Sep 07 2006
Clintons On Full Damage Control
Nothing stings like the truth. Seems the Clintons are all in an uproar because they think the media is misrepresenting their acts and intentions (gee, that happens to Bush on an hourly basis!). [H/T Drudge] ABC took some literary license and collapsed numerous instances of missing Bin Laden under Clinton’s watch into a single scene. The old ‘fake but accurate’ thingy we have all come to know so well:
A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series “The Path to 9/11” grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden – and he is demanding the network “pull the drama” if changes aren’t made.
Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.
The Dems are rapidly devolving into a bunch of whiners and have no credibility to stomp their feet on this ‘movie’ after having Michael Moore as their poodle dog for so long. Given everything from faked TANG documents claming Bush was AWOL to the ridiculous statements Bush entered Iraq to get to the oil fields, the left looks incredibly thin skinned over a MOVIE. Get grip guys, it is not reality.
Update: Mac Ranger has contacts with people who were there, people who knew the players. Check his take out on this.
Update: The leftward fevered swamps are rioling! Does anyone think these foul mouthed, overly emotional, hotheads could really, seriously protect this country?
Shooting the messenger is the first sign that someone is less than confident in their ability to debate.
Sorry about this on my first time commenting, but everyone is being played for the fool by the Clintons once again.
This mini series is intended to make Clinton look as good as possible, that being he and his administration were simply incompetent. The problem with that theory is there is a mistake in OBL’s 1/19/06 tape. The part of the tape where OBL say’s preporations are being made for the next terror attack just so happens to be an exact copy of Hillary’s plan during the impeachment called the “Scorched Earth Policy” . I’m sure everyone recalls the threat of releasing the contents of FBI files, one of the files the F**A****B****threatened to release is my file, and no they are not the FBI files Craig Livingston got.
Would anyone like to take a guess as to what FBI files Hillary threatened to release? Let me give you a little hint. Janet Reno said she would release the content of these files if she were confirmed as AG, but instead of releasing the files she fired all the US Attorneys. Bill Clinton’s files disappeared with the OKC bombing.
The next 60 days are going to be fun. Guess I’d better stock up on pop corn.
Projected image
GWB oppresses Fareinblight 9/11
Ted Kennedy rejects furthur funding of the Big Dig because “it’s too close to water”
Film at 11
Spook
McCain / Feingold kicks in with the 60 day restriction.
Why don’t I see ballons and celebration in the street.
Oh I got it ……………I don’t understand!
However having said that I went to Hooters for breakfast this morning and I got a fresh squezzed plump and delicious orange juice.
Sadly too many times I have had to settle for waffles, hmmm I need to get a hotter car!
AJ: You know, I don’t KNOW for SURE, if Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11! I personally know of the Clinton Administration’s ignorance, and refusal to listen to advice, as I’ve posted before, but I don’t KNOW for SURE if it could have stopped 9/11, no one does.
But you know what?
If “fake but accurate” has been good enough for the Left and their attacks on the Bush Administration for the past 5 years; the Clinton Administration can suck it up, and enjoy a little of their own medicine!
In fact, I quite like it…..;-)
For once, they can’t hide from the American public. ROTFLMAO!!
So any progress in getting a full, unredacted copy of the Barrett Report?
Something else that should make for interesting discussion:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 17, 2000 20:03:41 ET XXXXX
STATE DEPT MEMO: DEATH OF US SAILORS DOES NOT COMPARE TO PALESTINIAN TOLL
The United States State Department believes the “17 or so dead sailors†on the U.S.S. Cole “does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks†in Mideast violence, a stunning government memo reveals.
MORE
The Clinton/Gore Administration disapproved a VOICE OF AMERICA broadcast condemning the attack on the Cole. A memo from the Executive Secretariat Staff at the State Department stated:
“The Department of State does not clear on the referenced VOA editorial.
“This editorial will reach an audience that is caught up in the violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The 17 or so dead sailors does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks where we have remained silent. The people that hear this will not see the separation we are trying to make and relate it directly to the violence.
“Either VOA adds something in there to take the edge off and mention the Palestinians or we should kill this editorial until the violence has calmed for a while.
“S/CT [Secy. for counterterrorism] concurred with this. If you have questions concerning this editorial, please contact NEA/P (unintelligible)
FROM: Swadia Sarkis, Interagency Coordinator [Phone 202-647-6545, FAX 202-647-1533]
TO: Voice of America (VOA), Office of Policy
RE: VOA Editorial: Terrorism Will Fail
OCTOBER 16, 2000
END
This is our VERY own State Department folks!!! With Colin Powell at the helm no less! Clinton not only ignored the Cole…he and his hatchet men went out of their way to make sure that we didn’t offend the Arabs! How disgustingly typical of those slimeballs! Discuss away! I am appalled at the cold-hearted political calculation contained in this memo dated in 2000! Not surprised, just appalled!
Damn them all! I really, really hope they choke on this!
Carol
Carol,
Good catch! It is truly stunning (where did you find it?). But in Oct 2000 Madeliene Albright was still Sec of State.
AJ,
I found it by Googling the title of the memo which appeared in a comment today on Free Republic. although I have been unable so far to find the original memo, I have found the following, if you will permit me (it’s kinda long but should answer most of your questions):
It seems like because of the uproar caused by this, a briefing was held at the State Department to “explain” the memo which was obtained (my understanding) by either FOIA or “leaked”. Please see the website I have attached to see ALL 17 names of the sailors killed aboard the Cole and the reaction to this memo:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lynnpowmia/001021.htm
National Alliance of Families
For The Return of America’s Missing Servicemen
+ World War II + Korea + Cold War + Vietnam +
BITS ‘N’ PIECES – October 21, 2000
……….
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, October 18, 2000
(North Korea, Middle East/Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, public announcement on Persian Gulf, terrorism, Turkey, VOA editorial, U.S.S. Cole investigation, Syria, Bangladesh)
State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker briefed.
(begin transcript)
STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR BRIEFING
BRIEFER: PHILIP REEKER, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN
STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1:44 P.M. EDT — WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2000
MR. REEKER: Welcome back, everybody, to the State Department briefing room, after a couple of days hiatus while the Secretary and Ambassador Boucher have been traveling. Sorry for the delay.
I’d like to just begin today by welcoming a group of Fellows from the World Press Institute who have joined us for the briefing today. They are affiliated with McAllister College. The come to us from around the world, and we’re very pleased to have them with us.
There are just a couple of announcements. I think they have both been put out by the Press Office, but I’ll just highlight them.
First of all, to note that on October 20th — that would be Friday — there will be the formal ceremony to unveil the soaring American Eagle sculpture, which many of you may have seen, that is being installed in the north courtyard of the Harry S Truman Building, that is the Department of State main building here. And that event is open for press coverage. You can get details from the Office of Press Relations.
And I’ll also note that we’ve announced that the Secretary of State will be addressing the Women & Company/Fortune Executives dinner Thursday — that’s tomorrow night — in Palm Beach, Florida, at the Breakers Hotel there. And if anyone is interested in details of that or covering that event, there is information available in the Press Office.
With that, I’d be happy to go to the questions, beginning with Mr. Gedda.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on North Korea and the talks there with U.S. officials?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have anything more specific to add in terms of when the Secretary’s trip may take place, with the Secretary en route right now from Saudi Arabia. I expect her to land in Shannon, Ireland for refueling in about an hour, and returning to Washington this evening. We may then get some more information this evening and be able to work with you on that.
But I just don’t have anything in addition to what we talked about, a few of us, earlier in the week; that there is an advance team that has traveled to Pyongyang in order to prepare for the Secretary’s planned visit there. There’s a group of American officials that arrived on Tuesday, crossing the Demilitarized Zone from South Korea into North Korea. And we’re very pleased, I must add, with North Korea’s cooperation in facilitating this travel. That team is being led by our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Thomas Hubbard. And as I said, we just don’t have any firm announcement yet on travel times.
Q: All right, you don’t have the date. But in light of the intense press interests, did the North Koreans say anything to the American team about how many American —
MR. REEKER: I don’t have those readouts yet, George. I know we’re working with them on everything from press logistics, communications, obviously, to make this visit run smoothly, and obviously that includes our usual practice of working on press in terms of covering the visit and traveling with us, as necessary.
So we’ll just get you that as soon as we do have it.
Q: Okay.
MR. REEKER: Anything else on North Korea?
Q: Before the Secretary’s trip to Pyongyang, United States is going to have a trilateral meeting with Japan and Korea?
MR. REEKER: I just — again, I don’t have anything to announce in terms of the specifics of the travel.
As you know, we’ve kept in very close touch with our allies, Japan and the Republic of Korea throughout this process. The so-called TCOG arrangement, where we get together for trilateral meetings, is something we’ve discussed often from here. And, obviously, we will continue to be in very close touch with both Japan and the Republic of Korea as we prepare for this visit, and certainly after the visit. I just don’t have anything specific to give you in terms of next planned meetings.
Yes, Nick.
Q: Phil, do you know if you’re going to be able to take this press charter in addition to a plane, or —
MR. REEKER: I have no information on that. And in terms of logistics and stuff, we can try to discuss it a little bit afterwards. But there’s a team there working on that with the North Koreans, and obviously a lot of the key people who work on arranging this stuff are traveling with the Secretary now. So we’ll have to wait until we get some more details on that.
Q: Yeah, the Middle East. Are we finished on North Korea?
MR. REEKER: Yeah, anything else? Middle East.
Q: On the Middle East: It looks like the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit didn’t have a great effect on stopping the violence.
Can you tell us what diplomatic moves you’re planning next to hold the leaders to the agreements they made in Sharm el-Sheikh?
MR. REEKER: Well, I’ve seen a number of press reports; some of them from your agency, and some of them from others, indicating a variety of situations in the Middle East. I think there were some indicating that violence was diminishing in the West Bank.
I think what I should go back to is, obviously, what the President said yesterday (October 17) at Sharm el-Sheikh; that the parties had agreed to three basic objectives and the steps to realize them.
First, both sides have agreed to issue public statements unequivocally calling for an end to the violence, and to take concrete steps to end the confrontations. That objective must be to return the situation to that which existed prior to the current crisis.
Second, the United States is going to be developing with the parties and in consultation with the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, a committee of fact-finding on the events of the recent crisis, and how to prevent the recurrence.
And third, the President noted that there must be a pathway back to negotiations and a resumption of efforts to reach a permanent status agreement based on the U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and subsequent understandings.
Toward this end, as we discussed yesterday, as officials discussed in Sharm el-Sheikh, the leaders have agreed that the United States will consult with the parties within the next few weeks about how to move forward. I think the President underscored it best by noting that we made important commitments at Sharm el-Sheikh yesterday against this very tragic backdrop — the crisis and the violence in the region. We certainly have no illusions about the difficulties that lie ahead. But if we’re going to rebuild confidence and trust, we all have to do our part, avoid recrimination, and work on moving forward.
I think to follow on from that, in the last 24 hours since those statements, as you know, Secretary Albright has been traveling to Saudi Arabia. We can talk about that in some more detail, if you wish. But both sides have issued statements that call for an end to the violence. As I understand it, Israel has agreed to open the Gaza airport, to lift the internal closure in the West Bank, and to open international passages. So as I say, we have no illusions, but those are steps in the right direction in the spirit of the agreement at Sharm yesterday. And also, I think what’s very important about Sharm el-Sheikh was that despite the anger and the frustration that’s very clear about what’s happening on the ground, there was recognition from both sides that a negotiated solution is the only way to end this confrontation. And both sides seem to recognize that a negotiated solution, however difficult it may be to achieve, is immensely preferable to the continued violence.
And so we continue to have hope, because the leaders themselves have shown that they, in fact, have hope.
Q: Can you tell us whether any — Mr. Ross, or anyone else, has stayed in the region to follow up on this, or —
MR. REEKER: I believe Ambassador Ross is returning to Washington.
Q: And MR. Miller?
MR. REEKER: And MR. Miller accompanying him, yes.
Q: Are we finished on the Mideast, on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Can we talk about —
MR. REEKER: That’s up to you guys.
Q: Yes.
Q: Go ahead.
Q: Could we talk about the travel advisory and what indications do you have that terrorist attacks are being planned on the United States?
MR. REEKER: On the right spot, here. You will all have noted that, first of all, in the context of the public announcement we issued last week on the 12th, which was a worldwide caution noting that the Department of State is extremely concerned about the possibility for violent actions against United States citizens and interests throughout the world, today we have issued another public announcement highlighting the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey, noting that we’ve received indications of the possible planning for terrorist actions in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey.
The information we have, however, is non-specific as to timing, type of attack or any exact location. And obviously I am unable to provide any additional details on that, but we did want to highlight that region, based on additional information that we have.
Q: Some officials outside this building were saying that there had been specific threats in Turkey. Can you say a —
MR. REEKER: What I can tell you is that we’ve received indications about possible planning for terrorist actions in those three regions that we highlighted today. And as you know, as I mentioned or reminded you, there’s a worldwide caution out there. We have highlighted those three regions, including Turkey, as you mentioned, because of indications of possible planning. However, the information that we have is non-specific as to timing, type of attack or any exact location. The specificity would refer to those regions described in this, but I’m not able to provide additional details, and there was no further specificity. Obviously, I’m not in a position to discuss intelligence, as you know.
Q: The missions are closed or open? U.S. missions?
MR. REEKER: The missions that closed over the last weekend all reopened, and I’m not aware of any closures at this point, but we continue try to monitor that for you whenever we get news of one.
Yes, Jonathan, and then —
Q: When you raise this information, the receipt of this information, can you tell us how exactly you would describe this information in the sense of — obviously, you receive lots of information. What is it about this information which persuades you that we have to take it seriously, or that you have to take it seriously?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think, obviously, Jonathan, there’s a judgment that is made. As you said, we do receive lots of information. We had information that led us last week to issue the worldwide caution and to advise Americans of that, to remind people that they should consider some of these factors when making their travel plans or in planning their day-to-day activities if they are traveling or residing abroad.
As you indicated, we receive lots of information through a variety of sources, which obviously I can’t go into any detail on.
But that information is obviously analyzed and reviewed and judgments are made as to when it is of a nature and significant to augment or supplement any other public announcements that we’ve made. So that’s what’s happened today.
We have received indication of possible planning for terrorist actions in those three areas noted and, as I said, that information is non-specific in terms of timing or the type of attack or the exact location, but a judgment was made that it was important to supplement our worldwide caution, noting this caution, and that’s what we’ve released today.
Q: Just to follow, if I may follow —
MR. REEKER: Let me start here and then go back to our — yeah?
Q: In that part of the world, only Pakistan was the one where you closed your missions. Do you have any idea why you took that action? Was there any specific —
MR. REEKER: We covered this extensively last week when we discussed that, and I’d be happy to refer you back to that. All those missions are reopened. There were four missions in Pakistan, in the South Asia region — that was in light of the worldwide caution that we put out on the 12th, which I’ve been discussing here. And I think, you know, the decision to instruct those posts to close was based on a variety of factors. There were a number of posts — all the posts in the Near East region closed. There were a number of posts in Africa and these posts in South Asia.
So — in the back. Yes?
Q: Did you share this information with the Turkish officials?
MR. REEKER: I’m not familiar with what direct contacts we would have had had with Turkish officials. Obviously, we’ve issued this as a public announcement, and so I’d be happy to try to check for you exactly at what point — but we have a regular dialogue, obviously, with Turkish officials, both here in Washington and in Ankara and at our consulate in Istanbul.
Q: Also, this threat coming from the extreme religious groups, which — they’re active, very active, in Turkey right now.
MR. REEKER: I just don’t have any further details for you on the specifics. I’m just not able to go into that, other than to note what we’ve already noted, as outlined in the public announcement.
Terry, and then —
Q: This is tangential. Do you have a specific comment?
Q: No, just terrorism-related.
Q: Well, I’ll go ahead and do mine. Can you go through with — go through the State Department’s version of this leaked memo?
MR. REEKER: Leaked memo?
Q: On VOA, at —
MR. REEKER: The VOA. Yes.
Q: Yeah. And I have some —
MR. REEKER: I trust by now you’ve all seen and received the copies of Ambassador Boucher’s statement, which was put out about this matter. Last night there was a memorandum that was sent to the Voice of America, in what is a sort of standard procedure or process that was wrong. As the statement we released last night stated, this was completely wrong. There was text in this memo that in no way reflected the views of the department or U.S. policy. It had not been vetted or approved through appropriate channels in this building. And in fact, the Voice of America editorial to which this is all referring was cleared by the Department of State. And you’d have to check with VOA on what they plan to do with that text and that editorial at that time.
Maybe it will be helpful to go over a little bit the process, because a lot of people that I talked to earlier were not clear on the relationship with VOA and what this was about.
The Voice of America, as you all know, broadcasts in English and 52 other languages overseas. It’s the international broadcasting service of the United States government. And under its charter, the Voice of America is required to broadcast accurate, objective and comprehensive reporting with the highest standards of journalistic excellence. And I think everybody would agree that that is very much what Voice of America has, and that they have a reputation, well earned, for reliability and credibility around the world. And that’s for nearly 60 years now.
The charter of the Voice of America also requires VOA to present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively. And so they do this through editorials. And those editorials, which are labeled at the top and the bottom of the segment when they’re broadcast, are described very distinctly as editorials reflecting — expressing the policies of the United States government.
Because of that, because one of VOA’s roles is to distinctly express policies of the United States government, an interagency deputies committee, as we call it, decided in 1991 that all of those editorials should be cleared by the State Department to make sure that, indeed, they were reflecting U.S. policy, which was their goal. So I believe it began in July of ’91, and the interagency coordinating committee sort of reviewed the procedure for implementing that in the following months. And it was determined that this was very much keeping within VOA’s charter and the need to explain U.S. government policy. And that same process has remained in place ever since then. So for about nine years now, and currently, the department reviews approximately eight to 10 of VOA editorials in any given week — reviews, or “clears”, as we say in bureaucratic lingo.
Generally, I’m told — and it’s hard to come up with specific numbers — determinations are made not to clear one to two of those in an average week. And they may be sent back and re-written, or VOA can submit something else, or simply not use it. But if they don’t reflect what we consider an expression of U.S. policy, obviously we will not clear that.
Q: And how is that indication made to VOA? Is it generally done by a memo?
MR. REEKER: Yeah. Yeah.
Q: And on this specific memo, if it wasn’t cleared, how did it get on official State Department stationery with people’s phone numbers on it?
MR. REEKER: Right. I was just getting to that.
VOA sends the proposed editorials by fax to the State Department’s executive secretariat, which is the body of these — organizational structure which processes paper like this. And then the executive secretariat seeks views of the appropriate offices and bureaus within the department in order to go through the clearance process, which a lot of you are very familiar with, and then conveys that back to the Voice of America. The same executive secretariat conveys messages to other U.S. government entities, whether it’s the National Security Council or the Department of Defense. That’s the process by which paper is moved and official things are moved back and forth.
This process obviously, in this case, had a glitch. There was wrong information put into text, into a memo, which was sent then, to the executive secretariat and transmitted to the Voice of America without — as Ambassador Boucher’s statement says, without being vetted or approved through the appropriate channel. And that went to Voice of America and, obviously, as we said, was wrong and does not reflect U.S. government policy in any way.
So once we became aware of this error, we, in fact, went back and checked, and the editorial in question was cleared and VOA was notified of that yesterday.
Q: Late last night, after this already came out?
MR. REEKER: Right. Once we became aware of this, when it came out, as you describe it, and went back to look at it — I even looked at the editorial and it’s a perfect reflection of U.S. policy; it was an editorial discussing terrorism, particularly in the wake of the tragedy surrounding the U.S.S. Cole. And so VOA was notified that, indeed, that editorial is fully cleared. You’d have to check on VOA on what their plan is for the editorial and use of that text on that. And obviously, we put out the statement to very clearly note that that memo that was sent out and then was leaked, was clearly wrong and does not reflect U.S. policy.
And then we can go back to Terry if you want.
Q: It says on the bottom of the memo that the Secretary and the counterterrorism staff conferred with that assessment, and that if there were questions to call the NEA Bureau, which indicates that the NEA Bureau had at least been apprised of that assessment.
MR. REEKER: Well, again, as you know very well, Elise, “bureau” is a broad description of a segment of the Department of State, and there are a lot of people that work in bureaus.
I think, as we noted in the statement released last night, this was not vetted or approved through the appropriate channels to the appropriate level, to the policy-making people that could determine that for reflecting U.S. policy. And that’s where the error occurred.
And in this age of e-mail, I think particularly, text can be moved so quickly — this appears to then have gotten to the executive secretariat, which then, following the standard procedure that has been pursued over the last nine years, forwarded that to the Voice of America.
And I should point out that what was released in terms of this memo, did include names and phone numbers, and that the names on there are not people that were at all involved in drafting or suggesting the text whatsoever. They are from the executive secretariat, who are serving in an administrative capacity simply to make this paper flow take place. So, unfortunately, the person identified in this memo, that was distributed very widely, has been subjected to, I think, some extraordinarily unfortunate and unfair phone calls and letters.
And I just want to point out very clearly to everybody that this mistake, this wrong information — which we’re very straightforward about this — simply is wrong and does not reflect U.S. policy or the thinking of the Secretary, the department, or the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. It should not at all be identified with the person on the memo; that’s an administrative function to simply pass the information on.
Terry. Go ahead.
Q: Can I just follow up on that?
MR. REEKER: Sure.
Q: So basically, you’re saying that that was the view of a particular State Department employee, or a group of State Department employees.
MR. REEKER: I’m not at all suggesting that that was even anybody’s view. I’m suggesting that that was information and language that was put out there in the process that somebody wanted to suggest could be a view of people that may or may not hear an editorial, —
Q: Right —
MR. REEKER: — simply in a process of looking at this editorial and saying, what might people think of this? There’s a long process there.
What obviously was missed was the appropriate level of vetting which would say, yeah, okay, you’re making some comments about what may be views held by someone around the world or an interpretation; these are not U.S. views; these do not reflect U.S. policy. And that’s what was missed. This went into that memo and was transmitted through this administrative process and, unfortunately, led to this misunderstanding.
But once again, the memo that people have seen was wrong. It does not reflect U.S. policy. It does not reflect the views of the Secretary, of the Department, or of the Bureau of Near East Affairs. And I’ve discussed this with officials at the highest level of the bureau and throughout the department.
It was not vetted; it was not done through the appropriate channels, and it was wrong.
Yes, Terry?
Q: Did Security and Counter-terrorism say they’d never seen that draft, entirely disavowing it, even though they were quoted as concurring?
MR. REEKER: I don’t — again, this had not been cleared through the proper level of —
Q: In either bureau?
MR. REEKER: — of either bureau. Someone concurring with someone’s pointing out a possible factor in looking at text does not designate any concurrence in terms of U.S. policy or the views of the department, of any bureau, because absolutely what is contained in that memo is completely wrong and doesn’t at all reflect, I think, as you all know, our views, our official positions, our policies.
Q: Well, how long does it usually take to get one of these editorials cleared? Because if they gave this to you on Monday and as of at least 7:00 last night it had not been cleared, how many days do these editorials usually sit in the State Department?
MR. REEKER: Once again, let me just correct you on that. What had happened was someone had sent what the administrative body thought was a non-clearance, the memo in question, and in fact that is dated Monday. I can’t tell you exactly when the text came over from VOA. That’s something I could check into. I think it depends, obviously, on what’s going on weekends; when people are working. As soon as it was looked at by the appropriate people at the right level, they said, “Of course this is cleared,” and that clearance was then sent out last night.
Q: But why wasn’t that approval sent? If these people underneath were doing something and they sent this renegade memo, the other people —
MR. REEKER: Because — again, I want to not get into “renegade” memos. I want to talk about text that was wrong. A memo that was wrong. This —
Q: Okay. The people who sent the wrong text hadn’t been contradicted by the right people.
MR. REEKER: Yes. Exactly. This moved through the process and was sent out so that the clearing, the approving, stopped because it was checked off as having been sent as uncleared. So the administrative —
Q: (Inaudible) — the memo “uncleared” —
MR. REEKER: Exactly.
Q: — that the State Department does not clear.
MR. REEKER: Exactly. That was the — that is exactly the problem. So that then stopped the process so that those then that were looking at it to review that at the appropriate level and determining that, indeed, the text the VOA had sent us was an absolutely fine reflection of U.S. policy, were not then — it didn’t move any further. And once we became aware of this memo and people said, “Wait a minute. This is totally wrong,” and went back to look at it, then they got the text back and said, “This is cleared.” We’ve cleared it, but we also felt we needed to put out, obviously, this statement. And I was in touch with Ambassador Boucher in Saudi Arabia last night, and he put out that statement to note how wrong that was and how it does not reflect the views of the State Department or the bureau.
Q: Have you got a motive —
Q: Yes —
MR. REEKER: I don’t think that needs to be an issue that we get — need to get into.
Q: (Off mike) — identified the person who wrote the language, and —
MR. REEKER: I’m sure that someone could identify the person that wrote the language, in terms of transcribing thoughts —
Q: No, no, having the ideas —
MR. REEKER: In terms of having ideas, I think we all have ideas, and when one is brainstorming to present lots of different thoughts and possibilities on subjects — this is not a question of pointing to somebody. What this is a question of is, what is U.S. policy, what is reflection of U.S. policy? And this memo clearly is not.
Q: Well, another question that arises is —
MR. REEKER: Yes?
Q: — I assume that when these answers are sent to VOA, there is a final policy vetting stage to ensure that the message is an accurate reflection of your policies. Who does that, and why didn’t they do it in this case?
MR. REEKER: It — again —
Q: Because you’re presenting the person mentioned here as being somebody whose task is not to do that.
MR. REEKER: Yeah. Again, let’s try to explain it one more time. The person whose task was not — got this — this — got into the channel, so that it was transmitted, which then stopped the process. So it never got to the appropriate level.
Q: Yes, but before this person actually sends the answer, does she not —
MR. REEKER: Right.
Q: — or he — clear it with somebody above them, who takes — who says, “Yes, send it”?
MR. REEKER: There’s been a standard procedure that has included the person from the executive secretariat sending the response that he or she receives by an e-mail or a phone call, and then prepares, formats this memo for sending to VOA.
Q: So it’s a very formal —
MR. REEKER: And obviously, there was an error in terms of misunderstanding — somebody thinking that some — “Oh, this has been sent and hasn’t been cleared.” The executive secretariat, which forwards this on in the administrative manner, doesn’t make a call as to the content of it. And so clearly it never made it to the policy- making people, the appropriate level of attention, and that’s something that we want to ensure, after nine years — we’ve had this incident now, this mistake — we want to go back and look at that and if necessary tighten up that process, if we need to, to make sure that the right people see these things and that they’re vetted appropriately.
Yes, George?
Q: What is mystifying is that someone could have written something so at odds with official policy.
MR. REEKER: I think often — just as you and I or many of us discuss things, in terms of tossing out alternate views that don’t reflect personal views, but that reflect the devil’s advocate position, perhaps, I think that kind of discussion goes on all the time.
Q: These people are not in —
MR. REEKER: I think — I think —
Q: These people are not into devil’s advocacy.
MR. REEKER: George, I think it’s — you’ve said it yourself right now, that this is completely at odds and entirely contradictory to what our views are and what our policy is. Those are policies, I think, that are very well known. If you see or hear the VOA editorial, you’ll see that it reflects very much in its discussion of terrorism and the tragedy of the USS Cole that it very much reflects what the Secretary had said last week and more recently, and certainly the other views that we’ve expressed from here.
Yes.
Q: Same subject. Would you call it an honest mistake and are you going to hold anybody accountable for this, or anybody — any action —
MR. REEKER: I think — you know, I don’t want to characterize anything as “honest”. I don’t believe there was any ill will here. And certainly, as I said, it’s something we’re going to review. We’ve already reviewed, in order for me to come out here, the process. It’s not something that I was intimately familiar with until last night and this morning, when I checked into this. We reviewed that. We want to make sure that it’s, you know, followed so that we don’t have systemic errors that can occur like that again and create these misunderstandings and the need to then discuss it. We as a department are dealing with that, and we’ll review that, and I think, as I said, with about 10 editorials a week over the last nine or 10 years the process has worked well, but obviously we need to make sure that we can, you know, avoid something like this happening again.
Nick, our friend from VOA.
Q: New subject? (Laughter.)
MR. REEKER: A new subject. (Laughs.)
Was there anything else on this? Did you want to — okay.
Please, let’s move on.
Q: Ambassador Bodine was telling reporters last night that there’s been some significant developments in the Cole investigation. Do you know what they are? Can you shed light on that?
MR. REEKER: I don’t think I can add much. I mean, I’ve seen transcripts, I’ve seen Ambassador Bodine, our ambassador in Yemen, on some of the television shows discussing this. As my colleague Admiral Quigley at the Pentagon said yesterday, we’re not going to comment specifically on aspects of the criminal investigation while it is underway. And I’m not going to speculate, certainly, on the big question of who may have been responsible for the explosion. That’s obviously what the investigation wants to pinpoint.
I can say — and I think this reflects — was reflected very much by what Ambassador Bodine has said — that the investigation into the explosion at the USS Cole is proceeding very well with continued good, full cooperation by the government of Yemen. The interagency team that was dispatched to Yemen last Thursday, when this event took place, remains on the ground or, in fact, on ships, in some cases, in Aden. It includes investigators and medical technicians, communications experts, and certainly a robust force protection element.
I think we may have talked a little bit at the end of the week about the Foreign Emergency Support Team, or FEST, which is the State- led interagency group of experts that can be deployed rapidly — in this case was deployed rapidly to Yemen — to assist U.S. and host nation authorities in a wide range of specialized skills not normally available on the scene, and particularly in the aftermath of a possible terrorist incident.
So we’ve been working very closely with the Yemenis; have appreciated that coordination and the support that they’ve been providing us. Obviously, as other departments have noted, senior officials are being kept apprised of this. And so I’m just not in a position to go into any more details of the investigation.
Q: Well, can you at least say whether you’ve got some solid leads yet, or are you still at square one?
MR. REEKER: Again, I think I have to say that the investigation has moved forward very quickly. This is less than a week since this tragic incident occurred. But I’m just not going to be able to get into day-by-day readouts of this; it wouldn’t be appropriate or prudent. It’s an ongoing criminal investigation. The FBI, obviously, will have lead of that criminal investigation. And we will certainly be paying close attention and watching for what information does emerge, when it’s determined that that information is appropriate to provide publicly.
Q: Did the Secretary discuss the investigation? Apparently there’s been some — I know you don’t want to go into the investigation, but there has been some claims that some of the people that could be responsible are of Saudi descent. And has the Secretary talked about the investigation during her meetings?
MR. REEKER: I’m not aware of that. She did, as we discussed, have meetings in Saudi Arabia. I just don’t have anything beyond the press reports I’ve seen suggesting these things. I have no details on that.
In terms of the Secretary’s meetings in Saudi Arabia, she arrived there yesterday and met with King Fahd, coming directly from Sharm El Sheik. Later then in the evening, she had meetings with the Saudi Crown Prince and the foreign minister. And then this morning she met with Syrian President Bashar Assad for about two hours and 15 minutes, I’m told, before she and her party departed to return to Washington.
Q: While — I guess this is back to the whole issue of the travel warning, are these specific threats, or — there hasn’t been any specific threat? Are the threats of this nature, have any of them made you think that it might be the same group or groups responsible for the —
MR. REEKER: I just don’t have any more information than what I’ve gone through now. I just am not in a position to discuss that any more. I can’t discuss the investigation, and I can’t provide any additional details on the worldwide caution or the specific public announcement that we’ve released today.
Q: But certainly there is a correlation between a terrorist attack on a U.S. ship last week and now that the U.S. is receiving a lot more threats —
MR. REEKER: Well, I think if you look back at the worldwide caution from October 12th it specifically mentions several American citizens — we now know that to be 17 — were killed and many more injured in an incident involving a U.S. Navy ship in port in Aden, Yemen. And so that in and of itself was included in the language of the worldwide caution issue last week.
Yes.
Q: Thank you. On the subject of Bashar Assad, apparently no commitment to Madeleine Albright was made to —
MR. REEKER: Bill, let me just cut you off there. I’m not going to be able to comment on the meeting. The Secretary’s party is traveling, and they’ll be able to do that either with the press traveling on the plane — I’m sure that the readout —
Q: You have no reaction, then —
MR. REEKER: All I can tell you is that the Secretary met with President Assad of Syria, who was also in Saudi Arabia. She used that opportunity to meet with him to discuss issues in the region, obviously, in the Sharm el-Sheikh summit that had just taken place. But I have no readout on the meeting and nothing specific on it.
Q: Nothing positive that you have to report from that meeting.
MR. REEKER: I will not have my statements characterized. I don’t have anything for you on that meeting because obviously it took place just before the Secretary and her party boarded the plane to come back to Washington.
Q: Let me ask you on another —
MR. REEKER: Yes. Let’s move on, and we’ll come back to you.
Q: All right.
MR. REEKER: Yes. Yes.
Q: Bangladesh. The prime minister of Bangladesh was here in the building yesterday and met with Mr. Talbott?
MR. REEKER: That’s right. She had lunch with acting Secretary of State Talbott, yes.
Q: Yes, sir. One, any — what did they discuss, number one? Number two, she’s asking the United States government that U.S. should make all the Bangladeshis — illegal Bangladeshis legal in this country, number one. Number two, she’s also asking that the killers of her father and the founder of Bangladesh, three major retired military officers here in the U.S., should be deported to Bangladesh to face trial and justice for the Bangladesh people.
MR. REEKER: Well, what I can tell you generally is that the prime minister of Bangladesh is now on the third day of a four-day visit to Washington. She was invited, as you know, by President Clinton when he visited Bangladesh last March.
She’s scheduled, indeed, to meet with President Clinton tomorrow. The meeting had originally been scheduled for today, but by mutual agreement, that meeting was moved because, as you know, the President was attending the memorial service for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole down in Norfolk.
As you noted, Prime Minister Hasina had a working lunch yesterday with Acting Secretary of State Talbott here in the department, and she had meetings at the Pentagon, I understand, yesterday afternoon. I believe she’s also — has met or is scheduled to meet with Secretary of Energy Richardson, Attorney General Reno and, certainly, quite possibly, other U.S. officials.
I’m afraid I’m not going to be able to characterize for you the specifics of the discussions at the working lunch other than to say that they covered a range of bilateral, regional and international issues, including cooperation on peacekeeping — Bangladeshis have been very supportive of U.N. peacekeeping efforts — strengthening of democracy, investment and trade issues.
Q: How about those making Bangladeshis illegal in the —
MR. REEKER: I don’t have any information on those discussions.
Q: And do you have anything on those three — the alleged killers of her father?
MR. REEKER: No, I’m afraid I don’t.
Q: Thank you.
MR. REEKER: Thanks.
(end transcript)
right ear, The
Human Events, Nov 3, 2000
NO COMPARISON: Even many who have long accused the State Department of having a pro-Arab bias were stunned that someone at State on October 16 vetoed a proposed Voice of America editorial because it expressed too much concern for American lives lost in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. “The 17 or so dead sailors does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks where we have remained silent,” said the memo from State that arrived at the Voice. “The people that hear this [editorial] will not see the separation we are trying to make and relate it directly to the violence.” Once the memo was publicly revealed, however, the uproar was so great that State denied the memo was official policy and claimed that it was sent without authorization. The Voice of America was then permitted to air the editorial.
Again, sorry it’s long but didn’t want to cut it up. Sorry about the error in the Sec of State.
Carol
Carol: Hi, that is just sooooooooooooo typical of the Clintons & Clintonistas! Thank you for sharing that!
Yes, Albright was SecState; but more important to me, the S/CT (Sec of Counterterrorism); had to be none other than….
Richard Clarke…..!!!
Correct?
This son of a bitch!
McCain / Feingold kicks in with the 60 day restriction.
Merlin, wouldn’t it be interesting to see MASSIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE with regard to the 60 day restriction. I’m talking about massive to the point that prosecution would be impossible. Just a thought.
Carol, I had not heard what you posted, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Kinda reminds me of the old Pogo quote, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Dale in Atlanta,
“Yes, Albright was SecState; but more important to me, the S/CT (Sec of Counterterrorism); had to be none other than….
Richard Clarke…..!!!”
HOLY CRAP!!! I never even thought of that! This thing’s got Clinton’s fingerprints all over it and IT STINKS!!! No wonder they want to bury this TV show!! Rush Limbaugh said that this movie makes Clarke look like some kind of hero…puzzling over just why he is so against it. We may now know the answer or part of it to that question.
Carol
I have often wondered what the Democrats would have done if Gore had won in 2000 and the Demorats had been in control of the White House for 9 years when those planes flew into the buildings. I am sure some snarky Democrat could say it would not have happened if a Democrat had been in control, but I don’t know why. They had years to nip this thing in the bud and did nothing.
Random Musings…
Don’t you get the feeling that quite a few folks wish that the Clinton Administration attacked the terrorists with such vigor as he and others on the Left are attacking ABC for the upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, which appears to portray the Cl….
Democrats threaten legal action against Disney. amazing. just amazing. the hypocricy is stunning.
Terrye said
I have often wondered what the Democrats would have done if Gore had won in 2000 and the Demorats had been in control of the White House for 9 years when those planes flew into the buildings.
You have hit on one of the major points in our history that all too many have missed.
If Gore had won, it would have been Clinton’s watch with all the build up attacks and Gore’s with the biggie.
Instead of improvised BDS since the attack occurred of GW’s watch, where would the dems have any place to hide?
Secretly many major dems had to be kissing their pinky rings on this.