For those of you who think Pres. Bush is fighting war right

[Lindaloo]

Nothing to do with party lines IMO.

[Stephanie]

If our country and it's politicians spent less time bickering amongst party lines and more time taking care of business we would all be better off. We are all Americans no matter what party we belong to or don't belong to. I feel too much time energy and money is is wasted fighting this internal conflict. This time and money would be better spent fighting our enemies and securing the future of this country. The key to this is some kind of compromise. Until our own leaders can agree and get along there will be a serious vulnerability to anyone who hates America and what we stand for. Just my Honest opinion.

I agree - hence my signature line...

What about Operation Desert Fox that occurred beginning in 1998?

[Rainband]

Nothing to do with party lines IMO.

Are you for real It's always been about party lines that why dems and rep don't get along

[southerngale]

Linda, your comments are amazing.

Bush was in office for almost a year before 9/11 and he DID nothing about AQ. There was a meeting in February about Saddam Hussein and Iraq but no meetings took place about AQ until August 2001. Bush was interested in getting some family revenge on Saddam and he didn't care about AQ until it was thrust in his face by 9/11.

Oh...you mean the first 8 months where he had to get his cabinet settled, face an economy in recession and get all the "W" replaced on the keyboards at the White House. The Clinton Admin welcomed Pres Bush with 2 low-level meetings with incoming Sec of State Powell and Nat Sec Advisor Rice. Albright did not meet with them in an official briefing. Berger met with Rice once, presenting a plan hatched by Clarke. This plan was basically the same actions that had been used in the last 8 years of Clinton but with the introduction of limited ground troops. Another words, here is our plan, we did not do it but you should.

He was told by Sandy Berger and Pres. Clinton that there were 3 grave threats to the U.S:
1) Al Qaeda
2) China
3) Weapons of Mass destruction profileration.

He chose to do nothing.

From Clinton Advisor Morris....a man who knows no loyalty to anyone...

Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism.
- Dick Morris, New York Post, Jan. 2, 2002

And I would just point out that the Senate Majority leader heavily criticized the AQ bombing strike in 1998 and wondered why Clinton was going after AQ, anyway. The republlicans didn't seem to care much about terrorism. They criticized every move Clinton made to combat it and wondered if it was really necessary.

Hmmm...from Time Magazine and CNN...no friends of Conservatives...

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 20) -- President Bill Clinton's decision Thursday to order military strikes against alleged terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan received quick, but not universal, support from members of Congress.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich quickly sided with the adminstration, saying the president "did the right thing" by ordering the simultaneous attacks against facilities believed linked to terrorists suspected in the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa.

"Just a few days ago in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, we saw what happens when people who hate America and hate freedom decide to kill Americans," Gingrich said. "They did so in a way in which we have to respond.

Sen. Dan Coats
"We have every reason to believe that this terrorist organization will try to hurt other Americans," Gingrich said.

Other key members of Congress also quickly voiced their approval for the decisive military action, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), and Sens. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Does not support your assertion..

Bush was far more interested in banning legitimate stem-cell research that could save countless lives than stopping an organization that was dedicated to killing tens of thousands.

Okay...so he has a phillisophical difference with you. This attack has what to do with terror?

Also, if Bush was so dedicated to the war on terror, why did he abandon it to go after his father's enemy. He was more interested in settling old family scores than really destroying AQ.

Maybe....a guy who tried to assasinate a former President, who thumbed his nose at the sacred liberal cow of the UN, killed more of his own then did Serbia in Yugoslavia and Kosovo (Clintons favorite Foriegn Policy triumph) and was called by everyone "a threat to peace in the Middle East."

BTW, where are those nuclear weapons.

Quote from Dick Cheney in March 2003:

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

He didn't say Saddam would some day like to have nuclear weapons. He said Saddam has nuclear weapons, not a nuclear weapons program but actual nuclear weapons.

BTW, where are those WMD's:

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

I mean. Countless hours and lives and energy was expended on the imaginary Saddam threat when we should have been going after AQ to prevent attacks like the one that occured in Madrid.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Ask them where they are!!

Excellent post Jara!! You answered quite a few of Jason's questions. I'm anxious to hear his response...will he admit he was wrong or try and spin these facts?

[GalvestonDuck]

In a nutshell -- I remember W said, "If you're not with us, then you're with them." Saddam wasn't with us, therefore, he was with the terrorist -- WMD's or not. He wasn't just with them...he WAS one of them. But now there's one less terrorist out there in control.

Great post, Jara.

Of course, it's about party lines. We Republicans don't get along with those ultra-liberal Dems because they're so darned intolerant and so stupid and so brainwashed...



















...and I am SO kidding!

*waits for Stephanie to come club me*

[Lindaloo]

I am talking about my viewpoint John.

[Rainband]

I am talking about my viewpoint John.

I know I was talking about the problem with the internal conflict and the wasted time and money. I wasn't talking about views just the reality of the situation.

[Stephanie]

In a nutshell -- I remember W said, "If you're not with us, then you're with them." Saddam wasn't with us, therefore, he was with the terrorist -- WMD's or not. He wasn't just with them...he WAS one of them. But now there's one less terrorist out there in control.

Great post, Jara.

Of course, it's about party lines. We Republicans don't get along with those ultra-liberal Dems because they're so darned intolerant and so stupid and so brainwashed...


...and I am SO kidding!

*waits for Stephanie to come club me*

LOL!!!!

[streetsoldier]

Gee, Steph, I asked you to meet me at the "club", but...

[GalvestonDuck]

A baby seal walks into a club...

[Stephanie]

Gee, Steph, I asked you to meet me at the "club", but...

LOL! "Speak softly and carry a BIG STICK!"

Duck - I would club the person clubbing the baby seal!

[GalvestonDuck]

Yeah, me too. They're just so darned cute!

[Stephanie]

OMG!!! That's so cute!

Thanks for the sharing the picture!

[JTD]

The argument that it doesn't matter that Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous. MFDolphin said that he played a game with Saddam and lost, so therefore he deserved what he got. I don't agree with that.

You can't argue that there's nothing wrong with exaggerating the WMD threat because Saddam was a bad guy. There are many other dictators in the world who are equally as bad as Saddam. Why didn't we go after them. Bush said Iraq was a gathering danger. In fact, the Iraqi army was unwilling to fight and Saddam had very little control. Bush wanted a war to make sure his party swept the midterm elections.

How can anyone justify the fact that 500+ american soldiers have died for imaginary weapons. Indeed, they were told that they were fighting to avenge the deaths of 9/11, that Saddam was in fact responsible. You talk about being brainwashed. It seems to me that you guys (Republicans) are the ones that are brainwashed.

Aren't the republicans the ones that tried to make it illegal to say anything bad about Bush post 9/11?

[GalvestonDuck]

Brainwashed? I don't allow myself to be influenced by the media and their current blame-game frenzy. Therefore, I don't consider myself to be brainwashed.

I don't care if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or not. I don't care if we find WMD's in Iraq or not.* I don't care about lapses in government intelligence during either the Clinton years nor during Bush's current term. I don't care about finding out who knew what and when they knew it.

The fact of the matter is that George Bush told the world on September 20, 2001

...I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. ...

...Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime....

He spelled it out way back then -- our enemies are the terrorists and networks of terrorists and we [the world] must defeat them -- and I stand behind him on that. Whether it's atrocities against one's own people or against another religion or against another country, terrorists can not be allowed to thrive and must be eradicated in all forms.



(*Of course, I care if we find them if they're out there, before someone else uses them on us. But the point is that it doesn't affect my opinion on us going to war.)

[stormchazer]

The argument that it doesn't matter that Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous. MFDolphin said that he played a game with Saddam and lost, so therefore he deserved what he got. I don't agree with that.

You can't argue that there's nothing wrong with exaggerating the WMD threat because Saddam was a bad guy. There are many other dictators in the world who are equally as bad as Saddam. Why didn't we go after them. Bush said Iraq was a gathering danger. In fact, the Iraqi army was unwilling to fight and Saddam had very little control. Bush wanted a war to make sure his party swept the midterm elections.

How can anyone justify the fact that 500+ american soldiers have died for imaginary weapons. Indeed, they were told that they were fighting to avenge the deaths of 9/11, that Saddam was in fact responsible. You talk about being brainwashed. It seems to me that you guys (Republicans) are the ones that are brainwashed.

Aren't the republicans the ones that tried to make it illegal to say anything bad about Bush post 9/11?

Did you even read my post? EVERYONE thought he had the weapons! Read the quotes and names. Did they all lie? Break yourself away from the Democrat talking points and read my post. I suppose you can't refute it so you ignore it. Isn't it the Democrats who say you cannot say anything bad about John (waffling) Kerry because he is a Vietnam Vet and hero? Just admit it, you hate Bush and nothing, not the truth for sure, will change your mind.

[timNms]

How can anyone justify the fact that 500+ american soldiers have died for imaginary weapons.

Is there proof that those WMD's are imaginary?

[stormchazer]

How can anyone justify the fact that 500+ american soldiers have died for imaginary weapons.

Is there proof that those WMD's are imaginary?

Thank you....ask the Kurds who died when Saddam gassed them, or the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq War.

[mf_dolphin]

jason you misquoted me. I said Saddam played a game with Bush and lost. Saddam refused to explain the whereabouts of chemical stockpiles that he acknowleded before the weapons inspectors were kicked out. He had undeclared missile systems in direct violation of the UN sacntions. there were developed after the first Gulf War. President Bush gave him well over 90 days to comply or face the US armed Forces. Saddam bet that President Bush would not attacked without the UN's approval. He lost!

[stormchazer]

White House rebuttal to ex-terrorism chief
Claims Bush focused on al-Qaida 'immediately' on taking officeUpdated: 9:07 a.m. ET March 22, 2004The White House issued this rebuttal to accusations made by former terrorism adviser Dick Clarke.


Myth: The president didn't treat al-Qaida as a serious threat before Sept. 11.

The Facts:
The President recognized the threat posed by al-Qaida, and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al-Qaida.

The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was "tired of swatting flies" and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaida, rather than simply waiting to respond.

The President’s national security team worked aggressively and rapidly to develop a new strategy that would employ all elements of our national power: military, intelligence, diplomatic actions, and financial pressure. The new strategy called for military options to attack al-Qaida and Taliban leadership, command-and-control, ground forces, and other targets. It focused on the crucial link between al-Qaida and the Taliban, recognizing that the two were ultimately inseparable. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al-Qaida sanctuary, and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. Our strategy focused on the crucial role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to stop its support to the Taliban, understanding the implications for the stability of Pakistan and its relations with India.

NSC Deputies, the second-ranking officials in the NSC departments, met frequently between March and September 2001 to decide the many complex issues involved in the development of the comprehensive strategy against al-Qaida, and also oversaw the work by their staffs on these issues. Contrary to Dick Clarke's assertion that he was not able to brief senior officials until April 30, the first Deputies-level meeting on al-Qaida was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke conducted the briefing. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al-Qaida should be prepared.

Although the issues involved were complex, the President’s team completed the new strategy in less than six months and had the strategy ready to go to the President on September 4.

Myth: We didn't listen to Dick Clarke. Clarke had proposed ideas against al-Qaida, such as launching missiles from an armed Predator or modestly increasing assistance to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, that would have prevented 9-11 but these plans were not acted upon.

The Facts:
At Dr. Rice's request, in January 2001, Dick Clarke presented her with a number of ideas to address the al-Qaida threat. The Administration acted upon the ideas that made sense. For example, the Administration pproved increased assistance to Uzbekistan, a frontline state in opposing al-Qaida, and pushed hard to develop a weaponized Predator unmanned aerial vehicle.

Although the Administration pushed development of the Predator, the Predator was not available to be used against bin-Ladin before September 11. Extensive work and testing was required to develop a warhead that would be effective, and NSC Deputies were told that testing would not be completed until August at the earliest. Even if the Predator had been available, the Intelligence Community never presented senior officials with specific intelligence regarding bin Ladin's location. At the same time, the Intelligence Community also told senior Administration officials that killing bin Ladin would not destroy al-Qaida. Moreover, we know now that, according to the FBI, 16 of the 19 hijackers were in the United States by June 2001; there is no reason to believe that killing bin Ladin would have affected their plan.

Increasing assistance to the Northern Alliance also would not have prevented 9-11. By 2001, the Northern Alliance had been beaten down by military defeats and controlled less than 10 percent of Afghanistan. Providing a small additional amount of money to the Northern Alliance, as Clarke suggested, would not have enabled them to sweep across Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. Moreover, providing such assistance likely would have damaged U.S. efforts later to reach out to other tribes in Afghanistan. NSC deputies developed a more comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qaida that included assisting tribal groups throughout the country, as well as providing significantly more assistance to the Northern Alliance. But such assistance, even if provided earlier, would not have disrupted the 9-11 hijackers, who were not in Afghanistan, but were assembling in the United States.

Although Clarke suggested some ideas to address al-Qaida outside the United States, he did not advocate to the Bush Administration any plan of action to address al-Qaida's presence in the United States, such as the need to improve collection of intelligence information by the FBI and to reverse longstanding statutory restrictions and DoJ policies limiting sharing of domestic intelligence on terrorism between the CIA and FBI; or to take actions to root out al-Qaida cells in the United States and to make our borders less porous for al-Qaida and other terrorists. He also never made us aware of any intelligence assessments from the preceding Administration concerning the use of aircraft as weapons to attack the homeland.

Myth: Dick Clarke was never allowed to brief the President on the threat posed by al-Qaida.

The Facts:
Dick Clarke was the President’s principal counterterrorism expert. If he had asked to brief the President on any counterterrorism issue, Clarke could have done so. He never did.

Instead, the only time Dick Clarke asked to brief the President was during the height of the terrorism threat spike in June 2001, when he asked to brief the President not on al-Qaida, but on cybersecurity. He did so.

Myth: The Administration did not treat the intelligence chatter about an imminent attack during the spring and summer of 2001 with sufficient urgency; Principals did not "go to battle stations."

The Facts:
The President and senior Administration officials were very concerned about the threat spike during the spring and summer of 2001.
The President and his NSC Principals received intelligence reports about the intelligence "chatter" during this period, but none of the intelligence was specific as to time, place, or manner, and was focused overseas.
The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG"), chaired by Dick Clarke, met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period. The CSG was at "battle stations." If Dick Clarke or other members of this group needed anything, they had immediate and daily access to their superiors. Dick Clarke never suggested that the President or the Principals needed to intervene to take any immediate action on these threats.

Dick did not ask to brief the President on the al-Qaida threat during this period or at any other time. Instead, in the middle of the al-Qaida threat period, Clarke asked to brief the President, but on cybersecurity, not al-Qaida. He did so.

Formal, in-person meetings among Principals were not required; unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet for an intelligence briefing. Secretary Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qaida and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet. Dr. Rice and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld also have a 7:15 am phone call every morning and talk frequently during the day, and in this period they discussed actions to respond to the threat during these calls.

Although the threats were focused overseas, in July, Dr. Rice specifically directed Dick Clarke and his CSG to meet to consider possible threats to the homeland and to coordinate actions by domestic agencies, including the FAA, FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration, to increase security and surveillance. During the Summer of 2001, FAA and FBI issued numerous terrorist threat warnings, including a warning about "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States." Security at federal buildings also were reviewed for vulnerabilities. Overseas, we also disrupted terrorist cells worldwide, significantly increased security at our embassies, and directed US Naval vessels to leave high-risk ports in the Middle East and heighten security at military facilities.

Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.

The Facts:
The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.

When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it.

Myth: The Administration didn't act on Dick Clarke's advice to hold a Cabinet meeting early in the Administration to discuss the threat posed by al-Qaida.

The Facts:
NSC Principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat because the threat was already well understood by the Principals and because Dr. Rice had already asked that a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al-Qaida be prepared.

In addition, unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, for an intelligence briefing. Secretary Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qaida and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet.

Moreover, NSC Deputies, the second-ranking officials in the NSC departments, met frequently between March and September 2001 to decide the many complex issues involved in the development of the comprehensive strategy against al-Qaida, and also oversaw the work by their staffs on these issues. Contrary to Dick Clarke's assertion that he did not brief senior officials until April 30, the first meeting of Deputies was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke briefed the group on al-Qaida. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al-Qaida should be prepared.

Myth: Before 9/11 the Administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al-Qaida.

The Facts:
The President and the Administration were legitimately concerned about the threat posed by Iraq. Iraq had sponsored terrorism, attacked its neighbors, used chemical weapons, violated 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions, kicked out UN weapons inspectors, was circumventing sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal activities, and continued to try to shoot down U.S. and U.K. aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zones.

But the Administration completed a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qaida well before it completed a strategy to address Iraq. In fact, the directive to eliminate al-Qaida, approved by the Principals on September 4, 2001, was President Bush's first major foreign policy directive.

Myth: Dick Clarke was demoted and "stripped of his Cabinet rank" by President Bush.

The Facts:
Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank.
Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President’s principal counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did.
During the Clinton Administration, Dick Clarke regularly briefed President Clinton because President Clinton did not meet regularly with his DCI. Since the beginning of his Administration, President Bush has met daily with his DCI for his intelligence briefing. President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence.