Rice Never Spoke About Al-Qaeda Before 9/11, Investigation Shows

[TinaTyson]

Rice Never Spoke About Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden
Before 9/11, Investigation Shows
by Jason Leopold
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 5, 2004

http://dissidentvoice.org/April2004/Leopold0405.htm

Richard Clarke was right. So was Paul O’Neill. During the six months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks the Bush administration paid little attention to the threat from al-Qaeda and instead set the stage for a war with Iraq.

Two weeks before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, national security wasn’t even a top priority for the Bush administration. Security -- job security, health security and national security -- was last on a list of major issues Bush planned to deal with in the fall of 2001, according to a transcript of a speech Bush gave on Aug. 31, 2001 to celebrate the launch of the White House’s new website.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who is scheduled to testify Thursday before the commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks, says Clarke, President Bush’s counterterrorism specialist, is a liar after Clarke told the commission two weeks ago that the Bush administration failed to deal with al-Qaeda seriously before 9/11.

(cut)

As early as January 2000, Rice was trying to sell a war with Iraq. It was then that she wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine titled Campaign 2000 - Promoting the National Interest in which she promotes regime change in Iraq, but fails to mention threats from Islamic fundamentalist groups such as al-Qaeda.

(more)

corrected link

[Florida_Geek]

1. Link to Rice piece bad nt

[TinaTyson]

2. Sorry it is like that in the original too.

[TinaTyson]

3. Tracked it down with a google.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000101faessay5/condoleezza-rice/campaign-2000-promoting-the-national-interest.html

[TinaTyson]

4. And here in an all in one page format.

http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org/library/issuebriefs/readingnotes/fa_rice.html

[TinaTyson]

5. List of places she mentions terrorism.

No references to bin Laden or al Qaeda. Here is what she has to say about terrorism. Notice it is focused on 'rogue' states that eventually become the axis of evil. And look at the 'flip-flop' on Chechnya.


========

to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers, which is increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

========

Finally, the United States needs to recognize that Russia is a great power, and that we will always have interests that conflict as well as coincide. The war in Chechnya, located in the oil-rich Caucasus, is particularly dangerous. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has used the war to stir nationalism at home while fueling his own political fortunes. The Russian military has been uncharacteristically blunt and vocal in asserting its duty to defend the integrity of the Russian Federation -- an unwelcome development in civil-military relations. The long-term effect on Russia's political culture should not be underestimated. And the war has affected relations between Russia and its neighbors in the Caucasus, as the Kremlin hurls charges of harboring and abetting Chechen terrorists against states as diverse as Saudi Arabia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. The war is a reminder of the vulnerability of the small, new states around Russia and of America's interest in their independence. If they can become stronger, they will be less tempting to Russia. But much depends on the ability of these states to reform their economies and political systems -- a process, to date, whose success is mixed at best.

========

As history marches toward markets and democracy, some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is the prototype. Saddam Hussein's regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develop WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him.

========

One thing is clear: the United States must approach regimes like North Korea resolutely and decisively. The Clinton administration has failed here, sometimes threatening to use force and then backing down, as it often has with Iraq. These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather, the first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence -- if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration. Second, we should accelerate efforts to defend against these weapons. This is the most important reason to deploy national and theater missile defenses as soon as possible, to focus attention on U.S. homeland defenses against chemical and biological agents, and to expand intelligence capabilities against terrorism of all kinds.

========

Finally, there is the Iranian regime. Iran's motivation is not to disrupt simply the development of an international system based on markets and democracy, but to replace it with an alternative: fundamentalist Islam. Fortunately, the Iranians do not have the kind of reach and power that the Soviet Union enjoyed in trying to promote its socialist alternative. But Iran's tactics have posed real problems for U.S. security. It has tried to destabilize moderate Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, though its relations with the Saudis have improved recently. Iran has also supported terrorism against America and Western interests and attempted to develop and transfer sensitive military technologies.

Iran presents special difficulties in the Middle East, a region of core interest to the United States and to our key ally Israel. Iranian weaponry increasingly threatens Israel directly. As important as Israel's efforts to reach peace with its Arab neighbors are to the future of the Middle East, they are not the whole story of stability in the region. Israel has a real security problem, so defense cooperation with the United States -- particularly in the area of ballistic missile defense -- is critical. That in turn will help Israel protect itself both through agreements and through enhanced military power.