Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[Ramo]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said "There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan" I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

[...]

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the President saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says, prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back; they wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - 'cause he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August.

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11.

"He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

[Wezil]

Yet Bush continues to spout "Iraq" and "War on terror" in the same breath. He desperately needs the link that just wasn't there.

[Ted Striker]

I've heard the, "there aren't enough targets in Afghanistan" line and it just sounds like something someone made up to me.

I will agree however that the Administration did jump on thinking they might need to go after Iraq after 911. Rice even mentioned it.

Predator drones had spotted Bin Laden in 2001 but at that time were not armed. The Bush administration pushed to have them armed so the next time one of the drones spotted Bin Laden, they could kill him.

Part of the problem, everyone agrees, is bureaucratic infighting between the CIA and the Pentagon over who would pay and who would be blamed if something went wrong.

After testing in June, the administration's plan was to send the Predator to Afghanistan in September.

President Bush had said he was tired of “swatting flies.” Did his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, ever say, “September isn’t good enough — we have got to get this back up there"?

“We did push very hard on getting the Predator back up,” insisted Rice, “But you always have to be careful to make sure that you're going to have something that works."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/

[Sava]

this corroborates Paul O'Neill's statement that the Bush admin was hell-bent for Iraq before 9-11...

[Oncle Boris]

Ted, are you implying that Bush did his job because he pushed for armed predators, just in case OBL is spotted again?

[DanS]

Here is the White House response, which is pretty hard-hitting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar22.html

I think Clarke is off base here, because he wasn't in a position to know as much as he thought he was. Don't know if Clarke's critique is politically motivated or not.

[DanS]

The following accusation seems more than a little bizarre.

Clarke said that after debating for a week after Sept. 11 whether to attack Iraq or Afghanistan, the administration decided that "they had to do Afghanistan first" because it was obvious that al Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan, was behind the attacks. But he said the response "was slow and small" and the Bush administration did not go all out to send troops into Afghanistan and eliminate al Qaeda and bin Laden because it was holding back a larger effort for Iraq.

"We should have put U.S. special forces in immediately, not many weeks later," Clark told ABC. "U.S. special forces didn't get into the area where bin Laden was for two months, and we tried to have the Afghans do it. You know, basically the president botched the response to 9/11. He should have gone right after Afghanistan, right after bin Laden. And then he made the whole war on terrorism so much worse by invading Iraq."

What was the problem with deciding what to do and how to do it before sending our guys in? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to send them in without proper planning and support first?

[The diplomat]

Clarke is lying through his teeth. This is all about money and politics. Clarke wants to sell his book and he wants to bash Bush since he is part of the Kerry campaign. It is all political.

[shmily_dana]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Clarke is lying through his teeth. This is all about money and politics. Clarke wants to sell his book and he wants to bash Bush since he is part of the Kerry campaign. It is all political.

Agree. There are some very close connections between him and someone on Kerry's staff. I can't think of the other fellows name. Anyone else hear that?

[rev]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Clarke wants to sell his book and he wants to bash Bush since he is part of the Kerry campaign. It is all political.

Well, if registered Republicans are signing up for the Kerry campaign, Bush is in more trouble than we think

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who ever said Clarke was a registered Republican?

[rev]

Clarke did.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder what he was before the 2000 election (he said he was registered Republican in 2000), or if what he is saying is true. Seems strange.

[uh Clem]

Acknowledged by foes and friends as a leading figure among career national security officials, Clarke served more than two years in the Bush White House after holding senior posts under former Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He resigned 13 months ago Sunday.

Although expressing points of disagreement with all four presidents, Clarke reserves his strongest language for George W. Bush. The president, he said, "failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from Al-Qaida despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

"Acknowledged by foes and friends as a leading figure among career national security officials..." Doesn't exactly call to mind Noam Chomsky.

This reminds me of what Lyndon Johnson said when he was asked why he didn't fire J Edgar Hoover: "I'd rather have him on the inside pissin' out, than on the outside pissin' in."

[Sava]

Originally posted by DanS
I think Clarke is off base here, because he wasn't in a position to know as much as he thought he was. Don't know if Clarke's critique is politically motivated or not.

politically motivated? nah... the right wing smear machine is in action...

Clarke started under the Reagan admin... was promoted under Bush I, and is a registered Republican.

Sorry DanS... you got pwned

[Sava]

It's really quite interesting that Bush fanatics are still supporting their dope despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that he ignored the terrorism before 9-11... and then wanted to blame 9-11 on Iraq.

I like how Condi Rice says the Bush admin was calling for stronger anti-terror measures than Clinton... only... the Bush admin didn't hold their first meeting on terrorism until September 4th, 2001. Man, even Condi's a lying piece of ****.

[Lincoln]

Yeah! And Bill Clinton certainly didn't ignore it! If Bill was still in the Whitehouse none of this would have happened! I think that Bush probably directed the planes into the WTC as well. Just wait until my book comes out...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Yeah! And Bill Clinton certainly didn't ignore it! If Bill was still in the Whitehouse none of this would have happened! I think that Bush probably directed the planes into the WTC as well. Just wait until my book comes out...

well we are all aware of your susceptability to fanaticism

[Lincoln]

I hope you had a good laugh...

I think I will vote for Ralph Nader this time around.

[Ramo]

Meyer, UK Ambassador in DC confirms Clarke's claim with regards to Iraq:

Blair 'dissuaded Bush from attack after 9/11'

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Friday April 4, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair has frequently played a pivotal role in the infighting in the US administration over Iraq, according to the recently retired British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Hawks in the Bush administration, mainly the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, pushed for an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11.

Sir Christopher, in an interview with the US public broadcasting system last night, said that the prime minister, arriving in Washington the week after an inconclusive discussion between George Bush and his key advisers at Camp David, swung in behind the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who saw Afghanistan as the prime target.

In the documentary Blair's War, Sir Christopher, who returned to Britain last month, said that when Mr Blair met Mr Bush in the weeks after September 11, he urged him to deal first with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network and its protector - Afghanistan's Taliban government - before tackling Iraq.

"Tony Blair's view was, 'Whatever you're going to do about Iraq, you should concentrate on the job at hand'. And the job at hand was get al-Qaida, give the Taliban an ultimatum," the former British ambassador said.

Sir Christopher added that Mr Bush took Mr Blair aside and promised he would keep Iraq "for another day".

Apparently, on becoming president, Mr Bush was content with the then US-British policy of containment. But September 11 changed his attitude to Saddam Hussein and he was no longer prepared to countenance a government that might prove to a risk in the future.

When Mr Bush returned to the Iraq issue after dealing with Afghanistan, the prime minister pressed him to go first to the UN, and offered to sell US policy to other European leaders.

"Blair said, 'If you want to do this you can do this on your own; you have the military strength to go into Iraq and do it, but our advice to you is: Even a great superpower like the US needs to do this with partners and allies'."

Mr Blair allied himself with Mr Powell in the battle to go down the UN route, against hawks such as the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, who in August last year appeared to rule out that option.

It was touch and go: when Mr Bush last September in a speech to the UN promised to take the Iraq issue to the security council, it was not in the text on his teleprompter. He agreed so late there was not enough time to include it.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...929464,00.html

Juan Cole has suggested that Blair's strong support for Shrub may be based on a bargain that he take care of Afghanistan immediately.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DanS
Here is the White House response, which is pretty hard-hitting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar22.html

I think Clarke is off base here, because he wasn't in a position to know as much as he thought he was. Don't know if Clarke's critique is politically motivated or not.

Can you post the text? Can't get the link without subscribing.

[Giancarlo]

Great another guy wanting to a get a press opportunity and lying too from what I hear.

[notyoueither]

I don't know. There is getting to be a lot of smoke. Where there is smoke, there may well be fire.

Can I accept that Bush and members of his administration have been fixated on Iraq? That seems obvious, so yes (whether or not I agree with getting rid of Saddam, which I did and do).

Can I accept that less was done about the threat of terrorism before 9/11 than [could have been] done? Yes, I think I can. Prior to the event it is entirely possible that not as much was done as could have been. No, not possible, make that probable given the magnitute of the attack and the lack of impact prior attacks had.

Did Bush or his administration screw up by not doing things that they could reasonably be expected to have done? Maybe. That will be a question examined for some good long time to come.

[Edit. Fixed egregious error in what was intended.]

[Docfeelgood]

I predicted way back when that Son of a Bush took office that he would look for any excuse to take out that bad man who was trying to hurt his daddy

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
I predicted way back when that Son of a Bush took office that he would look for any excuse to take oyt the man who would try to hurt his daddy

Bullshit alert!

[Docfeelgood]

Bullshit?

Look it up in the search.


Then lets see who is talkin bullshit!


Bet you were not even on these boards then


If you were here then you would know.


so, eat bullshit and die

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Bullshit?

Look it up in the search.


Then lets see who is talkin bullshit!

I want something better then Ihatebush.org or some other crap like that. Something actually credible, and not made up horse crap.

[Docfeelgood]

Ask some of the vets here if you don't believe me.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Ask some of the vets here if you don't believe me.

Trust somebody on apolyton? That is like believeing The National Enquirer. Maybe you should talk to people in real life. And I am not listening to a bullshit machine like you.

[Docfeelgood]

Scared you did I?




Yep, the truth will set you free........


Prove me wrong smartazz