Pre 9-11 WH report: "It's a mistake to focus so much energy on OBL"

[Richardo]

THE DAILY MIS-LEAD

===============================

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 attacks (1).

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).

more here: < http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1173335&l=24792 >

-----------------------
Again, Clarke is vindicated and the rest are indicted (I wish).

Care to comment, Condi? Rummy? Dick? Mr pResident? I thought not.

[Coventina]

1. KERBLAMMO!!!!!!!!

That was Karl's head exploding!

:evilgrin:

[NewJeffCT]

2. what a shock?

The Bush administration's incompetence knows no bounds. Worst president ever!!!

I forgot who wrote an editorial in the NY Times about the dangers of Osama in the summer of 2001 and a Fright Winger analyst wrote back that Star Wars was more important because, "Osama bin Laden doesn't have any missiles!"

[SnohoDem]

3. I sent this link to CNN

and recommended that maybe they could do some research to find quotes that help prove or disprove the administration's contention that it was focused on terrorism prior to 9/11/2001.

It might make an interesting story, but I doubt they'll bother. The "story" is Clarke v Rice, so that's all they'll care about.

[skeptic9]

4. Here's the original 4/30/01 CNN story link

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

[Coventina]

5. Wait a sec....

If this was a 2000 report, was it put together by the Clinton admin or by the Bush admin?

[htuttle]

7. It is a report ABOUT terrorism in 2000, but was prepared by the Bush admin

At least that is how it looks to me.

Powell's State Dept. is the one that presented it, so I'd assume that they prepared it. There's no way anyone from the Bush admin would present a report prepared by the Clinton administration.

[skeptic9]

9. Evidently, like many Federal Government annual reports, 'Patterns of Global...

... Terrorism" covers a calendar year. It appears that the 1999 report was the last one put out by Madeleine Albright's staff: see http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/annual_reports.html
for online access to Clinton-era reports, also released the following April.

I could not find more than the introduction to the 2000 report and an announcement of its release by Colon Bowel, at http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/archive1.htm for April 30 2001. (I noticed that Powell mentions bin Laden--would this URL win me a Carville book on Crossfire?)

The next annual report I saw linked was the one for 2002. I wonder whether the 2000 and 2001 reports have been scrubbed or classified, or whether they're hard to find because of the incompetence of Dubya's State Dept webmasters?

Somebody could try googling for "Patterns of Global Terrorism:2000" to find a link to the full report.

[troublemaker]

12. 2000 report link (State Dept)

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

[Elidor]

8. Apparently, CNN don't read their own site

[moondust]

6. Yikes!!

Smoking guns all over the place!!!

[skeptic9]

10. I wonder who the "senior State Department official" mentioned in the CNN...

... article was. This article is a great source for an enterprising reporter's lead question for Scott McLellan at the next WH Press briefing.

[troublemaker]

11. Don't use the Misleader.Org story

Stick with the CNN link (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept)

The misleader.org story tampers with the CNN story and misquotes the Bushies. It's really bad to change words within quotes (compare the two stories and see) and I'm pissed off that MoveOn would do something to tarnish the credibility of the whole pro-Clarke effort.

The Clarke story is too important to screw up! Don't make it easy for the pigs to dismiss the whole story because of unrelated bad journalism.

[skeptic9]

13. That's why I googled to find the original source

Did you notice also that the 'Daily Mislead' item footnotes the key CNN story, but provides no URL link? Maybe they only had hardcopy of the CNN item--it was pretty hard to find the URL. But I agree with you. And it's ALWAYS a good idea to quote the original source, especially if the secondary source is not mainstream.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Not saying that they did, but CNN has been known to tamper with their own.

archived stories.

[Elidor]

15. kick for a huge story waiting to blow up in their faces