Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[rev]

Nobody except the 9/11 panel knows what he said under oath. Frist is just publically speculating that he lied, knowing that it probably WON'T be declassified, thusly damaging Clarke when there's no way of actually knowing.

Either way, now Condoleeza Rice wants to testify and rebut Clarke's under-oath claims, but she wants to do it in private and refuses to testify under oath. In other words, she'll rebut what Clarke said, but she refuses to promise to tell the truth.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Figures. Ogie posts a relevent and on point article and it gets ignored by everyone.

Yup.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

BOOFRICKINHOO!

I feel so underappreciated.

I cast pearls before the swine.

[Verto]

From MSNBC

Bush, Clinton varied little on terrorism
9/11 hearings suggest administrations pursued similar policies


For all the sniping over efforts by the Bush and Clinton administrations to thwart terrorism, information from this week's hearings into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks suggests that the two administrations pursued roughly the same policies before the terrorist strikes occurred.

Witness testimony and the findings of the commission investigating the attacks indicate that even the new policy to combat Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts, developed just before Sept. 11, was in most respects similar to the old strategy pursued first by Clinton and then by Bush.

The commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

....

Bush officials have claimed that their al Qaeda strategy took eight months to develop because it was significantly more aggressive and sweeping than the tactics employed by the previous administration. "Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in an op-ed article published in The Post earlier this week.

In fact, according to the details that emerged this week, most of the strategies approved by high-level Bush officials on Sept. 4 and Sept. 10, 2001, were nearly identical in thrust to the policies pursued by the Clinton team. The plans grew out of long-standing proposals made by Clarke in 1998 and 2000 -- ideas derided this week by Rice as a "laundry list" of ideas that were previously "tried or rejected."

Clarke's 1998 and 2000 proposals were not formally adopted by the Clinton administration, but most of the ideas, except his call for continuous bombings of al Qaeda and Taliban targets, served informally to guide policy. Clarke submitted both proposals, along with a request for short-term actions, to the Bush team on Jan. 25, 2001. The suggestions formed the basis for the Bush strategy that was adopted nearly eight months later.

The Bush plan called for further diplomatic pressure on the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, which had refused entreaties to expel bin Laden, along with the continuation of sanctions and a resumption of the use of unmanned reconnaissance drones to spy on terror camps and locate the al Qaeda leader, according to descriptions of the policies by commission investigators, panel members and Bush officials. The Predator drones also would have been armed, as Clinton officials had begun debating in 2000.

Bush officials say that Clarke's 1998 plan and particularly his 2000 proposal were not actual Clinton policies and included many wish-list items that the Bush administration was turning into actual policy. They say the strategy assembled by the Bush administration moved more quickly to arm the Predator and included plans to thwart terrorist financing and to counter al Qaeda propaganda with public diplomacy.

"The White House quickly sought a new strategy that would eliminate al Qaeda, not roll it back or try to contain it," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the National Security Council. While the Clinton administration said it wanted to "roll back" al Qaeda into a "rump group," Wilkinson said the Bush plan to "eliminate the threat" of al Qaeda meant something different. "It's a contrast between simply responding to attacks and going out and seeking threats where they hide and plot," he said.

But Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, testifying this week in place of Rice, who declined to give public testimony to the commission, said there was "stunning continuity" in the transition from Clinton to Bush. "We made the determination under the guidance of Dr. Rice and the president to vigorously pursue the policy which we inherited while developing our own approach," he said.

The Bush administration's approach, which was in draft form by Sept. 4, 2001, did not differ substantially from Clinton's policy. The commission staff, in the "key findings" it released this week, said: "The new administration began to develop new policies toward al Qaeda in 2001, but there is no evidence of new work on military capabilities or plans against this enemy before September 11" -- a point on which Armitage concurred.

The primary differences in the Bush proposal were calls for more direct financial and logistical support to the Northern Alliance and the anti-Taliban Pashtuns and, if that failed, to eventually seek the overthrow of the Taliban through proxies. The plan also called for drafting plans for possible U.S. military involvement, according to testimony and commission findings.

But those differences were largely theoretical; administration officials told the panel's investigators that the plan's overall timeline was at least three years, and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans or significant funding at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The similarities between the two administration's approaches led several Democratic members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States to play down the importance of the Bush plan and to criticize the administration for not taking more aggressive action against bin Laden and his network earlier in 2001. A Democratic commission member, former Indiana representative Timothy Roemer, said in an interview that the eventual Bush strategy was "not significantly different, except for a few adjectives and rhetorical flourishes," from the proposals made by Clarke.

Former Clinton aides feel vindicated. Daniel Benjamin, a Clinton administration National Security Council official, said that "after seven months of chewing on it, they reached essentially the same conclusions as the previous administration" and did not have the funding in place to support more aggressive policies.

But Clarke, who was counterterrorism director for both Clinton and Bush, has been much more critical of Bush. In testimony this week, he said al Qaeda and terrorism "were an extraordinarily high priority" and there was "certainly no higher a priority" under Clinton. On the other hand, he said, "the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue but not an urgent issue."

In fact, Clarke was constantly agitating for a more aggressive response to terrorism from the Clinton administration, including more significant bombing of al Qaeda and Taliban targets. The commission staff described him as "controversial" and "abrasive" and included an observation that several Clinton colleagues wanted him fired.

"He was despised under Clinton," said Ivo H. Daalder, who worked under Clarke in the Clinton National Security Council on issues other than terrorism. James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people "thought he was exaggerating the threat" and said he "always wanted to do more" than higher-ups approved.

Daalder and Lindsay say Clarke's criticism of Bush is based on the administration's emphasis, not its policy. "His criticism of Bush pre-9/11 is not necessarily that they didn't have a good strategy but that they didn't take the threat sufficiently seriously."

[Tripledoc]

To me this whole business seems like a charade. What Richard Clarke, who no-one have ever heard of before but seems to have learned a few Hollywood manners, is essentially pushing is this scenario where because the US did not intervene pre-emptively in Afghanistan Al-Qaeda were capable of striking at the WTC.

However he pushed for a plan of launching an attack against Afghanistan before 9-11, and get 'boots on the ground', but this plan was held back because Commander Bush wished for an attack against Iraq.

Now if Al-Qaeda had knowledge of the intent to strike at both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9-11, was that attack then a preemptive strike? That is very likely. If that is the case then 9-11 was actually a direct result of US planning.

But the way the media spins it is that now it is even more important than ever to launch pre-emptive strikes at percieved terrorist threats. Thus the actual intent of the hearing is actually to create a policyframe where preemptive strikes remain not only unquestioned, but the popular support for it is actually strengthened.

There is no opposing interests in the US administration concerning the fundamentals; unchallanged hegemony, and monopoly on oil resources. What you have is carefully designed 'hearings' which egg on the people to demand ever more security, or remove their scepticism. That the lapse in security is a direct result of the overarching US foreign policy is not even dealt with in the most superficial manner. Clarke means to say that 9-11 did not happen because the vast bulk of Americans are expendable in furthering imperialism, but that it happened because the US was not aggresive enough in pursuing its aims.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Verto
From MSNBC

Many words hardly saying anything but Bush officials said blahblahblah.
So what was this so called superior plan about, the article mentions? 2 1/2 years after 911 I still can't see any plan, let away a superior one. Is the Iraq war part of that superor plan? Or the misslie defence programm? The mini nukes?

How about the statement of the State Department member, "that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast." (here's another link about that.) It mainly contradicts the claims in the MSNBC-article.

If, as the article says, "the Bush plan called for further diplomatic pressure on the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, which had refused entreaties to expel bin Laden, along with the continuation of sanctions", why did they support the taliban leader with 43 Million $ in May 2001? How does that fit together?


And here's something about Condoleeza Rice who wants to meet the panel once again after Clarke's testimony:

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

She didn't lie, she "misspoke", yeah.

[Verto]

If, as the article says, "the Bush plan called for further diplomatic pressure on the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, which had refused entreaties to expel bin Laden, along with the continuation of sanctions", why did they support the taliban leader with 43 Million $ in May 2001? How does that fit together?

According to spinsanity.org, "the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban."

[Ramo]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3&sid=96378801

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath, Kerry told CBS's MarketWatch

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder if Kerry thinks Clarke is telling the truth, when he says the Clinton Administration is equally to blame .

[Ramo]

Doesn't matter since Slick Willy isn't running for POTUS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course it does. Because if Kerry thinks Clarke is lying about Clinton's blame, then his statement to the Bush administration is kinda hypocritical.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I wonder if Kerry thinks Clarke is telling the truth, when he says the Clinton Administration is equally to blame .

Kerry's line of thinking: Clarke is somehow telling the truth about Bush but not Clinton.. afterall I'm getting endorsed by Clinton so better not blame him for anything.

[Ramo]

Of course it does. Because if Kerry thinks Clarke is lying about Clinton's blame, then his statement to the Bush administration is kinda hypocritical.

I don't think that Kerry's rabidly partisan enough to think that Clinton doesn't deserve some of the blame, even if he'd never admit it. Remember, he's evil, not stupid.

[GePap]

From Verto, from MSNBC

In fact, Clarke was constantly agitating for a more aggressive response to terrorism from the Clinton administration, including more significant bombing of al Qaeda and Taliban targets. The commission staff described him as "controversial" and "abrasive" and included an observation that several Clinton colleagues wanted him fired.

"He was despised under Clinton," said Ivo H. Daalder, who worked under Clarke in the Clinton National Security Council on issues other than terrorism. James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people "thought he was exaggerating the threat" and said he "always wanted to do more" than higher-ups approved.

Daalder and Lindsay say Clarke's criticism of Bush is based on the administration's emphasis, not its policy. "His criticism of Bush pre-9/11 is not necessarily that they didn't have a good strategy but that they didn't take the threat sufficiently seriously."

I love fun with bolding-it makes selective reading so easy!

As for declassifying Clarcke previous testimony-why not? Let them-after all, Graham, who was also present at the testimony says there were no inconsistencies-
wow. the republicans say there are, the democrats say there aren't-what a immense surprise!

I would LOVE to see the Bushies try to get him on perjury..so much fun-think of it, every day the media just keeps the story alive! Fun. And if he got off.... Cause then what does the admin. do?

[Boris Godunov]

I particularly enjoyed the moment in his testimony when Clarke embarrassed the GOP questioner regarding the memo he wrote in 2002 for the Bush Administration. The questioner, displaying typical snottyness, help up his book and the memo and asked "which is true?" Of course, he didn't bother to elucidate, such as pointing out any actual inconsistincies or such.

Clarke proceeded to explain that he wrote the memo while working for the Bush Administration and under specific, direct orders to highlight the positive aspects of their counterterrorism efforts and downplay the negative. He did as ordered. Thus the Administration came off ultimately looking bad from this line of questioning, and the GOP questioner was visibly embarrassed and, more importantly, unable to respond.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Another opinion piece:


Clarke's book will quickly be forgotten
George Will (archive)


March 30, 2004 | Print | Send


WASHINGTON -- ``So,'' Lincoln supposedly said to the White House visitor, ``you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war.'' Harriet Beecher Stowe's ``Uncle Tom's Cabin,'' published in 1852, quickly sold 300,000 copies -- equivalent to 3 million today -- and remains the only book to become an American history-shaping political event.

When the dust settles from the eight days that shook the world of Washington -- spanning Richard Clarke's appearance two Sundays ago on ``60 Minutes'' to his appearance last Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' -- no one will say of his ``Against All Enemies'' what Longfellow said of Stowe's novel: ``Never was there such a literary coup de main as this.'' Too much of the controversy about Clarke's book -- and testimony and interviews -- concerns adjectives.

Combating terrorism was only ``important'' to the Bush administration (by the eighth day Clarke was calling the Bush administration ``lackadaisical'' about terrorism), whereas for the Clinton administration it was ``urgent'' -- ``no higher a priority.'' Except when it wasn't. When Clarke recommended ``a series of rolling attacks'' against al Qaeda's ``infrastructure in Afghanistan,'' his recommendation was rejected. But Clarke says ``to be fair'' we should understand that the Clinton administration decided it had higher priorities -- the Balkans, the Middle East peace process.

By the eighth day Clarke was telling Tim Russert that the difference is that Clinton did ``something'' whereas Bush did ``nothing.'' Nothing except, among other things, authorizing a quadrupling of spending for covert action against al Qaeda.

Clarke's apology to the American people, delivered to the Sept. 11 commission, should be considered in the context of the book, the publication of which was timed to coincide with his testimony. When, presuming to speak for the entire government, he said ``we tried hard,'' he actually must have been using the royal plural, because the gravamen of his book is that only he was trying hard. Indeed, parts of Clarke's memoir call to mind Finley Peter Dunne's jest that Teddy Roosevelt's memoir of the Cuban expedition should have been titled ``Alone in Cuba.''

Republicans should not press Majority Leader Bill Frist's implied threat, in his Senate speech Friday, that the differences between Clarke's sworn testimony to the Senate in 2002 and his sworn testimony to the Sept. 11 commission constitute perjury. Perjury being properly difficult to prove, Clarke, if charged, would be acquitted. Besides, it is time to stop trying to criminalize political differences, even those flavored, as in Clarke's case, by anger, malice, opportunism and meretriciousness.

And Republicans should stop saying that the one continuity from the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, through the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, to 9/11 is Clarke, so he must somehow be to blame. That argument is a cousin of Clarke's apology.

When he apologizes for his and the government's ``failure'' (he means its failure to listen to him, and his failure to make it listen), the implied principle is freighted with future acrimony. The principle is that when government efforts to protect public safety are proved to be imperfect, we should be able to identify measures that could have and -- this is not the same thing -- should have been taken.

That principle is especially dubious after the Madrid bombings. They were perpetrated without suicides, and using two ubiquitous items -- backpacks and cell phones. Donald Rumsfeld, providing adult supervision during the Clarke kerfuffle, keeps saying something we will have occasion to remember: More attacks are coming because we are still far from draining the social swamps where attackers breed.

Former Sen. Slade Gorton, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, asked Clarke whether there was ``the remotest chance'' that acceptance by the Bush administration of all the recommendations Clarke made four days after President Bush took office would have prevented Sept. 11. Clarke said: ``No.'' So what makes Clarke strident -- his self-description -- is his belief that the Iraq War was a tragic blunder, arising from the president's monomania about Saddam and draining resources from the war on terror.

Intelligent people can and do make that argument. However, by day eight Clarke's version of it was puerile: But for the Iraq War, Sept. 11 might have caused the Islamic masses to say ``maybe we've gone too far.''

In 1862, as his policy toward slavery evolved, Lincoln got from the Library of Congress ``A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin,'' in which Stowe provided documentation on which her novel had been based. It is unlikely that 10 years from now the president will be consulting Clarke's book, or Clarke.

[Verto]

If this has been mentioned before, apologies. On Drudge is a report saying Clarke did not testify in a 1999 Special Senate Commission for the same reasons Rice has given.

Beginning excerpt:

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!

Check out the rest at Drudge, take it for what it's worth.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Another view on Clarke this one from Jack Kemp

Hell hath no fury ...
Jack Kemp (archive)


March 29, 2004 | Print | Send


After hours of reading testimony and listening to the political talk shows, I believe former counterterrorism "czar" Richard Clarke served our country dutifully and responsibly and perhaps even nobly - as well fighting terrorism for more than 20 years in the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations. By all accounts, he was tenacious and at times even ferocious, it seems, in his single-minded dedication to rooting out terrorists and stopping them before they could strike Americans. For that service, Clarke is to be commended.

It is, however, completely inexplicable and totally indefensible in a time of war - and make no mistake, we are in a time of war - for anyone so intimately involved in the last four administrations to take steps to undermine a president, be he a Democrat or Republican. I am profoundly concerned. Clarke's accusations that the Bush administration did not take terrorism as a serious enough threat prior to 9-11 could undermine the president's ability to carry on the war on terrorism if sufficient doubt is cast in the mind of the American public.

Clarke complains that the invasion of Iraq, which he contends was not a significant state sponsor of terrorism or in any significant way a contributor to terrorism, has been a costly and unnecessary diversion. Clarke testified to the 9-11 Commission not only that he believes the Iraq war misdirected our efforts and attention away from the larger war on terrorism, but also that he believes the war in Iraq has fostered more terrorism and left America more vulnerable. Whether he is correct about that only history will tell, but everyone agrees that failure is not an option now. What is clear is that Clarke's conviction against the war in Iraq is clouding his judgment about the war on terrorism and this administration's conduct of that war, and worse, it is politicizing the 9-11 Commission's deliberations.

By casting doubt in the American public's mind about Bush's pre-9-11 actions and policies, Clarke is creating his own huge diversion. I find it unfathomable and inexcusable that someone as intimately involved in counterterrorism efforts as Clarke would fault the Bush administration where terrorism is concerned, given the inertia and ineptitude he experienced firsthand in the eight years of the Clinton administration.

In Clarke's own words, "There was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." So how could anyone in good faith possibly lay responsibility for al-Qaida's attack on America at the doorstep of the Bush administration seven months after the inauguration? The administration had begun from day one to put together a comprehensive anti-terror plan, and there is no doubt that al-Qaida managed to strike before the plan could be completed and implemented. But Clarke himself admits that even had the Bush administration not concentrated on formulating a comprehensive plan but instead adopted every one of the ad-hoc, stopgap recommendations Clarke was urging on the president, it wouldn't have stopped al-Qaida's 9-11 attack.

Nine-11 Commissioner and former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton asked Clarke directly: "Assuming that all (your recommendations) had been adopted, say, on Jan. 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9-11?" Clarke's answer was emphatically, "No!"

Did this and previous administrations make mistakes in their handling of the terrorist threat prior to 9-11? Of course. They, like every administration before them, were made up of fallible human beings, and it didn't help that this administration had to devise and implement a new anti-terrorism plan on its own and on the run because its predecessor had failed to do so. The question is, were mistakes made by the Bush administration in any way responsible for 9-11?

Even the administration's chief tormentor admits not. If ever there was a time for the "no-harm-no-foul" rule, now is that time.

So why is Clarke blowing the whistle on the Bush administration for infractions even he admits were not responsible for the attack? Some people have suggested he is motivated by "sour grapes" at best or greed at worst. Other people suggest that he is motivated by vengeance for having been demoted by the Bush administration and kept from the inner circles of power in which he had become accustomed to moving.

Who knows? All of the punditry is speculation, but somehow neither of these two explanations accounts for the intensity and ferocity of Clarke's attack on Bush. His attacks have all the hallmarks of deep-seated political disagreements. Do I think Clarke is a closet leftist hell-bent on undermining this administration?

No, but what I do suspect is that he believes the invasion of Iraq was such an enormous mistake that he has convinced himself the ends justify the means and that he really is embarked on undermining and ultimately removing the president this coming November.

Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.

[GePap]

Lets just say the Will piece is worlds better than the purile Kemp piece.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Agreed. I find Will always a good read.

[MrFun]

I strongly disagree with this bit from Jack Kemp:

"It is, however, completely inexplicable and totally indefensible in a time of war - and make no mistake, we are in a time of war - for anyone so intimately involved in the last four administrations to take steps to undermine a president, be he a Democrat or Republican."


In essence, he is arguing that we need to be patriotically correct, by goose stepping behind our political leaders, no matter how incompetent and/or corrupt they are. We should never goose step -- not even in time of war.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun
I strongly disagree with this bit from Jack Kemp:

"It is, however, completely inexplicable and totally indefensible in a time of war - and make no mistake, we are in a time of war - for anyone so intimately involved in the last four administrations to take steps to undermine a president, be he a Democrat or Republican."


In essence, he is arguing that we need to be patriotically correct, by goose stepping behind our political leaders, no matter how incompetent and/or corrupt they are. We should never goose step -- not even in time of war.

This from one of the biggest supporters of Lincoln?



Regardless your point has merit.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


This from one of the biggest supporters of Lincoln?



Regardless your point has merit.

Hey -- I remember the good ol' days when Lincoln was president. You just don't understand . . . . .

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
I strongly disagree with this bit from Jack Kemp:

"It is, however, completely inexplicable and totally indefensible in a time of war - and make no mistake, we are in a time of war - for anyone so intimately involved in the last four administrations to take steps to undermine a president, be he a Democrat or Republican."


In essence, he is arguing that we need to be patriotically correct, by goose stepping behind our political leaders, no matter how incompetent and/or corrupt they are. We should never goose step -- not even in time of war.

No he's not.

[MrFun]

Oh, sure he's not -- and maybe pigs fly too!

[SpencerH]

He's talking about a man who has worked in the administration of 4 governments in a security-sensitive position - not average citizens.

[GePap]

which means if anything he and not some ignorant layman, should come forward with complaints and charges-as long as he divulges nothing confidential. Kemps piece is a piece of crap-a moronic assault. Will's piece is nice and rational.

[MrFun]

exactly, GePap