Found notes may show Bush plan on Clarke

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040331-112127-9812r

By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Ccorrespondent
Published 3/31/2004 12:37 PM


WASHINGTON, March 31 (UPI) -- The White House was worried about the damaging testimony of a former counter-terrorism chief to a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks last week but was trying to let the issue die on its own, according to Pentagon briefing notes found at a Washington coffee shop.

"Stay inside the lines. We don't need to puff this (up). We need (to) be careful as hell about it," the handwritten notes say. "This thing will go away soon and what will keep it alive will be one of us going over the line."

The notes were written by Pentagon political appointee Eric Ruff who left them in a Starbucks coffee shop in Dupont Circle, not far from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's home.

The notes are genuine, a Pentagon official said. They were compiled for an early morning briefing for Rumsfeld before the Sunday morning talk shows, during which administration officials conducted a flurry of interviews to counter the testimony of Richard Clarke, President George W. Bush's former terrorism czar who left the post in 2003. Rumsfeld appeared on Fox and ABC.

The Starbucks customer who found them gave them to the liberal advocacy group the Center for American Progress, which published them on its Web site Wednesday. Included in the notes was a hand-drawn map to Rumsfeld's house, which is largely blacked out on the Web site for security reasons.

Clarke told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that the White House was obsessed with Iraq and ignored warning from him and others that al-Qaida was the real threat to the United States. Bush signed an order Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, the commission staff reported.

The Starbucks notes, printed on paper titled "Eric's Telephone Log" with a notation indicating the points came from a conference call, counseled to "rise above Clark" and "emphasize importance of 9-11 commission and come back to what we have done."

Since the notes were found, however, the White House has decided to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify before the committee under oath. She will provide a direct answer to Clarke's account.

Rice answered Clarke's allegations in media appearances last week but declined to provide sworn public testimony to the panel, saying it set a dangerous precedent for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

One of Clarke's most damaging allegations is that he crafted an anti-terrorism plan -- a National Security Presidential Directive -- to take on al-Qaida in January 2001. The NSPD was not approved until Sept. 4, and neither was it substantially changed in the intervening months, according to Clarke. He has challenged the White House to release both documents to allow for a side-by-side comparison.

The notes address this matter, saying the plan to attack the Taliban existed before Sept. 4.

"The NSPD wasn't signed till Sept. 4 but had an annex going back to July (with) contingency plans to attack Taliban," the notes say.

That point is related to another in the notes. The briefing says commission member Jamie Gorelick, a former general counsel of the Defense Department under President Clinton, was pitting Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage against Rice. Under sworn testimony, Armitage contradicted Rice's claim the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 that called for military operations against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: PELarson
Okay who is in the White House that was there during the Nixon years?
Donald Rumsfeld. Whats your point?

The notes are genuine, a Pentagon official said.
I'm surprised the Pentagon didn't lie & deny this. I mean, if its not under oath, lying is a-okay.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
I saw this in the Early Bird today. Laughed my a$$ off. That guy is history. Fvcking moron.
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
What I want to know is why in-goodness-name is a Bushie drinking a Frappu-commieloving-ccino.

What kind of sad-sack neocons are these folk?
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: tallest1


I mean, if its not under oath, lying is a-okay.

It's okay to lie under oath, too....remember?
What Clinton did wasn't okay, if thats what you're implying.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
The notes were written by Pentagon political appointee Eric Ruff.





Ruff, Ruff, Ruff.



rolleye.gif




CKG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: tallest1
I mean, if its not under oath, lying is a-okay.

It's okay to lie under oath, too....remember?
Can you show even one example of someone here saying it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath?

I won't wait up.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
So if the notes are genuine, according to some unnamed pentagon official. The democrats instead of returning them to their rightful owner stole them and published personal papers.

That's low, that's desperation. It should even be against the law.

But you won't see any lefties worrying about that, will you?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: etech
So if the notes are genuine, according to some unnamed pentagon official. The democrats instead of returning them to their rightful owner stole them and published personal papers.

That's low, that's desperation. It should even be against the law.

But you won't see any lefties worrying about that, will you?

We need an investigation. Remember - it isn't the content of the memos or documents that are important - it's what were done with them.;)

CkG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
So if the notes are genuine, according to some unnamed pentagon official. The democrats instead of returning them to their rightful owner stole them and published personal papers.

That's low, that's desperation. It should even be against the law.

But you won't see any lefties worrying about that, will you?

You're wracking up awards all over the place...you and dirtboy.

This one wins Most Naive Post of the Month Award.

I suppose the guy was using letterhead for taking notes or left his address and phone # on there, too.
rolleye.gif
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
who the hell is this guy, and why do we care if he thinks that if clarke is ignored he will go away? seems like most of the story has nothing to do with this note.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Tallest1, JohnGalt wasn't talking about Clinton lying, he was surely talking about Poindexter and North who lied to Congress -- under oath -- and the Nixon crew.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: etech
So if the notes are genuine, according to some unnamed pentagon official. The democrats instead of returning them to their rightful owner stole them and published personal papers.

That's low, that's desperation. It should even be against the law.

But you won't see any lefties worrying about that, will you?

You're wracking up awards all over the place...you and dirtboy.

This one wins Most Naive Post of the Month Award.

I suppose the guy was using letterhead for taking notes or left his address and phone # on there, too.
rolleye.gif

"The Starbucks notes, printed on paper titled "Eric's Telephone Log" with a notation indicating the points came from a conference call, counseled to "rise above Clark" and "emphasize importance of 9-11 commission and come back to what we have done.""


Yep.

There was also a map. Now why did the person who turned them in not give them to the person on the map?

Did they think that Eric worked at the "Center for American Progress"? What right did the Center for American Progress have to publish them?