Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What are yu talking about? his entire testimony is already up on the NYTims

I was looking at the commisions own website.

So would you be so kind as to post the portions of the testimony relating to Al - Shifa?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

More on Clarke this one from leftward leaning TIME


Richard Clarke, at War With Himself
Viewpoint: On TV, the former counterterrorism official takes a much harder line against Bush than in his book. That undermines a serious conversation about 9/11
By ROMESH RATNESAR




Thursday, Mar. 25, 2004
Since his appearance on 60 Minutes last Sunday, Richard Clarke has faced a barrage of attacks from Bush Administration officials over his claims that the White House ignored the threat posed by al-Qaeda before Sept. 11 because of its obsession with Iraq. Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that Clarke “wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff”; Condoleezza Rice said Monday that "Dick Clarke just does not know what he's talking about"; and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, in that same 60 Minutes broadcast said that the White House has found "no evidence" that conversations Clarke claims to have had with President Bush even occurred. Clarke has responded to his critics with a dollop of wistful regret, followed by an adamant refusal to back down. "It pains me to have Condoleezza Rice and the others mad at me," he told Good Morning America. "But I think the American people needed to know the facts, and they weren't out. And now they are."

Are they? The accounts of high-level conversations and meetings given by Clarke in various television appearances, beginning with the 60 Minutes interview, differ in significant respects from the recollections of a former top counterterrorism official who participated in the same conversations and meetings: Richard Clarke. In several cases, the version of events provided by Clarke this week include details and embellishments that do not appear in his new book, Against All Enemies. While the discrepancies do not, on their own, discredit Clarke's larger arguments, they do raise questions about whether Clarke's eagerness to publicize his story and rip the Bush Administration have clouded his memory of the facts.

Perhaps Clarke's most explosive charge is that on Sept. 12, President Bush instructed him to look into the possibility that Iraq had a hand in the hijackings. Here's how Clarke recounted the meeting on 60 Minutes: "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'.....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.'" After Clarke protested that "there's no connection," Bush came back to him and said "Iraq, Saddam — find out if there's a connection." Clarke says Bush made the point "in a very intimidating way." The next day, interviewed on PBS' The NewsHour, Clarke sexed up the story even more. "What happened was the President, with his finger in my face, saying, 'Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaeda, a memo on Iraq and the attacks.' Very vigorous, very intimidating." Several interviewers pushed Clarke on this point, asking whether it was all that surprising that the President would want him to investigate all possible perpetrators of the attacks. Clarke responded, "It would have been irresponsible for the president not to come to me and say, Dick, I don't want you to assume it was al-Qaeda. I'd like you to look at every possibility to see if maybe it was al-Qaeda with somebody else, in a very calm way, with all possibilities open. That's not what happened."

How does this square with the account of the same meeting provided in Clarke's book? In that version, Clarke finds the President wandering alone in the Situation Room on Sept. 12, "looking like he wanted something to do." Clarke writes that Bush "grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room" — an impetuous move, perhaps, but hardly the image that Clarke depicted on television, of the President dragging in unwitting staffers by their shirt-collars. The Bush in these pages sounds more ruminative than intimidating: "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." When Clarke responds by saying that "al-Qaeda did this," Bush says, "I know, I know, but see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred....." Again Clarke protests, after which Bush says "testily," "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

Nowhere do we see the President pointing fingers at or even sounding particularly "vigorous" toward Clarke and his deputies. Despite Clarke's contention that Bush wanted proof of Iraqi involvement at any cost, it's just as possible that Bush wanted Clark to find disculpatory evidence in order to discredit the idea peddled by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Baghdad had a hand in 9/11. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush rejected Wolfowitz's attempts to make Iraq the first front in the war on terror. And if the President of the United States spoke "testily " 24 hours after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, well, can you blame him?

Clarke's liberties with the text don't stop there. On 60 Minutes he said that after submitting to the White House a joint-agency report discounting the possibility of Iraqi complicity in 9/11, the memo "got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer.'" The actual response from Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, shown later in the program, read "Please update and resubmit." On 60 Minutes, Clarke went further, saying that Bush's deputies never showed the President the joint-agency review, because "I don't think he sees memos that he wouldn't like the answer." This is pure, reckless speculation. Contrast that with the more straightforward account in Against All Enemies: after his team found no evidence of Iraqi involvement, Clarke writes that "a memorandum to that effect was sent up to the President, and there was never any indication that it reached him."

In a few other instances, Clarke's televised comments seem designed to disparage the President and his aides at all cost, omitting any of the inconvenient details — some of which appear in the pages of his book — that might suggest the White House took al-Qaeda seriously before Sept. 11. Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject." This has been a constant refrain in Clarke's public statements — that Bush's failure to call a "Principal's Meeting" of his cabinet to discuss terrorism until the week before Sept. 11 showed a lack of interest in al-Qaeda. While it is technically true that the White House did not hold a Cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda until Sept. 4, the charge is still misleading, since Bush, as early as April 2001, had instructed Rice to draft a strategy for rolling back al-Qaeda and killing bin Laden, saying he was tired of "swatting flies" —, a line Clarke does include in his book. Rice's response was to task a committee of deputies to study the U.S.'s options for rolling back the Taliban; the group ultimately concluded that the U.S. should increase its support to the Northern Alliance and pressure on Pakistan to cooperate in a campaign to remove the Taliban. It was essentially the same plan Clarke had drafted during the Clinton Administration. As his book details, the plan was scuttled by intransigence at the CIA and the Pentagon, neither of which Clinton wanted to confront head-on.

While Clarke claims that he is "an independent" not driven by partisan motives, it's hard not to read some passages in his book as anything but shrill broadsides. In his descriptions of Bush aides, he discerns their true ideological beliefs not in their words but in their body language: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." When the cabinet met to discuss al-Qaeda on Sept. 4, Rumsfeld "looked distracted throughout the session." As for the President, Clarke doesn't even try to read Bush's body language; he just makes the encounters up. "I have a disturbing image of him sitting by a warm White House fireplace drawing a dozen red Xs on the faces of the former al-Qaeda corporate board.....while the new clones of al-Qaeda....are recruiting thousands whose names we will never know, whose faces will never be on President Bush's little charts, not until it is again too late." Clarke conjured up this chilling scene again on 60 Minutes. Only in this version he also manages to read Bush's mind, and "he's thinking that he's got most of them and therefore he's taken care of the problem." The only things missing are the black winged chair and white cat.

Leaving aside the fact that Bush never fails to insist that the terror threat is as great today as it was on 9/11, these passages reveal the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it. That's a shame, since many of his contentions — about the years of political and intelligence missteps that led to 9/11, the failure of two Administrations to destroy al-Qaeda and the potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — deserve a wide and serious airing. From now on, the country would be best served if Clarke lets the facts speak for themselves."

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I was looking at the commisions own website.

So would you be so kind as to post the portions of the testimony relating to Al - Shifa?

No. It's free to sign up- I assume you already are, and you are the one who thinks it important. As I have said, I don;t give a rats butt if he still thinks he was right about Sudan.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Maybe his justification is the same as that from the admin. "At the time the evidence we had said X and thus we were not wrong!". You buy it from them, why not from Clarke? As I said, I don;t think Sudan relevant, so I don;t care it Clarke was right or wrong then-his main accusation which has the admins. panties in a bunch is that prior to 9/11, from 1/01 to 9/01 the admin. did not see AQ as urgent. It is that claim that has the amdin. screaming like a little girl.

The admin admits that they have not found stockpiles of WMD. They continue to assert , IIUC that there were active WMD programs, and an active campaign to hide such programs, which would account for much of the intell confusion surrounding the exisitence of actual weapons.

In the case of Al-Shifa the evidence relating to Iraq is apparently a visit by the head of the plant to the head of the Iraqi VX program in Baghdad. I would like to know if Clarke still thinks such a meeting took place, and if VX expertise was passed at such a meeting.

[GePap]

And you continue to utterly ignore the fact the admin. has gone so viciously after Clarke mainly becuase he is saying that prior to 9/11 the admin. did not see the AQ threat as urgent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
And you continue to utterly ignore the fact the admin. has gone so viciously after Clarke mainly becuase he is saying that prior to 9/11 the admin. did not see the AQ threat as urgent.

Others are better at debating whos more viscious in american politics and why then I am. I am discussing another point. If you wish to discuss it fine, if not, also fine


Here BTW is Clarks testimony, per the NYT

CLARKE: But when you sometimes do that, you get into trouble. President Clinton got into a lot of trouble, a lot of criticism for blowing up a chemical plant in Sudan. To this day there are a lot of people who believe that it was not related to a terrorist group, not related to chemical weapons. They're wrong, by the way. But the president had decided in PDD-39 that there should be a low threshold of evidence when it comes to the possibility of terrorists getting their access, getting their hands on chemical weapons. And he acted on that basis

There are a lot of people who believe it was not related to chemical weapons - theyre wrong - its as simple as that. Clarke beleives TO THIS DAY that the Al Shifa plant was connected to chemical weapons.

[rev]

lotm -- any chance you could dig up a relatively recent article as to what really happened at that Sudan plant? From what I understand, there were traces of chemical weapons in the sand around the plant, and it was about to be sold to a Saudi businessman, but media coverage of it seemed to have dropped out of the spotlight with the Lewinsky proceedings.

[Giancarlo]

Just something of interest as far as the pharmaceutical plant bombing goes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/425919.stm

Sudan's minister of information, Dr Ghazi Salaheddin Atabani, read out a statement on Sudanese Television on Thursday 19th August demanding that the United States should pay compensation for the bombing of the Al Shifa factory a year ago.

The following is the text of Dr Atabani's statement, with subheadings inserted editorially: In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, I am reading out to you a statement by the Sudanese government on the first anniversary of the American aggression against the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals factory.

Tomorrow, Friday 20th August, is the first anniversary of the American military aggression against the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Khartoum.

The aggression, which deprived the sick and the poor of their right to treatment, was a serious violation of Sudan's sovereignty and territorial integrity and all international laws and conventions, above all the UN charter.

In its attempt to justify the aggression, the American administration resorted to false allegations, claiming that the factory was producing chemical weapons or that it belonged to Osama bin Laden, without any evidence other than baseless intelligence information supplied by quarters motivated by malice.

World believes attack was not justified Soon after the incident, it became clear to the whole world, including the USA, that the claims made to justify the bombing of the factory were false.

These claims are still being used by the American regime to justify its enmity and direct more accusations and provocations against Sudan.

Evidence which refutes the American allegations has continued to stream in from scientists, engineers, technicians and chemical experts.

By bombing the factory, the American government failed to respect its assumed role as an international power responsible for safeguarding international security and peace.

Those who saw the factory being built and its machines imported, assembled and operated witnessed all this, and some scientists refuted the American allegations on scientific grounds.

The decisive proof came when samples of the soil at the factory were examined by a reputable laboratory in the USA.

Witnesses and evidence continued to be reported by the international media and the American press until the stage was reached at which the American government could no longer uphold its unsubstantiated allegations.

While the American government was persisting with its allegations, Sudan made a logical and simple demand in asking the UN to send a fact-finding team to investigate the factory.

The Sudanese government agreed to accept the results of the investigation and all its consequences.

The Sudanese government was not surprised when the American government turned down this logical demand, because the Sudanese government was confident in its position and had nothing to hide.

It became clear that the American government persisted in rejecting any deliberations at the Security Council on the idea of such an investigation, because it lacked confidence in its claims and had much to hide.

In confirmation of the complaint presented to the Security Council over the American aggression against the Al Shifa factory, together with the persisting atmosphere of enmity, provocation and intimidation brought to bear on Sudan by the American administration, the Sudanese government wishes on the occasion of this painful anniversary to reaffirm its openness to those who want to see what it is doing, because it has nothing to hide.

Repeats call for UN fact-finding mission The Sudanese government renews its call on the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities by sending a fact-finding team to Sudan to investigate the destructive bombing of the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals factory and to ask the American administration courageously to recognize the team's findings.

The destruction of the Al Shifa factory has resulted in tragic consequences for this country, which has not ceased to make efforts to improve the lives of its citizens ever since independence.

The unjust strike, in just a second, nullified all the millions spent on funding the factory and its equipment .

In an instant, hundreds of workers, who a few hours before the incident had been happy and treasured hopes in this world, became jobless, with thousands of their dependants affected.

Sudan as a whole, the sick, the poor, humans and animals, lost a precious source of medicine.

It was a factory which was making available 50 to 100 per cent of various types of medicine for Sudanese citizens, and at an affordable prices for the poor.

In just a second this hope was shattered and turned into a miserable scene of destruction and ruin, to which the debris of the factory bears testimony.

It was not done for any good reason, but to satisfy the evil and malicious whims of an oppressive power which wanted to test its ability to wreak destruction.

Sudan ready for dialogue with United States During the past 10 years Sudan has witnessed important political and constitutional developments such as the peace agreement and its provisions for self-determination for the south, dialogue of reconciliation, a multiparty political system, developing positive relations with neighbouring countries and the European Union, and close cooperation with the UN on humanitarian relief and the protection of human rights.

These developments have been welcomed and commended by numerous countries and quarters, as well as by the UN secretary-general.

However, the USA is still clearly stubborn towards all these positive developments and has not abandoned its hostile policies against Sudan, which, for its part, has remained keen to engage in peaceful dialogue based on mutual respect with a USA devoid of the policy of violating the freedom of peoples or interfering in internal affairs.

Contrary to these hopes and aspirations, however, we note a heightened tone of hostility towards Sudan emanating from American government institutions.

Instead of admitting the mistake, a series of new allegations are constantly being made based on similar baseless information as was used to justify the destruction of the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals factory.

Sudan would like to take the opportunity provided by this sad anniversary of the aggression on the Al Shifa factory to thank and commend all the governments, peoples and organizations which sympathized with and supported its position, particularly the peoples and governments of the Nonaligned Movement and Arab, Islamic and African states and peoples, international and regional organizations, and all popular and media organizations in all parts of the world which stood by the people and government of Sudan as they faced the ordeal of that oppressive aggression.

Sudan appeals to the international community to continue supporting Sudan to confront the threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity and support its efforts for peace and stability.

Thank you.

Sudan TV, Omdurman, in Arabic 19 Aug 99

[GePap]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rev
lotm -- any chance you could dig up a relatively recent article as to what really happened at that Sudan plant? From what I understand, there were traces of chemical weapons in the sand around the plant, and it was about to be sold to a Saudi businessman, but media coverage of it seemed to have dropped out of the spotlight with the Lewinsky proceedings.

IIRC the claim was made that CIA had actually sent people in earlier and found chemical traces, while later investigation after the bombing found no such traces. Yet Clarke, continues to stand behind the assertion that there was a CW connection to the plant. On what basis, I dont know. To say that its on the basis of the alleged contact between plant management and the Iraqi VX program is only speculation, of course. Of course if Clarke DOES believe that the plant was connected to the Iraqi VX program, it would be interesting to hear how he relates that to his belief that Iraq was unconnected in significant ways to international terrorism. Perhaps he beleives that Sudan and AQ were not connected. But then why bomb Sudan in response to an AQ terror act??? Or perhaps he shares with GEPAP the belief that passing on VX expertise to Sudan, though strong enough evidence to bomb Sudan, was not strong enough evidence to implicate Iraq as a spreader of WMD to terrorists. Or perhaps he accepts that such action would provide a Casus Belli, but feels that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake at least AT that time. After all a coherent argument has been made that it was both legally and strategically correct to go into Iraq, but that it would have been better to wait till Afghanistan was in better shape, we had stabilized Pakistan, etc.

In any case it would be interesting to see Mr. Clarke fill out his beliefs in this regard.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Or perhaps he shares with GEPAP the belief that passing on VX expertise to Sudan, though strong enough evidence to bomb Sudan, was not strong enough evidence to implicate Iraq as a spreader of WMD to terrorists.

Or perhaps he feels it was related to chemical weapons, but they were wrong about Iraqi links..(you forgot that one)

Or perhaps he thinks that there was a failed attempt to transfer tech than was abandoned by one or both sides after this attack (you forgot that one)

At least at the end you address the possibility Iraq is wrong for other reasons even if we accept the supposed link between Iraq and Sudan...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Or perhaps he feels it was related to chemical weapons, but they were wrong about Iraqi links..(you forgot that one)

that would raise two questions

1. If they were wrong about Iraqi links, AND about the soil sample, what it is the basis for him continuing to say they were right?
2. If there WAS VX in Sudan, and it wasnt based on tech transfer from Iraq, where DID the tech come from? Was Sudan advanced enough to do this on their own? Did it come from another country? Pakistan?

Or perhaps he thinks that there was a failed attempt to transfer tech than was abandoned by one or both sides after this attack (you forgot that one)

In which case Iraq had VX technology in 1999 and was interested in handing it out, even to Fundamentalist Wahabi regimes of the type we're told "secularist" saddam would never cooperate with, and thus indirectly to pass it to AQ. And it was avoided only by this particular bomb strike. Which would imply it could happen again, elsewhere, and next time the bomb strike might not be sufficient to stop it, or it might happen without our finding out about it. Which is more or less the scenario the admin laid out as its PRINCIPLE justification for the invasion, and its connection to the WOT.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

At least at the end you address the possibility Iraq is wrong for other reasons even if we accept the supposed link between Iraq and Sudan...

reasonable people may disagree about strategy and sequence. Famously, in WW2, Churchill advocated for a Med strategy, ultimately expressed in Operation Torch, before, or even in place of, a landing in France, while the USSR continued to insist on the urgency of an anglo-american landing in France, and saw Torch and the rest of the Med campaign as a distraction. while the US was internally divided (Marshall vs King) on the matter. But neither Stalin nor any Stalinist denied that torch was part of the broader war.

[GePap]

Seems the republicans are trully scared about this guy-they might even take my advice and attempt to charge him for perjury-if they can.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rke_congress_4

But neither Stalin nor any Stalinist denied that torch was part of the broader war.

I am sorry, but the comparison is ludicrous to me-it was beyond obvious the very same enemy, the German-Italian Axis, was involved in both France and Italy and the Eastern Front. The comparison streches credibility.

[DinoDoc]

I'd rather they take your other advice and move on.

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, when I read about the Congressional GOP plot to declassify the testimony in an effort the attack Clarke, I had to chuckle. They bust be REALLY scared of him to be practicing these slash-and-burn tactics. Funny how they seem so intent on attacking the man instead of what he has said.

[DinoDoc]

Maybe they get a cut of his book sales.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd rather they take your other advice and move on.

So would I, but hey, if this makes them look deperate.

I wonder when Fox will start to organize boycotts of the book? Will the GOP send letters to bookstores trying to stop them from selling it? Certainly the right-wing talk-jocks will be calling for boycotts soon enough.

[uh Clem]

From washingtonpost.com:

As his advisers tell it, President Bush had tired of the White House playing defense on issue after issue. So this week, his aides turned the full power of the executive branch on Richard A. Clarke, formerly the administration's top counterterrorism official, who charges in his new book that Bush responded lackadaisically in 2001 to repeated warnings of an impending terrorist attack.

Bush's aides unleashed a two-pronged strategy that called for preemptive strikes on Clarke before most people could have seen his book, coupled with saturation media appearances by administration aides. They questioned the truthfulness of Clarke's claims, his competence as an employee, the motives behind the book's timing, and even the sincerity of the pleasantries in his resignation letter and farewell photo session with Bush.

The barrage was unusual for a White House that typically tries to ignore its critics, and it was driven by White House calculations that Clarke would appear credible to average viewers. Bush's advisers are concerned that Clarke's assertions are capable of inflicting political damage on a president who is staking his claim for reelection in large measure on his fight against terrorism.

White House targets Clarke

This isn't going to play out the way the Bushies want it. Putting the entire administration against one man (a retiree!) is going to appear as exactly what it is -- desperation. Of course, it also displays them as the bullies that they basically are.

[GePap]

Not just the entire administration-the entire republican party machine.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Funny how they seem so intent on attacking the man instead of what he has said.

exactly

[oedo]

And here's an CNN-link from April 30, 2001, which could confirm Clarke:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second year in a row, the State Department warned that South Asia "remained a focal point for terrorism directed against the United States" and said trends in terrorism continue to shift from the Middle East to South Asia.
The State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000" cites Afghanistan's ruling Taleban as a major reason for South Asia's role as a hub of terrorism, as it "continued to provide safe haven for intentional terrorists, particularly Saudi exile Osama bin Laden and his network."
(...)
It added that the Taleban provided logistics support to members of various terrorist organizations in Central Asia, Chechnya and Kashmir.
Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN 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."
(...)

And this only three months after entering the WH. So much about it was all Clintons fault...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap


Seems the republicans are trully scared about this guy-they might even take my advice and attempt to charge him for perjury-if they can.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rke_congress_4

He lied under oath. That simple.

"And this only three months after entering the WH. So much about it was all Clintons fault..."

Actually I don't see how that confirms anything.

[chequita guevara]

Give it up Fez. Bush will be lucky if he doesn't spend the rest of his life behind bars.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Give it up Fez. Bush will be lucky if he doesn't spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Why don't you go jump in front of a moving bus? Bush spending the rest of his life behind bars? WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ON? DRUGS?

[DinoDoc]

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

[Giancarlo]

Heh.. the article (speech) I posted was a bunch of crap..

[rev]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


He lied under oath. That simple.

Any proof of that?

If you're referring to Bill Frist's request that certain transcripts be de-classified, well, Frist doesn't even know what is in them. So he can claim that Clarke may have lied and we'll never know because the transcript will probably never be declassified.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
He lied under oath. That simple.

Fine. So why not prosecuting him?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by oedo

Fine. So why not prosecuting him?

Soon enough. As soon as his testimony gets declassified.