the report, I don't see any "smoking gun." Al Qaeda is mentioned as a threat in the report and as a suspect in the Cole bombing.

I've just read the CNN article you linked about the 2000 report, covering 1999, and I fail to find any 'really scary quote that smears Albright and Clinton' in it.

Where is it?

I'm not looking to publicize anti-Clinton material.

I did not see anything anti-Clinton in that article.

And besides -- don't worry. Clinton isn't running for president anymore.

BTW, here's the correct link to the report the Bush administration prepared:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept

reveal additional lies by Comrade Squealer in the March 22, 2004 press briefing concerning whether the administration really determined during the transition that "al Qaeda was a top priority," and that the administration "immediately began acting on that priority when {Bush} came into office." It would help to have the entire quote the State Department official gave CNN and any other comments not included in the CNN article. CNN probably is in the best position to pursue this.

and presumably paraphrases. We may quibble on semantics, but it's not a lie. Spin is what it is.

I am still hopeful, I haven't seen a solid link other than to this misleader piece, which by its own name, is sort of like trustin Drudge or Newsmax for a "developing" story.

You definately vetted this out, troublemaker. I was so excited reading the post header, and when I went to the link and saw MoveOn all over the place, I got a bit cynical. Thankfully, there aren't as many drudges on this side as on the bushista's side, but, I don't think my congressman would get a kick out of this article.

~Almost

I'm really enjoying the thought of some DU posters (especially in the 9/11 Forum) who have clung so rabidly - and foolishly - to the Official Story spun by the traitors in the White House.

What say you now, with all the evidence that LIHOP, at the very least, was the order of the day?

My guess: not much.

...is really what it is all about. The end justifies the means. The Discourses call for an enemy to be brought forth when the Prince comes to power. How he came to power is part and parcel of the treasonous scheme to keep him in power and lend public support to the illegitimate government of militarists and fascists plundering the treasury and the people for their own enrichment and aggrandizement.

I fear their next installment of treasonous acts.

I'll have to put in a lot of text as I cannot link directly to the stories I've found.

"Washington Times, May 1, 2001
The State Department accused Iran yesterday of being "the most active" among the seven state sponsors of terrorism in 2000, along with Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Iran won the designation because of its support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad, groups "which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism," the department said in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism Report.

"Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the U.S. secretary of state has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism," said the report.

Critics accuse the United States of listing countries such as Cuba, Libya and North Korea on the basis of ideology, whereas more active supporters of terrorism, such as Pakistan, are ignored.

Afghanistan was accused of harboring terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, whose group Alqaida has been on the U.S. list of terrorists for two years, is accused of bombing U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and other U.S. targets. But since the United States does not recognize its Taliban-run government, it was not listed among state sponsors of terrorism.

The 2000 report dropped the bloody Khmer Rouge Cambodian guerrilla group from its list of terrorist groups, now that its leaders are dead, jailed or cooperating with the Cambodian authorities.

However, the State Department added to its list the Colombian paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces, accusing it of 804 assassinations, 203 kidnappings and 75 massacres with 507 victims - all in the first 10 months of 2000.

The paramilitary group was one of 15 groups on a list marked "other terrorist groups," which are active but have not been formally designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs).

Two leftist Colombian guerrilla movements did make the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list:

* Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as FARC, for "bombings, murder, kidnappings, extortion, hijacking and executing three U.S. Indian rights activists."

* National Liberation Army, known as ELN, for "kidnapping, hijacking, bombing, extortion and guerrilla war."

FTOs are barred by law from raising funds in the United States. Members can be denied U.S. visas and their assets may be seized.

The report said that 423 attacks produced 405 dead over the year 2000, up from 1999 when 233 died in international terrorist attacks.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who spoke to reporters yesterday at Foggy Bottom to present the report, said "international cooperation against terrorism is increasing and it is paying off."

Mr. Powell warned that "state sponsors of terrorism are increasingly isolated" and "terrorist groups are under growing pressure" but warned that the problem will not be completely ended.

"Terrorism is a persistent disease" he said, made easier in part because of wider global trade and communications.

But the U.S. terrorist designation has only a small effect on them, conceded Edmund J. Hull, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.

"I don't think it's a question of the list itself, being on the list, effecting that kind of change," said Mr. Hull.

"Most of these governments are extremely uncomfortable with the stigma that comes attached to being accused of sponsoring terrorism, and they will, over time, often seek ways to escape that stigma," he added.

The Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat's Fatah wing of the Palestinian Authority came under criticism for allowing attacks on Israelis. However, the criticism was oblique, citing Israeli accusations that Palestinian security officials and Fatah members had taken part in attacks.

Asked why the report cited Israeli reports but not Palestinian accusations against Israel, Mr. Hull said the State Department had reason to believe the Israeli reports."

The report itself can be found at the State Department.

Read through it. It's very clear the Bush Administration had little interest in Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden.

Kamen presents it accurately

Great way to make an entrance! :hi:

This corroborates Richard Clarke's sworn testimony and has the White House at odds with itself.

"Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."

Welcome to the DU, thedecline and thanks EarlG for the CNN Link.

What's going on with all of this?

I'm stuck at work and this seems so huge to me.

Was equal to a goldfish, they have to go and remember what you said three years ago! God, that's a lifetime! (if you're a goldfish)

http://www.wgoeshome.com

I looked at misleader and cnn and google and i cant find that transript and unless we can you know that it wont count as proof. Anybody have it? It would make the case better.

One unnamed official, albeit a senior one, leaks a statement that agrees with Clarke's testimony.

Could it have been Clarke himself doing the leaking?

and i still can't find any link that has that info directly, i'm not saying it's bogus but i'm sure the WH deleted it off their site, there is no WH briefing listed for that date.

Briefing by Phillip T. Reeker & Edmund J. Hull (State Department officials), April 30, 2001.

Statement of Sec. of State Colin Powell on release of report, April 30, 2001.

Patterns of Global Terrorism, State Department, April 30, 2001. (This is the entire report, broken into sections).