Posted on 03/29/2004 8:07:00 AM PST by hobbes1
The following excerpts have been taken from an Interview with Richard Clarke, conducted by PBS Frontline on March 20, 2002.
He was not speaking for the Administration.
The Context of the interview, was a memorial to FBI Counterterrorist expert John O'Neill, who had tragically left the FBI to take a private sector job at the World Trade Center.
What did he (John O'Neill) understand that nobody else understood?
I think he understood, first of all, that Al Qaeda wasn't a nuisance -- that what Al Qaeda said in its documents and bin Laden's speeches was the truth. He said to me once, "You know, it's like Mein Kampf. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf when Hitler was just a jerk. No one took him seriously, so no one read the book, or if they read the book, they didn't believe he would try to do what was in the book. [John] said, "Bin Laden's just like this. When you read what this guy says he's going to do, he's serious. He is going to try to do it in the Middle East, and there are a lot of people who support him. A lot of people are giving this guy money. We have to take him seriously, because what he says he's going to do is to go to war with the United States."
Was he, were you, listened to? Yes, slowly. Certainly after the embassy bombing in Africa in 1998, it was very obvious that what John was saying, what I was saying, was right: that this was more than a nuisance; that this was a real threat. But I don't think everyone came to the understanding that it was an existential threat. The question was, "This group is more than a nuisance, but are they worth going to war with? After all, they've only attacked two embassies. Maybe that's a cost of doing business. This kind of thing happens. Yes, we should spend some time some energy trying to get them, but it's not the number one priority we have."
Some also say that due to the Lewinsky scandal, more action perhaps was never undertaken. In your eyes?
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....
But didn't you push for military action after the Cole?
Yes, that's one of the exceptions.
How important is that exception?
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.
So that's a pretty basic mistake that we made?
Well, I'm not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues. None of these decisions took place in isolation. There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals.
You tried to convince him, it has been written, to take your job. Can you tell me a little bit about that what happened?
Shortly after the Bush administration came into office, we were asked to think about how we organized the White House for a number of issues, including cybersecurity, computer security, homeland security, and counterterrorism.
I was asked for my advice, and I proposed that the counterterrorism responsibility be broken off be a separate job, and that the cybersecurity job be broken off as a separate job. I said I had done counterterrorism for about a decade, and I wanted to start working on cybersecurity, which I think is terribly important. That was later approved by the president. So the question came, "Well, who would you recommend to do the terrorism job?" I came up with four or five names. The first name that came to mind was John O'Neill, because he had the right combination of talents. He had an incredible drive. He never took his eye off the ball. He was never satisfied with halfway measures when it meant saving American lives. He would never let people think about this as just another job. He knew the bureaucracy, and he knew how to make things happen. He was incredibly intelligent. I thought he had all the right sets of skills to do the job at the White House. But he was not terribly excited about that. I think he either wanted to come to work in headquarters of the FBI again, or he wanted to get out and start making a decent living. He chose to do the latter, I guess, and I respect that. Government servants frequently don't get paid what they get paid on the outside. You can only ask them to sacrifice for so long, because they're not just sacrificing for themselves, they're sacrificing for their families.
A guy like him, though, that had FBI running through his blood, why would he quit? What's your gut feeling on why he quit? I think in these pure middle hierarchical organizations like the U.S. military, like the FBI, if you're going to have a career of constantly moving up -- some people choose not to; they're perfectly happy to be some middle manager, and that's where they'll stay and they make an important contribution But for those people who decide they're going to make a run at senior management positions, it's either up or out. You either get promoted the next time around to a more senior position, or you wait perhaps for another opportunity. As you're passed over one or two times, you move on.
The problem with all these hierarchical organizations, and it's a problem we have in our military, is that we now have all these litmus tests that have nothing to do with your ability to do the job. They have to do with your private life or they have to do with the things that really, I think personally, are causing a lot of the very best people in our military not to be promoted to the top of the military.
One more thing pointed out here, is that the Previous Administration was not 100% committed to the War on Terror yet, and Mr Clarke absolves them of any blame in that matter, as can be seen by the mentioning that issues are not discussed in isolation, what is puzzling, however, is why that is unerstandable, for an administration 8 years into the making, but not one that is in the process of establishing itself. President is sworn in on 1/22, and Cabinet officers are then Approved, then by March or April, in Clarkes own words (to be seen in part 2) come the second tier staffers that Clarke would soon be associating with.That leaves 16-18 weeks, till 9/11.
The other thing it does is shed a little light, a priori, into Mr.Clarkes frame of mind about the lack of renumeration for diligently serving ones country, as opposed to operating in the private sector. This is a sad fact of life, and one does not begrudge Mr. Clarke an opportunity to peddle his expertise to the public in such a way to be handsomely paid for it.
The truly objectionable part, in this authors opinion, is that apparently as his handlers at Simon and Shyster, have pointed out to him there is an astronomical difference in giving an honest account, and peddling the last round of Bush bashing. This would be venal enough in and of itself, but using the tragedy of September 11th, and becoming, for all intents and purposes, a left wing bomb thrower, poisoning the intense public debate over matters of national security, and their ramifications on the ballot box come November, makes one wonder, if Mr. Clarke hasn't switched sides.
Hey, after all It worked on Spain.....
Good work; I hope you/we/all share this with various media; just to let them know - we know; and share a copy with friends at Starbucks; leave a few copies on the table; better yet; put one iside Clarke's best seller!
That said,I do not understand why this info is so difficult to 'get out there'. Fox as some point did reference some Clarke musings post his Admin. job which contradicted his testimony.
Waited. . .and waited for this to be offered up in rebuttal against the following, and endless attacks by the Dems. But did not hear this again, in any follow-ups.
Would think Hannity, O'Reilly and just the news team would have these facts posted all over the place for easy reference.
Am amazed and frustrated at how easily 'truth can get lost in the shuffle'; and I am sure, for the most part; it is not anything more than that.
The more we dig, the more truth is brought to the surface. The media is not looking for truth so we have to. Terrorism was not the priority in the Clinton admin. that Clarke indicated it was and it is obvious from the facts.
When Clinton took office in 1992, al-Qaeda was a small faction that almost no one had ever heard of. The Taliban was one of many small factions in northern Afghanistan. These two became the core of terrorism by the time Clinton left.
What recommendations was Clarke making to combat the growth of these two threats? Until 9-11 the terrorists were gaining power and building their networks. Now we are fighting back, cutting their lines of funding, killing their leadership, and keeping them on the defensive. Is it any coincidence that Clarke is no longer the counterterrorism chief?
I tried the Social Security Death Index and didn't find any John O'Neill who died on Sept. 11, 2001, listed. I guess John could have been his middle name...or is this just part of a coverup?
I don't know; it is all soooooo frustrating. It is as difficult defending oneself against the Dems as it is defending oneself against terrorism.
This Party holds to no Rules of Engagement; they act without honor or fear of consequences; know they can strike unfairly; lie without consequences; and their opposition is rendered 'disadvantaged'.
Their goals justify the most heinous of means - anything goes, to win.
The kind of people who enjoy shooting wild animals from airplanes; but worse.
When will people learn that pacifism is another word for cowardice?
No it is not. This John O'Neill died in the WTC on 9/11, as noted in this piece. The one who debated Kerry (very well, I might add) is alive and is a lawyer in Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.