Clarke: Clinton Would Have Likely Prevented 9/11 Attacks

NewsMax.com ^ | 3/22/04 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke said Sunday that President Clinton would have been more likely to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks than President Bush, because he took the threat posed by al Qaeda more seriously.

Praising Clinton for foiling an al Qaeda plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999, Clarke told CBS "60 Minutes" that the ex-president ordered his White House to "battle stations" after terrorist chatter indicated an attack was coming.

"In December 1999" said Clarke, "every day or every other day, the head of the FBI and the head of the CIA and the attorney general had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack."

He said the meetings forced Clinton officials to return to their agencies and "shake the trees" for evidence of the plot. In the months before Sept. 11, however, Clarke said Bush did nothing similar.

If Bush had followed the Clinton model, said Clarke, "we might have found out in the White House . . . that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States" training for the 9/11 attacks.

Still, the ex-terrorism czar never explained why Clinton failed to act when the CIA pinpointed Osama bin Laden's whereabouts during the final months of his presidency, or why Clinton declined an offer to have bin Laden arrested in 1996.

In an astonishing journalistic oversight, "60 minutes" correspondent Leslie Stahl declined to confront Clarke with a stunning CIA videotape broadcast by NBC News last Tuesday that showed bin Laden walking through his compound out in the open and only lightly guarded.

Filmed by a Predator drone, the video was transmitted back to the CIA in real time, a technological feat that gave the Clinton White House more than enough time to launch cruise missiles from submarines stationed in the Arabian Sea, where they had been deployed for just that purpose.

But if Clarke knows why the ex-president failed to pull the trigger, he isn't saying. Nor did Stahl ask him about Clinton's admission a year after he left office that he turned down Sundan's offer to arrest bin Laden five years before the attacks.

Instead, the ex-White House terrorism czar concentrated his fire on President Bush, telling Stahl, "I think he did a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

To listen to NewsMax.com's exclusive audiotape of ex-President Clinton explaining why he turned down an offer to have bin Laden arrested, Click Here.

[CT]

Though Clinton seldom mentioned Al Quaeda and any "war on teror," the media failed to translate his dire warnings during his "impeachment victory" tour in Africa. For it was there that Clinton hammered out a clear and distinct warning of the threats American faced. Ever the multi-culturalist, Clinton acccomplished sending this warning on a set of tribal drums, bongos if you will. There is even footage of this event in the archives.

Grin.

[nutmeg]

ping!

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, risk! They had 8 years and were still in office in late 2000.

[Tricorn]

"These are the rationalizations of the Liberal mind"

The liberal worldview is so at odds with reality that wherever the two meet, the liberal will always try to revise reality. This is why regular people -- when they're not simply laughing at them -- have such a hard time understanding liberals.

[Lucky2]

By the sounds of the statements this guy is making, I'm quite sure he's on the clinton payroll. He's lying to get kerry elected and the clinton's name cleared. It's all about legacy you know!

[ken5050]

Did you hear Monsoor Ijazz on Fox this morning... He flat out said Clarke was a liar...very strong stuff..

FWIW, I trust you realize that all this is carefully timed to come out IN ADVANCE of Slick's testimony before the 9/11 commission..they're trying to cover their asses..big time..

[NYC GOP Chick]

Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke said Sunday that President Clinton would have been more likely to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks than President Bush, because he took the threat posed by al Qaeda more seriously.

Then why the HELL didn't he?! They were planning this as far back as 1999 -- before Bush was even a candidate!

Oh, I forgot about Clintigula's grand Black Ninja Plot. Yeah, that sure makes me feel safe...

[Pres Raygun]

The Democrats are obviously desparate and Clarke's actions will hurt them dearly in the end. Clinton did nothing in 8 years, while Bush in eight month had put together a plan to go after Al Queda by overthrowing the Taliban. This put blame directly on Al Gore and the DNC who recklessly delayed the Bush transition by dragging the election results through court after court. Surely Al Gore knew the perilous times we lived in. Then we forget how the Democrats dragged their feet on Bush's appointements throughout the first few months of the Bush administration. These delays probably delayed the implimentation of Bush's plan to go after Al Queada. I've always found it interesting that 9/11 occurred just days before Bush's plan was to go into effect. Did someone in the administration tip off Al Queada? If so it had to be someone who was a holdover from the Clinton admisinistration since, only the cabinet posts were filled by Bush appointees. Someone who was intimately aware of the government's anti-terrorism efforts. I wonder who that could be?

[capydick]

"In December 1999" said Clarke, "every day or every other day, the head of the FBI and the head of the CIA and the attorney general had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack."

So - they went to the White House, sat in a room together and reported to whom? It's been established like Clintigula did not meet with these people on a regular basis - so, who ran these meetings? Also - if true (which I doubt) - it seems like a pretty juvenile way to conduct National Security business.

He said the meetings forced Clinton officials to return to their agencies and "shake the trees" for evidence of the plot.

Again - a pretty juvenile way to take care of the nations security.

In the months before Sept. 11, however, Clarke said Bush did nothing similar.

Because President Bush is not juvenile and, he's got people with real experience on the case now. Please step aside Mr. Clark - you are in the way.

[Sacajaweau]

Clinton's Legacy: "The President Who Wasn't"

[al baby]

Lets not forget about Flight 800 it was not a wire in the fuel tank was it ?

[dirtboy]

Clarke, do you seriously believe that the Clintonistas would have acted more vigorously against al Qaeda, when this was their response to the Cole bombing?

Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped 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.

[Charles Martel]

Derived from "Caesar", I figure.

Yup, as is "Kaiser".

[malia]

1996 TWA 800 Coverup

Something we have always known. Another example of the media being in the front pocket of the rats.

[bondjamesbond]

"In December 1999" said Clarke, "every day or every other day, the head of the FBI and the head of the CIA and the attorney general had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack."

In December, 1999, every police agency in the World was on alert because of the coming Millenium celebrations. The US knew full well that the celebrations in NYC and other major US cities were a terrorist magnet of the first order. Clinton quite properly formed a task force to deal with this potential threat.

And the LAX bombing was twarted by an alert Border Guard in Port Angeles, Washington, who spotted a terrorist coming off of the Victoria/Port Angeles ferry. A search of the vehicle revealed explosives and timer mechanisms. The questioning of this suspect broke the LAX case.

Now unless this particular Border Guard had been going to the White House every day for a briefing, I don't know how Clinton can claim credit for the fact that she did her job so well that day.

[ZULU]

Clark was a Clinton appointee and is also tied in with Kerry. The jerk who interviewd him on 60 minutes last night did a knife job on Nixon and helped Hillary.

The whole thing is a set-up.

[Eva]

I have posted this so many times that I am getting tired of it.

Clarke would not be able the disclose the truth about classified information. He would on the other hand be able to publish lies which the Bush administration would be constrained from refuting except before the partisan 9/11 committee where their testimony would be twisted to use against them. Since the administration has declined to give anything but limited testimony, the Democrats have produced this book to spin their version of events. This was a technique used often during the Clinton impeachment to make accusations against the Star team.

[CyberAnt]

Rush just played the comments by Monsoor - I wish more people would speak up like that.

What bugs me about Fox is that they will play some Bush-smearing statement over and over and over and over, but they won't replay Monsoor's comments. Disgusting. They are going to hear from me about it.