Condi Rice: al Queda not enough of a problem

Condi Rice, on Meet the Press today, certainly copped to the lie that she, the Terrible President, Mr. Other Priorities, Crazy Rummy, and the rest of the gang (including one Judith Miller) have been pushing about not really wanting war with Iraq in 2001 and 2002 and that it was a last resort. Here is John Amato, he of crooksandliars.com, sumamrizing and discussing Rice's admission.

However, I would add that there is something even worse in this admission that is consistent with how Rice and others viewed al Queda before 9/11/01. If we recall Richard Clarke, he had developed a strategy to go after al Queda after the Cole incident in late 2000 and Clinton had approved it--but would leave it to the incoming Bush administration to implement it if it chose. And who can forget Sandy Berger's warning to Rice during the transition talks from the Clinton to Bush White Houses? Here is the saved Newsweek article from May 27, 2002 when this information first went "mainstream" and here is a key paragraph from that article:

"By the end of the Clinton administration, the then national-security adviser Sandy Berger had become “totally preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack, a colleague recalls. True, the Clintonites had failed to act decisively against Al Qaeda, but by the end they were certain of the danger it posed. When, in January 2001, Berger gave Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: “You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other.” Rice was alarmed by what she heard, and asked for a strategy review. But the effort was marginalized and scarcely mentioned in ensuing months as the administration committed itself to other priorities, like national missile defense (NMD) and Iraq."

Now, we have her admitting that al Queda, even after they bombed the Pentagon and the WTC, is still not a sufficient priority to directly confront. And we're supposed to shrug our shoulders and say, "Boy, that bin Laden just can't be caught, can he?"

It is breathtaking that anyone can still attack Noam Chomsky for merely supporting international criminal laws to apprehend bin Laden in a police-like action and still think the Terrible President is tougher in the war against al Queda.