Clarke / 911 Links

Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes, March 2004; rebuttal to part of his interview by John Cole.

Condoleeza Rice, Washington Post, "9/11: For The Record"

And a good job by the Hammer, who reassures us that, contra Clarke, Ms. Rice really had heard about al Qaeda prior to taking office.

Dick Cheney interview with Rush Limbaugh ("Out of the loop" seems absurd, BTW)

White House rebuttal to Clarke interview

The 60 Minutes interview with Steve Hadley.

NY Times: Elisabeth Bumiller and Judith Miller. Our fave exculpatory detail:

Mr. Clarke said Mr. Bush pressed him three times to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The accusation is explosive because no such link has ever been proved.

...Mr. Cressey cast Mr. Bush's instructions to Mr. Clarke less as an order to come up with a link between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11, and more as a request to "take a look at all options, including Iraq." He backed off Mr. Clarke's suggestion that the president's tone was intimidating. "I'm not going to get into that," Mr. Cressey said. "That is Dick's characterization."

NY Times, Todd Purdum: Our fave troubling detail:

He acknowledges his close friendship with Rand Beers, a foreign service officer who succeeded him at the White House and who now advises Mr. Kerry's campaign on national security.

But his critique can hardly be chalked up to partisan politics as usual. He was a registered Republican in 2000, a career White House civil servant under three presidents, one of the few national security experts held over from the first Bush administration into the Clinton years, and then held over again under the current President Bush.

Rich Lowry to the defense:

Clarke's book reads like a typical just-out-of-government memoir, a genre usually premised on the idea that if only the author's advice had been heeded, the world would be better off.

Left and right agree (in the comments section) - Lowry is not strong. Try Jim Geraghty of the NRO, which mentions Rep. Chris Shays.

And the always link-rich Memeorandum.

FROM THE TIME VAULT:

A very interesting WaPo story from Jan 19, 2002 detailing the history of the Bush plan to confront al Qaeda.

The prescient Richard Clarke, warning us about cyberterrorism in January 1999; here is a transcript of the press briefing, and we note that the first question was planted by Paul Wolfowitz or George Bush.

Richard Clarke on state sponsored terror, with a priceless defense of Clinton's cruise missle strike on the Sudan aspirin factory.

Good job by Belgravitas, who digs up a New Yorker from Issue of 2003-08-04: THE SEARCH FOR OSAMA
by JANE MAYER

Dan Drezner has lots of links and his own sensible view:

There is a deeper policy split at work. Rational Bush opponents are happy to see Saddam gone but do not see any connection between the war in Iraq and the larger war on terror. Rational Bush supporters will acknowledge that at best there was a loose connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but that remaking Iraq is a vital part of the war on terror because it will help to remake the Middle East, terrorism's primary source.

Yes, the conversation does seem to occur across that divide. I will add that Bush may have taken from 9/11 the idea that letting the Al Qaueda problem fester had been a mistake he was not going to repeat with Iraq. Better too forceful than too patient; better safe than sorry; the squeaky wheel gets greased; [insert your pithy folk saying here]...

Fred Kaplan says Clarke is telling the truth. He is referring to the book, we presume, and not the 60 Minutes interview.

No post would be complete without mentioning the presumptive Democratic nominee. Since one of the charges against Bush is that he was too focussed on Iraq, let us replay John Kerry from October 2002, who back then would have supported such a linkage:

Later in the year [1998], Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

Although we are cautious about attempting to read meaning into Kerry's words, this says he would have preferred that Bush target Saddam right after 9/11, or even before then.

A fascinating Gallup poll about international support for military action immediately after 9/11. Globally, folks strongly favored extradition and trial over military action. However, the US attempted an extradition of Osama, and the Taliban would not cooperate. The real question should have been (as with Iraq), what might be considered a failure of diplomacy, and would you support military action if diplomacy "failed".

"One mullah, one ranger". LOL.

Back to business. In response to the widely discredited TIME article from August 2002 titled "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented", the Administration rolled out Richard Clarke to push back:

CLARKE: ...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.

...Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office...

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

...The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

Later:

CLARKE: ...One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

Pretty effective push-back then. Where is he now?

UPDATE: Whoa, that Clarke briefing resulted in dark mass impacting whirling fan. Belgravitas blogs, Hesiod frets, and Clarke explains everything to the Commission.

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

How about a Clarke Motto Lotto contest. My entries are from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16192-2004Mar22.html

"a penchant for self-promotion"

"earned...many enemies over the years"

"ammunition to his critics"

"certainly did infuriate a lot of his interagency colleagues"

"He broke a lot of crockery"

"Strong opinions are the norm"

"A 30-year veteran bureaucrat"

"managed to anger numerous colleagues with his brusque style and bursts of temper"

"demands from colleagues that Clarke be fired"

"Clarke's brash manner is on full display"

"portrays himself as a kind of unheeded Paul Revere"

"frequently ignored or marginalized"

"left the Bush administration last year after a public demotion"

"well aware of the firestorm he would cause"

"very abrasive and aggressive and pushes his point of view very hard."

[fishkite]

"He wasn't in the loop" and "he clearly missed a lot of what was going on" - Cheney

"a bitter, discredited bureaucrat" - Powerlineblog

a "seething" and "angry man" - New York Times editorial

"flagrant effort to avoid responsibility for his own failures." - unnamed official quoted by Cal Thomas

[HH]

Unfortunately there is no link (yet) but there is an Oct. 2000 interview with Condi Rice out there by David Newman of WJR that puts the lie to Clarke's claim about her...

[Jeff]

That Lowry piece was the worst pile of nonsense I've read in months (and trust me, I'm like a pig on a truffle hunt when it comes to rooting through nonsense). There's a point at which rhetorical defenses look so desperate that they wrap-around and become indictments.

[TM]

Speech by Clarke, Policy Conference at Lansdowne Conference Center
October 16, 1998

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/lansdowne/clarke.htm

TRANSCRIPT: RENO, SHALALA, CLARKE 1/22 BRIEFING ON TERRORISM

Note - the first question is planted by Paul Wolfowitz - or George Bush.

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF990122/epf505.htm

EXCERPTS: RICHARD CLARKE ON INFORMATION WARFARE THREAT - Electronic Pearl Harbor 12/09/98

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF981209/epf304.htm

[HH]

TM - Lowry was probably the weakest piece... link to Ijaz and Geraghty when you get the chance.

[Eric Scheie]

The real threat -- even after 9-11 -- was WiFi:

http://wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html

[Cecil Turner]

Clarke's complaints about an Iraq fixation are not credible and suggest political motivation. Of course Iraq would be a suspect, after proven involvement in the 1993 WTC bomb plot. And it's worth remembering Iraq was a prime suspect in the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. From the Dec, 2001 hearings:

"The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the subsequent anthrax incidents have focused renewed attention on the threat of biological weapons."--Dr Harris

"The first potential source is countries that are both state sponsors
of international terrorism and that have an indigenous biological weapons program.

Dr. Spertzel has mentioned Iraq. That is one country which fits into this category, but there are others as well--North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. All of these countries have been identified by U.S. Government officials as both terrorism and proliferation concerns.

A second potential source [. . . ] comes from the past U.S. and former Soviet biological weapons programs. And the third and final possibility is, of course, that of a purely homegrown effort."--Dr Harris

"My analysis shows that this product was not obtained using either American or Russian production techniques."--Dr Alibeck

"Now, having said all that, I then said I could name several possible sources, but clearly number one on my list would be Iraq."--Dr Spertzel

In any event, since we invaded Afghanistan within a month, the Iraq fixation obviously wasn't that much of a distraction.

[Sean Paden]

In Clark's own words, the solution to international terrorism was as follows:

First, "Where possible and appropriate, the United States will bring the terrorists back to this country and put them on trial." As proof, he sites that the perpetrators of the numerous Clinton era attacks are now behind bars (though not the masterminds).
-- Put them on trial!? Where possible and appropriate!?!?!? Does this sound like a man who was screaming at everyone who would listen that we have to stop Al Queda?

Second, "for the first time since the 1960s, a serious program of preparedness against weapons of mass destruction in the United States" and "preventing the terrorists from obtaining these weapons."
-- Playing defense appeared to be Mr. Clark's real strategy. And playing defense is the surest way to guarantee we will eventually get hit (no defense system is foolproof).

Third, "to develop, for the first time in history, a national cyber defense plan to prevent people from invading U.S. computer systems and turning off telephones and lights and crashing stock markets.
-- Again, does this strike you as someone who yelled to everyone who would listen that we had to do more against Al Queda?

[bushgirlsgonewild]

Roger Cressey, Clark’s deputy at the time, said Monday that he remembered being in the room when Bush pulled Clark aside to put the pressure on.

“The impression was pretty straightforward: that the president — his first thought was to take a look at Iraqi culpability,” said Cressey, who is now a consultant for NBC News.

I GUESS HE'S LYING TOO

[TM]

Cressey lying? That was our favorite exculpatory bit.

I think Hadley tripped over his own spin with his suggestion that the White House has no record of that conversation having taken place. I think it took place, and I think Condi Rice is quite clear on this point:

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Is it really Clarke's considered opinion that one day after the event it was so clearly established that al Qaeda and only al Qaeda was involved, that Bush was reckless or irresponsible in suggesting that other possibilities be examined?

[HH]

Er... except that Cressey told the NY Times that he saw it merely as a "request" and would not call it "intimidation" as Clarke interpreted it.

[bushgirlsgonewild]

PREVIOUSLY STATED: “Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

BULL! According to the 1/12/03 Washington Post (which quotes senior Administration officials) "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by 9/4/02 CBS News report that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq."

Other options are perusable, BUT Dubya didn’t have the expertise to consider other parties, but the longest serving public official and leading terrorist expert in the government did make the conclusion that al-Qaeda was responsible and he was right.

Furthermore, once Mr. Bush stated, "Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets - never." [NATO, 9/16/01]

Of course he was WRONG again; In March 1999, US intelligence learned that a US citizen who was involved in al-Qaeda planned to fly an explosives-laden hang glider into the Egyptian Presidential Palace in Cairo. There were problems in testing the glider in Afghanistan, and he was eventually arrested before the plot was carried out. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] Later that year, an Egyptian pilot intentionally flew a passenger airliner into the ocean, killing everyone on board. [AP, 1/21/00, Atlantic Monthly, 11/01, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 3/25/02] In August 2001, US intelligence learned of a plot to either bomb the US embassy in Nairobi from an airplane or crash an airplane into it. Two people who were reportedly acting on instructions from bin Laden met in October 2000 to discuss this plot. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
In July 2001, Bush attended the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy. The Egyptian government warned that al-Qaeda planned to assassinate Bush and other heads of state using "an airplane stuffed with explosives." [New York Times, 9/26/01] US intelligence also learned of this from Russia and other sources. [CNN, 3/02] The Italian government surrounded the summit with antiaircraft guns, kept fighters in the air, and closed off local airspace to all planes.[Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01] The reports were taken so seriously that Bush stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore. [CNN, 7/18/01] The plot was reported in the media before the summit began, so, not surprisingly, the attack was called off. [Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01] Some media reports even mentioned that the plan was to attack Bush on the ground from al-Qaeda-controlled aircraft. [BBC, 7/18/01]

Numerous foreign governments warned the US that it was likely to be attacked by airplanes used as weapons. In 1999, the British warned that al-Qaeda had plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways, possibly as flying bombs."�[Sunday Times, 6/9/02] In early August 2001, Britain gave a categorical warning that the US should expect multiple airline hijackings. This warning was passed on to Bush a short time later. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02] In June 2001, Germany warned that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out." [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] In August, Russian President Putin warned the US that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

BUSH and his ‘experts’ BLEW IT, just face it.

[Cecil Turner]

BGGW,

Are you claiming the "initial U.S. response to Sept. 11" was not "to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan"? Or that someone predicted Al Qaeda would: "fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets"?

The problem with this type of wild claim is that it obscures any real point you might have.

[jb]

HH writes:

"Unfortunately there is no link (yet) but there is an Oct. 2000 interview with Condi Rice out there by David Newman of WJR that puts the lie to Clarke's claim about her..."

Certainly Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the usual crowd of cretins think so, but the WJR interview actually supports Clarke's impression, because Rice *never mentions Al Qaeda*. She mentions Osama bin Laden, but *everyone* knew who OBL was, as Clarke assumed when he explained to Rice that Al Qaeda was OBL's network when she appeared never to have heard of them.

Sheesh.

[jb]

TM asks

"Is it really Clarke's considered opinion that one day after the event it was so clearly established that al Qaeda and only al Qaeda was involved, that Bush was reckless or irresponsible in suggesting that other possibilities be examined?"

Bush wanted a report showing it was Iraq. A report was produced showing it wasn't Iraq. It was bounced back and they were told to do it over. They did it over with the same conclusion. It's not clear Bush even saw it, since it didn't say what he wanted said. Reckless and irresponsible is an understatement.

[Cecil Turner]

"She mentions Osama bin Laden, but *everyone* knew who OBL was, as Clarke assumed when he explained to Rice that Al Qaeda was OBL's network when she appeared never to have heard of them."

"Bush wanted a report showing it was Iraq."

The problem with both of these observations is the mind-reading required. Rice's facial expression could just as easily have meant: "I understand it's a threat, but what do you plan to do about it?" or "You've been touting this dumb-a**ed plan for months now--when can I expect you and your oversized staff to come up with a new proposal?"

Bush may well have wanted to know if Iraq was involved before ordering the invasion of Afghanistan. Clarke's responses are both non-responsive and inaccurate. (E.g., notice anything missing from the sponsor list: "Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen.")

[jb]

"The problem with both of these observations is the mind-reading required."

No, the problem is the right wingnut lie that Rice's WJR interview contradicts Clarke.

[jb]

"The problem with both of these observations is the mind-reading required."

It's not mind reading that Bush wanted a report showing it was Iraq, it's inference based on a large body of information.

[jb]

> Rice's facial expression could just as easily have meant:

Only in the sense that you could just as easily win the lottery as not.

> "I understand it's a threat, but what do you plan to do about it?"

When Clarke explained to the blank looking Rice that Al Qaeda was OBL's network, she didn't indignantly say "I know that". If she had, she'd be trumpeting it all over the media.

> or "You've been touting this dumb-a**ed plan for months now--when can I expect you and your oversized staff to come up with a new proposal?"

Talk about dumb-assed ... you don't *anything* about this, do you? Go read Clarke's book.

[bushgirlsgonewild]

CECIEL: "Are you claiming the "initial U.S. response to Sept. 11" was not "to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan"? Or that someone predicted Al Qaeda would: "fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets"?

YES, and WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE HOW MANY (1 OR 4)???? IT WAS APPARENT IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. We use the same measures post 9/11 to prevent 1 as we do 4, don't we???

[bushgirlsgonewild]

"Bush may well have wanted to know if Iraq was involved before ordering the invasion of Afghanistan."

THERE should be very little doubt in any ones mind by now that Bush not only wanted to know if Iraq was involved, but also that he WANTED them to be involved and began immediately looking for ways to implicate Saddam in 9/11. And they did implicate Saddam (although Powell and others later admitted there was no connection).

Today, the Washington Post reports on a telling speech never given -- a Condoleezza Rice address on Bush Administration policy scheduled to be delivered on September 11, 2001, which "mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States...

The text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, broadly reflects Bush administration foreign policy pronouncements during the eight months leading to the attacks..."

[TM]

THERE should be very little doubt in any ones mind by now that Bush not only wanted to know if Iraq was involved, but also that he WANTED them to be involved and began immediately looking for ways to implicate Saddam in 9/11.

I am a broken record on this point, but in his Oct 2002 Senate floor speech, Kerry says would have supported an effort against Saddam immediately after 9/11.

[Cecil Turner]

JB,
When Clarke testified before the 9/11 commission, I could tell by his facial expression he was lying. Convincing, huh? And I read enough of his book to understand he was a 60's war protester who hasn't the first bloody clue on how to use military force. His proposals reflect that, and obviously wouldn't have stopped 9/11 . . . just as he admitted to Sen Gorton.

[Cecil Turner]

"THERE should be very little doubt in any ones mind by now that Bush not only wanted to know if Iraq was involved, but also that he WANTED them to be involved and began immediately looking for ways to implicate Saddam in 9/11."

It was US policy to depose Saddam since the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. The President didn't need to prove anything. If he'd WANTED them to be implicated, he could easily have had some of the boys in the dirty tricks department gin up some evidence. (It's been done before.)

[bushgirlsgonewild]

First, I wish I could tell by someone’s facial expressions whether they were lying or not. Sounds like the kind of evidence people use to give in Salem witch trials.
Second, you must be reading the wrong book – you’re not seriously stating that Clarke was a Vietnam War protester?

And Bush probably tried to get some people to pull some dirty tricks and that's why
so many people in the state department and military have resigned since his invasion.

[Cecil Turner]

First, I wish I could tell by someone’s facial expressions whether they were lying or not. Sounds like the kind of evidence people use to give in Salem witch trials.

I agree. I also wish I could tell by facial expressions whether they had ever heard of Al Qaeda.

Second, you must be reading the wrong book – you’re not seriously stating that Clarke was a Vietnam War protester?

You're not seriously claiming you read it, are you?

[bushgirlsgonewild]

No, I haven't read it, even though I'm a speed reader, I can't keep up with all the anti-Bush books being released.

And I think there is a vast difference between being able to tell from another's facial expression whether they are lying or simply puzzled.

[Cecil Turner]

"No, I haven't read it, even though I'm a speed reader, I can't keep up with all the anti-Bush books being released."

I suspected you hadn't. If you had, you'd know Clarke talks about one of his contacts and being war protesters together. You'd also know he'd essentially pitched the same "delenda" plan since '98, after being told several times it wasn't feasible.

"And I think there is a vast difference between being able to tell from another's facial expression whether they are lying or simply puzzled."

It's that part where he claims to know why she's puzzled that's hard to credit. Especially since the discussion is on a subject where they have a sharp difference of opinion: Condi, like the President, sees state sponsorship as the main issue and the Taliban as the main target--Clarke thinks Al Qaeda can be "rolled back" independently. (And the 2000 interview shows she's clearly well acquainted with the issue--whether she calls it "Osama bin Laden's organization" or "Al Qaeda" doesn't seem terribly critical.)