I knew we'd be hearing from you. Sorry, but it doesn't strike me as
old news at all. I am sure that many a "security mom" is very very
surprised.

Dana


On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:18:48 -0800, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is all old news. The attached documents were about plans from
> 1998 and 2000 that were ignored.
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
> SLADE GORTON, Commission member: Now, since my yellow light is on, at
> this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the
> recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on
> Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance,
> which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years
> without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator
> reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say
> on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would
> have prevented 9/11?
> 
> CLARKE: No.
> 
> GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be
> perhaps a little bit faster?
> 
> CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.
> 
> GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone
> else's part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan
> prior to 9/11?
> 
> CLARKE: That's right.
> 
> Testimony of national security advisor Condoleezza Rice:
> MS. RICE: The fact is that what we were presented on January the 25th
> was a set of ideas -- and a paper, most of which was about what the
> Clinton administration had done, and something called the Delenda
> plan, which had been considered in 1998 and never adopted.
> 
> We decided to take a different track. We decided to put together a
> strategic approach to this that would get the regional powers -- the
> problem wasn't that you didn't have a good counterterrorism person.
> The problem was you didn't have approach against al Qaeda because you
> didn't have an approach against Afghanistan, and you didn't have an
> approach against Afghanistan because you didn't have an approach
> against Pakistan. And until we could get that right, we didn't have a
> policy.
> 
> In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th, he
> mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of
> anything that needs to be done about them. And the FBI was pursuing
> them. And usually when things come to me it's because I'm supposed to
> do something about it, and there was no indication that the FBI was
> not adequately pursuing the sleeper cells.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:13:03 -0600, Marlon Moyer  wrote:
> 
> > You're right, but then again, they didn't have the requested meeting
> > until 9/4/2001.  How many Missile defense meetings did they have
> > between 1/25/2001 and 9/4/2001.  I bet a lot more than terrorist
> > defense meetings.
> >
> 
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Find out how to get a fax number that sends and receives faxes using your 
current email address
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=64

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:147062
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to