NEWSWEEK: Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.

Prnewswire ^ | 3/21/04

[Brian Mosely]

NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.
Sunday March 21, 10:51 am ET

'They Came in There With Their Agenda and [Al Qaeda] was not on it,' Says Former Counterterrorism Chief Clarke of Bush Administration

NEW YORK, March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22).

• (Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040321/NYSU003 )

  Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff, tells Newsweek that at an April 2001 top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, his effort to focus on Al Qaeda was rebuffed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.

  In the meeting, says Clarke, Wolfowitz cited the writings of Laurie Mylroie, a controversial academic who had written a book advancing an elaborate conspiracy theory that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clarke says he tried to refute Wolfowitz. "We've investigated that five ways to Friday, and nobody [in the government] believes that," Clarke recalls saying. "It was Al Qaeda. It wasn't Saddam." A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official.

  Clarke tells Newsweek that the day after 9/11, President Bush wanted the FBI and CIA to hunt for any evidence that pointed to Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Clarke recalls that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was also looking for a justification to bomb Iraq. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld was arguing at a cabinet meeting that Afghanistan, home of Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps, did not offer "enough good targets." "We should do Iraq," Rumsfeld urged.

  Six days after the president's request, Clarke says, he turned in a classified memo concluding that there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in 9/11-nor any relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The memo, says Clarke, was buried by an administration that was determined to get Iraq, sooner or later. In his new book, "Against All Enemies," Clarke portrays the Bush White House as indifferent to the Qaeda threat before 9/11, then obsessed with punishing Iraq, regardless of the what the evidence showed about Saddam's Qaeda ties, or lack of them.

  The Bush administration is already pushing back. A White House official tells Newsweek that Bush has "no specific recollection" of the post 9/11 conversation described by Clarke, and that records show the president was not in the Situation Room at the time Clarke recalls. "His book might be called 'If Only They Had Listened to Dick Clarke,'" says an administration official.

  As soon as Clarke's charges began appearing in print, Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive nominee, put them on his campaign Web site. But for Kerry and the Democrats, the catch is that President Bill Clinton did no better to tame the terrorist threat during his last years in office. As Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll recently showed in his new book "Ghost Wars," those in the national-security bureaucracy under Clinton spent more time wringing their hands and squabbling with each other than going after Osama bin Laden.

  Clarke was the White House counterterror chief during the late '90s and through 9/11. A career civil servant, Clarke was known for pounding the table to urge his counterparts at the CIA, FBI and Pentagon to do more about Al Qaeda. But he did not have much luck, in part because in both the Clinton and early Bush administrations, the top leadership did not back up Clarke and demand results.

  In his new book, Clarke recounts how on Jan. 24, 2001, he recommended that the new president's national-security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, convene the president's top advisers to discuss the Qaeda threat. One week later, Bush did. But according to Clarke, the meeting had nothing to do with bin Laden. The topic was how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. "What does that tell you?" Clarke remarked to Newsweek. "They thought there was something more urgent. It was Iraq. They came in there with their agenda, and [Al Qaeda] was not on it."

[AntiGuv]

(Nobody cares, Guv, about what you think you knew pre-9/11).

That statement is false as well. Cheers!

[sinkspur]

That statement is false as well.

LOL!! Well, of course, in your eyes, everyone here is waiting with bated breath.

Have a nice day.

How many mirrors in your house?

[expatpat]

You're right -- the story here is that a (probably Clinton-appointed?) Federal Judge blocked efforts to track terrorists, and helped them carry out 9/11. What is the Judge's name?

[zinochka]

the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States,

I had heard of "Catchers Mitt". What they do'nt say is it was very invasive! Much more than anything Ashcroft has come up with, and threatened the liberties of all Americans, not just suspected terrorists. Many citizens complain about the new Homeland Security. But, Clinton was proposing the "soviet-ization" of American life! Even the Dems and ACLU were against it, which is saying something! It might of been a good idea but Clinton wanted to go way too far.

[Jim_Curtis]

I can only guess where the libs are going with this, perhaps:

"We needed a patriot act BEFORE 9/11"...as they demonize the patriot act POST 9/11.

The 'rats will only dig themselves in deeper as they try to explain why siding with Al Qaeda against the Christian Serbs who were protecting their homeland from Islamo-expansionism was a more urgent cause than going after Bin Laden/Al Qaeda.

[jocon307]

"We must destroy them until they surrender or none are left."

Agreed! THAT is the point, all this other stuff is beside the point. And, from what I hear on the chat shows today, ex-clinton officials are going to testify that they told the incoming Bush admin. about al queda, so what is the point? That Bush & Co. should have done in 8 months what Clinton & Co. FAILED to do for 8 years? Only the dems and the mainstream media could find that argument convincing.

For all his faults, Kerry is not the reason not to vote for Kerry, whereas in another year that might be the case. Bush MUST be re-elected, to show the Muslim Terrorists, the Euro-weenies and all the rest of the globe that the American people mean to exert our power as it suits US, not them.

[AntiGuv]

It is your right to sound as ignorant as you desire. No one can ever take that away from you.

I both instances of falsehood, you have no clue of what you speak, but keep on keeping on!

[AntiGuv]

In both instances..

[cwb]

"In the meeting, says Clarke, Wolfowitz cited the writings of Laurie Mylroie, a controversial academic who had written a book advancing an elaborate conspiracy theory that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."

It's interesting how the media labels Mylroie "controversial" yet wasn't she initially an advisor to Clinton, as well?

[cwb]

Let's not forget who CLinton went after, after the first WTC attack. Instead of focusing on Islamic fundamentalist, that administration went after the Christian fundys at Waco. From the beginning, this administration went after the wrong people.

[gcruse]

Does anyone really think this story could develop legs? I don't.

The main thing is that we are safe from Tommy Chong.  If we stopped one child from smoking a joint, it was worth it.

[Just mythoughts]

The more bits and pieces of this book gets reported upon, the more this books sound like it was written by the author of Rockyefellers MEMO.

"In the meeting, says Clarke, Wolfowitz cited the writings of Laurie Mylroie, a controversial academic who had written a book advancing an elaborate conspiracy theory that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clarke says he tried to refute Wolfowitz. "We've investigated that five ways to Friday, and nobody [in the government] believes that," Clarke recalls saying. "It was Al Qaeda. It wasn't Saddam." A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official."


Looks as though the plan is seek to expose the "INTEL" that these lying crooked liberals do not know.

"A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official."

This will statement will require a "prove it".

So the game is still on to get to the INTEL, and knowing that the Bush Administration will not cause harm to prove themselves correct, leaves the door wide open for the liars and crooks to paint the Bush Administration as misleading, and seek to destroy their strength "credibility".

[coloradan]

Are "good judges" ones who let the FBI violate the law, as you seem to imply? I don't think so.

[WFTR]

That is false. I thought it self-evident.

Exactly what did you think was "self-evident?"

Was it self-evident that terrorists would make another attack on U.S. soil? I can agree that we should have known that someday they'd try something, but that hypothesis is not strong enough intelligence to counter their attack. Undoubtedly, we should never have had policies in the airlines saying that the way to deal with hijackings was for pilots to open the doors to the cockpit and try to establish a "rapport" with the hijackers. That policy was stupid in the 70's when it began.

Are you saying it was self-evident that the terrorists would hijack some planes and fly them into buildings? I've read Tom Clancy books too, but you are a long way from proving that we had real intelligence that they were implementing this kind of plan.

Are you saying it was self-evident that they would strike on that day? Again, you might have some tin-foil hat website making those claims, but the reality is that these claims are only valid in hindsight.

Anyway, if you can tear yourself away from trading insults with sinkspur, I'd like to know what you meant.

Thanks,

Ready for a Repeat
Bill

[cyncooper]

I thought it self-evident.

Oh, sure you did. (wink)

[WFTR]

Bush MUST be re-elected, to show the Muslim Terrorists, the Euro-weenies and all the rest of the globe that the American people mean to exert our power as it suits US, not them.

This is an excellent point that bears repeating!

Ready for a Repeat
Bill

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Are "good judges" ones who let the FBI violate the law, as you seem to imply? I don't think so.

Good judges are those who don't legislate from the bench, don't release serial killers on a technicality and care more for the victims than the criminals.

[AntiGuv]

Exactly what did you think was "self-evident?"

I thought it self-evident that they would fly planes into the World Trade Center. Mainly because (a) they said they wanted to destroy the World Trade Center; and (b) they said they wanted to fly planes into buildings.

1+1=2. It wasn't complicated.

I've read Tom Clancy books too, but you are a long way from proving that we had real intelligence that they were implementing this kind of plan.

We had precisely that. Here's a public example that I was aware of: Operation Bojinka.

Are you saying it was self-evident that they would strike on that day?

No, not at all. I was however suspecting that there might be a strike on September 18, 2001 (Rosh HaShanah) because it was rather clear from the State Department notices throughout that summer that there was an extremely high threat of terrorist attack and the Jewish holiday seemed like as good a conjecture as any.

[cyncooper]

Uh huh

[AntiGuv]

Incidentally, I have never read a Tom Clancy novel. I understand from reports after 9/11 that he wrote one where a plane crashes into the State of the Union speech.

Sounds like a good book! Back when I was in college, I outlined a plot for a novel where a President wants to seize dictatorial rule of the nation and part of his plot is to crash a plane into the Capital building shortly before he's to deliver the State of the Union (before he arrives). It's too bad Clancy beat me to it! :)