Posted on 05/26/2004 9:05:17 AM PDT by Mark Felton
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
pedro sa da bandeira Former White House counterterrorism adviser testifies before the 9-11 commission.
In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”
Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.
Clarke’s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.
Several Democrats say that at a closed-door meeting May 6, they pressed members of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11 to find out who approved the flights.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who attended the meeting, said she asked former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a Republican, “Who authorized the flight[s] and why?”
“They said it’s been a part of their inquiry and they haven’t received satisfactory answers yet and they were pushing,” Boxer added.
Another Democrat who attended the meeting confirmed Boxer’s account and reported that Hamilton said: “We don’t know who authorized it. We’ve asked that question 50 times.”
Referring to questions about who authorized the flights, former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), one of the 10 members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said in an interview Monday: “In my mind, this isn’t resolved right now. We need more clarity and information from the relevant political sources and FBI sources.”
But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.
“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”
Clarke’s explanation fit with a new stance Hamilton has taken on the issue of the Saudi flights.
Hamilton said in an interview Friday that when he told Democratic senators that the commission did not know who authorized the Saudi flights, he was not fully informed.
“They asked the question ‘Who authorized the flight?’ and I said I did not know and I’d try to find out,” Hamilton said. “I learned subsequently from talking to the staff that we thought Clarke authorized the flight and it did not go higher.”
“I did not at any point say the White House was stalling,” Hamilton added. “They asked me who authorized it, and I said we didn’t know.”
Hamilton said, however, that “we asked the question of who authorized the flight many times to many people.”
“The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke’s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,” Hamilton said.
He cautioned that this is “a story that could shift, and we still have this under review.”
This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.
“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.”
“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday.
However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.
FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”
“We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”
When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission’s March hearing, “Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ‘Yes, you’re clear to go, it’s all right with the United States government,’” Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.
“I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,” Clarke testified. “I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office.”
Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke’s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.
“It couldn’t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,” said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke’s testimony. Clarke’s testimony did not settle the issue for Roemer, either.
“It doesn’t seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it,” Roemer said Monday.
“I just don’t think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper,” Roemer added. “Clarke sure didn’t seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers.”
Roemer said there are important policy issues to address, such as the need to develop a flight-departure control system.
Several Democrats on and off the Hill say that bin Laden’s family should have been detained as material witnesses to the attacks. They note that after the attacks, the Bush administration lowered the threshold for detaining potential witnesses. The Department of Justice is estimated to have detained more than 50 material witnesses since Sept. 11.
Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.
“This is a tempest in a teapot,” he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.
He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.
“It’s very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation.”
The Sept. 11 commission released a statement last month declaring that six chartered flights that evacuated close to 140 Saudi citizens were handled properly by the Bush administration.
Thanks for the ping!
"At the least September 14th through the 19th. While the national airspace was officially closed."
National airspace was re-opened partially on September 14th and completely on September 15th. I remember. I was manufacturing Boeing commercial airplanes at the time and it was very important how long national airspace was closed. I also remember thinking that it may have been opened too soon considering what had just happened.
Can't you just picture the scumbag Democrats grimacing?
"G*d@mn, can't we find ANYTHING to pin on Bush?"
You are in fantasyland
This reveals the depth of idiocy of the leftist [read "bureaucratic"] mind: the belief that system can replace judgment. If people would claim judgment as the groound of their action [rather than compliance with procedure], it would stupify everyone. What would be even more amazing would be if people had judgment.
Whoever advised W to keep the clintonites in his administration, was a devil.
Gephardt and Daschle named Gorelick, ben Veniste and Kerrey to the commission. This fact should be spread all over south dakota which is having a senatorial election this year. It reveals the craven character of Daschle --and his submissiveness to Hilary. Gorelick is a Hilary lieutenant.
anyone see a connection???
You are right on target.
Clarke must have a double. One body cannot hold the likes of that ego.
Ah, yes! Here is what I mean about bureau-think. It does not require 20/20 hindsight to say after 9/11: No, no special flights for a bunch of Saudis--when 17 of the 19 were almost immediately known to be Saudis. All it requires is judgment -- and not submitting to a didvided loyalty of some nature. Most "special treatment" issues are in pursuit of a distinct agenda and loyalty.
This clown Clarke should not have been trusted. I think only fools are bowled over by his blow-hard manner. A person that egomanical cannot be retained, then add that he was gooey with the Clintons--[and I am sure he gave phoney criticsms of the clintons in order to appear loyal to Bush, but that is the nature of no account chameleons]--and it is simple common sense not to keep Clarke in his sensitive position. I will bet that it was someone from Bush I who is behind the advice to keep Clarke, possibly the same one who say keep Tenet.
It may have been someone from Bush I, but it appears to me that he ended up as a mole for Bill and Hillary.
Remember, GHWB frittered away his presidency because he thought [and was obviously advised by trusted advisers that] it would be OK to enter into that disasterous sucker deal with George Mitchell involving raising taxes for budget cuts. He didn't get the budget cuts and the democrats crucified him for breaking his word on "no new taxes". That's how adroit the Bush I team was at avoiding intrigue and becoming pigeons.
It could be for the reasons you state but I've always felt that GHWB lost because he looked at his watch in Richmond while Bill Clinton was biting his lip and pressing his hand against his chest. Not sure about GWB but I believe that his dad carries the been-there-done-that gene and really didn't want a second term. He wanted to go fishing and sky-diving but didn't want the history books to show he quit in the manner of LBJ. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why anyone would want a second term.
Bush I caved on everything all along and not just at the end of his term. When they won victories, they did not know how to retain their winnings but gave them away: examples Iraq and Clarence Thomas.
Of course, these things are always more and less complex then they seem from out here.
More likely because he is the fall guy.
Thee's always some planes flying -- that have to. CAP, organ transplant stuff, etc.
It's hard to label yourself the fall guy when you place yourself at the head of the parade.
Are all your posts this inaccurate?
"Yes, they monitor Freepmail. I've been a freeper since 1997.
The admins have admitted publicly that they monitor it."
If so, I will take the opportunity to set you straight. We do not monitor freepmail. We have no tools to let us see anything of the sort. The closest we have is that Jim can tell if someone has been sending Freepmail, but even he cannot read anyone else's. And the moderating staff cannot even see that much.
Thanks, LM
"Thee's always some planes flying -- that have to. CAP, organ transplant stuff, etc."
True, but from September 14th through the 19th of September was what was being discussed. During that period all commercial aircraft were allowed to fly. Legally.
Are you so daft that you don't realize that USUALLY, a fall guy doesn't choose that role?
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.