Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job" ( Disgruntled Ex-Employee Alert)

AP ^ | Sat, Mar 20, 2004 | TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

[tcuoohjohn]

WASHINGTON - Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq (news - web sites) with dangerous consequences.

He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.

"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program.

CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies."

Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.

"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly 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."

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.

"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,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida

[KJacob]

He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack."

Didn't Bush take office on Jan 20TH. So 4 days later this guy wrote a letter about Al-Qaida? Why have we not heard of this before? I wonder if C. Rice still has a copy of the alleged letter. If he really thought there was an impending attack he would have done more than write a letter.

[Texas Eagle]

He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

Yeah, right. As if you panty-waists would've stood up and cheered "Hip hip hooray!" if President Bush had launched an attack against bin Laden BEFORE Sept. 11, 2001.

[alloysteel]

Keep in mind, that Richard A. Clarke was a holdover from the regime of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001", and was in place only to provide some continuity in the effort to contain al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. As it turned out, containing Islamofascism as a policy had to be discarded in favor of taking proactive steps, but for some time after the Bush Administration took office, there was no machinery in place to carry out the changed policy.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

From http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

"Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation", key excerpt:

"Clarke... Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council..."

Enough said.

[Reagan is King]

Bush crushed the Taliban
Bush crushed Saddam and his murdering minions
The U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 under his watch
Libya surrendered their nuke development
He is establishing the first democracy in the Arab world
Iran is under severe pressure to get rid of the mullahs

And that's just the highlights. Yeah, he's done a terrible job in just the last 3 years. I don't like Bush's spending sprees and open borders but he's right on track on the war on terror. Dissing the president is just a way to sell books.

[Guillermo]

They bash Bush for failing to act pre-emptively against Al Qaeda, then they bash Bush for acting pre-emptively against Saddam...

[sgtbono2002]

Funny how he has waited 3 1/2 years for this story and it just happens to coincide with a book he has written and will be released next week.

[South Dakota]

blah blah blah blahbblah,and now on to the sunday talk shows/book signings and where is my money

[liberallarry]

They bash Bush for failing to act pre-emptively against Al Qaeda, then they bash Bush for acting pre-emptively against Saddam...

Exactly.

The Bush administration didn't trust the Clintonites or the intelligence services. Wolfowitz and Cheney were talking about the deficiencies in the latter as early as 1991 - before Clinton. So they did what intelligent people do in such a situation; they started from scratch and attempted to formulate their own opinions and their own solutions.

Osama didn't co-operate. Who's fault is that?

None of the above, by the way, is meant as criticism or approval of the subsequent actions of the Administration. They are to be judged on their own merits.

[shellylet]

No kidding! And haven't they bashed Bush for making plans to attack Iraq shortly after he took office because they said it was to retaliate for the planned assassination of his father?
They are so stinking scared now that they have a moron like Kerry as their leader they're going to try anything and everything to win!

[ApplegateRanch]

Lest you forget,
Without Iraq going down, thus putting some REAL pressure, the "remnants" would also be sitting & laughing in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Don't you think it odd that until Sodamn Insane's defeat & capture, nothing was accomplished in that area by our "staunch" ally?

The Kahn "Bombs for Baksheesh Program" shouldn't get all the credit for the current opperations in Waziristan.

[tcuoohjohn]

Clarke Reported to Rice...If he is lying about the letter then Rice will be sure to point it out.

[KJacob]

So it will be her word against his? What way will the press play that one? If this guy was a holdover from the Clinton administration and was concerned about AQ why didn't Al Gore mention it once in the entire campaign?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator


Well he's doing a better job than you did, Clark! Your glorious tenure under Clinton was to bomb an aspirin factory and ignore the Cole incident.

[Guillermo]

Regime change was official policy of the US beginning in 1998.

Next time some wacko tries to say anything about Iraq, ask him about the billions Saddam, his friends in the West, and the UN stole from the "oil for Food" program, and ask them if that had anything to do with "500,000 dead Iraqi children."

I'm sure they will still blame the US though.

[Reagan is King]

Correct. With the fall of Iraq there is one less place for them to hide and one less dictator to take the focus off the other direct/indirect supporters of terror. Those that were allowing the terror cells to operate freely in their own countries (i.e., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) can no longer act indifferent about them.

If Iraq can actually pull it off and become a thriving democracy then I believe we will see the tin pot Arab dictators go down one by one.

[Eva]

Wasn't this guy a Clinton holdover? What, the problem with Osama suddenly became urgent after the inauguration, or was it that Clarke had been unable to convince Clinton of the urgency , so he thought he'd try Bush?

[Texas Eagle]

They bash Bush for failing to act pre-emptively against Al Qaeda, then they bash Bush for acting pre-emptively against Saddam...

If it wasn't for double-standards, some people would have no standards at all.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Dissing the president is just a way to sell books."

I'd be interested to see if that is actually true, that is, if there is an actual advantage to book sales on that basis vs. conservative or even fairly unbiased writing. I don't trust the numbers on books anymore after seeing the stories about L. Ron Hubbard's stuff getting recycled to get on the bestseller lists.

No tinfoil for me, thanks--but I don't know anyone who actually owns Lying History, either.