"Preserved in Amber" -- Clarke unloads

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

"Preserved in Amber" -- Clarke unloads

Postby Rspaight » Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:53 pm

This is a must-read. I tried to bold interesting passages, but I ended up bolding 90% of it.

Did Bush Press For Iraq-9/11 Link?

March 20, 2004

(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the advisor, Richard Clarke, in an interview airing Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

Clarke is due to testify next week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable.

His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorrism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists stuck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

"I kept thinking of the words from 'Apocalypse Now,' the whispered words of Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The horror.' Because we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about the bodies flying out of the windows. People falling through the air. We knew that Osama bin Laden had succeeded in bringing horror to the streets of America," he tells Stahl.

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 says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

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 that 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 - because 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.

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl.

"The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:04 pm

Pretty chilling, although mostly covered in Franken's book...
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:30 pm

Sure, this is terribly damning testimony. But as it comes more than two years after 9/11 and only days before his book is to be published, his comments may be swatted away as nothing more than the self-serving rantings of an ex-high-level government employee.

I wish I could say I admire Clark for coming forward as he now has--I wish I could say I admire the man's courage. But I can't. Had he approached 60 Minutes two years ago they would've fallen over themselves in efforts to air his interview. And had the interview aired then one's got to wonder if the war on Iraq could have mustered even the limited support it did. Were I the parent of one of the hundreds of US soldiers killed so far in this war, I've got to think that I'd be pretty angry at this man.
Dr. Ron :mrgreen:TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:33 pm

True enough.

On the other hand, Clarke was still an official in the Bush Administration until sometime in 2003, and the White House apparently (according to Clarke) held the book up for some months before clearing it to be published. Given the climate, I don't blame him for keeping his trap shut until his legal ducks were in a row.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:30 pm

Rspaight wrote:On the other hand, Clarke was still an official in the Bush Administration until sometime in 2003 . . .

He resigned in 2003. Given the importance of what he had to say-- especially as it would have had an impact on America's decision to invade Iraq, he could've resigned sooner and come forward with his story. Clarke himself admitted that he'd been shunted aside in the new administration [which, I believe, was the main reason for his resignation]--meaning that an earlier resignation was certainly an option. He then could have then told his story sooner--when it might have done some real good.

. . . and the White House apparently (according to Clarke) held the book up for some months before clearing it to be published.

The hell with his book. At stake were things a hell of a lot more important than his damned book.

Given the climate, I don't blame him for keeping his trap shut until his legal ducks were in a row.

Fair enough. But I can't help but think that a man of courage would've made sacrifices so as to have enabled congress and American allies to make a reasoned desicion regarding invading Iraq. His book? Legal ducks? Sorry, but his not coming forward gives the appearance that he was involved in the administration's policy of misinformation and subsequent coverup of things Iraq.

Let me ask you, Ryan. Had he come forward with his story either before or during the runup to the war, do you think Britain would've signed on? Would Bush have had enough support in congress to proceed? Would we be in Iraq now? Sure, these are tough questions, but even if you answer "I'm really not sure" then one's got to wonder how different the landscape might look today in terms of the "war on terror," America's standing in the world, America's financial resources and the loss of lives in Iraq. Maybe I'm overreaching, but the times called for men to stand up and be heard. [Colin Powell? Christ.] Clarke, however, remained seated, preoccupied with keeping his legal ducks in a row. And in so doing he betrayed the country he served for many, many years.
Dr. Ron :mrgreen:TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:41 pm

I really don't share your view that he could have staved off Iraq. In the climate of the time, his objections could have been shrugged off as sour grapes from a lefty appeaser who didn't buy into the Bush Doctrine -- which is how it's being spun now (see the Matt thread).

That said, however, I can't disagree with anything else you say. Even if it was in vain, he should have stood up then.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:18 pm

Oh, I can't say he could've prevented the invasion, either. But his story, as told in 2004 just days before the publication of his book, has the whiff of tainted goods. The same story told in 2002 would have, I believe, proven compelling enough to have nudged the likes of John Kerry [and how many others?] to vote against the Iraq Resolution. Hard to say how many. And it's hard to say what effect a larger number [though still a minority] of dissenting votes would have had. Certainly wouldn't have hurt, though--both in the U.S. as well as Britain. "In the climate of the time," yes, it would have been difficult. But that's when it counts--when times *are* difficult.
Dr. Ron :mrgreen:TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:39 pm

One last point as regards the Iraq Resolution. The vote came just prior to the midterm elections where a "no" vote would appear as soft on terrorism. It's anyone's guess, but had Clarke told his story at that time congressmen would have been given an out whereby they could face constituents with a "My vote of 'no' on the Iraq Resolution speaks not to my weakness in the face of a terrorist threat, but rather speaks to my refusal to send this nation down the path of war based on willful ignorance, arrogance and deceit." Given that they're all a bunch of pussies, that "out" might have been enough to have gotten them to vote 'no'. Or not.
Dr. Ron :mrgreen:TM "Do it 'till you're sick of it. Do it 'till you can't do it no more." Jesse Winchester

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:42 pm

I'm thinking "or not", but I guess we'll never know.

I'm sure Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc al would have done the same "that conversation never took place" bit they are doing now...
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:39 pm

From an interview with James Moore

Well, there's also that memo that is quoted in my book that CBS News obtained -- the notes from the meeting with Rumsfeld at 2:00 in the afternoon on Sept. 11, which said: Go massive. Sweep it all up. Go after Osama. Include Iraq.

The opening scene in the second chapter of my book also corroborates this story, which is information that I got about the exit interview between Bush and Clinton, where Clinton listed off the five priorities that he had in his office, and he put Osama at the top of the list. He also talked about Pakistan and India, with their nukes pointing at each other. He talked about the MidEast, he talked about North Korea, and he talked about Saddam and Osama, and he put Osama at the top of his list.

And Bush shook his hand and he said, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you've got your priorities wrong. I'm putting Saddam at the top of the list." This is the day George W. Bush was inaugurated, for God's sake.

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Tue May 04, 2004 12:26 am

PREZ: BILL DIDN'T WARN OF OSAMA

May 3, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - In testifying to the 9/11 commission, President Bush contradicted former President Bill Clinton's claim that he'd warned Bush that Osama bin Laden would be his No. 1 problem when he took office, a new report says.

Bush told the panel that Clinton seemed a lot more passionate about the dangers of North Korea's nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Time magazine reports.

Bush said Clinton probably mentioned terrorism as a threat, "but did not make it a point of emphasis," the report added, citing unnamed sources on the closed-door testimony.

Clinton - who testified earlier to the 9/11 panel - had claimed that he ranked bin Laden as the top problem facing Bush as he took office in January 2003.

The question of whether Clinton was alert to the terrorist threat has been a source of dispute between members of the Bush and Clinton teams.

Bush aides have suggested that the president saw Clinton's approach to terrorism as "swatting at flies." They say Bush wanted a more muscular approach to getting bin Laden, and that such a plan was about to be approved when terrorists struck on 9/11.

Former terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who served both presidents, now claims Clinton put a higher priority on terrorism. While working for Bush, however, he told reporters that Bush took a much better and stronger approach. Clarke left the Bush administration after failing to get a top-level job he sought in the Homeland Security Department.