Facts and Credibility Not On Richard Clarke's Side

On March 23, 2004, Richard Clarke told BBC News "I am going to make sure the American people have the facts that I don't think they fully had before and they can make the appropriate decision." The question is: what facts does Richard Clarke provide us with, if any?

On August 5 2002 Dan Rather on CBS Evening News declared: "Veterans of the Clinton administration say the Bush team didn't take their al-Qaeda warnings and plans seriously enough."

Stone Phillips on NBC Nightly News revealed: "There is a new published report tonight that the outgoing Clinton administration gave the Bush White House a ready-made plan for attacking al-Qaeda that was ignored. Not true, says the Bush camp."

August 12, 2002 Time magazine headlined a story by Michael Elliott: "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" The subhead: "Long before the tragic events of September 11th, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. It didn't happen and soon it was too late. The saga of a lost chance."

CBS News Bill Plante explained: "White House officials are fighting back against charges that they dropped the ball after taking office by ignoring Clinton administration plans to roll back the al-Qaeda terrorist network. At issue, a Time Magazine report that Richard Clarke, head of counter-terrorism in the Clinton White House, had a plan for military action against al-Qaeda, which the new Bush administration did not treat as a top priority, but instead buried in the bureaucracy for eight months. The Bush White House says there was no plan, just a series of ideas which had not been implemented by the Clinton administration."

Plante: "Benjamin, the author of a book on the rise of religious terrorism, charges the Bush administration failed to understand the new terrorist threat of mass casualties."

Benjamin: "And when the Clinton administration officials told the incoming officials this, they met with some, shall we say, skepticism."

Plante concluded: "The big question in all this back-and-forth blame game, could 9/11 have been prevented? In the end, both sides agree, probably not. But even the suggestion makes the Bush White House hypersensitive. Dan."

So we can safely conclude Richard Clarke isn't providing any new revelations that the public haven't already heard before. Only difference between August 2002 and now is Clarke now has a book to sale during an election year.

But, does Richard Clarke provide any new credible insights or facts that can be used to support the charge the Bush Administration ignored the al Quedea threat? The answer would have to be no, and herein I will cast my reasons why the answer is no.

Richard Clarke suggests that President Bush was obsessed with Iraq and was looking for any excuse he could find to invade the country. Here is what Clarke had to say on 60 Minutes:

CLARKE: "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, `I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' 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."

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

CLARKE: It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and down to FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report and we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer.'

However, 60 Minutes had a copy of the September 18th memo written by Steven Hadley that clearly showed the notation "Please update and resubmit," and not "Wrong Answer."

As one can see, Clarke isn't attempting to recollect events that actually took place as evidenced in this interview with News Hour on March 22, 2004:

CLARKE: "What happened was, the president with his finger in my face, saying: Iraq; a memo on Iraq and al Qaeda; a memo on Iraq and the attacks. Very vigorous, very intimidating."

So now to greater stress the President was "intimidating" him, Clarke alleges the President was waving a finger in his face.

CLARKE: That's very funny. There are two ways of asking. There's: 'check every possibility - don't assume its al-Qaida look at everybody'. That's due diligence. Then there's the: 'I want you to find every shred of evidence that it was Iraq and Saddam' - and said in a very emphatic and intimidating way, and the other people who were with me got the same impression as I did. This was not due diligence. This was: 'come back with a memo that says it was an Iraqi attack'.

Unfortunately for Richard Clarke, those who were there to witness the exchange do not have this "same impression." Why is Clarke lying about something that can be easily checked? Isn't this whole exercise supposed to be about revealing facts to the public?

Roger Cressey, a close personal friend to Clarke who witnessed the encounter cast Bush's instructions to Clarke less as an order to come up with a link between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11, and more as a request to "take a look at all options, including Iraq." He backed off Richard Clarke's suggestion that the president's tone was intimidating during an MSNBC interview saying "I'm not going to get into that," Cressey said. "That is Dick's [Clarke] characterization."

"Thinking about it since, do you still feel that he [Bush] was intimidating you?"

CLARKE: Oh, I think he was communicating very clearly what he wanted the answer to be. The White House is now saying, "Well, of course, he was asking Dick to look for all possibilities. Don't just assume it's al Qaeda or al Qaeda alone."

That's not what was going on. He wasn't saying, "Look at Iran. Look at Hezbollah. Look at HAMAS."

But in a PBS interview two years earlier, March 20, 2002, Clarke confirms this is indeed what was happening:

Q: Because one of the things that surprises a lot of the public, I think, is that immediately after Sept. 11, the administration knew exactly who had done it. Was that why?

CLARKE: No. On the day of Sept. 11, then the day or two following, we had a very open mind. CIA and FBI were asked, "See if it's Hezbollah. See if it's Hamas. Don't assume it's Al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's Al Qaeda."

The evidence provided by Clarke (2002) and Cressey points to Bush being open minded and wanting to explore all possible links on Sept. 12. After all, Iraq could well have provided assistance to the attackers as far as anyone knew a day after the attacks.

Richard Clarke has other problems with his story - one example has to do with Donald Rumsfeld. Clarke describes a Sept 4, 2001 Principals meeting as:

"Rumsfeld, who looked distracted throughout the session, took the Wolfowitz line that there were other terrorist concerns, like Iraq, and whatever we did on this al Qaeda business, we had to deal with the other sources of terrorism."

Only problem with this allegation is that Rumsfeld denies attending such a meeting that Clarke claims he attended. Rumsfeld should know since he has only met Richard Clarke two or three times the most and certainty can account for the meetings he attended on Sept. 4.

In Clarke's book "Against All Enemies" recalls that Franklin C. Miller, a senior national security official, urged Rumsfeld to take a helicopter out of the Pentagon, part of which was still burning, and that Mr. Rumsfeld responded, "I am too goddamn old to go to an alternate site."

This is a odd remark for Rumsfeld to make to say the least. Furthermore, Miller said he never talked to Mr. Rumsfeld that day.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Again Rumsfeld casts doubts over the accuracy of Clarke's quotes saying he can't imagine ever saying such a thing. It is correct that Afghanistan did not have any quality bombing targets. In fact, during the bombing campaign over Afghanistan, "bombing targets" received a lot of press attention. There was also a great deal of speculation in the press over whether Iraq would become the next target in the war of terrorism. Rumsfeld took a lot of questions along these lines from the press.

On October 8, 2001, a reporter asked Rumsfeld if the US was running out of targets in Afghanistan, which Rumsfeld replied: "We aren't running out of targets -- Afghanistan is."

Clarke recounts how a career official in the Situation Room called out, "Secret Service reports a hostile aircraft 10 minutes out," left the room, then returned minutes later to report, "Hostile aircraft eight minutes out."

However, neither Miller or Sean McCormack, the spokesman of the national security council, who was in the Situation Room that morning, say they recall hearing the aide warn that a plane could be only minutes away. They say the aide himself reports that he made no such announcement, but he declined to be interviewed.

Clarke in his book goes on to describe the Situation Room as sparsely populated, Miller and McCormack ticked off the names of at least a dozen people who came in to work the phones and help figure out the location of suspect aircraft.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Condoleezza Rice says they did understand the threat from Al-Qaeda and one of the difficulties was that you gave them no plan to deal with it?

CLARKE: In fact we gave them a plan even before the President was inaugurated because we have been developing a plan, or should I say updating a plan, during October, November, December. So they had a plan on day one, and on day three of the administration I asked for an urgent meeting to review the plan.

What is interesting here is that during a background briefing in early August 2002 by Clarke himself had this to say:

CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Clarke is a experience bureaucrat and knows how to play word games against the best of them is evidenced with this exchange during 9/11 hearings with Jim Thompson when he asked Clarke: "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"

Clarke shot back: "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he said. "I've done it for several presidents."

In other words, Clarke is claiming he was merely spinning to the press on behalf of the Administration. But was he really?

Christopher Shays, Chairman of a Sub Committee on National Security wrote the following to Richard A. Clarke on July 5, 2000:

"We asked if there was an integrated threat assessment prepared. You [Clarke] 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."

"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."

In light of the above, it is reasonable to conclude that Clarke was in fact telling the truth during his August 2002 briefing when he said there was no plan passed to the Bush Administration in combating terrorism and was being misleading in his answer to 9/11 commissioner Jim Thompson when he had asked Clarke, "Which is true?"

Most of what Richard Clarke tells us is so broadly worded that it is left to ones imagination to determine what it is he is telling us. Take for example Clarke's testimony during the 9/11 commission when he mentioned that he had voted Republican in 2000 to give himself the appearance of stronger credentials for attacking a Republican President.

Days later Democrats were defending him by insisting Clarke had voted for Bush, thus, had no partisan leanings. But like most what comes out of Clarke's mouth is never what it appears to be at first sound. Here is how Clarke explained his 9/11 Republican statement later:

Clarke: "Well, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance."

Did Clarke vote for George W. Bush? No, he just insinuated that he had and left it for the rest to draw their own conclusion - in reality he admitted to actually voting for Al Gore in the 2000 general election. He may not have outright lied, but he wasn't about to be forthcoming with facts to back-up his claim either.

Let's look at another example of Clarke's word games when he was challenged by Hardball's Chris Matthews.

MATTHEWS: Let's talk about something very critical. You said in your book that as I briefed Condoleezza Rice on al Qaeda_this is in January of 2001, a month, almost a year before 9/11--her facial expression gave me the impression that she'd never heard the term before.

Subsequent to that, your book coming out, NBC's Lisa Myers, has gone back and found a radio interview where Rice gave, the year before, and here's what she said on the radio. This is the year before that conversation. Let's listen.

DR. RICE: "We don't wanna wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory."

MATTHEWS: --she wasn't familiar with al Qaeda and here she is, the year before, talking about bin Laden's operation, maybe heading out to_

Yes, she talked about bin Laden, but as Clarke is well aware of - al Qaeda and bin Laden at the time was were being reported as one and the same in the press. After the attack on the USS Cole you couldn't read about terrorism and not also come across the terms al Qaeda and bin Laden. If Dr. Rice is like millions of others who reads newspapers daily, than she would had certainty seen and understood the term al Qaeda.

This is a very weak insinuation on the part of Clarke in his attempts to belittle her while in some sick way stroking his own ego as being the only man alive who really knows or understands the al Qaeda threat. Clarke doesn't stop with insinuating that Condi Rice may be "asleep," he also has accused President Bush of the same on issues that Bush clearly knows something about, as evidenced with this misleading slur by Clarke:

"It [British joining US war effort against Iraq in '03] may also have forced president to issue a statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He went out there and read the words like he was seeing them for the first time."

Clarke is on a mission to make the Bush Administration look as stupid as he can at every opportunity, whether it is related to pre 9/11 preparation or not. This should have been a red-flag as far as what his motive might have been. In another similar sounding charge revealed during a PBS interview on March 20, 2002:

"Well, I would go around the country to FBI offices and ask, "Is there an Al Qaeda presence in Chicago, in San Francisco, in Boston?" And typically the reaction I would get is, "What's Al Qaeda?"

In the same interview, Clarke makes a telling statement to his psychological make-up:

Q: Somebody's quoted as saying that they walked into your office and almost immediately afterwards, the first words out of your mouth was "Al Qaeda."

CLARKE: Well, I assumed it was Al Qaeda. No one else had the intention of doing that. No one else that I knew of had the capability of doing that. So yes, as soon as it happened, I assumed it was Al Qaeda.

He is suggesting that he is the only man alive who had the intention or capability to identify the 9/11 attackers as being Al Qaeda. Since I am no psychologist I'll have to leave further analysis to someone who is.

Clarke plays fast and lose with the blame game and cuts the Bush Administration no slack as he does with the Clinton Administration. Shortly after the attack on the USS Cole, Clarke went on 60 Minutes and declared the attack on the Cole showed a "great deal of sophistication," so sophisticated the rubber dinghy attack was that the United States is absolved of any suspicion of intelligence failure.

One is left to wonder how sneaking a rubber boat into the harbor at Aden packed with explosives for a suicide mission merits such a "sophistication" label while the 9/11 attacks do not from Clarke?

If we take Clarke seriously; the Cole attack being so sophisticated that any intelligence failures can be over looked. Bush was not so lucky under Clarke's selective blame game.

Clarke has asserted that there was "no higher" priority than fighting terrorism under former President Clinton, but that the Bush administration "either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem."

But Clarke in his book writes that forcing through a Middle East peace agreement was a higher priority for Clinton than retaliating for al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole.

In a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail to Condoleezza Rice, Clarke outlined some of the major steps taken by the Bush Administration in the summer of 2001 to put the nation on a higher alert footing in an effort to prevent a possible attack.

Clarke cited in his e-mail that on July 5, 2001, representatives of federal law enforcement agencies - including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service - were summoned to a meeting at which they were warned of a possible al Qaeda attack. "Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement (including FAA) knew" of the possibility "that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S. ... and did ask that special measures be taken," Clarke wrote in his e-mail to Rice.

Yet Clarke wants us to believe that the Bush Administration did not take potential attacks seriously enough. At this point it is a wonder if Richard Clarke takes himself seriously.

Gen. Anthony Zinni said Clarke called him "a criminal" for not firing missiles at an Afghanistan city where U.S. intelligence suggested Osama bin Laden was staying.

"I said, `I'm not shooting innocent people,'" Zinni said, referring to military information showing that missiles fired at Kandahar could kill at least 15,000 civilians.

Clarke presents at least one truly bizarre fabrication that is beyond comprehension or motive in his book "Against All Enemies." What is bizarre about it the fact Clarke creates fictional misinformation by another author to use to discredit that author with.

On page 95 of his book, Clarke claims author Laurie Mylroie had asserted that "Ramzi Yousef was not in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Manhattan but lounging at the right hand of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad." He sets the record straight by insisting Ramzi Yousef "had been in a U.S. jail for years," which is absolutely correct.

For some strange reason this is a very important piece of detective work on Clarke's part because he features it on the back dust jacket of his book.

Only problem with all this is that it is a complete fabrication. No where in Laurie Mylroie's book, "Study Of Revenge," does she suggest Ramzi Yousef was anywhere other then a US prison. The question is why did Clarke go to the trouble to invent misinformation to use to discredit another author?

Perhaps the answer to this question may lead to the answer of why Clarke was eager to replace facts with fiction - along with singling out President Bush for the same treatment given to Laurie Mylroie.

Calling All Freepers

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

Most Republicans figured that there was no way that the Democrats could politicize a nominally "independent" 9-11 Commission without implicating the Clinton Administration. That's why many conservative Republicans (not just the usual RINOs and McCainiacs) embraced the idea. Now we know how it could be done. Will the Republicans ever learn?

There was apparently an LA Times poll according to PollingReport.com performed March 27-30, 2004. One has to believe these numbers are now looking worse for Clarke, not better.

"Richard Clarke's book is politically motivated and
released at this time to impact the presidential election."


Agree        58%
Disagree     27%
Don't Know   15%

What amazes and scares me is that this egotistical whacko has actually worked and thrived in any National Security position for this long.

They had it right in 1992 when they canned him. I don't understand why they ever took him back in. Bad decision.

Title: Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs
Name: Richard A. Clarke State of Residency: Virginia
Non-career appointee
Appointment: Aug 7, 1989
Entry on Duty: Aug 8, 1989
Termination of Appointment: Jul 10, 1992
-------------
Wall Street Journal Mar 13, 1992:
The State Department’s inspector general, Sherman Funk, is expected to issue a report later this month that will summarize intelligence reports of the apparent Israeli violations of U.S. regulations and agreements, the officials say. That report will exclude many of the sensitive details revealed in classified intelligence, and it probably won’t list Israel by name.

Mr. Funk’s public report is also expected to criticize the State Department for failing to monitor defense sales adequately. Israel spends about $900 million in U.S. military aid each year to make commercial purchases from American contractors, including sophisticated weaponry and technology. But Mr. Funk’s auditors last year found the State Department over several months hadn’t checked on how high-tech items sold to Israel were used, according to an official familiar with the inquiry.

Mr. Funk will recommend disciplinary action against Richard Clarke, assistant secretary of state in charge of the bureau of politico-military affairs. Such action could include firing.

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.