ON RICHARD CLARKE

Weekly Standard ^ | 3/21/04 | Stephen F., Hayes

[areafiftyone]

"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 to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Those are the words of Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official in the Bush and Clinton administrations. Clarke appeared on CBS 60 Minutes last night to trash the Bush administration and its handling of the war on terror. The timing was propitious. Clarke has a book out today and he is testifying before the September 11 Commission later this week. Expect to hear a lot more about Richard Clarke and from Richard Clarke in the coming months, especially as the presidential campaign intensifies.

Clarke's testimonials are, in a word, bizarre. In his own world, Clarke was the hero who warned Bush administration officials about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda ad nauseum. The Bush administration, in Clarke's world, just didn't care. In Clarke's world, eight months of Bush administration counterterrorism policy is more important than eight years of Clinton administration counterterrorism policy.

"He's creating this new reality to cover his own legacy of failure," says one senior Bush administration official.

In fact, Bush administration officials who worked with Clarke say his warnings about bin Laden were maddeningly vague. Everyone knew bin Laden was a serious threat. Clarke's job, before he was demoted to his position as cyberterrorism czar, was to propose policies to address that threat. But his chief policy recommendation--arming the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan--was already under consideration and in any case would have done little to prevent a September 11 attack already in its final planning stages. After his demotion, Clarke constantly badgered Bush officials in order to get an audience with President Bush to discuss cyberterrorism.

CLARKE HAD FEW WORDS OF CRITICISM for President Clinton on 60 Minutes, despite having worked at the senior levels of his administration. At least he's consistent. Consider an interview with Clarke from PBS's Frontline: Clarke initially defends President Clinton, but an astute interviewer from Frontline with obvious knowledge of the chronology following the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, presses him:

FRONTLINE: Some also say that due to the Lewinsky scandal, more action perhaps was never undertaken. In your eyes?

CLARKE: The interagency group on which I sat and John O'Neill sat--we never asked for a particular action to be authorized and were refused. We were never refused. Any time we took a proposal to higher authority, with one or two exceptions, it was approved . . .

FRONTLINE: But didn't you push for military action after the [al Qaeda bombing of the USS] Cole?

CLARKE: Yes, that's one of the exceptions..

FRONTLINE: How important is that exception?

CLARKE: I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.FRONTLINE: Without intelligence operatives on the ground in these organizations, how in the end does one stop something like this? If you look back on it now and you had one wish, you could have had one thing done, what would it have been?

CLARKE: Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. They would have been a hell of a lot less capable of recruiting people. Their whole "Come to Afghanistan where you'll be safe and you'll be trained"--well, that wouldn't have worked if every time they got a camp together, it was blown up by the United States. That's the one thing that we recommended that didn't happen--the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.

The "conveyor belt" was, of course, never destroyed. But that fact seems not to matter to Clarke, who nonetheless suggests that the Bush administration bears most of the responsibility for September 11.

THERE ISN'T MUCH THAT'S FUNNY in discussions of war and terrorism. But Clarke's back-and-forth with 60 Minutes reporter Lesley Stahl on the Clinton administration's response to Iraq's 1993 assassination attempt on President George H.W. Bush offers a brief moment of levity.

The assassination attempt came just three months after President Clinton told the New York Times's Tom Friedman that being a Baptist and a believer in "deathbed conversions" he was willing to give Saddam a fresh start.

Saddam dispatched a rag-tag group of intelligence operatives to assassinate his nemesis. They failed. And when the FBI determined that Saddam's intelligence service was behind the plot, President Clinton ordered a handful of Tomahawk missiles to destroy the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

It was a flaccid response to the attempted assassination of a former head of state. But Clarke doesn't see it that way. Along with the strikes, Clarke says, the Clinton administration sent "a very clear message through diplomatic channels" that further Iraqi terrorism would be dealt with more severely. Clarke calls this "a very chilling message."

IN HIS INTERVIEW with Stahl, Clarke goes to great lengths to suggest that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. At one point in the interview, Clarke makes a stunning declaration. "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Leave aside the fact that Clarke was a key player in the decision to strike the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998. That strike came twenty days after al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton administration officials repeatedly cited Iraqi support for Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation and al Shifa in their defense of the targeting.

Disregard, too, the fact that when the Clinton Justice Department blamed bin Laden for those attacks, the indictment specifically cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda, under which the Iraqis would help al Qaeda with "weapons development" in exchange for a promise from bin Laden that he wouldn't work against the Iraqi regime.

More important, Clarke's assertion is directly contradicted by CIA director George Tenet. In a letter he wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002, Tenet cited numerous examples of Iraqi support for al Qaeda. Tenet wrote: "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

Clarke should answer several questions when he appears before the September 11 Commission this week. Among them:

(1) Is George Tenet wrong about Iraqi support for al Qaeda?

(2) Why did the Clinton administration cite an "understanding" between bin Laden and Iraq in its indictment of bin Laden for the 1998 embassy bombings?

(3) Did Iraq support al Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in Sudan?

(4) Clinton administration officials, including Clarke's former boss Sandy Berger, stand by their decision to target al Shifa. Does Clarke?

(5) What did the Clinton administration do to get the Iraqis to turn over Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi harbored by the regime after mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attacks?

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

[mykdsmom]

He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Hmmm, must be referring to Clinton here.

Why does Bush surround himself with these disloyal traitors? This must be about number 4 or 5 in the past 4 years that have come out against him. Some are Clinton holdovers, I know. He should have cleaned house when he took office instead of trying to "play nice".

I sure hope he's learned his lesson.

MKM

[KJacob]

I want to know that if the former administration thought AQ was such a threat why didn't Gore mention it once in the entire campaign? If he did mention it it surely was not a centerpiece of his quest for the white house. If all Clarke says is true than Clinton could have started war and Gore could have run, effectively, as a war time successor.

[cripplecreek]

Mansoor Ijaz worked for Clark during the Clinton administration. He pretty much called him a blatent liar this morning on FOX.

As for Clark one thing is evident, the war on terror was an utter failure for the entire time he held his position of terrorism czar. Frankly I'm starting to wonder what his point was in making such dumb comments. They only seem to open the Clinton administration and himself to criticism.

[areafiftyone]

I want to know that if the former administration thought AQ was such a threat why didn't Gore mention it once in the entire campaign?

Because The democreeps always run on domestic issues. As far as they are concerned terrorism is a law enforcement issue. I swear that they could drop a nuclear suitcase on the New York City Subway System and millions of people could drop dead in front of their eyes and the dems will still be running on the economy and education platform.

[areafiftyone]

I saw Monsoor on Fox and Friends this morning. He was wonderful. We need Monsoor to go on CNN and MSNBC and battle Clarke. Fox and Friends is good but liberals don't watch Fox that much and we need Monsoor to slam Clarke on their networks. The Bush Campaign should hire him.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Add to that, pay raises and health care for the firemen.

[calchey]

Do you think they will now go in and clean out the scum? I doubt it. But, I do think since Clarke has opened up this pandora's box, the Bushies can now publicly ask questions about the Clinton administration. Up until now, they have been quiet over what Clinton did or didn't do. Bush himself hinted at what may come in his speech Sat. Remember, he said this would be more than serving arrest warrants, or something like that. Some interesting stuff just might be leaked to the media since Clinton cronies have opened this up. We will see.

[cripplecreek]

"drop a nuclear suitcase on the New York City Subway System and millions of people could drop dead in front of their eyes and the dems will still be running on the economy and education platform."


AND, throw fits if anyone mentioned it during the election.

[areafiftyone]

Exactly. Their idea of retaliation is to put more cops on the beat! I swear, these terrorist attacks are more of an inconvenience to them than a tragedy.

[mondonico]

Bump to read later

[Peach]

Bob Woodward in his book Bush at War was given unprecedented access to the president and his administration, including Clarke. Clarke did not mention his concerns about a "focus on Iraq."

The Bush administration was continuing the Clinton administration's foreign policy which called for regime change in Iraq.

Iraq's involvement in supporting terrorists is longer than I can post her but some of the more obvious: Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. Paying Palestinian bomber's families. Salmon Pak where terrorists used a real airplane to learn how to hijack OUR planes.

Clarke claims that Condi Rice didn't even know who Al Qaeda was. I'm nearly falling on the floor laughing. The entire world knew UBL was a threat when he was interviewed in a world exclusive interview, by CNN's Nic Robertson in August of 1998, televised in it's entirety to the world via CNN and CNN International and when he famously repeated his jihad against America.

Just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.

Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.

Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:

"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."

The list of excuses seemed endless:

"Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.

"Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was.

"Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process.

"Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

And what about President Clinton? According to what Clarke told Miniter, he rejected the attack plan. Instead Clinton twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.

Clarke offered a chillingly prescient quote from one aide who agreed with him about Clinton administration inaction. "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?" said the dismayed Clintonista

[Peach]

What Clarke would just as soon we forget:

Okay - here are just a FEW of the links between terrorism and AQ specifically and Iraq.

Read about what the press was saying in the 90's about the links between Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1

Growing evidence of AQ/Iraq link:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts

Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the World:http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

Saddam link to bin Laden:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

The Al Qaeda connections:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

NYT - 1998 - OBL and Iraq agree to cooperate:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts

Document links AQ and Iraq:http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

Iraq and terrorism:http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

WSJ - Iraq and AQ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts

Iraq and Iran contact AQ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts

Proof Saddam worked with AQ: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml

Saddam's AQ Connection:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

Terrorist killed in Iraq after refusing to train Al Qaeda terrorists:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

Osama's Best Friend: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts

Case Closed - OBL and Iraq agree to work together:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Terrorist behind 9/11 trained in Iraq:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1039898/posts?page=154

The Clinton view of Iraq/AQ ties: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

Saddam's ties to terror: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

NYT - tape shows Wesley Clark tying AQ and Iraq: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts

[areafiftyone]

The entire world knew UBL was a threat when he was interviewed in a world exclusive interview,

You bet they did and if you look at the posts on Free Republic from 9/11 Freepers knew it was Bin Laden on that very day. Clarke is already proving himself to be the greatest story teller since the Brothers Grimm!

[MegaSilver]

He should have cleaned house when he took office instead of trying to "play nice".

That might not have been wise.

Clinton got nailed when he tried that. How much more would a Republican get nailed in the mainstream press?

[FlipWilson]

Clarke is no more than a political pawn, on many different levels.

First off, it is obvious that the Democrats have a 9/11 problem. Simply stated, 9/11 brought national security back to the forefront as an issue, this is a weakness for the Dems. Their first defense against this problem is to deny it exists. 9/11 never happened, "its the economy stupid!!" There next defense appeared in the form of the "9/11 families" and the International Firefighter's Union. Get them to express shock and rage that the Bush Adminsitration is using 9/11. (Nevermind that the International Union does not speak for the NYC firefighters, nevermind that the suppoosed 9/11 families are a minority and were paid off and given talking points by the Dems.)

The final defense appears in the form of "Bush was responsible for 9/11." I would look for the Dems serving on the 9/11 paneal to leak selective parts of the 9/11 probe to the press. They can use these parts to pin 9/11 on Bush. (Of course, nobody in the media will care about leaks, just the content of the information.) In the meantime, here is where Clarke enters the picture. He was with the administration for what, four months? He just knows that Bush was at fault. This final one is a real stretch and just too obvious a political ploy. Bush was in office for nine months and he was supposed to prevent an event that resulted from YEARS of neglect. Nice try Dems, nicer try CBS. Of course, I will also want to hear from John Kerry as to why he ignored warnings of security breaches at Logan in the weeks before 9/11? Lets also see some more video from 1998 of ole Osama sitting in an open field, scratching his arse.

Secondly, Clarks is a clear representation of the embarassment that the Clinton Administration feels over 9/11. The foreign policy failings of the Clinton administration were never more glaring than on 9/11. The Clinton legacy team has to know this. (If I were Mansoor Ijaz, I would wear kevlar.) Try as they might, a simple fact remains apparent. Clinton could have had Osama from the Sudan for a few bottles of aspirin to replace the stuff he blew up. The notion that the political will did not exist to get Bin Laden is just tripe. How much political will do you need to accept a peaceful handover from the Sudan?

This will continue to get more disgusting. Soon the Democrats will allege that prior to 9/11 Bush and Osama applied for a license to marry (in San Fran of course). But, the more blatant the Dems are, the more obvious there motives and the more apparent their failures on issues of national security. To quote a not so great man who was quoting a great man, "Bring it On!!"

[Cicero]

I've been saying for the past two years and more that Bush made a huge mistake not cleaning the clintonoids out of his administration. The CIA can't be trusted. The FBI can't be trusted. The same is true of many other agencies, including the State Department, which unfortunately can NEVER be trusted. Bush cleaned out the UN delegation, and look at the big difference that made. He should have done the same across the board.

Clinton took minor flak from the press for firing people, and it quickly blew over. No doubt Bush would have taken a lot more flak, but it would have been over early in his first term of office, done and gone.

Exactly how much credit have the mainstream media given Bush for his bipartisanship, generosity to his political enemies, and willingness to work with them? Zero. None. Nada. The press always portrays him as partisan, mean, hateful, lying, etc., etc. And they are vastly helped by all their liberal allies in his own administration.

[jigsaw]

No matter what the issue, when Democrats believe they can be attacked for
their failures, they will always attack first.   This is a consistent pattern.

[There's millions of'em]

"No matter what the issue, when Democrats believe they can be attacked for their failures, they will always attack first. This is a consistent pattern."

Yep.

[smith288]

Why do the democrats continually try to go after Bush's war record? This is his strong suit and anything that diverts the American attention from domestic "issues" only harms their own chances.

I say, keep poking at Bush and his war on terror. It will only lead more Americans to see the total lack of balls that Clint-billy's administration failed to do and by extension, the Democrats.