From the WaPo:
Clarke told the commission in testimony yesterday afternoon that whereas the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority, the Bush administration did not consider it to be an urgent issue before the attacks.
Supporting evidence:
EXCERPT: CLINTON REPORT TO CONGRESS ON NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
(Outlines U.S. policy for the Middle East, No. Africa, South Asia)
January 11, 2000
The top priority gets mentioned, with respect to Afghanistan, after North Korea, the Middle East peace process, Libya, Iraq, Iran, India v. Pakistan, and the Caspian. Afghanistan is only mentioned in connection with drugs; neither "Taliban" nor "Qaeda" appear in the document. But it is only an excerpt, soperhaps the top priority is highlighted elsewhere.
But not here! Sandy Berger explains his priorities.
Now, in his full quote, Clarke explains that there were many top priorities. How many is left unclear, but it looks like a lot.
UPDATE: Here is the Clinton Strategy from Dec 2000. Terror is mentioned, but does not seem to be emphasized.
And Matt Hoy has an interesting take on the NY Times coverage of the Clarke testimony:
All the priorities have won, and all must have prizes.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | March 25, 2004 at 12:15 PM
Or should that have been "All the priorities are #1, and all must have crises"?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | March 25, 2004 at 01:00 PM
With the bar so low that even comically untenable contentions like the one about the admin's fixation on Iraq (even as they invaded Afghanistan) going unchallenged, none of us are expecting much of the media any more, but there's a rather obvious point here. Terrorism was the prior admin's top priority. Gee, Dick, how did you do at destroying Al Qaeda? Oh. So Clarke's adding one more incredibly damning if implicit indictment to the ample pile burdening the Clinton national security team.
Posted by: IceCold | March 25, 2004 at 01:37 PM
Eight years with Clinton with nothing being done and 8 months with Bush, and Bush gets all the blame?
If I believe that, I deserve the title of "idiot" that Mr. Clarke is trying to assign to me.
Posted by: steve | March 26, 2004 at 11:32 AM