Richard Clarke - Lots To Read

For the reading list:

Richard Clarke - His Own Words

Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes, Mar 21

RichardClarke on 60 Minutes - transcript

Richard Clarke on PBS, Mar 22

Richard Clarke on Meet The Press, Mar 28

Richard Clarke on CNN Late Night, Mar 28

Slate excerpts the Richard Clarke book

Transcript of testimony to 9/11 panel

The de-anonymized Clarke backgrounder from August 2002; some background on the Sandy Berger/TIME story that prompted the press briefing.

Frontline interview, March 2002; Charles Krauthammer goes animal on this. I unbury the lede below, in "Sense of Urgency".

Must-Read Reports

Report of 9-11 Commission

Staff Statement 8 - National Policy Coordination

Background

Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9-11; and supplemental documents are available at:

Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11

JOINT INQUIRY STAFF REPORT / ADDITIONAL VIEWS / SENATOR JON KYL, SENATOR PAT ROBERTS

CNN Account: Bush's national security speech at the Citadel, Sept 23, 1999. Their excerpts mention terror twice, and Iraq not at all.

Clarke is a Hero!

Will Saletan:

Did the Bush administration's preoccupation with developing a "comprehensive strategy" against al-Qaida in 2001 get in the way of addressing the immediate prospect of an attack on the United States?

Mr. Saletan introduces the theme in an earlier piece.

The gist - Plodding bureacracy versus Rapid, Flexible Response! Or, Planning versus Fire Drills. Team Bush focussed on churning out a long term plan without responding to the increased threat environment in the summer of 2001. In Clarke's phrase, they failed to shake the trees.

My comment - I think this overestimates the likely impact of tree-shaking in 2001 - in 1999, terrorists with explosives in Jordan and at the Canadian border had been captured, trigggering a full court press in anticipation of Dec 31, 1999; in the summer of 2001, the intel was softer, and the deadline non-existent. I would also note that, following Mr. Saletan's evidently non-self-deflating correction, it was the CIA which sat on key information, even though DCI Tenet was reporting daily to Pres. Bush, and the CIA was sufficiently alarmed that, apparently on their own initiative, they prepared a domestic threat assessment in early August 2001. My advice - shake your own tree. Yeah.

I also think this view misunderestimates the inabilty of the Clinton team to develop a coherent plan. However, it is similar to the case I would make when I am feeling sympathetic to Clarke.

Fred Kaplan - "Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth" - precedes, rather than explains, the release of the Aug 2002 briefing.

[We could use some nominees here]

Clarke is a Bum! (Sorry, we are not doing nuance, although Drezner and Adesnik are, below)

TIME Magazine - "Richard Clarke, at War With Himself"

Dan Drezner; I would add a pop-psychology touch - it may not be just Clarke's personal prestige, but the guilt.anger/frustration of 3,000 deaths which Clarke seems to believe maybe, maybe, maybe could have been prevented (see Saletan, above)

Rep. Chris Shays (R, CT)

Rich Lowry from the NY Post - attempts to reconcile the book, the testimony, and the Aug 2002 briefing.

David Adesnik of OxBlog

Steven Hayes, Weekly Standard

Condoleeza Rice: 9/11 - For The Record

White House rebuttal

The Sept 12 Meeting where Bush instructed Clarke to look at Iraq.

NY Times on the Sept 12 meeting. We assist:

Mr. Cressey... is a partner with Mr. Clarke in a consulting company that advises on cybersecurity issues...

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."

Dan Drezner - Clarke book excerpt - examines and supports the TIME comment on this point.

On the linkage of Iraq and 9/11 generally, John Kerry's Oct 2002 Senate speech always makes us smile, since he takes the position that Bush should have addressed the Saddam problem either in his inaugaural address, or right after 9/11, but surely not in October 2002. For the Kerr-bears, this timing problem can be expressed as "Saddam - hier ot demain mais pas aujourd'hui".

But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago [Huh? The USS Cole bombing was Oct 200, two year before this speech. A link?] 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.

"A Sense Of Urgency"

Clarke raised Republican hackles with his assertion, as described in the WaPo, that:

Ex-Aide Recounts Terror Warnings
Clarke Says Bush Didn't Consider Al Qaeda Threat a Priority Before 9/11

...Clarke told the commission in testimony yesterday afternoon that whereas the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority, the Bush administration did not consider it to be an urgent issue before the attacks. "

Clarke's full quote is available in the testimony transcript, and modifies the Clinton's "highest priority" reported by the WaPo:

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

CLARKE, Frontline Interview, March 2002:

Certainly after the embassy bombing in Africa in 1998, it was very obvious that what John [John O'Neill, FBI counter-terrorist] 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."

We comment on Clinton's many, many priorities in "Those Subtle Priorities", Parts I and II.

Here is Pres. Clinton urging us on against terror, in the Jan 2000 State of the Union:

I predict to you, when most of us are long gone but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narcotraffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons.

Folks expert in finding "imminent threat" warnings will no doubt find one here. Those with less imagination will probably founder on the "10 to 20 years" timeframe.

Matt Hoy noticed that the NY Times, in its main story on the Clarke testimony, did not even mention his "top priority" assessment. "All The News That's Fit To Print, Unless It Makes Our Guy Look Implausible". By comparison, the WaPo ran the Clinton comparison in the third paragraph.

And OxBlog notices the WaPo is rowing back on this, in their widely-unread Saturday edition:

The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

Hmm. So when the lying, crooked RAM said that Clarke was lying about that we were... (a) flat out wrong; (b) maybe possessing a valid point?

And since Sen. Bill Frist, in his speech attacking Richard Clarke, alludes to the possibility that Mr. Clarke may have lied to Congress and might be investigated for perjury, we think ironists will delight in this next quote. It comes from Mr. Clarke himself, in his now-controversial Congressional testimony of 2002, and he is urging people in the Executive Branch to shed their risk aversion, take a few more chances, and endure the possible consequences of a Congressional probe:

"Believe it or not, a lot of people in the executive branch are scared stiff about being up in front of a congressional committee"

We believe it.

Comments

[sym]

I really don't find the long Time mag attempt to find inconsistencies with the two accounts of the 9/12 Bush meeting convincing. There's not that much difference between 'indimidating' and 'testily', really. Lots of the attacks strike me as nitpicks. Besides, is it really that controversial to state that Bush was obssessed with invading Iraq? If one is pro-invading Iraq, one should see that as a good thing. But does anyone out there seriously think that Bush asked Clarke to look for Saddam-9/11 links so he could conclusively prove to Wolfowitz et al that there weren't any links (as the Time mag suggests)?

[Brennan Stout]

I bought the book. Clark himself has quite a few character attacks of his own. He calls James Woolsey a "cabalist". In his recollection of 9/11 he writes about going to visit the Vice President's location in the White House only to find the "right wing idealogue" chambers where Cheney, Rice, Lynne Cheney, Scooter Libby, Steven Hadley and Karen Hughes were locked down.

[HH]

"There's not that much difference between 'indimidating' and 'testily', really."

Except that, er, one is about intimidation, and one can only be interpreted many ways, one being intimidation.

[TM]

obssess: " To preoccupy the mind of excessively."

"Excessively" suggests, ahh, excessive. So no, I don't think Iraq-hawks will be cheered by the news that the President's concern with Iraq was excessive. For synonyms, let's try unreasonable, or, in a mental-health context, irrational. No, I don't like those either.

...does anyone out there seriously think that Bush asked Clarke to look for Saddam-9/11 links so he could conclusively prove to Wolfowitz et al that there weren't any links (as the Time mag suggests)?

Alternative reality - the Principals meet for the Big Briefing, and Clarke is there. The Evil Wolfowitz says, we think Iraq is involved. Powell groans audibly, Bush inwardly (work with me). Bush thinking to himself that he can silence Wolfowitz, turn to Clarke, for the following comedy classic:

W: Dick, do you think Iraq is involved.

Clarke: No, sir, we are convinced it is al Qaeda.

W: Did you consider the possibility that Iraq was involved?

Clarke: Sir, we never considered it.

W: You're an idiot. You had to know Wolfowitz would make this case, and you are leaving me here with no ammunition to shoot back.

Short answer, yes - I think it is quite canny of Bush to ask an Iraq skeptic to look at the possibility of Iraq involvement. As to his motive, who can tell? But Clarke's position (as described in the book, but not 60 Minutes) is quite reasonable also.

[Another Thought]

Clinton in his 2000 State of the Union had this among his opening lines:
"Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats."

That doesn't sound like someone who believed that terrorism or any "external threat" was that high of a priority. And it is in the opening statement that a speaker summarizes the speech; clearly Clinton was conveying the impression that we had few problems about which to worry.

The quote you cite above where Clinton speaks about terrorism is buried about 75% of the way through the speech...hardly where one would highlight one's "highest priority." Notice also in his remarks that Clinton lumps terrorists in with "narcotraffickers" and "organized criminals"...indicating again the mentality of terrorists being more of a criminal problem than a national security one.

When taken as a whole, Clinton's 2000 SOTU gave the clear impression of his opening statement: that America had few problems to worry about. There was no one in the country or the world who heard that speech and came away with the impression that terrorism was the highest priority for the Clinton administration.

Any attempt to recast history with Clinton being having terrorism as such a high priority is a misguided attempt to rescue the Clinton legacy.

[samuelv]

Under "Clarke is a hero," you could put the Daily Show. I can't find transcripts, but over the last three shows (Tues, Weds, and Thurs), they were about to marry or canonize the guy - and now he's going to be on there tonight.

[Another Thought]

To try analysis from the perspective of common sense, and not worry about trying to parse words, etc.

Clarke claims now that for Clinton the terrorism issue was the highest priority. Yet you could not find anyone who lived through the Clinton years who if asked at the time what Clinton's highest priority was, would have answered "terrorism."

Anyone with half a memory of the 1990's knows that terrorism hardly hit the radar screen. Clinton and the American population was far more concerned with the stock market, the tech boom, etc.

Clinton spent most of his time telling us how good we had it under him. If terrorism was his top priority, wouldn't he have communicated that to us without a doubt? When any issue is an administration's highest priority, people know. People know through words...if terrorism was Clinton's highest priority shouldn't the majority of his words and speeches reflected on this issue? People know through deeds...if terrorism was the highest priority wouldn't the majority of his time and initiatives revolve around terrorism? People know through results...if terrorism was Clinton's highest priority, then why was Al Qaeda so demonstrably stronger and more active when Clinton left office?

[Another Thought]

In short, if a president is doing his job it should be obvious what his top priorities are.

We shouldn't need someone to come along after the fact to point it out.

It is absurd and laughable to even suggest that terrorism was Clinton's highest priority, or even among his top priorities. That does not square with history at all.

[sym]

I do actually find the accusation that Clarke is spinning for Clinton pretty convincing.
But while you no doubt have a bright future as a screenwriter, Tom, your portrait of Bush does not accord with mine. During the runup to the war he was willing to throw most any accusation at Saddam, and he never gave any speeches saying "though Iraq clearly has no ties whatsoever to 9/11, there are still many good reasons to invade it". I'm pretty sure Bush would have been happy to find a good strong Iraq-9/11 link.
Also, Clarke's accusation that pre 9/11 Bush considered the threat of terrorism "important but not urgent" is backed up by Bush himself in Woodward's book. The quote where Bush says there was no urgency about terorism is sweeping the left-wing blogosphere. It is understandable, even defensible, that neither Bush or Clinton had no sense of urgency, and it does not make either one of them Hitler. That said, I'm surprised Bush unleashed the attack dogs on Clarke's relatively uncontroversial critique.
That Frist speech is one of the nastier pieces of rhetoric of this young year. He accuses Clarke of profiteering off the 9/11 dead, as if anyone who writes a book about 9/11 is exploiting it. At least he's not having a convention on Ground Zero or anything. Frist also backed up on that perjury accusation, admitting he had no idea if Clarke did perjure himself in testimony. Accusing people of crimes without evidence is not a good idea.
And fair enough on the point about the term 'obssessive', though no-one would have minded if Bush (and Clinton) were a lot more obssessive about Al-Quaeda.

[HH]

Jon Stewart and TDS will consummate their relationship with Clarke tonight...

[Alan]

Just wanted to put in my $0.02 worth.

IIRC, in order to enable debate, what is said on the House or Senate floor is exempt from laws governing slander, or the bar is set much higher than in other venues. That is why Frist was able to attack Clark very hard on the Senate floor, but seemed to backpedal once he was off of it (and liable).

[253yeraq2p]

[url]http://hometown.aol.com/casino95901video/online-strip-poker-free.htm[/url]

[pgfaj1]

[url]http://uk.geocities.com/boys592gayman/gay-amateur-slave.htm[/url]