Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism official promoting a book critical of the Bush administration, insists Saddam Hussein had no connection to al-Qaida, but in 1999 he defended President Clinton's attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by revealing the U.S. was "sure" it manufactured chemical warfare materials produced by Iraqi experts in cooperation with Osama bin Laden.
Clarke told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999, story U.S. intelligence officials had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which was hit with Tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Africa.
The sample contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, which Clarke said when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke told the Post the U.S. did not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it.
Clarke, who served under the Clinton and Bush administrations, has accused President Bush of ignoring threats to al-Qaida prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and focusing on Saddam Hussein at the expense of the war on terror.
In an interview with Rush Limbaugh yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed Clarke's criticism as coming from an ineffective former official.
"He was the head of counterterrorism for several years there in the '90s, and I didn't notice that they had any great success dealing with the terrorist threat," Cheney said.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had a similar reply in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"I really don't know what Richard Clarke's motivations are, but I'll tell you this: Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to."
Clarke, the author of "Against All Enemies," is scheduled to testify tomorrow before the independent federal commission probing the 9-11 attacks.
The "60 Minutes" interview Sunday has raised ethical concerns for not disclosing the connection between Clarke's book publisher, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster, and CBS News. Both are owned by Viacom.
At the time of the 1999 Post interview, Clarke occupied the newly created post of national coordinator of counterterrorism and computer security programs under President Clinton.
The Post story concluded with Clarke affirming the U.S. strategy of fighting terror by legally prosecuting perpetrators of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.
"The fact that we got seven out of the eight people from the World Trade Center [bombing], and we found them in five countries around the world and brought them back here, the fact we can demonstrate repeatedly that the slogan, 'There's nowhere to hide,' is more than a slogan, the fact that we don't forget, we're persistent – we get them – has deterred terrorism," he said.
As long as we're documenting pre-911 stuff, here's some old letters to clarke from congress:
TOM DAVIS, VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN
DAN BURTON, INDIANA
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, CONNECTICUT
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, FLORIDA
JOHN M. McHUGH, NEW YORK
JOHN L. MICA, FLORIDA
MARK E. SOLDER, INDIANA
STEVEN C.LATOURETTE,OHIO
DOUG OSE, CALIFORNIA
RON LEWIS, KENTUCKY
JO ANN DAVIS, VIRGINIA
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, PENNSYLVANIA
CHRIS CANNON, UTAH
ADAM H.PUTNAM,FLORIDA
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, VIRGINIA
JOHN J.DUNCAN,JR.,TENNESSEE
JOHN SULLIVAN, OKLAHOMA
NATHAN DEAL, GEORGIA
CANDICE MILLER, MICHIGAN
TIM MURPHY, PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL R. TURNER, OHIO
JOHN R. CARTER, TEXAS
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, SOUTH DAKOTA
MARSHA BLACKBURN, TENNESSEE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143
MAJORITY (202) 225-5074
FACSIMILE (202) 225-3974
MINORITY (202)225-5051
m (202)225-6852
HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
TOM LANTOS, CALIFORNIA
MAJOR R. OWENS, NEW YORK
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, NEW YORK
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, NEW YORK
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, MARYLAND
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, OHIO
DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
JOHN F. TIERNEY, MASSACHUSETTS
WM. LACY CLAY, MISSOURI
DIANE E. WATSON, CALIFORNIA
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, MASSACHUSETTS
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, MARYLAND
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, CALIFORNIA
G.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, MARYLAND
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JIM COOPER, TENNESSEE
CHRIS BELL, TEXAS
BERNARD SANDERS, VERMONT, INDEPENDENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Chairman
Room B-372 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Tel: 202 225-2548 Fax: 202 225-2382
E-mail:
hr.groc@mail.house.gov March 24, 2004
The Hon. Thomas Kean
The Hon. Lee Hamilton
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
3017th Street, N.W.
Room 5125 Washington, D.C. 20407
To the Commission:
As Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee's National Security Subcommittee, I want to provide some information relevant to testimony today by Mr. Richard Clarke.
Before September 11, 2001, we held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism issues. Mr. Clarke was of little help in our oversight. When he briefed the Subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive. He said a comprehensive threat assessment, as recommended by GAO, was too difficult.
Mr. Clarke said it would be "silly" to try to articulate a national strategy. In lieu of a threat assessment or strategy, he offered a laundry list of terrorist groups, as if the fight against global terrorism were nothing more than a hunt for common criminals.
Clarke was part of the problem before September 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat. His approach was reactive and limited to swatting at the visible elements of al Qaida, not the hidden global network and its state sponsors.
The blind spots and vulnerabilities that contributed to the September 11, 2001 tragedy were apparent to many throughout the years Mr. Clarke was in a position to do something about them. Three national commissions - Bremer, Gilmore and Hart/Rudman - had concluded the U.S. needed a comprehensive threat assessment, a national strategy and a plan to reorganize the federal response to the new strategic menace of terrorism.
Yet no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure. Instead, several presidential directives and a Justice Department five-year law enforcement plan were clumsily lashed together and called a strategy.
After his uninformative briefing, we wrote to Mr. Clarke asking for written answers to specific questions: Why was there no threat assessment? When would there be a strategy? Who was responsible for coordinating federal spending and the federal response? We never got a satisfactory answer. A copy of our letter to Mr. Clarke is enclosed.
On January 22, 2001, the Subcommittee wrote to Dr. Condoleeza Rice to express our concerns about Mr. Clarke's narrow view of the terrorist threat and the urgency of mounting a strategic response. A copy of that letter is enclosed as well.
I hope the Commission finds this information useful.
Christopher Shays Chairman
PAN BURTON, INDIANA. CHAIRMAN
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, NEW YORK
CONSTANCEA.MORELLA,MARYLAND
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS. CONNECTICUT
ILEANA ROS.LEHTINEN. FLORIDA
JOHN M.MCHUGH.NEW YORK
STEPHEN HORN. CALIFORNIA
JOHN L. MICA. FLORIDA
THOMAS M. DAVIS III, VIRGINIA
DAVID M. MCINTOSH, INDIANA
MARK E. SOUDER, INDIANA
JOE SCARBOROUGH. FLORIDA
STEVEN C.LATOURETTE.OHIO
MARSHALL *MARK- SANFORD. SOUTH CAROLINA
BOB BARR. GEORGIA
DAN MILLER, FLORIDA
ASA HUTCHINSON. ARKANSAS
LEE TERRY, NEBRASKA
JUDY BIGGERT. ILLINOIS
GREG WALDEN, OREGON
DOUG OSE. CALIFORNIA
PAUL RYAN. WISCONSIN
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, IDAHO
DAVID VITTER. LOUISIANA
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives;
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143
MAJORITY (202) 225-5074 Minority (202) 225-5051 TTY (202) 225-U52
HENRY A. Waxman CALIFORNIA. RANKING MINORITV Member
TOM LANTOS. CALIFORNIA
ROBERT E. WISE. Jr. WEST Virginia
MAJOR R. Owens NEW York
PAUL E. OWNS. NEW YORK
PATSY T.. MI PENNS LVANIA
HAWAII
CAROLYN B MALONEY. NEW YORK
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHAKA FATTAH PENNSYLVANIA
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS. MARYLAND
DENNIS J. KUCINICH OHIO
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH ILLINOIS
DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
JOHN F. TIERNEY. MASSACHUSETTS
JIM TURNER TEXAS
THOMAS H, ALIEN, MAINE
HAROLD E FORD, JR. TENNESSEE
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY ILLINOIS
BERNARD SANDERS. VERMONT INDEPENDENT
July 5, 2000
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Chairman
Room B-372 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Tel: 202 225-2548 Fax: 202 225-2382
Mr. Richard Clarke
National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism
National Security Council (Room 302) Old Executive Office Building Washington, D.C. 20504
Dear Mr. Clarke:
On behalf of the House Subcommittee On National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to brief us concerning government-ride efforts to combat terrorism.
The requested classified briefing was to focus on how the administration tracks terrorism related spending within the government. The briefing should have allowed the Subcommittee the Opportunity to discuss both procedural and substantive issues concerning government-wide efforts to detect, deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist acts. My staff and I found the information provided less than useful.
Your briefing slides (attached) state the "National Coordinator integrates agency of forts, identifies and insures resolution of issues, and provides for crisis management coordination." Based on this, we asked several questions:
We asked if there was an integrated threat assessment prepared. You responded this would be difficult to accomplish because of all the different threats faced by the United States. When asked if there is a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism. you responded it was "silly" to believe a comprehensive strategy could be developed to combat terrorism. You did add a domestic preparedness plan would be developed.
And when asked how spending priorities are established, you responded by providing a list of terrorist organizations.
Saying it is difficult to prepare an integrated threat assessment, belittling a question about a comprehensive strategy, and providing a list of terrorist organizations does not answer our questions. If there are no clear requirements or plan, how does the administration prioritize the $12.9 billion it intends to spend on combating terrorism, weapons of mass destruction preparedness, and critical infrastructure protection?
This Subcommittee has oversight responsibility and jurisdiction authority over matters affecting the "overall economy, efficiency and management of government operations and activities" (Rule X, clause 1(h)(6), Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives). As such, the Subcommittee requires information from the executive branch to accomplish oversight. The information provided was less that satisfactory.
Specifically, the Subcommittee wants a written response to the following questions by July 21, 2000:
• Why is there no integrated terrorist threat assessment?
• When will a comprehensive strategic plan to combat terrorism be completed?
• How does the government prioritize government-wide spending to combat terrorism? More specifically, which office makes the final determination of how much money is given to an agency or program?
The written response can be unclassified or classified. Classified information should be provided separately to insure proper handling.
cc. Mr. Samuel R. Berger Rep. Dan Burton Rep. Henry Waxman Rep. Mark Souder Rep. Rod Blagojevich Rep. John L. Mica Rep. Tillie K. Fowler
DAN BURTON CHAIRMAN
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143
HENRY A WAXMAN CALIFORNIA RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
MAJORITY 225-5074 Minority (202) 225-5051
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS,
AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Christopher Shays. Connecticut Chairman
Room B372 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Tel: 202 225-2548 Fax: 202 225-2382
January 22, 2001
Dr. Condoleeza Rice
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Dr. Rice:
In the 106th Congress, the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, conducted a series of hearings on terrorism. These hearings brought out a number of issues for consideration. During the hearing entitled Combating Terrorism: Assessing Threats, Risk Management, and Establishing Priorities, held on July 26, 2000, several expert witnesses called for a centralized authority to counter terrorism, an integrated terrorist threat assessment, and development of a national strategy to counter terrorism.
Witnesses persuasively expressed the view that the current U.S. government organization to counter terrorism is flawed. The current focal point for terrorist related issues is the Special Assistant to the President and National Coordinator, Infrastructure and Counterterrorism, Mr. Richard Clarke. Mr. Clarke has stated his office lacks resources and has no authority over the 40 federal departments, agencies, and bureaus having a role in the effort to combat terrorism. As a result, agencies receive little guidance on funding priorities. Additionally, Mr. Clarke must be continually prompted before requests for information from this Subcommittee are answered. We assume he either does not have the resources to respond, or his office chose to turn a deaf ear to our requests. Coupled with this lack of leadership is the fact that Mr. Clarke's office is part of the National Security Council staff and beyond the purview of regular Congressional oversight.
Expert witnesses also stated analysis of the threat from terrorism lacks coordination. Currently, different agencies assess a myriad of threats making a national threat assessment disjointed. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation assesses the domestic threat but cannot point to a single document providing an in-depth analysis prioritizing threats.
The Central Intelligence Agency assesses international threats and works closely with the Defense Intelligence Agency to assess the threat to military forces, but even these resource-rich bureaucracies are having a myriad of problems predicting terrorist bomb attacks. This challenge was highlighted in the recent investigation of the USS Cole bombing which questions anti-terrorism intelligence gathering.
The hearings also indicated there is no coordinated national strategy. U.S. government agencies combating terrorism need a vision and mission statement, goals, and objectives. Several reports and experts in the field of countering terrorism agree there is a need for 1) a national office to coordinate agency efforts to counter terrorism and 2) a national strategy for agencies to use as an overarching guide to develop operational counterterrorism plans. These reports and experts include:
• The Second Annual Report of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities For Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (Public Law 105261) recommends, "the United States has no coherent, functional national strategy for
combating terrorism, and the next President should establish a National Office for Combating Terrorism."
• The National Commission on Terrorism (Public Law 277) advocates enhancing planning and preparation to respond to terrorist attacks and creating stronger mechanisms to ensure that funding for individual agency counterterrorism programs
reflects priorities integrated into a comprehensive national counterterrorism plan subject to congressional oversight.
• The report, Combating Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism: A
-- Comprehensive Strategy (Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) _ states, "The United States currently lacks a comprehensive strategy for countering the threat of terrorism...."
• Bruce Hoffman, Director of Rand Corporation's Washington office, and other experts on terrorism, have stated, "A prerequisite to ensuring that US resources are focused where they can have the most effect is a sober and empirical understanding of the terrorist threat, coupled with comprehensive and coherent strategy."
Given the amount of spending, over $10 billion per year, and the large number of agencies involved, clear spending priorities must be established. Listing the threats, determining which are most likely, and establishing priorities will assist in determining which programs are most important and receive priority funding. Only then can the United States direct the resources into areas that will help prevent incidents such as the bombings of the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and USS Cole. During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated there is no need for a national strategy. This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks.
Last year Representative Tillie Fowler, Chairwoman, Transportation Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management, introduced legislation attempting to bring some organization to the administration's effort to combat terrorism. The bill (HR 4210) would have created the Office of Terrorism Preparedness (OTP), within the executive branch not captive to any single department or agency jurisdictional boundaries. The bill called for the OTP to take the lead in eliminating duplicative government functions and identify waste, fraud, and abuse through oversight of the agencies it coordinates. In addition, the OTP would exercise budgetary authority over agency's counterterrorism programs, basing funding decisions on accomplishing the goals of a defined national strategy.
As the new administration prepares to organize for the war on terrorism, I would welcome the opportunity to assist you and your staff. The Subcommittee has benefited from the series of hearings held on terrorism. The hearings provided a range of recommendations on specific steps to deter and prevent terrorist acts. I look forward to a close working relationship and an exchange of ideas. My staff and I are prepared to work with you on this challenge to the security of our nation. The points of contact on my Subcommittee staff working on this issue are Mr. Lawrence Halloran, Staff Director, and Mr. R. Nicholas Palarino, Senior Policy Analyst. Either can be contacted at 202-2252548. I look forward to hearing from you.
cc: Rep Dan Burton
Hearings and Briefings on
Terrorism Issues
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
Hearings/Formal Briefings:
1. Combating Terrorism: Federal Counterterrorism Spending 3/11/99
2. Combating Terrorism: National Domestic Preparedness Office 5/26/99
3. Combating Terrorism: National Guard Response Teams 6/23/99
4. Combating Terrorism: Medical First Responders 9/22/99
5. Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Terrorist Threat 10/20/99
6. Combating Terrorism: Medical Stockpiles 3/8/00
7. Combating Terrorism: Research Coordination 3/22/00
8. Combating Terrorism: Domestic Preparedness (CT Field) 3/27/00
*9. Force Protection: Khobar Towers and Lessons Learned 6/27/00
*10. Combating Terrorism: Federal Coordination 6/28/00
11. Force Protection: DOD Chemical/Biological Defense Plan 5/24/00
12. Force Protection: Individual Protective Equipment 6/21/00
13. Combating Terrorism: Threats, Risk, and Priorities 7/20/00
14. Biological Weapons Convention Protocol 9/13/00
15. Combating Terrorism: National Strategy 3/26/01
16. Combating Terrorism: Protecting Interests Abroad 4/3/01 17. Combating Terrorism: Federal Response (Joint with Trans. Crate.) 4/24/01
18. Combating Terrorism: Medical Stockpiles 5/1/01
19. Biological Weapons Convention Protocol 6/5/01
20. Biological Weapons Convention Protocol 7/10/01
21. Dark Winter 7/23/01
22. Inter Agency Data Sharing and National Security 7/24/01
September 11, 2001
*23. GAO Findings and Recommendations on Terrorism 10/03/01
*24. Combating Terrorism: Knowing the Enemy 10/11/01
25. Assessing the Threat of Biological Weapons Attack 10/12/01
26. Bio Defense Vaccines (Field Hearing at HHS) 10/23/01
27. DOD Medical Readiness Against CB Threats 11/7/01
28. Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Data Sharing 11/13/01
29. Protecting the U.S. -1 03/12/02
30. Protecting the U.S. - 11 03/21/02
31. Axis of Evil, Multilateral Containment or Unilateral Confrontation 04/16/02 32. Improving the Federal Response 06/11/02
33. Port Security-Strategic Ports 07/23/02
34. Keeping First Responders First (CT Field) 07/30/02
35. Port Security-Facilitating Trade (FL Field) 08/05/02
36. Preventing Nuclear Terrorism 09/24/02
37. DOD Chem/Bio Defense Equipment 10/01/02
38. Are We Listening to the Arab Street? 10/08/02 39. Port Security: Finding the Nuclear Needle in the Cargo Haystack 11/18/02
40. A Proliferation of Strategies 03/03/03
41. Security at Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities 03/10/03
42. Homeland Defense: Old Forces for New Missions? 04/29/03
43. Homeland Security: Improving Public Health Surveillance 05/05/03 44. Anthrax in Postal Facilities: Technologies for Bioagent Detection 05/19/03
45. Science and Assumptions in Plume Modeling 06/02/03
46. Visa Revocations: Catching the Terrorists Among Us 06/18/03
47. Assessing Nuclear Weapons Complex Security 06/24/03
*48. Strategies to Control Biological Weapons 07/14/03
49. Combating Terrorism: Preparing and Funding First Responders 09/09/03
50. Combating Terrorism: Assessing Federal Assistance (CT Field) 09/15/03
51. Counterterrorism Technology: Picking Winners and Losers 09/29/03
52. Assessing DOD Control of Surplus Chem/Bio Equipment 10/07/03
53. Assessing September 11th Health Effects 10/23/03
54. Public Safety Interoperability: Can you Hear Me Now? 11/06/03
55. Public Safety: Can you Hear Me Now? Federal Perspectives 11/06/03
56. Combating Terrorism: Development Effective Strategies? 02/03/04
57. Combating Terrorism: Chemical Plant Safety (PA Field) 02/23/04 58. Nonproliferation: Assessing Missile Technology Export Controls 03/09/04 59. Homeland Security Advisory System: Threat Codes and
Public Responses 03/16/04
*Denotes Subcommittee briefing
Thank you for posting those letters in this format.
I've read and linked the pdf files.
Indeed, Shays back in 2000 found Clarke less than helpful.
I can't wait to see how Russert handles Clarke tomorrow on MTP (I hope I get to see it).
It will be beyond frustrating if Tim sticks to Clarke's latest version of events and is not prepared to confront him with documentation of the history of Clarke's tenure and performance evaluations such as provided by Christopher Shays.
You can't cut and paste from image files. Which is probably why these letters haven't received wide circulation.
It's still a long way to November, and most people aren't paying attention.
Thanks, but I'm a WOMAN.
hehe
Clarke keeps stepping in his own @#$% pile! Can't this guy even keep one set of lies straight?
Tim Russert will eat him alive tomorrow!
I think in the long run Clarke has helped the President by bringing to the campaign the issue of 'Terrorism' to which the democrats have really wanted to stay far away from. They want the campaign to be about domestic issues and not the President's handling of the Terrorism threat. President Bush will win hands down on that issue, imo.
I hope they fry his ass on perjury charges.
...then there is obstruction and conspiracy...
...then ther is aiding the enemy and treason.....
