There is one question that no-one has bothered to ask Richard Clarke: If you believe so deeply that Bush has butchered our foriegn policy and put the country in danger unnecessarilly, why did you spend the last year writing and publishing a book while the rest of the country hashed out the most important policy decisions of the last century? I dont think that's an unfair question. This discussion could have, and should have been had last February.

Dan;

Your suggestion that Clarke is more credible than O'Neil only proves how bad O'Niel was.

One of the many artilces I managed to find over the last few days about the man, written well prior to all of this is an example of what the left thought of the man:

Unsurprisingly, a two year review of Clarke literature in the news media shows the public record of the National Security Council advisor's speeches and interviews to be almost utterly devoid of substantive discussion on computer security and 'cyberterror' but rich in cliche and numblingly over-reliant on simplistic and unsubstantiated claims. In fact, Clarke's public work resembles looks like nothing more than a ham-handed campaign of threat-mongering propaganda...."

Let's remember that this is the man that gave us the Y2K scare... you may recall it amounted to nada, for the most part.

You will also doubtless recall that Clarke was running the show on Security and had Bill Clinton's ear, supposedly, while we watched Al Quieda performe dall kind of criminal and warlike acts:

*In 1993: AQ Shoots down US helicopters and killing US servicemen in Somalia

*In 1994: A Plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila,and nigh on succeeded.

*In 1995: In a move you'd think would get their attention, AQ plotted to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines.

*Also in 1995: AQ plotted to to bomb simultaneously, in midair, a dozen US trans-Pacific flights.

*In 1998: AQ conducted the bombings of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IN total, these attacks killed at least 300 people and injured on the order of 4000 more.

*1999: AQ tried to carry out terrorist operations against Israeli and US tourists who were visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations.

* Again in 1999: In another millenium plot, bomber was caught en route to Los Angeles International Airport

*And in 2000: USS Cole was attacked in the port of Aden, killing 17 US Navy members, and injuring another 39

Now, all of these went down while Richard Clarke was in control of hte situation. I don't recall him giving AQ any serious response. (Unless you consider targeting missles at empty, long deserted training camps, or perhaps an asprin factory, to be a proper reseponse....

Clarke claims Mr. Bush ignored AQ for months. Bottom line is, Clinton, and Clarke himself ignored it for bloody well YEARS. But what gets the headlines now?

And why does this get the headlines now? Clarke's book.

Which is published by Simon and Shuster, which is owned by Viacom... and is being pushed by 60 minutes and CBS news.. which is also owned by Viacom, and in particular has a leftist slant to them which has become the stuff of legend.

Can you imagine a conflict of interest of this magnatude at Fox news not causing riots?

The bottom line here is htat prior to 9/11 AQ was not the biggest prioity on anyone's list, including that of Clarke himself. Anything beyond that is hype designed to sell books, build viewership, and eleminate those nasty Republicans.

Sorry, Dan, but I'm not buying it.

There is one question that no-one has bothered to ask Richard Clarke: If you believe so deeply that Bush has butchered our foriegn policy and put the country in danger unnecessarilly, why did you spend the last year writing and publishing a book while the rest of the country hashed out the most important policy decisions of the last century?

Because if he had weighed in back when we were hashing out the issue, he like so many of the opponents of going into Iraq, probably would have stated that he believed that Iraq still had WMD’s (which was the international and bipartisan consensus at the time) and/or would have made a series of predictions (e.g. chemical/bio weapons attack, rising up of the Arab street, urban warfare, etc.) which did not come to pass.

In which case it is safer politically to remain silent during the actual debate and later say that you “knew all along” rather than weigh in and risk being proven incorrect.

Except that the idea that a war on Iraq has any rational connection to a war on terrorism depends on having a coherent post-war plan for Iraq...which Bush & Co doesn't have, and never had.

Post-war Iraq has been so badly handled that Iraq has become what Bush erroneously said it was before the war: a haven and hotbed of terrorists. Fissures are developing between all fo the power centeres: Sunni v Shia; secular v. Islamicist; Kurd v Iraq.

The US is in no condition to provide aid or leadership in overcoming those divisions, at least not under Bush. (Quick! Who is Bush's go-to person for mediating multi-ethnic disputes and building a free and democratic polyglotic society?)

No, the most damning charge Clarke makes, in terms of human heartache and might-have-beens, is that Bush diverted resources from the war on terrorism in favor of his splendid little war in Iraq. Everything we spent on Iraq -- the soldiers, the intel, the money, the everything -- was a resource we did NOT spend hunting al-Qaeda. And al-Qaeda took full advantage of the rest break: it's resurgent in Afghanistan, regrouping globally, and carrying out mass murder attacks again.

Add to this the fact that Bush played directly into the hands of every Islamicist that hates the West -- not only by invading Iraq, but yammering on about Crusade this, and God-told-him-to-invade that, and generally acting and speaking like an ignorant, arrogant idiot -- and that makes a further farce of the idea that Bush has made the world or the country safer today than it was 2, 3, 4 years ago.

Ciel, your comments make no sense and bear no resemblence to reality, so I'll have to ignore them. You sound like an ignorant, arrogant idiot who prepared your remarks over a year ago based on your own predjudices, and refuse to change them.

There's a legitimate argument that Al Qaeda's activities were ignored pre-9/11. However, that charge could equally be laid at the previous Administration's feet as well, which Clarke is refusing to do. Strangely, he defends the Clinton Administration even as he notes that they rejected most of his suggestions. Similarly, he defended the missile attack on the plant in Sudan at the time despite the low quality of intelligence, stating that any risk of Al Qaeda or others getting WMDs was enough to act. Then, he changes his tune about Iraq. Smells like an bureaucrat upset at being demoted.

Even if Clarke was steadfast in promoting going after Al Qaeda (which certainly didn't happen, not in Afghanistan where it was necessary-- not that I think Clinton should be particularly blamed for this as I don't think it was politically possible), his public statements were all about the dangers of cyberterrorism and Y2K as the most dangerous aspects of terrorism. Second to that, according to Clarke, was the risk of narcotics smuggling providing funds for terrorism. Perhaps he said other things in private, of course, but not publically.

He just doesn't have a lot of credibility here for me.

Oh, and BTW: Clarke has not been soaking up the rays since he left the Bush White House, waiting only for his book to be published to tell the US what he knows. As has been pointed out in numerous places, Clarke has tried repeatedly to get his views out to the public, most notably in Time magazine October (I think, October) 2002.

"Yes, if we could turn back time, we'd have given AQ more consideration. But it probably would not have prevented 9/11. And don't claim that we could solve a problem in eight months that the last team -- in which Clarke was the lead on this policy front -- couldn't solve over eight years."

I haven't read his book, but ...

Was he asking them to "solve the problem" or was he asking them to FOCUS on the problem? Apparently,the focus was more towards state actors - like Iraq.

John - Are you David Thomas by another name? You have the same charming manners and keen yet dispassionate analysis.

From what you've said, it is clear that the reason Clarke has little credibility with you is because all you know about what he says is the filtered version put out by Rush & Co. Have you listened to Clarke himself at all? Or perhaps to Bob Graham? Or to Wesley Clark? Or to anyone who worked with him in the Reagan/Bush I Administrations?

Yes, Ceil, he has been granting interviews.

For example, let's take an article from the New Yorker, dated 2003...

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact

Richard Clarke, the country’s first counter-terrorism czar, told me in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia, that he wasn’t particularly surprised that the Bush Administration’s efforts to find bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He had seen such efforts fail before

"Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."

But now, it's all President Bush's fault.
Guess that angle generates more coverage at CBS, huh?

Great catch Bit. Wonder whats changed his tune? (Cha-ching?)

Bravo, Daniel.

Independent-minded conservatives know that Clarke is no liberal peacenik.

I may be missing something here. As head of 'counter terrorist' intelligence at NSC wasn't it his job to prevent such attacks as 9/11? Given that spectacular failure in counter terrorism, Clarke should have no credibility. Will anyone say CYA?

Ciel
I guess I'm another ignorant, arrogant idiot because everything you said rang true and seems to pretty well mesh with the reality of this universe.

Agreed. Bravo, Bravo!

It's refreshing to see a sober independent minded take on this, in stark contrast to the hyperventilating I've seen just about everywhere else.

Clark sounds a lot different when not pushing a book for sale. Just like O'Neil, he's nothing but a clown wrapped in fraudulent intent.

Consider an interview with Clarke from PBS's Frontline: Clarke initially defends President Clinton, but the interviewer from Frontline with obvious knowledge of the chronology following the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, presses him:

FRONTLINE: Some also say that due to the Lewinsky scandal, more action perhaps was never undertaken. In your eyes?

CLARKE: The interagency group on which I sat and John O'Neill sat--we never asked for a particular action to be authorized and were refused. We were never refused. Any time we took a proposal to higher authority, with one or two exceptions, it was approved . . .

FRONTLINE: But didn't you push for military action after the [al Qaeda bombing of the USS] Cole?

CLARKE: Yes, that's one of the exceptions..

FRONTLINE: How important is that exception?

CLARKE: I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.

FRONTLINE: Without intelligence operatives on the ground in these organizations, how in the end does one stop something like this? If you look back on it now and you had one wish, you could have had one thing done, what would it have been?

CLARKE: Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. They would have been a hell of a lot less capable of recruiting people. Their whole "Come to Afghanistan where you'll be safe and you'll be trained"--well, that wouldn't have worked if every time they got a camp together, it was blown up by the United States. That's the one thing that we recommended that didn't happen--the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.

FRONTLINE: So that's a pretty basic mistake that we made?

CLARKE: Well, I'm not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues. None of these decisions took place in isolation. There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals.

The "conveyor belt" was, of course, never destroyed. But that fact seems not to matter to Clarke, who nonetheless suggests that the Bush administration bears most of the responsibility for September 11. Eight months in Office versus 8 YEARS

Bithead wrote:
But now, it's all President Bush's fault.

To characterize Clarke's criticism that way, and to imply that what he said to the New Yorker is inconsistent with what he said to CBS merely indicates that you didn't see his interview or bother to read the transcript.

Does your understanding go any deeper than "he dissed the prez, man"?

Well, let's see.
I did see the program, I did get the transcript. So, there goes that.,....

John Podhoretz says this about Richard Clarke:

“RICHARD Clarke is the greatest man who has ever strode this planet's surface. I know this because I have just read his book, "Against All Enemies."

Some might suggest that the book is a distorted, false, sour-grapes account from a demoted government official who wants to settle scores and destroy the Bush administration in which he served as a holdover staffer from the Clinton years.

But that's because they simply don't comprehend the power and the glory that is Dick Clarke.”

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21563.htm

“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.”

Dan Drezner is forgetting that some of us also were utterly convinced that Saddam Hussein would discreetly fund terrorists operations against the West. He was on a mission to cause us enormous harm. That alone was enough of a reason to invade Iraq. There is no way to win the war on terrorism if Saddam is still in power.

1) The best source for the viewpoint and attitude of the Bush White House prior to Sept 11 is Senator Richard Shelby, Republican Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Not only did he have full clearance to US intelligence, he had a close political relationship with the White House.

2) On June 26,2001, the Washington Post's "Back Channels" column --devoted to coverage of the Intelligence Community --
reported that the US military was on the highest state of alert throughout the Middle East due to alarm about Al Qaeda. The column then quoted a confident Senator Richard C Shelby as saying re Bin Laden:
----------------
"He's on the run, and I think he will continue to be on the run, because we are not going to let up," Shelby said. "I don't think you could say he's got us hunkered down. I believe he's more hunkered down," Shelby said. "He's moved and tried to be one step ahead of our intelligence on where he might be. He knows he's hunted, and he's not exactly strolling down the streets of London or Paris or Berlin, shopping."
----------
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A45532-2001Jun25¬Found=true

3) It's also worth noting that Senator Shelby and the Republican Congresses of 1994-2001 cut the personnel of the Intelligence Community by 25% in the 1990s (Citation available on request) --in response to Ross Perot's challange over balancing the budget.

“The fact that both Rice and Cheney have addressed this head-on demonstrates, in Kevin Drum's language, that "the White House is sure acting like they have the potential to do some serious damage."”

And this proves what? Richard Clarke indeed does “have the potential to do some serious damage.” We live in an unfair world and the Bush administration would be foolish not to realize that the liberal establishment will do just about anything to destroy it. There is one thing that is not debatable: Clarke is going to make a lot of money! Please tell me how this might have occurred if he did not blast the President?

"It's also worth noting that Senator Shelby and the Republican Congresses of 1994-2001 cut the personnel of the Intelligence Community by 25% in the 1990s "

Funny how its Bill Clinton's budget when the deficit is being eliminated, but its the Republic Congresses budget when terrorism isnt getting funded. Who's signatures would be on the 93-01 budgets btw?

David Thompson,

Take a deep breath, put down the New York Post, turn off Rush Limbaugh, and think for a second. Clarke has acknowledged that more could have been done by himself and the Clinton administration. The main story here is not that "Bush alone is at fault for 9/11"--that kind of rhetoric (the alternate is, "U-uh, it's all Clinton's fault") is appropriate for far-left loonies and hack partisans on the right.

The most important point here is that the terrorist attacks were used as an excuse to launch a foreign policy plan (to depose Hussein) that was already in the works, and that the American people were mislead and manipulated into it through various storylines which--now pay attention here--have *all* proven to be false (WMDs, links with al Qaeda, etc.). More importantly, and this is where Clarke has serious objections, resources have been diverted to this enterprise that could have been used in the "War on Terror," and that has had an adverse effect on our ability to wage it.

You say: "Dan Drezner is forgetting that some of us also were utterly convinced that Saddam Hussein would discreetly fund terrorists operations against the West. He was on a mission to cause us enormous harm. That alone was enough of a reason to invade Iraq. There is no way to win the war on terrorism if Saddam is still in power. "

I think most Americans would disagree that this would have been enough reason to invade Iraq, otherwise the administration wouldn't have put forward such a well-planned campaign of propaganda and misiniformation to dupe people into thinking that the threat was much more present and real than it was. I won't say "is" because I'm inclined to agree with another poster that we've probably (as many people warned before we started this mess) created more terrorists when we occupied Iraq--certainly the 660 people who have died of suicide bombings there (an unprecedented phenomenon in that country) would have a different perspective.

We're batting .455 – 22 posts and 10 ad homonym attacks on Mr. Clarke.

Do you guys really think that everything he says is driven by a political calculus to "get revenge" or to sell a book? How does that make sense in light of his past service to administrations of both parties? Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with you or the administration does so out of bad or selfish motives?

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, the list of untrustworthy hacks who worked for the president seems to get longer and longer. Looks like the person who chose these people to work for the president should be FIRED.

Maybe in November?

Bithead - re you list if AQ attacks in the 90's. Doesn't look like Rumsfeld was too concerned about them based on his assertion today that it would have been a mistake to go after Bin Laden before 9/11.

This following view of the world must not be ignored. It reminds us why a liberal democrat in the White House is a danger to our country:

“...we've probably (as many people warned before we started this mess) created more terrorists when we occupied Iraq”

The terrorists are not reacting to our legitimate use of force. No, on the contrary---appeasement policies, the reluctance to combat terrorism, is what really encourages them to perform further acts of violence. A John Kerry presidency, deep in its guts, would be fearful that military force will usually backfire. This is the Viet Nam syndrome and the Massachusetts senator cannot get away from his anti-war roots.

I don't really know what drives Clarke. I suppose, like most of us, a number of things. But I will repeat what I said on my own blog (which I suppose is Steve Hayes' point and is ridiculously obvious anyway). Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans distinguished themselves on the anti-terrorism until 9/11. End of story. In this case, it's Occam's Razor. The rest is politics.

“We're batting .455 – 22 posts and 10 ad homonym attacks on Mr. Clarke.”

Everyone is forced to deal with Richard Clarke’s credibility. None of us were there during these alleged discussions. The point I made concerning the marketing aspects of the book are most accurate. Clarke makes lots of money only if he attacks President Bush. Does anybody disagree? Where am I wrong?

curious: "The most important point here is that the terrorist attacks were used as an excuse to launch a foreign policy plan (to depose Hussein) that was already in the works"

Why do you think this plan was already in the works prior to 9/11? I think the administration’s rhetoric and actions prior to 9/11 showed the opposite. They came into office looking to reduce American commitments abroad, not new places to invade.

The administration spent the spring of 2001 trying to get Smart Sanctions through the UN Security Council. The pre-existing sanctions were becoming ineffective as they being ignored by countries like France and Russia (see the Oil for Food Scandal) yet were imposing a heavy diplomatic cost of the US as we were continually being blamed for the suffering of Iraqi civilians. The new Smart Sanctions, which would be targeted on the regime and the military, were supposed to reduce this cost to the US by reducing civilian suffering and be more enforceable by reducing the volume of smuggled goods. This was all intended, over the long run, to make the containment of Saddam both more effective and less costly to the US.

The administration put a lot of effort into this plan, which pretty much shows that prior to 9/11 they were looking for a long-term plan to live with Saddam and not an excuse to attack him.

curious,

I wasn't mislead into anything. Just because you conveniently leave off the many other reasons for going into Iraq, including 17 broken UN resolutions (where regime change was to be the remedy,) doesn't mean they're going away.

Just ask the 25 million freed Iraqis. Oh right, someone did.

I think the policy-split point is sound--but remember, the
invasion of Iraq was not presented to the American people as
something to be done as part of this policy, but as a preventive
action against the threat from Iraq--including the strong implication (at a minimum) of a tie between Hussein and AQ.
I may disgree about policy, but dishonesty to the American people, followed by incompetence in planning for the postwar
period, is the real reason to vote this administration out.

"Why do you think this plan was already in the works prior to 9/11? I think the administration’s rhetoric and actions prior to 9/11 showed the opposite. They came into office looking to reduce American commitments abroad, not new places to invade. --Kevin

The fact is that an invasion was not politically possible before 9/11, no matter how much they wanted to go in. Even after 9/11, they had to wage a huge propaganda campaign to get the country behind them.

The PNAC report, the 'defending the realm' paper, Rumsfeld saying that we should "sweep it all up... things related and not" 5 hours after the attacks, Bob Woodward's book, and Richard Clarke's book -- all make me think that Iraq was a pre-existing agenda that had little to do with 9/11. Broken UN Resolutions and happy Iraqis aren't worth the cost of diverting us from Al-Qaeda.

Roger Simon's right -- both administrations screwed up badly. But for the Republicans to admit they're as incompetent as Democrats on national security takes away their one advantage.

Consider what Clarke's 1986 proposal to rattle Qadaffi with sonic booms says about his expertise in national security matters. Bureaucratic infighting is one skill. National security expertise is another.

I see a correlation between this 1986 advice and Clarke's later computer network sabotage fixation. He does not seem to have gotten past his early yo-yo tendencies.

And, for the record, I doubt much could have been done to avert 9/11. It wasn't just the Clinton administration. Here is an example of why a "defense only" policy could not have worked. I found this quote from pages 16-17 of Gerald Posner's Why America Slept on the Free Republic, and provide the URL:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103916/posts

"Senior CIA officers complained to the president's national security team about their frustration with the FBI and warned that America was vulnerable to Islamic terrorists entering on legal visas and setting up sleeper cells. Reagan responded in September 1986 by forming an interagency task force, the Alien Border Control Committee (ABCC), whose purpose was to block entry of suspected terrorists and to deport militants who either had come into the country illegally or had overstayed their visas (emphasis mine). The CIA and FBI joined the ABCC effort.

Six months after its formation, the ABCC had its first notable success. The CIA tipped off the FBI to a group of suspected Palestinian terrorists in Los Angeles. The Bureau arrested eight men. But instead of being lauded, the Bureau and the Agency came under harsh attack from civil liberties groups who argued that the ABCC should be banned from using any information the CIA gained from the government's routine processing of visa requests. Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups."

An offensive strategy against Al Qaeda was, in my 20-20 hindsight, almost impossible once it had a secure sanctuary in Afghanistan via its control of the Taliban. I read a report today that the Bush administration had decided just prior to 9/11 to use Masood's Northern Alliance as a vehicle to remove the Taliban from power, and give it lots of aid.

That would have run head on into Pakistan's shadow government aka its Inter-Service Intelligence agency, which was using its alliance with the Taliban as a means of controlling Afghanistan to a significant degree.

Note that we let Pakistan evacuate several thousand of its personnel from Taliban-controlled airfields in northern Afghanistan when the Northern Alliance's post-9/11 offensive against the Taliban got rolling. Those Pakistanis were fighting the Northern Alliance on behalf of the Taliban and Al Qaeda just prior to 9/11 and had been doing so for at least a year.

And this does not include implications of evidence that elements of the ISI were not merely allied with Al Qaeda, but directly supported the 9/11 hijackers.

The problems posed by Pakistani support of the Taliban, let alone Al Qaeda, was a major, major factor in the reluctance of the Clinton Administration in attempting to do anything effective offensively against Al Qaeda.

Hindsight shows there was no ****ing way that we could have taken out the Taliban quickly without flipping Pakistan, and it might not have been possible at all.

It looks to me like we had to take the hit first before we had the credibility to threaten Pakistan's existence, and only that threat (you might not remember it but I do) got Musharraf to change sides.

This New Yorker quote from Bithead's comment above corraborates my opinion (my emphasis):

"Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."

OTOH, there was much the Clinton administration could have done, but didn't, to nail Bin Laden and cripple Al Qaeda before they obtained their sanctuary in Afghanistan. That is where I have suspicions about Clarke.

David Thompson writes: "Clarke makes lots of money only if he attacks President Bush. Does anybody disagree? Where am I wrong?"

Do you honestly think a book-length prose blowjob of Bush would not have sold?

Sean Hannity hasn't become a rich man by bashing Bush...

David

Ad homanym attacks don't prove truth or falsity. They are a favorite in a litigator's bag of tricks when he dosn't have fact witnesses able to testify to contrary facts. The Bush folks are making lots of noise, but not proving contrary facts. They seem to be becoming experts at nondenial denials.

All sorts of people write books - that doesn't make them liars.

TomH

What suspicions? Curious.

Roger L. Simon writes: "Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans distinguished themselves on the anti-terrorism until 9/11."

Yes, but Bush is the one now in office, not Clinton. So if he screwed up, he ought to be held accountable. Just because Clinton "got away with it" because he was a lame duck is no reason to give Bush a free pass.

First, Dan - fabulous comments.

Second, DT - what is with you?

You wrote
"The terrorists are not reacting to our legitimate use of force. No, on the contrary---appeasement policies, the reluctance to combat terrorism, is what really encourages them to perform further acts of violence. A John Kerry presidency, deep in its guts, would be fearful that military force will usually backfire. This is the Viet Nam syndrome and the Massachusetts senator cannot get away from his anti-war roots.

What are you talking about? The one country in the world that faces nearly daily terrorist attacks is Israel. They've always advocated "eye for an eye" policies. You may disagree, but I rather think that that policy occasionally cause more violences. We can see in the next few weeks if I'm right.

Second, why are you (and so many other people on the board) convinced a Kerry administration would be an American version of Neville Chamberlin? Look at the man's 20 year voting record. When hasn't he supported military or intelligent increases to our defense budget? I could care less about his war record - look at his political one. He's been backing the miltiary consistently. What's your evidence (i.e. verifiable facts) that he is going to be worse then Bush?

Third, why does demeaning Kerry defend the Bush Administration? Regardless of Clarke's intent (and if you like, assume it's malicious) what matters is the facts.

1. Did the Bush Administration ignore a credible terrorist threat before 9/11/2001? Clarke's consistent story is that they did. The fact he is independently backed by other people involved in counter-terrorism supports his statement.

2. Has the Bush Adminsitration used the war on terror to force a confrontation and occupation of Iraq? Clarke says that Wolfowitz wanted to go to war with Iraq prior to 9/11/2001. He further states that Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz planned to attack Iraq before Afghanistan. He says he was fired for not being on message. What's his supporting arguement? Well, we could look at the Iraqi war plans drawn up in April 2002. We might look at Wolfowitz's consistent push for Iraqi invasion.

3. Did the Bush Administration knowingly lie to Congress, the American people, and the World by claiming Iraq caused 9/11, Saddam Hussein funded Osama Bin Laden, and the existence of a clear and present danger to the United States from Iraq? Given that Clarke, every anti-terrorism expert on the planet, and AlQueda say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, I think we can say any statements by Administration officals (like Rice and Rumsfeld) promulgating the idea that Iraq funded/caused 9/11 is a lie. If we look at Hussein's pattern of terorist support, we can see that he always funded (a) very visbly, and (b) almost entirely on anti-Israeli terrorists. Furthermore the US governement paid Osama Bin Laden money to attack Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. last and not least, Hussein was a socialist and atheist whom Bin Landen hated; Bin Laden has not supported any regime that hasn't espoused fundamentalist Sunni Islam. So claiming that funding occured is very likely a lie. Last and not least, on this board, no one has managed to defend the hypothesis that Iraq presented a clear and present danager to the US.

4. Did the Bush Administration realize that attacking Iraq would not benefit the war on terror? Clarke says yes. I think the current strength of Islamists in Afghanistan support his arguement. If Clarke is wrong, then the Bush Administration simply miscalculated. If Clarke is right, then the Bush Administration knowing endangered the security of the United States.

The core of your comments on every single comment section of the website is that the Bush Administration is our only defense against the terrorists and liberals who will destroy America. If Clarke's statements are correct, heck if only his statements about 9/12 are true, then the Bush Adminstration might be the biggest set of traitors this country has seen.

And if Clarke is telling half-truths, then the Administation should be taking Dan's line that they did good on somethings, and fouled up others. Since they're not - since they're making attacks just like yours - I'm led to believe Clarke might be telling the truth, and the Bush Administration is afraid of the consequences.

Carolina

Tom Holsinger writes: "OTOH, there was much the Clinton administration could have done, but didn't, to nail Bin Laden and cripple Al Qaeda before they obtained their sanctuary in Afghanistan. "

At that time, the extent of the threat wasn't clear, was it? And legal justification might have been tricky prior to the embassy bombings.

Roger is right that there is blame to go all around. But now that there is an election, the Bush Administration is unwilling to accept any blame, and certainly none that reflects on specific individuals.

David Brooks says that the Bushies will never admit to an error, though he argues that they correct their errors in private. He's right about the former. I can't tell about that latter.

“David Thompson writes: "Clarke makes lots of money only if he attacks President Bush. Does anybody disagree? Where am I wrong?"

Do you honestly think a book-length prose blowjob of Bush would not have sold?

Sean Hannity hasn't become a rich man by bashing Bush...”

Sean Hannity is an unabashed conservative. One knows what they are getting when purchasing his book. He already built up a large audience. Richard Clarke, however, is not widely known and claims to present an unbiased and objective look at the war of terrorism. Alas, such a work would find few buyers. I doubt very much that Clarke could even sell 10,000 copies. Only an attack on President Bush puts it on the top ten list. Sixty Minutes apparently gave Richard Clarke two full segments! Come on, does anyone think this would have occurred if Clarke did not strongly criticize the Bush administration?

Props to Carolina! While I might make some of your points a bit differently, your line or argument rings true. The key point in all of this is that that day after 9/11 when Bush's crew sat down to figure out the next move, Rummy said Iraq! Incredible. It's like being punched in the face by Lennox Lewis and saying "let's bomb Madonna."

“The one country in the world that faces nearly daily terrorist attacks is Israel. They've always advocated "eye for an eye" policies. You may disagree, but I rather think that that policy occasionally cause more violences.”

Your example of Israel actually weakens your argument. This country is paying the price for listening to the “voices of Oslo.” Do you want to know what is one of the worst things that ever happened to Israel? That is a real easy question to answer? The Nobel Prize to the childishly immature Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and the blood thirsty Yasser Arafat. Israel has more to worry from its goofy political left than perhaps even the terrorists. These idiots encouraged the Israelis to put down their guard.

TexasToast & JonH,

Expertise = judgment as well as knowledge and experience. I don't dispute Clarke's possession of the latter elements, but his judgment is very much in question.

His several known whoppers make me suspicious that there are ones we don't know about yet. He seems to have been the Clinton administration's main man on terror right when "the extent of the threat wasn't clear". Maybe it was clear but Clarke whiffed.

OTOH, JonH is quite correct about the absence of sufficient legal justification prior to the embassy bombings, i.e., just when Al Qaeda was getting out of reach in Afghanistan.

And note that I differentiated between bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Even had the Clinton Administration been able to nail bin Laden, Al Qaeda would have kept going. Crippling the latter was problematic at the time given its ISI support.

dca,

"I think the policy-split point is sound--but remember, the
invasion of Iraq was not presented to the American people as
something to be done as part of this policy, but as a preventive
action against the threat from Iraq--including the strong implication (at a minimum) of a tie between Hussein and AQ."

If you're willing to grant that invading Iraq was a strategic move remake the ME, how can you blame him for hiding the real motive when revealing the strategy would have doomed it?

If you don't think presidents should be able to make strategic decisions in secret & without revealing all his cards, just say so, so that we'll be clear next time a president you support bombs some country without first holding a referrendum that you're a hypocrite.

David Thompson writes: "Sean Hannity is an unabashed conservative. One knows what they are getting when purchasing his book. He already built up a large audience. Richard Clarke, however, is not widely known and claims to present an unbiased and objective look at the war of terrorism. Alas, such a work would find few buyers. I doubt very much that Clarke could even sell 10,000 copies. Only an attack on President Bush puts it on the top ten list. Sixty Minutes apparently gave Richard Clarke two full segments! Come on, does anyone think this would have occurred if Clarke did not strongly criticize the Bush administration? "

Bob Woodward's book, "Bush At War", which was quite favorable to Bush, was covered on 60 Minutes, and spent 14 weeks on the New York Times best seller list.

Sorry, but bashing Bush is not the only way to get a hit book or a spot on 60 minutes.

I thought that Condi Rice's comments about Sept 11 already being in motion when Bush took office were an interesting piece of misdirection.

News reports re Al Qaeda interrogations indicate that the execute command was not issued until July 2001. Making plans to gain the Sept 11 attack capability was one thing --- deciding to actually attack the USA was something else. It would have made sense for Bin Ladin to wait and see how the Bush administration would treat the Islamic world.

1) Bush still has not given the American people a satisfactory explanation for why Sept 11 occurred. His one answer --"they hate our freedom " -- is obvious bullshit. No one attacks the world's most powerful nuclear armed superpower without a strong reason.

2) The American people might have learned the answers from Bin Ladin. But when the US news reported the first Bin Ladin broadcast, Condi Rice went to the CEOs of US TV networks and twisted their arms to halt further Bin Ladin broadcasts.

Her excuse --that Bin Ladin might be sending secret signals in his broadcast --was obvious bullshit to anyone slightly acquainted with spy tradecraft. Since World War II, resistance movements and governments around the world have had the ability to send encrypted messages which cannot be broken --not even by the US National Security Agency. The one time pad encryption is provably unbreakable and easy to use. Since World War II up to today, one can tune into the shortwave band any night and hear strings of random numbers --one time pad encryptions --being broadcast worldwide. Al Qaeda spies in the US might have trouble communicating back to Asia without detection -- although they can go into any library and use public terminals to set up untraceable Hotmail accounts. But Bin Ladin certainly has no trouble sending messages to Al Qaeda --in unbreakable encryption --from protected locations like from Peshwar, Syria, Iran, etc. A shortwave transmitter is about the size of a briefcase, can run off of a car battery, and hence is as mobile as an automobile. Rice's suggestion that Bin Ladin would have depended upon a TV broadcast subject to noise and edited by ABC --when far better means for communication were available --is ludicrous. So why did she mislead us?

3) The answer appeared in an English translation of a Pakistani newspaper --DAWN -- in November 2001. See http://dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm . In an interview ,
Bin Ladin explained:
---------------
" HM: In your statement of Oct 7, you expressed satisfaction over the Sept 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings ?

OBL: This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child's father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt.

America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechenya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal. The Islamic Shariat says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long. The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power.

The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was against killing women and children. When he saw a dead woman during a war, he asked why was she killed ? If a child is above 13 and wields a weapon against Muslims, then it is permitted to kill him.

The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress. "

-------------------
4) If you check business journals, you will see the arms sales to Israel to which Bin Ladin was referring. In June 2001, Bush sold Sharon 52 F16s. For the June 20 , 2001 announcement of the F16 sale, go to here :
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ , click on "Archives", select June 2001 from the list, and then search the resulting page for "Israel" or simply page down to the June 20 entries. )

5) The final approval on the sale was announced a few days before the Sept 11 attack. One reason why our intelligence received no warning of the attack was the seething anger in the Arab world over the F16 sale. See http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s300179.htm and
An excerpt from http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/news/2001/sep_01/deal_israel.htm
dated September 8,2001:
" The timing the US chose to announce its decision to give Israel the dangerous F-16 jets is really strange. It seems as though the US is telling Israel "Go ahead Sharon! Carry on with the assassination of Palestinian children and the destruction of the houses of peaceful civilians! Proceed with the destruction of the Palestinian defenseless people's infrastructure and with desecrating Islamic sanctities in the holy land!"

The fact this information has been hidden from the American people-- that it has never appeared in the US news media -- shows the lengths to which Likud's supporters will go to mislead Americans.

6) Bush's sale of the F16s occurred at a time when Sharon was being criticized around the world for attacking the Palestinians with the F16s. Even the US State Department protested Sharon's actions until the Bush White House ordered it to stop.
See http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw060601.html#State ,
http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw061301.html#Rep,

The most casual Internet search will also show that Bin Ladin gave a series of interviews to US TV networks in 1998 and that he repeatedly cited US support of Israel's attacks on the Palestinians as one of three main reasons for an Islamic Jihad against the US. See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

7) The arms sales was not necessary for Israel's security nor was it in the US national interest. It occurred for two reasons:
(a) Defense Contractor Lockheed Martin received $2.3 billion for the F16s. Lockheed had donated roughly $2 million --most of it to the Republicans. Plus Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney, had been on Lockheed's Board of Directors since 1994 until the Jan 2001 inaugural. Plus, (b) Of the five largest campaign donors in the US, two are Israelis --Haim Saban and Davidi Gilo. Haim Saban alone donated roughly $12 million in the 2002 election cycle. Bush knows that the major financiers of the Democratic Party are strong supporters of Israeli --that if he can court their support , he not only can strength his position but also cripple the Democrats. See
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/pro-israel.pro-arab/index.asp , http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/30/Columns/Jewish_voters_noticin.shtml

8) Iraq was not a credible threat to the continental United States. Hussein was, however, seen as a threat by Sharon.
After Haim Saban's endowed program at the Brookings Institute --founded to "advise" US officials on Middle Eastern policy -- indicated that taking out Hussein would be a good idea, Bush invaded Iraq. If Bush's pandering -- and the right wings fevered ranting to support it -- seems irrational, then realize that the country is evenly divided and any advantage that can be gained by Bush will be eagerly seized. Personally, I can't understand how Bush can hold Todd Beamer's sobbing widow and then continue with such games --but politics takes a strong stomach.

9) Plus there are other players. Lockheed's arms sales to the Middle East has already been mentiond. Plus Big Oil's fingerprints are all over Bush's foreign policy.

I would note that (a) Dick Cheney was on Kazakhstan's oil advisory board during his tenure at Halliburton in the 1990s and was heavily involved in Houston's attempts to gain access to the huge oil deposits discovered in the Caspian Sea . See, e.g., http://businessjournal.net/stories/061398/ABJ_pays.html , http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntc33236.htm, http://www.kazakhembus.com/Cheney_aims.html ,

The Bush diatribes against Hussein are hilarious when you look at the oil dictatorships he is cozing up to in Central Asia.

Currently, the Bush administration is using the "War on Terror" as a front for building several military bases in Central Asia (see http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/11/feature2.shtml )
Those bases , paid for by the US taxpayer, will allow Bush and Dick Cheney to protect Houston's billion dollar investments in the Caspian Sea oil deposits.

Note there is another important benefit to Israel from Bush's invasion of Iraq -- access to the water of the Euphrates River. See
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/percept/i2/i2-6.htm
and http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad5556645bc.htm . Hussein would have made a forceful push for Iraq's riparian rights.

“Bob Woodward's book, "Bush At War", which was quite favorable to Bush, was covered on 60 Minutes, and spent 14 weeks on the New York Times best seller list.

Sorry, but bashing Bush is not the only way to get a hit book or a spot on 60 minutes.”

Bob Wooward is a very famous journalist. A publisher can take it for granted that they will likely earn money on his books. This is definitely not the case with an unknown entity like Richard Clarke. The latter gentleman, from a marketing perspective, had to attract some attention.

David Thompson writes: Bob Wooward is a very famous journalist. A publisher can take it for granted that they will likely earn money on his books. This is definitely not the case with an unknown entity like Richard Clarke. The latter gentleman, from a marketing perspective, had to attract some attention."

Had Clarke written a book that was favorable to Bush, or neutral, he probably would have gotten a lot of play anyway, especially on the conservative media. They'd be all over an inside look into the pre-9/11 anti-terror efforts.

Rather, had the Bush administration performed in a way that merited a favorable or neutral treatment. It's pretty clear that Clarke's just reporting how it went. Someone who stays in the NSC from Reagan to Bush 2 isn't going to be the sort of person who says things in public that can easily be refuted.

Is there any source, any person, any piece of information that could persuade the defenders of the Bush administration that he bears the slightest responsibility for 9/11 or has mismanaged the war on terrorism since the focus shifted to Iraq in the fall of 2002?

That is the question I have to all these people attacking Richard Clarke. Sure there are holes you could punch in his story. But really who the hell cares if Clinton could have done more to fight Al Qaeda? When he did attack Al Qaeda all he faced was opposition from the GOP.

Imagine what the outrage would be from the defenders of Bush would be if Clinton had taken every action Bush has and then these allegations came out. They would have him impeached in seconds and calls for his head on a platter would be deafening.

The defenders of Bush show no inclination to engage with the pluses and minues of the entire battle against terror, from January 2001 through today. As far as they are concerned everything is either Clinton's fault or the BEST possible thing that could have been done. When faced with a crisis our nation needs a leader who is more interested in defeating our enemies and learning from mistakes than working every angle of the war against terror for political advantage.

I am voting for John Kerry for a wide variety of reasons, but high on that list is that I believe he will make our nation and the world safer than George Bush.

Carolina,

You reminded me of a former client when you said,

"1. Did the Bush Administration ignore a credible terrorist threat before 9/11/2001? Clarke's consistent story is that they did. The fact he is independently backed by other people involved in counter-terrorism supports his statement"

given Daniel Drezner's statement in the opening text:

"It's worth remembering that every new administration needs about six months to work out the foreign policy kinks -- flash back to the Clinton team's firxt six months if you think this is a recent problem. To claim that they were slow to move on Al Qaeda misses the point -- unless it was a campaign issue, every new administration is slow to move on every policy dimension."

That was the only time I've ever been sued for malpractice. My insurance defense counsel told me I was doomed when I agreed to represent the guy - I was the 7th attorney he had consulted. All of the others had turned him down due to well-tuned instincts about trouble which I lacked that early in my career.

One of the charges against me was that I hadn't closed escrow fast enough on the business sale. Plaintiff's counsel dropped that when he learned how fast I had moved. Of course he wasn't working on a contingency - my former client had paid him a $40,000 retainer.

It was fun, though, watching him get into arguments with plaintiff at depositions, especially when he told my erstwhile (and his new) client that I had correctly advised him of the law.

When we agreed to binding arbitration, I offered to use plaintiff's expert witness as the arbitrator. Plaintiff's counsel didn't like that. Then, when he, my attorney and I were fishing in our pockets for change to operate the courthouse hallway copier for the arbitration agreement, plaintiff's counsel suddenly looked up and said:

"Not here. My client is watching."

DT,

I didn't say I agreed with Oslo (if you ask me it was a disaster). I just said that sometimes an eye for an eye doesn't work because it causes more harm then good. I just heard on the radio that Hamas decided to pull out all the stops- proving my my point about reacting to force, rather than reacting to appeasement. My guess is that more Palestinians (who did not take up arms against Israel before) will join Hamas. We can decide in a week or so, if I was right.

And I worry more about Hamas then I do about the Israeli left. Mainly 'cause Israeli left will just talk at me but Hamas would kill me. You live in a strange world if words are more deadly then bullets.

Last and not least, the Israelis would take offense at your suggesting they "put down their guard" due to Oslo. Last time I checked, the only time Israel let anyone walk all over them was the 1991 Gulf War.

All of which, by the way, has nothing to do with my post's main point: the Bush Administration's and their supporters refuse to answer honestly and clearly any questions about the fallibility of Administration policies.

So, rather than writing a misleading response to my post, why don't you address my argument?

I'm starting to see a pattern here....
Carolina

Is there any source, any person, any piece of information that could persuade the defenders of the Bush administration that he bears the slightest responsibility for 9/11 or has mismanaged the war on terrorism since the focus shifted to Iraq in the fall of 2002?

Of course! It's just not been produced yet.

When he did attack Al Qaeda all he faced was opposition from the GOP.

Oh, come on. The very morning he's suppsoed to testify he decides to boimb an asprin factory and claim it's AQ?

Bush and his administration are incompetent. They have a strong tendency to try to do the wrong things, and they also screw up things that they do try to do so that even stuff that might have been the right thing to do turns out wrong. This should be pretty clear to anyone who pays attention to their actions, regardless of politics. It is blindingly obvious by now. A lot of the stuff Clarke is saying just gives more creedence to that.

Clinton screwed up on terror. But by the end of his administration his people understood that and went out of their way to give the incoming Bushies a big loud warning of what was happening. But the Bushies ignored it to focus on their top defense priority..."Star Wars" missile defense! There's blame to go around, but this is just one example among many of Bush's incompetence.

Also: David Thomson says on Oslo: "Israel has more to worry from its goofy political left than perhaps even the terrorists. These idiots encouraged the Israelis to put down their guard.

Have you noticed that many more Israeli civilians have died under Sharon than under the previous two administrations? More Israeli civilians are dying every year now than died over the whole Oslo period.

The reason's rather simple; Give the lion some food and he won't eat you... for a while.

I wonder if Clinton might have taken care of Bin Ladin if Clinton had not been distracted for several years by a vengeful Republican campaign based on whether Clinton had been unfaithful to Hillary. Only the second impeachment in 210 years of US history.

Maybe the Rehnquist Court would like to rethink it's decision on whether a Commander-in-Chief and defender of the nation should be distracted by lawsuits funded by political enemies like Richard Mellon Scaife?

Plus let's not forget the $70 million multi-year Ken Starr Whitewater investigation --which found Clinton guilty of what exactly?

Tom

Hmmm

I thought Clarke's point was not the speed, but the emphisis and the direction. Iraq instaed of AQ.

As to whoppers, I'd bet that the Bush folks have fact checkers pouring over that book. If they find one, we'll read about it in 24 point type.

Tom,

Like Dan, I understand that setting up a foreign policy team takes time. Bush was not savy on Foriegn Policy, but he bought in a Cabinet of people who should have told him what were our Foriegn Policy concerns. Likewise, his NSA should have told him where the threats to American security lay. Clarke says there was a consistent downgrading of terrorism as a threat to national security by the US government in the first 7 months of the Bush Adminstration. Is that Bush's fault? Maybe not, but it certainly is Condolezza Rice's. It was her job to detemine those threats and advise the president on them.

Unlike your client, I realize that professionals don't always get it right. Maybe Connie missed the boat because her bugaboo was the PRC and Russia. But I would expect my lawyer, and my President to look after my interests. You looked after your client's interest, even when he wasn't being rational.

The President of the United States has a responsibility to protect us to the best of his ability. Clarke's, William Slaten's, Fred Kaplan's, and George Tenet's comments about the Bush Administration suggest they aren't looking after our primary interest.

I'm not angry with the Bush administration's inabilty to predict 9/11 to the hour and the day. What infuriates me is how they responded to it.

Carolina

After reading numerous left/liberal leaning blogs' takes on this whole Clark affair, it was good to get the other side's perspective from Dan, and the posted comments. As some of the comments have already reasonably pointed out, pre-9/11 nobody was doing a particularly phenomenal job on dealing with Al Qaeda. Dan makes the good point that "every new administration needs about six months to work out the foreign policy kinks." Along those lines one would conclude that the first 6-8 months of a new administration should be a time of intense focus and activity to get the administration up and running. So why is it that between his inauguration and September 3, 2001, 42% of Bush's time was spent at vacation spots or enroute, including, in August, the longest presidential vacation in 32 years?

Some of the posted comments also are making much of Clark's 'whoppers' in his years before the current Bush presidency. George W. has been touted as a great manager, but only an idiot would hire someone who already has a track record proving his incompetence. I'm confused. Is George W. an idiot?

On the substance, as they say in government, I listen with a sense of resigned discouragement to Bush and Clinton administration officials -- who pursued essentially identical policies toward al Qaeda prior to 9/11 -- all making similar statements about how they did everything they could and 9/11 was not in any way their fault. Despite the Clintonites disdain for the Bushies and the Bushies loathing of the Clintonites these are basically the same kind of people.

So let's do what they would do and forget about the substance for a minute. Let's talk about the politics! Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Bush administration seems completely surprised by Clarke's criticism? Surprise is the best explanation I can think of for the breakdown in message discipline that has administration spokespeople from the Vice President on down issuing statements that contradict each other in the process of trying to contradict Clarke. This can't bode well for the campaign -- you want to have Presidential surrogates fire back quickly at critics, but they have to be on the same page of the old songbook.

What if this happens again? Clarke won't be the last source of unexpected criticism of this President. The 9/11 commission has yet to issue its final report, and the commission on prewar Iraq intelligence hasn't even met yet. Suppose Henry Kissinger gives a speech somewhere alleging similarities between Don Rumsfeld's mucking around in foreign policy now and his doing the same thing during Ford's administration almost 30 years ago. Ford was crippled politically then, and Bush now is....

The point is that a campaign can't keep going into panic mode and expect to retain voter confidence in its candidate. Bush's people had to know Clarke was writing a book -- what did they think he was going to talk about, the food in the White House mess? Yet faced with his criticism they just explode in several different directions. As opposed, say, to praising Clarke's service and holding off for a couple of days to coordinate their response to his specific charges.

You have to wonder: George Bush's administration has been just as focused on campaign politics as Bill Clinton's was. Clinton, though, was really good at it, whatever his other flaws. Bush doesn't seem to be, and neither do the people he has working for him. I mean, more than three years of focus, of positioning and fundraising and all the rest, and this is how the Bush campaign reacts to the first big bump in its road?

Hi,

Read Dan Darling's blog on this (Winds of Change)http://windsofchange.net/archives/004747.php.

It doesn't really speak directly to Clarke's charges, but it does make some interesting points about Clarke and the Iraq - Al Qaeda connection.

Clarke was part of the Clinton administration fight against Al Qaeda. He was also part of the planning in the 1998 missile strike against the al-Shifa plant in the Sudan.

The indictiment used to justify the missile strike is here:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

Notice that Iraq is mentioned as well: "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq,"

Notice that this is 1998, well before Bush and Gulf War II. This clearly states that the Clinton administration suspected Iraqi / Al Qaeda collaboration. They suspected enough to send cruise missiles to destroy this plant.

Here's another interesting tidbit:

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings. While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

Clarke said the U.S. does not believe that bin Laden has been able to acquire chemical agents, biological toxins or nuclear weapons. If evidence of such an acquisition existed, he said, "we would be in the process of doing something."

(Excerpted from "Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism," Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, A02, January 23, 1999.)

Bithead,

Bush has screwed up bigtime both in terms of defense and offense in the war on terror.

He kept FBI Director Freeh and CIA Director Tenet on after 9/11. The FBI remains in charge of domestic counter-terrorism. He let the FBI pretend that the anthrax attacks were domestic in origin.

Bush let the military effectively ignore Iraqi WMD during the immediate post-conquest phase, so Al Qaeda operatives could drag off whatever stocks remained after Saddam's regime implemented the xSoviet cleanup plan - the truck convoys going to Syria in Jan. - Feb. 2003 (which I called at the time). The few military WMD search teams in operation during the immediate post-conquest period were small in number, hastily organized, lacked expertise and equipment, and had little backup. One of the teams was basically dominated by NY Times reporter Judith Miller, who is very knowledgeable but not a scientist.

TexasToast,

It is unlikely that Clarke would be candid about his mistakes in his book, particularly those he still doesn't understand. Spectacularly bad judgment entails considerable blindness and self-deception.

Carolina,

Bear my comment in mind about instances of really bad judgment effecting credibility.

Damn free speech when it clouds threads with total nonsense.

To Rich: You're onto one thing about fighting terrorism and it doesn't matter what party occupies the Oval Office. What is the fundamental flaw in our Democracy is the quest for power by national Parties who say they have America's interests at heart yet realistically could care less what is good for America so long as it is good for themselves or their party.

Yes, had Clinton revoked the Taliban government's lease on Afghanistan he would have faced attacks like "No war for Monica". It's sick, disgusting and what calls EVERY AMERICAN to stick up for their President when Americans are attacked because they are Americans. President Clinton had every right to destroy Bin Laden in the Sudan and in Afghanistan, but the fact of the matter is, unlike Clarke, Clinton had political matters to consider both domestic and abroad.

As Tom has provided for readers, the case of Pakistan is ultimately the obstructor in removing Al Qaida from Afghanistan. The Taliban was somewhat of a problem for the US as human rights groups, especially the woman's rights ones, weren't especially pleased with the Taliban's abuse of women and the non-muslims. The HR record of the Taliban was very poor, but like the citation "But But North Korea has nukes, why don't we invade them?" we too have the "the Taliban are bad, but there's lots of 'Talibans' in the world" arguments. It's been reported that the Saudis were close to making a deal to extract Bin Laden from Afghanistan in 1998 before the embassy bombings. The Saudis wanted him in Arabia so they could put him in jail for advocating the removal of the House of Saud. It was in the end the Sauids that convinced the Sudan to evict Bin Laden with US pressure.

The Taliban however changed their position on extradicting Bin Laden to Arabia after the Embassy bombings in 98 and the subsequent cruise missle strikes in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar was leaning on ending the Al Qaida relationship until those cruise missle strikes.

In addition to Al Qaida in Afghanistan there was also the real issue of Pakistani opposition to not including them in the loop of every foreign policy decision with Afghanistan. The Taliban were the ISI's only success and Pakistan wanted to keep a proxy state to export their jihad industry that was unwelcome inside Pakistan. The other big problem with Pakistan was the history of relations with the United States and the nuclear tests in 98. Not only did the US have to attempt to go through Pakistan to get to the Taliban, but now it had to consider a Nuclear Pakistan as well. In any case, the Pak Nuke program sort of upped the risk assessment of fucking with Afghanistan without the proper lackeys.

To Carl: "The fact is that an invasion was not politically possible before 9/11, no matter how much they wanted to go in."

Is anyone conceding that the removal of the Taliban government by US troops was possible before 9/11? I think you really miss the point of the role of politics in foreign policy decisions which is exactly the weakness of Richard Clarke.

Clarke was good on the analysis side. Working with FBI Agent John Oneill the two were quite good at communicating with other governments to hunt down those responsible for terrorist attacks. Other men and women with jobs like Clarke's and Oneill's were willing to cooperate from Pakistan, France, Jordan, Yemen, etc. The conflict was at the executive levels of each government. Those that had to bear responsibility for the decisions to remove a government or attack a multinational terrorist group that has welcome refuge from the host government in the mountains of your country where few people even go had many more outcomes to predict and address than terrorist investigators presenting difficult policy recommendations.

To Carolina: Are you aware at all about the story of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's indentity? Are you aware of the nation where terrorist flee for refuge after their attacks? Both of these questions point the finger at Iraqi intelligence apparently doing the leg work to help anyone that wants to attack the United States. If you want to know more just ask, but if you wish to maintain the present ignorant talking points of the Center for American Progress than I digress.

To All: Does anyone else agree with me that the main issue on terrorism and how to fight it is a null option if blaming Presidents is more important than seeking justice for the family members of the victims of terror? We spend way too much time fighting about the alleged motivations of our leaders when its clear that fighting terrorism is a priority that cannot afford to divide the country in half.

I recommend reading the book on this divide from Jean Francois Revel.
Amazon link

There's one thing I am sure of and that is the terrorist are not counting on defeating the United States, but are counting on the United States defeating itself. Cold War analogies apply to the WoT but the variables are a little bit different, specifically the role of the Arab media trump card.

Tom: Louis Freeh was gone before 9/11. Robert Mueller took over on 9/4/2001.

Another thing on Louis Freeh.

He states that one of the problems he faced while FBI director was stalling, inaction and denial of requests by the Attorney General on matters of investigations overseas, seeking the full cooperation of the executive branch and in having AG Reno deny most recommendations as she determined they were "not legal". One of those recommendations was going into Afghanistan.

But even that decision was somewhat based on history of trying to investigate in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government had to have their arm twisted by the American government to allow the FBI to investigate the downing the C-130 that killed American Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphael along with officers of the United States military. The Bhutto family was a rarely a friendly government to the United States in Pakistan which is one of the reasons why I think the US has supported Musharraf. Subtract Musharraf and you have Benazir Bhutto or maybe even an Islamist leader shaking hands with Ali Shah Gilani.

Good post, but it's worth pointing out precisely how unfair Frum is to Clarke; the "either man-hunt or ideas" dichotomy is weak. I don't think that anyone (who is serious) really believes that ideas are not important. The real divide is over those who believe that the war on Iraq has helped to advance democratic ideas and favorable views of the U.S., and those who are not so sure. Stated that way, I'm definitely in the latter camp.

Brennan:
"Are you aware at all about the story of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's indentity? Are you aware of the nation where terrorist flee for refuge after their attacks? Both of these questions point the finger at Iraqi intelligence apparently doing the leg work to help anyone that wants to attack the United States. If you want to know more just ask."
All right, I'm asking. Because if you know something definitively connecting Iraqi intelligence with Al Qaeda, that would be news to me (I'm one of those unfortunates who are dependent on the ignorant talking points of the Center for American Progress).

Carolina, You ask a number of questions in your post. I will take them one at a time.
You think Israel will be less safe because of its policy of assassinating the terrorist leadership. How could they be any less safe? Hamas is admits direct responsibility for hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries. Should they take no action in response? Maybe they should gather the suicide bomber's body parts and send them off to the ICC.

I don't think Kerry would be another Chamberlain. This role, as we all know, should and will be filled by a European. We just don't know whether it will be a Frenchman, German or Spainiard. The reaction against Kerry is perhaps more correctly directed to his party and the advisors he would return to power. This crowd saw America attacked throughout the 1990s and responded militarily one time, a cruise missile barrage on one day. Which, by the way, weakened Al Qaeda not one bit. No effort was made to bankrupt the terrorists either. I don't think they were appeasers, just incompetent.

Kerry is clearly on the record opposing many of the major weapons systems we now use. to say otherwise is disingenous in the extreme. Your phrasing "intelligent increases to our defense budget" can't give cover to the Senator's many votes against missile defense, the M1A1 tank, the F14, F15 etc. as well as his votes against intelligence budgets.
Does demeaning Kerry defend Bush? No, but in November we will have to choose one of these two men to be President and both of their positions on terror have to be examined. One says it is a war, the other says it is exaggerated and really a law enforcement issue. The electorate will decide who is correct here.

Now as to Clarke, I haven't read the book and might assume that you haven't either as it just hit the stands, but I have read the excerpts in the news and have seen him on the Charlie Rose show. As to your last four questions:
1.From the testimony of Bush officials today at the 9/11 commision, I don't believe this administration ignored AQ. It may fairly be said they did not give it the urgency Clarke wanted, but they were aware and formulating a strategic plan that, in sad irony, was accepted on 9/10. Did they react to chatter prior to 9/11? Yes, but it apparently referred to overseas threats. Could they have taken any action that would have thwarted 9/11? As most of the hijackers were in the country by mid year, probably not. Should stronger intelligence sharing have been in effect? Certainly, but shouldn't the man who was the anti-terrorism czar for the last eight years,Mr. Clarke, have been the driving force in making sure this took place?
2. Did the administration want to go to war in Iraq? They certainly wanted regime change as did the Clinton administration and the Congress which made it national policy in 1998. Was 9/11 an excuse to attack Iraq? It's hard to know if Iraq would have happened in quite the same way without 9/11. But the direct result of 9/11 was the end of the Taliban and the AQ sanctuaries in Afghanistan. That was first and foremost. Was Iraq inevitable? Bush spent the early days of his administration trying to get "Smart Sanctions" through the UN. One of the efforts just before the war began was also to allow Saddam to go into exile. So a case can be made that war wasn't the only option that was pursued. Was Clarke fired for not being on message? His letter of resignation, released today, is glowing in its praise of Bush. Does someone who was fired also resign? I think not.
3. These are straw men. Bush has said the opposite of some of the assertions. Please show the world where he said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He said the reverse. I would be interested to see if you could find legitimate citations where he said otherwise. As to being a clear and present danger, Iraq was an enemy of this country, his own people and Iraq's neighbors. To say otherwise is to ignore history. The more common error is the "imminent danger" assertion which, to your credit, you do not make. Bush made the argument that, with WMD, we cannot wait until danger is imminent, a somewhat different emphasis, but one that is often misunderstood. Could you provide legitimate references to the claim that we funded Bin Laden against Iraq in 1991 as well as to your claims that the administration says that Saddam funded AQ? Your post is the first time I have seen either of these charges. But I do believe Saddam regularly allowed AQ operatives to transit Iraq as well as recieve medical care there. His support of Palestinian terror groups is, as you say, well known and substantial. So, the fundmental argument is as the Bush administration correctly puts it, Saddam funded terror. Whether he funded AQ as well, doesn't change the fact that he is responsible for death and destabilization outside his own border. By the way, he wasn't a socialist, he was a murderous tyrant who caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and sponsored told and untold horrors over the last thirty years.
4. You imply something you cannot prove. Your imputation is that the Bush policy on Iraq is a fraud known to those who craft it. The clear, oft stated position of the administration is that to create a democratic state in the arab world is perhaps the only chance to roll back the terror impulse. Whether this can be done remains to be seen. Whether the Iraq war has hurt the fight against the Islamists in Afghanistan simply cannot be proven. But they no longer rule there and they aren't even safe in the tribal areas of Pakistan, largely due to the efforts of this administration and our allies.
If you mean to imply that the "Bush administration might be the biggest set of traitors this country has seen" because the President asked whether Iraq was involved, you understand neither treason or the charge of the President to investigate all leads in the 9/11 attack. Clarke's deputy at the meeting where he supposedly felt pressure to blame Iraq doesn't support the charge of intimidation. Further, within days the whole focus of the 9/11 response was directed to Afghanistan.
The issue before this country in November isn't one of conservative versus liberal but which party will provide the most effective response to the most serious threat. The previous administration did little to meet the threat. The current administration is most often accused of doing too much. Clarke's main thesis is the overriding threat of AQ to this country. One party, the one in power, is addressing that threat everyday.

Dan,

You're really grasping at straws to keep supporting this administration's foreign policy. How was the war possibly waged to promote democracy in the middle east? I can cut you slack and forget the pre-war speeches that mostly focused on terrorism and WMD. Even WITH THAT, as others have pointed out, the post-war planning was absolutlely horrific. It was non-existant. Why? Please explain given that this war could have been waged whenever we please. Given that complex plans devised by State were ignored for the first few months. etc. etc. etc. It's not a coherent story at all.

On (3), As Josh Marshall pointed out, exactly how many partisan hacks infilitrated high level positions in the administration? It seems like every week we have a new contestant. If Rove didn't have the GOP on lockdown, it probably be every other day.

The issue before this country in November isn't one of conservative versus liberal but which party will provide the most effective response to the most serious threat. The previous administration did little to meet the threat. The current administration is most often accused of doing too much. Clarke's main thesis is the overriding threat of AQ to this country. One party, the one in power, is addressing that threat everyday.

The previous administration stopped attacks before they happened, convicted main wrongdoers, pushed legislation, developed strategies now used, and so forth. It attacked and was attacked in return for alleged "wagging the dog." It was restrained by a pre-9/11 environment, but still did much. But, is accused of doing "little."

On the other hand, I'm not sure when the current administration is accused of doing "most often accused of doing too much" ... unless this is a reference to Iraq. As to Afghanistan, the decision to put it bluntly was obvious ... perhaps before 9/11. President Dean probably would have gone in right away. And, of course, our abilities to succeed as much as we did was in large part thanks to military developments under Clinton.

Who didn't do anything, right? btw in response to more strawman arguments, Clarke did blame Clinton too. Perhaps, he thought given the passage of time and the entrance of some real tough hawkish characters like the Bushies, he could expect more by 2001. The implication seems to be that he expected too much. If so, that's one less reason to vote for Bush.

---

We have for years knew about the Bin Laden and Al Qaeda threat. Clinton is accused of not properly responding. But, now we hear that Bush needed time, six months, three years, whatever to really respond. This includes, I presume being on alert when intelligence suggests threats might be coming soon.

But, warnings from others aside, apparently the idea was that Europe would be the target. All the same, given the number of attacks attempted in the U.S. the chance there was some kind of U.S. connection was surely present. Given the benefits of doing so in the past, and procedures being in place, the failure to go on heightened alert in mid-2001 is at least a bit suspicious.

The only thing Hannity and Clarke have in common is Clarke will probably replace Hannity at the top of the NYY bestseller list. Hannity's fame reaches to the talk radio/Fox News audience. Clarke is now the darling of the elite media, welcomed with open arms by Katie Couric and company. As Clarke uses things such as "facial expressions" to make his disingenuous points, I will point out that Clarke's facial expression yesterday as he was mobbed by cameras walking to his car, was that of a man very pleased with his newfound fame... never mind that he got it claiming to care about important issues such as war and terrorism.

John,

I just Googled "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" + Iraq,
and got this URL, with article title and author appended:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003213

"The Baluch Connection
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tied to Baghdad?

BY LAURIE MYLROIE
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST"

Thanks, Tom.

Can I suggest everyone drop the partisan bickering for ten minutes and seriously examine the book? His criticisms are mostly orthogonal to the right/left divide.

JP
The previous administration may have stopped the millenium bomber and a few other attempts but that is small consolation to the hundreds killed or wounded in the African embassy bombings or the families of the sailors lost in the USS Cole. And while they got convictions in the 1993 WTC bombing they botched any effort (the Sudan offer) to get the higher-ups in AQ. Many of them are either dead or in prison now due to Bush.

The argument that Bush is winning with the military Clinton gave him should be put to any military man or woman. I believe they would say that Bush is winning in spite of the military Clinton weakened. I hope some will post on this.

As for having developed strategies or pushing legislation, talk is cheap. A paper response to terror is no response. Clinton's entire military action against AQ was one day's use of cruise missiles to no discernable effect. Bush committed the entirety of the US military to root out AQ and their allies. The level of commitment speaks for itself.

Don't confuse intentions with action. That is the hallmark of the previous administration. From feeling your pain to fighting terror, in the final analysis, we lacked results.

"There's a legitimate argument that Al Qaeda's activities were ignored pre-9/11. However, that charge could equally be laid at the previous Administration's feet as well, which Clarke is refusing to do."

Ah, the old "it's Clinton's fault" hyperbole. You guys are really going to need to come up with something new. Check out
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039

and this nice chart:

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2004_03_21_uggabugga_archive.html#108002061212589148

Counterterrorism, and specifically containing al Queida, was the *top priority* at the DOJ and FBI during Clinton's last months. The funding and policy priorities were regarding counterterrorism were largely wiped out under the Bush Administration previous to 9-11.

Clarke admits as much as we should have, in retrospect, hit al Qaeda hard overseas. But this is a straw man argument to draw attention away from the fact that Bush totally reversed the previous priority of what we call today Homeland Security - and while perhaps nothing could have prevented the tragedy of 9-11, the previous administration was clearly doing more to prevent this type of incident than Bush was. Clinton's Administration was clearly *not ignoring* the threat of al Queda - especially on the issue of domestic terror attacks. it simply, like Bush's, didn't initiate overseas attacks on the groups. Your argument says "well Clinton could have done more too." While true on it's face, it ignores the fact that Bush *moved backwards* on the issue of Homeland security and the domestic threats from al Queda. I think that's the point Clarke is making.

If the central charge against Bush is that he focussed inappropriately on Iraq after 9/11, it is worth noting that John Kerry would have supported such a focus. Well, that is assuming that what Kerry said on the Senate floor in October of 2002 is a reliable predictor of a position he might have held a year earlier, or a year later:

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War:

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.

Now, "disarm" does not necessarily mena "war", but it surely would have required turning our attention to Iraq.

Well, that was then. We are now with Kerry 2004.03.

I find comparisons of responses to Al Qaeda pre-9/11 with post 9/11 to be entirely unpersuasive.

If you had asked Americans about Al Qaeda on 9/10/01 most people would have no idea who you were talking about. There was no appetite for any truely offensive action. This applies to Bush and Clinton. I do not hold them accountable for not enacting policies that would have been politcal suicide at home and universally attacked abroad.

The questions that are relevant to me are: Did Bush do less on terrorism than Clinton was doing? If so, why did he lower the priority of terrorism? and Why did he focus on Iraq when we clearly still have work to do stopping the influence of Al Qaeda in Afganistan and Pakistan?

All the other "Clinton didn't do what Bush did after 9/11" talk is total nonsense to me.

Two central points in this post are simply wrong and present a set of false choices.

First, while administrations take some time to work through new issues, the threat of Al Qaeda was not new. The policy the post claims was settled on by the Bush administration on September 10--it was not really, since it had not been presented to Bush for his approval--was simply the same policy recommendations the outgoing Clinton administration and Clarke were prepared to present when Bush assumed office. So result is an 8 months delay to do what could and should have been done in March largely because this Administration abhors all things Clinton.

Second, going after Al Qaeda and its leadership while at the same time fostering democracy in the states that supply the foot soldiers are not mutually exclusive but rather mutally reenforcing strategies. To suggest that you can only do one or the other is to acknowledge that there is no strategy one can pursue that has any chance of succeeding in the short, medium, long-term.

Don Watt

In defense of Carolina (who probably doesn’t need it)

1. Hamas – It appears that the Sharon strategy (targeting leadership and increased security) is almost opposite the Bush strategy (democracy and regime change to “drain the swamp”). It seems you support both. Care to explain the inconsistency? BTW, I think more Israelis have died under Sharon than under any non-hotwar PM in Israeli history.
2. It’s pretty clear that there was little chance that pursuing AQ in the way you suggest was politically possible pre-9/11. Officials from both administrations have said this. It is also fairly clear that the incoming administration had different priorities upon coming to power and reduced budgetary and other support for counterterrorism efforts. Both administrations “failed”, but who was trying harder?
3. The Europeans appear to support the Israeli strategy. A different policy preference does not make them appeasers. They have, and still are, supporting US efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They did not support the invasion of Iraq. The Spanish election result had many causes, only one of which supports a charge of "appeasement". So, why do you keep making it?
4. What does not supporting various weapons systems prove? The US army has no plans to develop a new battle tank because anti-tank weapons have progressed to the point that tanks are almost obsolete. Maybe Kerry was “ahead of the curve” here? We have TWO new fighter programs running concurrently, and our military hegemony is unquestioned. It looks like this is a scarlet herring. Besides, any senator’s voting record can be picked apart to support almost any position as context is invariably lost.
5. The strategic plan of 9/10 looks like a photocopy of the Clinton “strategic plan” of diplomacy followed by military action, if necessary. Again, neither administration looks good in hindsight, but who was increasing the focus on terror and who was decreasing the focus on terror?
6. I think its abundantly clear that the administration was focused on war with Iraq. After all, that’s where the “good targets” were.
7. I think is fairly obvious that any person leaving a job says glowing things about the employer. Talk about strawmen.
8. It takes real gall to say that the Bush administration did not strongly imply that Iraq had an important connection to 9/11. If they weren’t connected, than the primary justification for war with Iraq goes away. Someone might have to then come up with a different reason, like WMDs, ooops, like a fascist dictator. Yeah, thats it, a fascist dictator.

There are of many issues of importance in this coming election. The administration would love for national security to be the only issue. So you are definitely “on message” here. However, there are legitimate questions regarding the administration’s security policy post 9/11. We had universal support for Afganistan and direct action against AQ post 9/11. We had precious little support for the invasion of Iraq, and strained our alliances in the extreme in our push for it. Whether Iraq will be an effective counterterrorism strategy remains to be seen, but unless multilateral action in the war on terror has no value, it has certainly been a costly one.

dmh said, "The policy the post claims was settled on by the Bush administration on September 10--it was not really, since it had not been presented to Bush for his approval--was simply the same policy recommendations the outgoing Clinton administration and Clarke were prepared to present when Bush assumed office. So result is an 8 months delay to do what could and should have been done in March largely because this Administration abhors all things Clinton."

This is a nonsensical argument. I'll stress this again. STOP READING THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS REPORT AS GOSPEL!!! Hopefully three exclamation marks will set this straight.

The Bush Administration did not abhor everything from the Clinton administration. No Child Left Behind and the Prescription drug bill are two measures that built a second story to the Clinton built first floor. To say the Bush Administration abhored the previous administration's work doesn't hold water whatsoever. However, if you are getting you're information from where I think you're getting your information than I would not be suprised that Leon Panetta would tell you that the Bush Administration ignored all the Clinton Administration progress.

dmh goes on to say "going after Al Qaeda and its leadership while at the same time fostering democracy in the states that supply the foot soldiers are not mutually exclusive but rather mutally reenforcing strategies. To suggest that you can only do one or the other is to acknowledge that there is no strategy one can pursue that has any chance of succeeding in the short, medium, long-term."

This again is complete crap. Al Qaeda recruits came from well established democracies where the United States has little to no fostering activities. Unless you qualify fostering democracy in Oregon as example of the Clinton Administration's actions then you can't make an argument that Al Qaeda recruits were more "recruitable" in non-democratic societies than they were in democratic societies. Al Qaeda was just as likely to pluck a recruit from Amman as they were from St. Louis or Manilla.

Charles makes the same mistake that the partisans of this debate make. While I agree that some of the critiques of the Clinton Administration trying to establish the fault of 9/11 with President Clinton are likely partisan pandering, many of them are also formed as basic questions wondering why no military action was taken after the repeated Al Qaeda strikes. It didn't seem to matter if an embassy was destroyed or a US Naval vessle was attacked or a military barracks was destroyed; whatever the target the reply was never from boots on the ground. This is a failure to respond accordingly to enemies that attack the American Military and American Diplomats.

In my mind I think President Clinton had his reasons for not choosing a boots on the ground strategy. He was facing a lot of political pressure from the homeland and trying to "Wag the Dog", as I know partisan's would have treated a military response, was an obstacle to an asserted military response. This is one of the reasons why President Clinton has pretty much been behind President Bush on Afghanistan and Iraq. Somehow though, former Clinton staffers treat the events differently as they, like Gore, are never ready to work for a paycheck that isn't signed by Uncle Sam. Richard Clarke on the otherhand IS ready to forgoe all future checks from Uncle Sam - thus the tell all book.

Because of politics I think the argument that "Clinton should have done more" and "Clinton told Bush what to do but Bush cut back" are moot issues. Each administration would have had a near impossible task in convincing the American people that toppling the Taliban was necessary to fight terrorism. Seriously, do you think the American people even knew who the Taliban were on September 10, 2001? I'm not even mentioning the even greater task of convincing other nations to support or go neutral on a policy of attacking Afghanistan either. That in and of itself was a mountain too high to ascend.

But 9/11 changed everything. Approaches to threats now required action less we face more 9/11 like attacks. That's why the Taliban were crushed whether Pakistan agreed or not. After 9/11 the Pakistanis could no longer object to going into Afghanistan. It's sad to say that 9/11 WAS required before the strongest nation in the world could respond to the weakest military threat imaginable, 1 freaking agrarian Islamist living in a cave.

Here here Jason McCollough. Punditry is stuck in "My Party is better for America" mode and the biggest losers of the big show are the American people. Put the country first and the partisanship last.

Curious wrote:

The most important point here is that the terrorist attacks were used as an excuse to launch a foreign policy plan (to depose Hussein) that was already in the works,

and that the American people were mislead and manipulated into it through various storylines which--now pay attention here--have *all* proven to be false (WMDs, links with al Qaeda, etc.).

Really? Please provide evidence as to what the administration alleged about the Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda were and how they were proven false.

More importantly, and this is where Clarke has serious objections, resources have been diverted to this enterprise that could have been used in the "War on Terror," and that has had an adverse effect on our ability to wage it.

Carolina wrote:

Did the Bush Administration knowingly lie to Congress, the American people, and the World by claiming Iraq caused 9/11, Saddam Hussein funded Osama Bin Laden, and the existence of a clear and present danger to the United States from Iraq?

Please provide evidence that the Bush Administration made any of those claims unless this is just you making up a strawman argument.

Don Williams wrote:

I wonder if Clinton might have taken care of Bin Ladin if Clinton had not been distracted for several years by a vengeful Republican campaign based on whether Clinton had been unfaithful to Hillary. Only the second impeachment in 210 years of US history.

TexasToast: There was not universal support for action in Afghanistan. As I recall three specific nations were opposed to it. I think they made up some kind of "axis of..."...oh I forget.

No wait, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. They were all against "US Imperialism" in Afghanistan.

Regarding “world opinion” and the invasion of Afghanistan post-9/11:

The biggest poll of world opinion was carried out by Gallup International in 37 countries in late September (Gallup International 2001). It found that apart from the US, Israel and India a majority of people in every country surveyed preferred extradition and trial of suspects to a US attack. Clear and sizeable majorities were recorded in the UK (75%) and across Western Europe from 67% in France to 87% in Switzerland. Between 64% (Czech Republic) and 83 % (Lithuania) of Eastern Europeans concurred as did varying majorities in Korea, Pakistan, South Africa and Zimbabwe. An even more emphatic answer obtained in Latin America where between 80% (Panama) and 94% (Mexico) favoured extradition. The poll also found that majorities in the US and Israel (both 56%) did not favour attacks on civilians. Yet such polls have been ignored by the media and by many of the polling companies. After the bombing started opposition seems to have grown in Europe. As only the Mirror has reported, by early November 65 per cent in Germany and 69 per cent in Spain wanted the US attacks to end (Yates, 2001). Meanwhile in Russia polls before and after the bombing show majorities opposed to the attacks. One slogan which reportedly commanded majority support doing the rounds in Moscow at the end of September was 'World War III - Without Russia' (Agency WPS 2001). After the bombing started Interfax reported a Gallup International poll showing a majority of Moscow residents against the US military action (BBC Worldwide Monitoring 2001)

Assuming that these numbers are correct, to me this would indicate that was not quite the unanimity of support for the US-UK invasion of Afghanistan post-9/11 that some would like to believe. In which case does anyone doubt that if we had tried to go into Afghanistan before 9/11 that there would be even more opposition?

Let me get this straight. Everyone is hammering the Bush administration on not pre-emtively attacking Afghanistan and taking out al-qaida. Intelligence was not concrete as to the location of ubl. Intelligence on Iraq was uniform both domestically and internationally that Hussein was lying about wmd stockpiles and his consistent coverup policy. Half of Congress and of the world has been screaming bloody murder about pre-emption since before the war. Bush and the U.S. in general have been characterized as warmongers, facists, nazis etc. How can anyone possibly believe that our country or the world would have supported a pre-emtive strike on Afghanistan. Can you imagine the howls if Colin Powell would have stood before the Security Council and asked for a vote for A preventive war on Afghanistan? Give me a break.

Thorley:

Prior to 9/11, the US had pulled out of the International Criminal Court treaty, repudiated the ABM treaty, and rejected Kyoto.

I think anyone who takes up the argument that "well, we couldn't have invaded anyway" has to accept the fact that, well before 9/11, the Bush administration took steps that made it far more difficult to secure international cooperation on anything we thought was right.

Appalled Moderate: Kyoto, the ICC and the ABM treaty are all Congressional issues. How do you blame the Bush Administration for them?

In addition, all three measures are poor ones at best for the International community. To say that opposition these treaties because other nations supported them was bad for the US is to overlook the fact that the treaties were bad for most of the world. Furthermore, while other nations may have had leader prepared to surrender national sovereignty, it's obvious that the United States was not.

Kyoto and the ICC are just the kind of measures that make people support the President and the members of Congress that oppose them, which extends to both sides of the aisle.

This is nothing more than typical Republican apologia.

Ignoring the fact the Frum is a Republican apparatchik,

"It's worth remembering that every new administration needs about six months to work out the foreign policy kinks"

sorry, the fact is that the Shrub administration was not only told that al Qaeda was a major problem, it kept on an individual (Clarke) who reminded them of this. And, it is clear, it ignored the Clinton administration's warnings, as well as Clarke's, because of they did not jive with their intentions of taking out Saddam.

Brennan:

Your argument is form over substance. Bush went out of his way to indicate that his government was not going to be bound by these treaties.

Part of diplomacy is choosing your battles and the timing of those battles. If Bush had the farsighted vision on Terror attributed to him by his allies, why did he take steps that were bound to make assembling a coalition (or at least,silent acquiesence) more difficult?

raj: Louis Freeh, Richard Clarke, George Tenet: your conclusion assumes that these three men were all ignored on repeated occassions despite the fact that each one was a regular attendee at meetings with the administration.

How can you blame the Bush administration for ignoring things if the two agencies with the most influence on the advisement for these affairs were Clinton holdovers?

Don't apologize. Just bury your zeal.

David Frum:

The huge dividing line in the debate over terror remains just this: Is the United States engaged in a man-hunt - for bin Laden, for Zawahiri, for the surviving alumni of the al Qaeda training camps? - or is it engaged in a war with the ideas that animated those people and with the new generations of killers who will take up the terrorist mission even if the US were to succeed in extirpating every single terrorist now known to be alive and active?

As Nehru would answer...YES.

This is not an either or question. The fact that people like Frum take pride in seeing the "forest" but not acknowledging that the failure to see the "trees" resulted in a heavy cost in 9/11.

Fine, develop a comprehensive policy. But the fact that key players (e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfie) didn't really believe that AQ was an immediate threat and the fact that they didn't believe they should retaliate for the Cole shows that the fell asleep on the short-term threat.

As Rice acknowledged it was going to take them YEARS to take out AQ.

"How can you blame the Bush administration for ignoring things if the two agencies with the most influence on the advisement for these affairs were Clinton holdovers?"

If you obviously weren't stupid, I would ask you why, if the Shrub administration didn't trust their judgement, they were--uh--held over.

You have to be about as dumb as drezner.

I'm trying to feel out my antannae here, but I'm starting to wonder if this will really hurt the Bush admin as much as it seemed at the outset.

As Bill Kristol noted, there was a tacit agreement on both sides that "Yes, the Bush admin blew it on Al Queda for eight months, and yes, the Clinton admin blew it on Al Queda for eight years. Both are true, nothing is gained by harping on it in a manner other than a quiet assessment of what went wrong, forward ho."

Well, Mr. Clarke saw fit to throw a hand grenade onto that, blow it to pieces, and a lot of Democrats are hitching to that wagon. So, fine. Now Clinton's eight years are on the table, every minute of them. Clarke: "Clinton was acting against AQ, but was stymied by (among other things)... MONICA LEWINSKY!" Cool. Dems wanna fight on this field, let's rock.

It is a shame. Republicans are not blameless, but "politics stops at the waters edge" is now dead... dead... dead.... NOTHING, including our national security, NOTHING is off limits or out of bounds.

God help us all.

"If Bush had the farsighted vision on Terror attributed to him by his allies, why did he take steps that were bound to make assembling a coalition "

Why did Alexander slice the Gordian Knot in two? Because that was the solution to the unsolveable puzzle. Chance the rules.

Again, even the Clinton did nothing comparison isn't really accurate. At least Clinton was aware Al Queda was the largest threat to America and was trying to do *something* about it. To just get a tatse of how ignornat the Bush administration was about Al Queda, lexis "Al Queda" and any one of their NSC wonks or hawks (limit the search to pre-9/11). You'll be lucky to get a few hits if any at all. Do the same for Clinton people, results will number in the hundreds. Now, Lexis a Bush admin official and Iraq and you'll get hundreds of results. You decide what that means. (credit to TPM for this).

I haven't seen anyone address the really weird issue in all this: Why is Dick Clarke intimidated by Condi's facial expression, or the "intimidating manner" of Bush and others? Is this a high school dance or the frickin' White House?

If Clarke believed then what he says he did, he would and should have gone to the press then, or threatened to resign, or something. Not just run off crying to his room and slam the door. Maybe a lifetime of wrong estimates made him a little shy about his 'convictions,' hmm?

Appalled Moderate wrote:

Prior to 9/11, the US had pulled out of the International Criminal Court treaty, repudiated the ABM treaty, and rejected Kyoto.

I think anyone who takes up the argument that "well, we couldn't have invaded anyway" has to accept the fact that, well before 9/11, the Bush administration took steps that made it far more difficult to secure international cooperation on anything we thought was right.

Bush repudiated all that and yet he still managed to build a coalition to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, establish multinational talks on North Korea (in contrast to his predecessor and challenger who wanted bilateral talks), and secure international cooperation on fighting terrorism and its funding.

Looks like with Bush rather than his predecessor and challenger we can get “international cooperation” without having to surrender our sovereignty, economic growth, or national security.

Very interesting comment earlier (Thorley Winston, 9:13 AM) on international support for operations against Afghanistan post 9/11.

Here is a link to the survey questions and responses. I think the survey presented a bit of a false choice:

1. In your opinion, once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorists are based or should the American government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?

Well, most folks favored the attempt at extradition. And, if I recall, that is exactly what we attempted, although the Taliban did not cooperate on our timetable. And we had been using diplomacy before 9/11 to get Bin Laden, without success, so we had (arguably) spent a fair amount of time on the diplomatic road.

A more useful question would have been, if the next attempt at extradition fails, would the respondent prefer (a) more negotiations; (b) bombs away!

While I don't believe that this administration
can plausibly be blamed for allowing the events of 9/11 to occur, there is one question that I would like the panel to ask these folks:

Since there was an unprecedented amount of terrorist "chatter" during the Summer of 2001, a period in which the President was being briefed by the CIA on a daily basis about an imminent threat to U.S. interests somewhere in the world,

Why did the President decide to take a month-long vacation in August?

Excuse me all, I am actually using the comments to get a sense of my own thoughts about this matter...So, if I seem all over the map, that's the reason.

Anyway...a question for the uh_clems and other rational Bush non-enthusiasts...

Has Clarke,in any way, said anything about why he didn't speak up during the run up to Iraq? He easily could have resigned in 2002, and his message -- look, these guys are nuttier than fruitcakes on the Iraq business, let me giuve you the details -- would have been an extremely important and influential part of that debate.

So why didn't he quit?

raj said

"If you obviously weren't stupid, I would ask you why, if the Shrub administration didn't trust their judgement, they were--uh--held over.

You have to be about as dumb as drezner."

I contemplate your definition of "dumb" is based on the demand for people to answer a question they cannot possibly answer. What's your definition of "smart"?

I'll extend this offer. Can anyone find anyone that can answer the question why the Bush Team did not seek to appoint replacements for Louis Freeh and George Tenat? Furthermore, can you find an answer that speaks in the light of "we kept Freeh and Tenat so we could blame them as the Clinton holdovers", which is something the Bush administration has not done.

Appalled Moderate: Clarke didn't quit because he wasn't ready to leave government. Reports say that Clarke was trying to land the #2 spot at Homeland Security which would encourage one to stay in the thick of things even if to remain quietly opposed to the Bush Administration's plans.

Of course, government service isn't always the best way to fill your wallet, Clarked easily could have moved into a corner office with a window and a half million dollar paycheck as a Security consultant, something he does now, in the lead up to the Iraq confrontation. However, staying quiet kept Clarke on the inside of seeing documents that civilians would not otherwise see. Frontline has some shows online where they interview Clarke a lot and certainly comes off as a different guy before his 60 minutes interview. I would say that "Old Clarke" was sort of a fiend for National Security. I imagine this world could become quite addicting if you saw a major future problem for the United States and thought you could solve it.

The revolving door didn't take very long to bring Clarke back into the foreign policy arena after his resignation. The Council on Foreign Relations immediately sought him as an advisor for their Homeland Security appropriations lobbying. Clarke didn't testify before Congress about the importantance of spending more on the Homeland first responders, but he consulted on the CFR task force.

The book is Clarke's last hurrah. He's accepting that he won't ever serve in government again and so a book is obviously the next step for him.

Thorley Winston wrote: Really? Please provide evidence as to what the administration alleged about the Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda were and how they were proven false.

Compared with, for instance, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the possible links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are weak, old, and certainly not strong enough to justify a major invasion. We are familiar with the fact that Saddam Hussein harbored Abdul Rahman Yasin in '93 because Dick Cheney brings it up at every opportunity (even after he was asked not to by the administration, when it first began to struggle with widespread scepticism about their justifications for the war). The Prague meeting, in spite of William Safire's le Carre fantasies, remains a joke. And the region in Northeastern Iraq so famously linked to al-Zarkarwi is actually controlled by the Kurds, who we've not only decided not to conquer but indeed are making an integral part of the new government of Iraq.

Further re: Hussein and al Qaeda: Others here have already pointed out the BS that Occam's razor so neatly cuts away, namely that an Islamist fanatic (who has declared war against other Islamist states) would team up with a secular Baathist who had his own plans for regional domination, no matter how much they both hated the US. And yet even if there was some connection, it would be a fair point to question whether Hussein wouldn]'t have been more effectively deposed through sanctions, diplomacy and a robust, cooperative world effort, rather than a hasty, poorly planned war. (and by the way, regime change doesn't = invade right away.)

For those interested in the administration's misleading statements before and after the war, you can find them neatly arranged at

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Furthermore, Mr. Thorley Winston (is that a real name!!??) said, scornfully,

Right because if we (had) an extra hundred thousand American troops slogging into the hills of Afghanistan, it would be so much more effective. Just ask the Russians.

Well I think we already showed the Russians how to win a war in Afghanistan. What we've showed little interest in doing is maintaining an effective occupation. Our forces are so severely undermanned that a majority of the country has reverted to the control of warlords, former Taliban leaders are coming back into power, Al Qaeda elements are crawling throughout the eastern borders. I recommend the piece in the recent New Yorker which shows how daunting these challenges remain, how dangerous Afghanistan still is, and how tenuous our control over has become.

Incidentally your dismissive tone about troop size--on a day when 30,000 more US soldiers have been sent to Iraq to augment an army that is already several times larger than the "experts" in Bush's administration ever accounted for--reminds me of how poorly run these "nation building" efforts have been. I've been dying to ask the reflexive supporters of Bush a question for a long time:

Considering that everything about the Iraq adventure after the initial military phase (which all smart people knew would be a cakewalk) has been much difficult, expensive, costly and long-running than the planners planned it, at what point can we call it a failure? Or at least say, "they screwed up." Here's an thought experiment: pretend that Bill Clinton was president and ask yourself if you'd be defending him in spite of all the bad news. Please be honest with yourselves. I'm not talking about the size of the occupying force, or the fact that hundreds of US soldiers have died since the occupation began, or that thousands of Iraqi's have died, or that crime is soaring in Baghdad (again, in the NYer, read John Lee Anderson's Talk of the Town piece), that suicide bombings are a frequent occurence, or that the occupation has cost considerably more than the $1.7 billion price tag that the Bush administration gave to it on the eve of the war. By an order of magnitude, I believe (I've seen $150 billion cited, and that's not counting combat operations--what happened to all that Iraqi oil?). So this looks like a policy failure that keeps failing, and while I'm not for stopping something that we've already started (and Kerry won't, we're stuck with this mess), I am definitely willing to seek out people with some new, different ideas, because the guys who are running the show now don't seem to have any.

By the way, I recommend anyone who isn't a slave to the Republican party's ever-shifting talking points about Clarke to read the interview with him on salon. Here's an excerpt that speaks to one of the comments posted above, about how Clinton was too wimpy to respond militarily to al-qaeda bombings:

Q: Why do you think Cheney -- and the Bush administration in general -- ignored the warnings that were put to them by [former national security advisor] Sandy Berger, by you, by George Tenet, who is apparently somebody they hold in great esteem?

CLARKE: They had a preconceived set of national security priorities: Star Wars, Iraq, Russia. And they were not going to change those preconceived notions based on people from the Clinton administration telling them that was the wrong set of priorities. They also looked at the statistics and saw that during eight years of the Clinton administration, al-Qaida killed fewer than 50 Americans. And that's relatively few, compared to the 300 dead during the Reagan administration at the hands of terrorists in Beirut -- and by the way, there was no military retaliation for that from Reagan. It was relatively few compared to the 259 dead on Pan Am 103 in the first Bush administration, and there was no military retaliation for that. So looking at the low number of American fatalities at the hands of al-Qaida, they might have thought that it wasn't a big threat.

--
Curious again. Now also I think it is also beneath us to finger point and second-guess the president, but he's the one who's acting like he's the Churchill of anti-terrorism, who's covered up his administration's mistakes (how's that for honoring the dead of 9/11?) and who's cast aspersions on the Clinton administration which, like it or not, was clearly dedicated and focused on al Qaeda, in retrospect more so than Bush pre-9/11. And though I'm exasperated by Bush's leadership but I don't think he doesn't care about the American people, and doesn't think that he's doing the right thing--but they've introduced this line of query by questioning the patriotism and competence of the Democrats and John Kerry, so now we'll have to sit back, hold our noses, and see how it plays out.

"To just get a tatse of how ignornat the Bush administration was about Al Queda, lexis "Al Queda" and any one of their NSC wonks or hawks (limit the search to pre-9/11). You'll be lucky to get a few hits if any at all. Do the same for Clinton people, results will number in the hundreds. Now, Lexis a Bush admin official and Iraq and you'll get hundreds of results."

"You decide what that means."

----------

OK. That means the Clinton people were very very good at talking about problems. The upsides, the downsides, all the angles, possible solutions, who'd get hurt, who'd benefit, etc, etc.

Very, very good at talking.

Bush people at least talked about the 12 year problem that was Iraq, where 'regime change' was official US policy from the '90's on, and then actually made painful decisions to address the problems, rather than just talking while kicking the can down the road for the next administration.

How's that?

"At least Clinton was aware Al Queda was the largest threat to America and was trying to do *something* about it. To just get a tatse of how ignornat the Bush administration was about Al Queda..."

Especially if you spell it wrong, but either way you are simply wrong by almost all accounts, including CLarkes pre-book deal.

"Tenet told the commission, "Clearly there was no lack of care or focus in the face of one of the greatest dangers our country has ever faced.""

"Tuesday's report also said that both the Clinton and Bush administrations engaged in lengthy, ultimately fruitless diplomatic efforts instead of military action to try to get bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040324/D81GPONG0.html

Richard Clarke, August 2002
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

"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"

"Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process."

"JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct. "

I may be wrong, but I believe Clarke has some 'splaining to do about how his accounts differ so radically now compared to 2 and a half years ago.

Oh, and Condi Rice was suprisingly knowledgeable about a guy Clarke claims she never heard of in this 2000 interview:

"“On Oct. 4, 2000, Condoleezza Rice was asked by WJR radio host David Newman what a Bush administration would do about the Osama threat… Rice spoke at length about the threat, and what needed to be done to deal with it… She said that we don’t want to wake up one day and find that Osama has been successful on our own territory. (Watch or record the second segment of “Hannity & Colmes” tonight at 2 a.m. ET on Fox News Channel for a snippet of her comments, played in full earlier today on “The Sean Hannity Show,” which can be heard many times on the linked site until 3 p.m. ET tomorrow.) “

http://tvh.rjwest.com/archives/004168.html

Have we seen enough holes in this guys credibility yet? Look, I dont want to attack the guy, in a lot of ways he's been a victim in this. If the friggin idiot media types like Dianne Sawyer ever bothered to do the basic, obvious homework that us slovenly bloggers manage to do maybe they could ask him some of these questions and clear the air. Why has his account changed? What do you have to say about the fact Condi Rice was talking about Bin Laden during the election despite your allegations to the contrary? Why did you wait so long to air these allegations? Seriously, our media just outright sucks. These questions are nontrivial, nor particularly hard to dig up. Stupid, lazy, biased.

Appalled Moderate:

Here's Clarke's answer to your question:

Q: Did you speak up about the U.S. going into Iraq? Now, one of the more substantive criticisms of you by the White House is that you didn't say anything about it. You let that go, you kept your job and didn't resign in protest -- or according to them, do anything that suggested you were so strongly opposed to their plan for war.

CLARKE: If they were listening, they would have heard me. I started saying on Sept. 11 and Sept. 12 that their idea of responding to the terrorist attacks by going to war with Iraq was not only misplaced but counterproductive.

Before Sept. 11, I was so frustrated with the way they were handling terrorism that I had asked to be reassigned to a different job. And the job I proposed was a job I helped to create -- a job to look at the nation's vulnerability to cyber-attack. So that job was supposed to be one that I went into on Oct. 1 [2001]; the actual transfer was delayed, of course, because Sept. 11 intervened. But it's important to realize that I asked for that transfer out of the counterterrorism job before Sept. 11, out of frustration with the Bush administration's handling of terrorism.

When I was doing the cyber-security job, toward the end of 2001 and into 2002, I wasn't asked for my opinion on Iraq. I wasn't in a position to give my opinion on Iraq. I was carrying a different portfolio. They certainly didn't come and ask me. But I made it very clear to Condi Rice, although she may choose to forget it, that I thought going into Iraq was a mistake. And I thought if you did have to go in -- if the president was determined to do that -- then it had to be done within the United Nations context.

Clinton clearly blew it on terrorism. He had 8 years and did nothing. The ultimate litmus test: When Clinton left office Al Qaeda was demonstrably much stronger than when Clinton came into office.

Clarke clearly has his own agenda, including millions of them in the form of dollars. Clarke's book is the typical Washington insider book...he creates controversy, makes charges against his former boss, and paints history such that if everyone had listened to him everything would have been peachy.

Clarke's statements in his book are clearly contradicted by earlier statements of his.

So Clarke has no credibility, and Clinton has a record of failure.

Interesting how Clarke cares so much about our country that he waited until he got a big fat book deal to release his information. And notice the timing of the release...just as the 9-11 commission meets...boy, what a coincidence!

Clarke is probably going to make more money this year than in his entire career. His whole story is tainted.

And how about CBS...their actions have been shameful.

Their 60 Minutes show has become an infomercial for the Viacom publishing arm.

No wonder why Stahl wouldn't ask any tough questions of Clarke...she's not a reporter, but an infomercial host!

No wonder why traditional media is losing audience and respect. Last Sunday's 60 Minutes was watched by about 15 million people; I remember a time when 60 Minutes was watched each week by about 40 million people.

CBS clearly violated journalistic ethics...they cannot be trusted.

C'mon guys, the "Clarke just wants to sell a lot of books so his word is BS" line isn't going to stick. I think even the White House has abandoned it. Reread Mr. Drezner's post and accept that this man was a dedicated public service through several administrations, a registered Republican, and fanatical about terrorism. Start adressing his argumets and give up on the ad hominem stuff. It won't work.

By the way, the book's publication was delayed by a longer-than-ordinary vetting process by the White House (it was ready for the press in December, I believe). I haven't seen this contradicted or countered by evidence from the Clarke's detractors. So the timing issue is, well, a non-issue.

Another Thought:

You convienently overlook the fact that the White House sat on Clarke's book for three months. The reason it's being released now instead of last December when it was finished is that the WH took it's sweet time to review it for potential leaks of classified info.

Note that even with a three month lead time, they still don't have any real *factual* rebuttal to Clarke. (Think about what that implies...) The only thing they have to throw at him is ad hominem attacks - and boy are they dishing the dirt.

Likewise, your criticism is that he's going to make money on the book. Is there any influential author anywhere that would be immune from that charge? Should we just ignore anybody who writes a successful book?

Curious -

This too is shows one of the dividing lines bwtween how Right and Left look at the world. The Left tends to be very concerned with process, with input from every possible corner, and, very significantly, what is in the "heart" of the players... i.e. "do they MEAN well... good things for all of us, the common good", etc.

These all sound wonderful, while the Right, where many business people not coincidentally reside, are concerned most of all with, "What are the actual, REAL, on-the-ground results of what you do politically?" They can even forgive, say, Haliburton for making money IF they are doing what needs to be done, and the results in Iraq are desireable. Meanwhile, since the UN "means well", the 10 billion dollar oil-for-palaces scandal might as well be a $100 Billion dollar child slavery ring, the international Left will NEVER give a damn. It is the UN, they mean well.

Point of this is that Clarke may be a registered Republican, but he is approaching this issue from the Left. I, for one, could not care LESS about this that and the other that kept Clinton from really going after Al Queda. As any businessman or military officer would respond, the question is "did Clinton go after them, or did he just talk about it?" "Did he make it happen and spare all the BS? Or didn't he, whatever the reason?" The answer is obvious. Similar could be said of Bush, but now we are comparing eight months to eight years.

I can forgive Bush AND Clinton for the same reasons I can forgive Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. But as I wrote above, there was a tacit agreement in place not to politicize this particular issue. Clarke blew that to pieces, some prominent Democrats have hitched their wagon to it, so now it ALL is up for grabs... eight years and eight months worth.

I think it's terrible, but it is not the Bushies who blew that tacit, and very healthy, arrangement out of the water.

"Note that even with a three month lead time, they still don't have any real *factual* rebuttal to Clarke. "

They dont? I thought I just read a whole thread full of contradictions from what Clarke said a couple years ago. Not sure what you call a *factual* rebuttal.

Look, I dont think the guys a liar. I think he feels unappreciated and unrecognized for what he did, and he has real ideological problems with Bush on things like Star Wars and Iraq. So the man retires and his memory get a bit hazy in his bitterness. Reminds me of James Longstreet and his memoirs, same thing. I just dont see how you can argue that what Clarke is saying now doesnt directly contradict, often point by point, what he was saying as late as 2002. If Bush was ignoring OBL, why did he have a plan to topple the Taliban and Al Qaeda on his desk Sept 10, 2001? Why did the funding to 'get' OBL go up 5-fold by Clarkes own admission? I feel kinda sorry for Clarke, he was paranoid for the right reasons, he just didnt have the right answers for dealing with the bad guys. And now I think he's bitter.

No doubts about Clarke cashing in. But that doesn't render other motivations irrelevant.

Along with other rationales I've read in these posts (worthy and otherwise), another possible reason Clarke waited to air his beef until now was his distaste for the BC04 campaign emphasis on their reaction to 9/11. In Clarke's view, the Bush team's response was neither shrewd nor exceptional.

My take is that Clarke believed in the wake of 9/11, even a dovish admin would have launched a retailion attack. Further, he seemed to believe that sufficient evidence and intelligence did not exist to justify such relentless scrutiny of an Iraqi connection.

Given Clarke's experience, knowledge and resources, it's difficult to give a lot of weight to those who simply discount him with name-calling.

Hmmm.

"I'll extend this offer. Can anyone find anyone that can answer the question why the Bush Team did not seek to appoint replacements for Louis Freeh and George Tenat?"

The answer is actually very simple.

The reason why Clarke, Tenat and Freeh were kept was to:

*Maintain continuity with the previous administration on these extremely important posts.*

Clarke was the Counter-Terrorism guy. Tenant was the head of the CIA. Freeh was the head of the FBI. What three positions are extremely important if you're going to fight terrorism? What positions would you not want to be filled by a novice or left unfilled for months while the Senate goofed around with confirmation process for the incoming administration?

Counter-Terroism guy, head of the CIA and the head of the FBI.

*shrug* It doesn't get simpler than that.

Curious:

Thought someone would ask him the question. Thanks.

Most of us, at some time in our working lives, have been put in the position of having to implement a policy that we believe is harmful to others. Frankly, the usual response is to implement, but give an honest opinion to those who ask us. So It does not sound like he did anything different than what most of us would do. Of course, the stakes were somewhat higher -- it would have been nice if he could have given us the inside dope back in spring/summer 2002, before the troops were moved into Kuwait.

Clarke's comments (as quoted in our host's 60 minutes link) are quite harsh on Bush, indicating personal animus. (Given the fact he was demoted by Bush, this doesn't surprise.) The fact he did not speak up earlier, and the tone of his comments work against Clarke's credibilty.

Hmmm.

"Along with other rationales I've read in these posts (worthy and otherwise), another possible reason Clarke waited to air his beef until now was his distaste for the BC04 campaign emphasis on their reaction to 9/11. In Clarke's view, the Bush team's response was neither shrewd nor exceptional."

Only problem with this theory is that Clarke has been writing his book for more than a year. Long before the 04 campaign started.

curious: Can I assume you've read the transcript posted on the Fox News website by now?
link

I can say that I have been wavering on the Clarke issue because I really don't know what his motivations are when he's in the private sector now. But after reading the transcript he appears to contradict everything he says now with what he said in 2002.

And for the record, Lesley Stahl, Charlie Rose and Joe Conason, quite the stellar cast capable of asking the tough questions of Richard Clarke. Who's next on the interview circuit? Oprah?

ed: Continuity is an acceptable response, but here's what Richard Clarke now says about Bush Administration appointees.

Joe Conason asks, "You said on "60 Minutes" that you expected "their dogs" to be set on you when your book was published, but did you think that the attacks would be so personal?"

Clarke replies, "Oh yeah, absolutely, for two reasons. For one, the Bush White House assumes that everyone who works for them is part of a personal loyalty network, rather than part of the government. And that their first loyalty is to Bush rather than to the people."

If Clarke says that a "loyalty network" is more important than what's good for the country, why did Freeh, Tenat and Clarke not get replaced with loyal servants of the Bush Kingdom? The other appointment that comes to mind is the SEC Chairman. As we know Arthur Levitt stepped down in March 2001 and only two months later signed up with the...Carlyle Group. Hmm. Then Harvey Pitt took over the SEC Chairmanship in August 2001 only to get barraged with criticism from both sides of the aisle for Enron, World Com, Tyco, etc. Pitt resigns and loyalty enters in the form of William Donaldson, bonesman, longtime friend of the Bush Kingdom. Hmm again.

Thus it comes down to Freeh, Tenat and Clarke again. Look, we know that Karl Rove runs the world, but is he that good to keep a few holdovers from the Clinton administration so he can blame them for all the problems unforseen?

I think one of the most revealing comments made by Clarke is this, when asked if he anticipated the personal nature of the attacks from the White House:

Q You said on "60 Minutes" that you expected "their dogs" to be set on you when your book was published, but did you think that the attacks would be so personal?

Clarke: Oh yeah, absolutely, for two reasons. For one, the Bush White House assumes that everyone who works for them is part of a personal loyalty network, rather than part of the government. And that their first loyalty is to Bush rather than to the people. When you cross that line or violate that trust, they get very upset. That's the first reason. But the second reason is that I think they're trying to bait me -- and people who agree with me -- into talking about all the trivial little things that they are raising, rather than talking about the big issues in the book.

----

I think this is an interesting point because it does support the picture made, by denigrators and admirers alike, of the mind-set of this White House. The Bush administration is composed of family friends, run as a tight, even secretive, ship, and perfectly willing to play hardball if someone steps out of line. The problem with this, as Clarke points out--and I think this is the key to Clarke's motivation-- is that *that* loyalty can run counter to the interests of the country. He thinks, and a lot of people agree, that he made a mistake by pushing the Iraq angle. I think it is prudent for people to remember that, in fairness to Bush, Al Qaeda was not a big priority for most people pre-9/11. A related question: does anyone, exempting Wolfowitz, Chalabi and friends, remember having strong feelings about the urgency to invade Iraq because they were on their way to develop nuclear bombs before 9/11? I don't. And yet somehow, a completely unrelated terrorist attack made it such a priority that hastily launched into what icreasingly looks like a foreign policy quagmire (daily update: convoy attacked, three civilians dead, 2 US soldiers injured) that will not get better when we start to beat a hasty political-season retreat.

Incidentally, Mark Buehner, I don't buy the tidy "idealism/process" dichotomy you've established for the left and the right. Idealists were behind this invasion, and sober foreign policy hands were opposed--we forget that this was agenda pushed by a previously marginalized group within the foreign policy apparatus which is, actually, mostly continuous and non partisan. People like Clarke were put on the sidelines, while people who warned of the difficulties of the occupation, the need for more troops, the costs, etc. were laughed off by "innovators" like Rumsfeld and Cheney, who were bought hook line and sinker the unfounded "intelligence" of Chalabi and his friends who had their own interests in mind (and who have essentially owned up to using us in their efforts). Furthermore, what remains an underreported fact, these predictions from the old guard foreign policy establishment are proving true. No flowers and candies. No huge oil revenues. No flourishing of democracy from a largely secular and state. Tremendous cost. Scattered and scurrying international support. These are all results of calculated gambles that went awry--and it's not like people weren't warning them.

I'll grant there are some inconsistencies with Clarke's story and there's certainly room to infer some animus (although the resignation letter is red herring--boilerplate stuff--and I believe he said Condi "looked like" she'd never heard of Al Qaeda, and couldn't have seriously suggested it (I mean, *I'd* heard of aL qaeda in 2000) so I don't think that qualifies as a "gotcha" moment either) but there are a hell of a lot more inconsistencies with the stories from Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and Bush. Strangely I don't see the same quality of rigor applied to the administration from it's defenders as I do
toward Clarke.

To all

Please read the briefing transcript from foxnews:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

This is devastating stuff against almost every part of the Clarke thesis coming from Clarke himself. (BTW,it took place in August 2002 when Iraq war planning was probably at an advanced stage.)

According to Clarke :
-there was no Clinton plan on terror
-Bush immediately engaged Pakistan to turn them
- a five fold increase in anti-AQ funding was first proposed in Feb 2001
-no current initiative against terror was stopped in the new administration
-many Clinton initiatives that were tabled were finally acted upon
-that Clinton policy did not evolve from Oct 98-Jan01
-the clear impression that the Bush people were acting; that the Clinton folks didn't

The only question left is how can Clarke now say exactly the opposite?

There's too much garbage in this thread to effectively comment on it all, but these comments by Don Williams stand out:

The one time pad encryption is provably unbreakable and easy to use.

As someone who has written security-sensitive software and written about secure programming, I can tell you: this is false to the point that it damages Mr. Williams's credibility.

One-time pad encryption is unbreakable, yes. But it is not easy to use. It is very, very easy to get wrong, and even a slight mistake makes OTPs no more secure than the cryptograms in the newspaper.

Since World War II up to today, one can tune into the shortwave band any night and hear strings of random numbers --one time pad encryptions --being broadcast worldwide.

One such "slight" mistake would be to distribute your pads over shortwave broadcasts. As any real cryptographer will tell you, the secrecy of your message is directly dependent on the secrecy of your pads. How could one could call a pad "secret" after it's been read over shortwave radio to billions of potential listeners? Does Mr. Williams not think the NSA capable of transcribing those "pads" themselves and running all intercepted communication past them?

Digital security is difficult. Period. *No* true security is easy.

Most who say different have an agenda, and Mr. Williams's agenda seems pretty transparent to me. One could simply call him ignorant; then again, he loudly ascribes malice to the Bush administration with the benefit of less evidence. Perhaps he could give us some reason why we should give him more grace than he gives the President, who is, after all, doing something much more difficult than merely getting his facts straight.

haven't read it. will do as soon as I do (some) work.

Keep in mind, though, who's controlling the flow of this information (White House, Fox news).

By the way, I appreciate the civil tone of this discussion--last time I jumped on a right-leaning message board I was accused of being a terrorist-lover because I had the temerity to criticize the President.

Quick questions for anybody who feels like answering, was there any chance that sufficient public support could have been mustered to launch a full scale attack on Afghanistan, let alone Iraq during the Clinton administration? How big/small were those chances?

Phrased that way, Sam, I think the answer to your question is no. However there were many things that could have been done to thwart al Qaeda -- from attacking its finances to striking its bases in Afghanistan to public diplomacy after the African embassy bombings to tracking suspicious Arabs in the United States -- that could have been done but were not. Remember that the 9/11 hijackers were not supermen; they were able to carry out their plan because we left some pretty large doors unlocked.

On that point I've been disappointed that Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller have not yet appeared before the 9/11 commission. More generally I find it very discouraging that officials of this administration as well as the last one both make recourse to the defense that major steps to defend the United States could not be taken because they would have been unpopular, or even because they might have generated criticism in Congress.

Sam:

By the late 90s -- when such an attack was needed -- zilch, zero, nada. There was no global constituency for such an attack, and, if memory serves, the misile attack of the Sudanese drug factory had blown a hole in US credibility in the same way that no WMDs has.

The only way, even after 9/11, that Bush was able to manage the rush to war to Iraq was by talking and obsessing aboout Iraq for six straight months. Any dispatch of significant troops to Afghanistan would have required the same level of commitment from Clinton, and Lewinski/impeachment/Bosnia/2000 election made that impossible.

Y'know, an appreciation of that political reality may be the explanation of why Clarke judges Bush more harshly than Clinton.

Here, in a full tanscript, Mr. Clarke, in his own words, his own voice in fact, completely blows out of the water his more recent positions on things... and casts Mr. Clarke as a flat out liar.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html

Which sould pretty much end the discussion about Mr. Clarke not being Paul O'Neil. The statement is correct. O'Neil got stupid.

On the other hand, Clarke is a liar.

curious: You only make the point as to why it's important to have a Fox News even if one assumes it is biased. Richard Clarke is certainly lining up a bunch of critical thinkers in dropping by the 60 Minutes lounge, then Charlie Rose's desk and finally in Joe Conason's lap. I can't imagine his stops reflect the kind of questions he WANTS to answer.

I'll reconsider if he does Meet the Press or McGlaughlin or someone that at least tries to toe the middle of the road.

Sam: No, I don't think there was a chance of getting support for boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Quotes about the Clinton administration and the Bush administration appear to reflect that notion. Plans for getting Bin Laden were reflective of secrecy. Support for the Northern Alliance, negotiations with Pakistan, courting Uzbekistan; the last thing it appears the Clinton administration was considering is using American forces. Bush may have hinted at something more with his "swatting flies" reference, but he certainly wasn't demanding a military plan to get Bin Laden.

Curious
You may be suspicious of Fox and the White House except for one thing . . . they just played the tape and it is clearly Clarke's voice.

So you have to pose the old question "who you gonna believe, Clarke now or your own lying ears?"

Do you really think that Clarke, as a public spokesman of the administration, was at liberty to freely speak his mind at that point?

I haven't seen the tape, but in reading it I see a lot of the standard Fleischer-esque highly parsed non-answers and spin that we're become all too accustomed to getting from this bunch.

For example:

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion ... that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE:I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

Is it just me, or is he dodging the question? He seems to be saying no, without actually coming out and saying no.

It's clear that as a member of the administration his job was to articulate the administration's viewpoint, not his. While out and out lying is above and beyond the call of duty for a person in his position, evasive non-answers and spin are not.

IOW, The boss said spin it this way, and he spun it the way the boss wanted. Does that make him a liar? We report, you decide.

Then by that measure, he wasn't able to speak his mind under Clinton, either. Was he spinning then, too, Clem?

"Incidentally, Mark Buehner, I don't buy the tidy "idealism/process" dichotomy you've established for the left and the right. Idealists were behind this invasion, and sober foreign policy hands were opposed--"

Actually that wasnt my thread but Ill post my response to the Iraq portion. Sober foreign policy hands of a certain stripe were opposed. Those for whom instability is the ultimate dirty word. They fear uncertainty above all, and hence are paralyzed into either pure defensiveness or pinprick 'safe' strikes. That is a classic recipe for losing a war (the logical conclusion of a defensive campaign is surrender- Napoleon). There is another school of hard nosed pragmatism that sought to bring the fight to the enemy _by_ invading Iraq. This is a strategy designed to force the enemy to come out and fight, instead of choosing where and when and what targets they wish. This aspect is working. Look at Madrid. Spain was bombed to get the Spanish out of Iraq and hurt the US there. Had the US not been in Iraq, those bombs would have been directed elsewhere, to a target of AQs choosing. Instead we got inside AQs decision cycle and forced their hand. Now they have to respond to our moves instead of vice versa. This is classic military strategy. It is also known as zugzwang, forcing an enemy into an endgame when they would prefer to continue manuevering. This if anything is a frigid, realist strategy. It assumes there will be casualties in Iraq in order to prevent casualties elsewhere, like America. There is nothing idealistic about it, save that no matter how horrible the battle in IRaq becomes it would be hard pressed to make life worse than Hussein did. After a year the reconstruction results as well as polls are in fact showing that life is improving, which makes it idiolistic in that respect. But dont doubt thta the underlying military reality is that bombers are blowing themselves up in Shiia markets instead of American malls.

"Keep in mind, though, who's controlling the flow of this information (White House, Fox news)."

They are? They control the publishing house that put out Clarkes book? 60 minutes? CNN? NYT? LAT? PBS? NPR? The networks? The blogosphere? Is there some secret neo-con code required to access google and find statements people made over the last few years? The other side cant do that? What are you talking about?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I never entertained the idea that Fox news forged a tape of Clarke--I merely mentioned it to remind everyone that it is clearly a politically motivated leak and to remind everyone Fox's cozy relationship with the White House. Fortunately I haven't staked my position on the fact that Clarke is the most reliable witness in the world. His reputation is as an expert bureaucrat, and it seems reasonable to me that he would toe the party line (lying out of loyalty to the administration--unheard of!!) in a background interview during a period when he was employed by the White House. (May I cheekily ask again that all you outraged people out there apply the same standards to the "lying" of so many members of the Bush administration and then compute: "They have no credibility, I'll never listen to what they have to say again." Can't do it? Thought so.)

Remember, too, that this is the best the White House can do to refute his claims, and they shoudl have all sorts of contradicting evidence to undermine the things he's said about their preparedness, their planning, the meetings, the plans etc. I still haven't seen it, so they are left with an ad hominem attack on his truth-telling abilities, when it has never been an issue for all the people who employed him and spoke highly of his committment to stopping terrorism through his long career. It's hard to contradict the fact that this guy was a committed public servant.

Mr. Stout--he's taking questions from US Senators right now, so I think that qualifies as outside the "safe zone" of the liberal media.

In the end, Clarke's consistent veracity is not as important to me as the discussion that his book has cast a light on--namely, did Bush use the 9/11 attacks to prosecute a war in Iraq ( this theory is backed up by several other account--eg Woodward, O'Neil); has the Bush administration covered up their lack of preparedness and exagerrated the extent of their attention to terrorism (a forgiveable mistake, but a mistake nevertheless, and one that is again, corroborated by their own priority lists, Condi Rice's Foreign Affairs piece, the stalling of the administration on Clarke's proposals, etc.) These assertions remain undisputed.

Background briefing in early August 2002:
Richard Clark:"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."

Clark knows is old and done with politics so he is going to go out with a bang and a pocket full of cash. Trying to legitimize his claims whether true or not is futile because he has contradicted himself and provided a motive for his own lies.

"Y'know, an appreciation of that political reality may be the explanation of why Clarke judges Bush more harshly than Clinton. "

I dont buy that AM. The impeachment was a debacle of Clintons own making. If he didnt wish to expend the political capital to go to war that is simply a polical calculation. Hardly noble. Kosovo was a war not remotely related to US vital interest (which i still supported), if that trumped the Afghanistan deal Clinton has a lot to answer for. But I dont believe any of that anyway. At the end of the day, Clinton had 8 years of constant, growing provocation to deal with the threat. Bush had 8 months and change to install an adminisration, figure out what the heck was going on, approve, and execute a plan. He got to the approval. The plan to topple the Taliban was on his desk the day the planes his the WTC.

uh_clem:

I understand your point, but now Clarke is in the position of many a fellow in a TV trial drama?.You know, the fellow sitting in the dock as Matlock, Perry Mason, Hamilton Berger, bellows..."So, Mr. Clarke...tell me...were you LYING THEN or were you LYING NOW?" About the only way he gets out of this is, if in his book, he talks about the briefing, and how creepy the doing of it made him feel...

Since nobody reports him doing that, it looks like this shifts the story from the Prez didn't prevent 9/11 because he didn't have an anti-terrorism cabinet meeting and failed to put his cabinet on war footing to Clarke, dedicated but "insecure and vindictive" (Drezner's words) bureaucrat.

Well, Bush may never have found is weapons of mass destruction, but he's pretty damn good at his politics of mass destruction.

"These assertions remain undisputed"

Except by Clarkes own words in 2002. So your evidence is Clarke, and my rebuttal is Clarke. Sadly it looks like we're back to where we usually get in these debates. Those who want to think the worst of Bush will, those who dont wont.

Then by that measure, he wasn't able to speak his mind under Clinton, either. Was he spinning then, too, Clem?

Probably. But without an example at hand it would be presumptious of me to say so. If you or Fox or Karl Rove want to dig up an old transcript for me to evaluate, I'll be happy to pronounce my expert opinion. (c:

Realize, though, that the Bush administration is much much more disciplined about staying "on message" then the Clinton administration could ever hope to be. The pressure on a bureaucrat to to the line in public is much more severe today.

For better ofr for worse, the Clinton team had far less discipline about these things.

That's no good enough mb, I left Clarke out of that laundry list of the administration's errors. You didn't answer my points. If you don't want to address the issues, say "uncle" and let me get back to my job.

"If you or Fox or Karl Rove want to dig up an old transcript for me to evaluate, I'll be happy to pronounce my expert opinion"

Im still wondering who's stopping you from digging up your own transcript. Tough to believe that the latest accusation against the Roveans is that they unfairly do their research better than the haters.

Realize, though, that the Bush administration is much much more disciplined about staying "on message" then the Clinton administration could ever hope to be.

Given the statement about taking Yassin out being 'deeply troubling', and Mr. Bush's near retraction today on the point, I find this statement of yours about their discipline to be amusing.

Posters who use polemical terms in this discussion do not help their causes. Those who allege obvious whoppers adversely effect their own credibility and, to a lesser degree, their causes.

Clarke's allegation that the Bush administration did not regard Al Qaeda as a serious enough threat to take effective action on it prior to 9/11 is pretty well refuted by the record just produced by the Bush administration. This raises questions about Mr. Clarke which find support in his own record.

My chief bent here is campaign politics, about which I have a fair amount of expertise, though my columns have all addressed national security issues.

IMO the Democrats' fuss about Clarke's allegations is a serious mistake. Drawing attention to national security at this time is a Bad Thing for Senator Kerry's campaign prospects. His public image here is malleable and I don't see anything remotely resembling a Build Up Kerry on national security public relations camapign in progress. Until that is underway, it is most unwise to draw attention to national security at all because his image here, to the extent it exists (as opposed to what Republican partisans want it to be - their chortling and salivating is premature) is so weak that it creates most unfavorable comparisons with President Bush.

I have major reservations about the Democrats' timing here. Sure it is appropriate sometime to try to "dirty" President Bush's image on national security. But why now? This looks like a mistake.

Getting back to Clarke, it looks more and more like he's toast. The Fox stuff cited above is pretty fierce.

Tom, politically this is bad news for Kerry. Mainly because there is a major policy war going on and he is off skiing. Now skiing is fine, but this was a bad time for a vacation. People see Bush, Powell, Rice, and Cheney on their tv screens all week, testifying before Congress, trotting out their record in their own words.. its basically a free campaign commercial. Kerry has a problem because he is nowhere to be scene, and rightly or wrongly gives the impression of being a nonentity.

OK – so I’ve read the Fox News “background” interview
Distilled, it appears to make the following points:

1. There was no plan (which Clarke defines in this transcript as recommendations to change existing strategy) transmitted from the Clinton team to the Bush team. There was a strategy that existed from 1998 forward, but there were unresolved issues (regarding Uzbekistan, Pakistan and the Northern Alliance) that the Clinton team had not resolved.
2. The new Bush team decided to continue the existing Clinton strategy and implement a process to decide the unresolved issues. The transition slowed things down, but by the end of summer they had decided to increase CIA resources for covert actions to go after AQ and to implement policy changes with respect to Uzbekistan, Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. (the Pakistani changes would be carrots in lifting sanctions).
3. The President was briefed throughout the process and the whole thing culminated in the Sept 10 report.
4. Continuity was deemed important, keeping Clarke on disproves animus.
5. Military was always rejected as an option.
6. AQ “rollback” shifted to AQ “elimination”.

This makes Clarke a liar? How, exactly? Was he supposed to tell these reporters that the government was not working on a counterterrorism strategy?

Again, counterterrorism was his JOB. Clarke is not now saying that there was no progress AT ALL with respect to counterterrorism. This interview does not address his main point that there was no Bush administration emphasis on counterterrorism, but instead there was a shift of emphases to other issues.

Ya'll need another straw to grasp at.

Then Toast, you clearly havent been listening to the allegations Clarke has been making.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Now does that sound remotely like what you just posted?

Curious
An ad hominen attack is an attack that doesn't address the issues raised, usually an attempt to change the subject. The transcript of the Aug 2002 briefing goes directly to the issues raised by Clarke and his book, whether or not the administration acted against AQ in the months before 9/11. It is a clear refutation of his later position. As such, it is both on point and fair addition to Clarke's record.
(as are the Jane Mayer New Yorker article and the Frontline quote, links above, which are at variance with his current position)

Sorry
I misaddressed my last post . It should have been to Curious, not from

*Tom, politically this is bad news for Kerry... People see Bush, Powell, Rice, and Cheney on their tv screens all week, testifying before Congress, trotting out their record in their own words.. its basically a free campaign commercial.*


I don't agree with your assertion. Does the fact that all these figures appear on TV to fight incredibly serious allegations of misrepresentation and failure make any difference? Any press is good press? If it's not Kerry's fight, why do you feel he should be a player?

Wow, this is a long comment section.

I'm at work, so I don't have all the data at my fingertips, but I'll start posting responses later today.

Btw, does anyone know where to find a transcript of the public hearings by the 9/11 committee? I'm curious to see how Tenet and Clarke compare with yesterdays.

thanks,
Carolina

Maybe if there were 130,000 US troops on the ground in Afghanastan AQ wouldn't be in the position to be fighting anywhere else? Why open another front in the War on Terror to fight the enemy, when we had already brought the fight to them?

"I don't agree with your assertion. Does the fact that all these figures appear on TV to fight incredibly serious allegations of misrepresentation and failure make any difference? Any press is good press? If it's not Kerry's fight, why do you feel he should be a player?"

Because your average American isnt a policy wonk. The swing voters out there A.are less concerned with how Bush dealt with terrorism pre-911 than post-99 B.space out 30 seconds into the he-said/she-said routine and walk away just remembering Colin Powell talking about fighting terrorism. Then in the next segment they see Kerry on his snowboard. Thats simply the impression the average Joe will probably end up with. THe other half of the equation that I think we havent quite reached yet but cant be far is that there is a critical mass of how much partisan bickering the US public will be willing to stomach on the issue of terrorism, particularly 911. If the dems are viewed as attacking Bush for political gain at this time its going to hurt them, again rightly or wrongly. Kerry had a problem, if he ducks this fight he looks like a light weight, if he gets too far in it he looks like a hack. He's no Bill Clinton, he didnt come out smelling like roses. Id be more of the school to err on the side of agressiveness. Instead he just is the deafening silence. Thats not good for him.

"Maybe if there were 130,000 US troops on the ground in Afghanastan AQ wouldn't be in the position to be fighting anywhere else? "

Why wouldnt they? Most of them that survived slipped into Pakistan and Iran. Why stick around Afghanistan and get killed? Sure they keep a moderate presence there to pick off any soldiers they can (more soldiers = more targets), but why are the Pakistanis busy combing their side of the border? Unless you're advocating invading Pakistan and Iran with those troops...

The Bush Administration used 9/11 to do what they wanted to do - attack Iraq - as opposed to what we needed to do - remake Afghanistan. The over reliance on proxy troops allowed AQ to get away. Why the reliance on Afghans? The Bush Administration is not oppossed to putting US service men in danger. 586 kia, more than 300 wia. Why wasn't the total force of the US Armed Services brought to bear on Afghanistan? A lack of targets seems like a poor reason for not fighting the enemy that murdered 3000 people on US soil.

Mark

There is no factual conflict. There are differences in interpretation.

In the fox piece - "We are still working on counterterrorism."

60 Minutes - "We arn't doing enough on counterterrorism, and have shifted our focus other places. I am upset that we are bragging about our counterterrorism efforts."

Both can be true.

Im still wondering who's stopping you from digging up your own transcript.

Well, the transcript up on Fox was a background briefing and thus was not public until today. How do you suggest that I dig up non-public background interviews from the Clinton administration?

Note: Bob Kerrey made an obvious point in the hearing today that it was a breach of journalsitic ethics for Fox to publicly release transcripts of a background interview. They're supposed to be off the record dontyaknow. But it's Fox, what are you gonna do about it?

Jeff Licquia , at March 24, 2004 01:39 PM, said:
-----------------

"There's too much garbage in this thread to effectively comment on it all, but these comments by Don Williams stand out: 'The one time pad encryption is provably unbreakable and easy to use.'

As someone who has written security-sensitive software and written about secure programming, I can tell you: this is false to the point that it damages Mr. Williams's credibility.

One-time pad encryption is unbreakable, yes. But it is not easy to use. It is very, very easy to get wrong, and even a slight mistake makes OTPs no more secure than the cryptograms in the newspaper. "
-------------
This, of course, is bullshit. With a one time pad, one simply converts clear text to a string of numbers (A=01, B=02,Z=26) , add a string of random numbers to the clear text number string, and send it. The receiver, who must have a copy of the random number string , subtracts the random number string without borrowing to get the clear text numbers and then converts the clear numbers back into text. Rule one is that the pad of random numbers must not fall into the hands of the enemy. Rule two is that the pad must be used only once (Russians broke this rule in the 1950s and we were able to break some of their communications --google Verona.) The one time pad is hence not suited for the large data volumes of military operations but works well for high value messages. Rule three is that the random numbers must be truly random --not computer generated. One may, for example, mark several boxes of poker chips with numbers 0-9, mix them throughly in a waste basket, and then select them at random to generate the pad. Google "one time pad" or see Kahn's "The COdebreakers"
----------
Jeff Licquia then goes on to say:

"Since World War II up to today, one can tune into the shortwave band any night and hear strings of random numbers --one time pad encryptions --being broadcast worldwide.

One such "slight" mistake would be to distribute your pads over shortwave broadcasts. As any real cryptographer will tell you, the secrecy of your message is directly dependent on the secrecy of your pads. How could one could call a pad "secret" after it's been read over shortwave radio to billions of potential listeners? Does Mr. Williams not think the NSA capable of transcribing those "pads" themselves and running all intercepted communication past them?
Digital security is difficult. Period. *No* true security is easy. "
--------
This show's Mr Licquia's ignorance. The encrypted text gained from adding the random string to the clear text is itself a random string. The difficulty with the one time pad is passing the one time pads to agents in enemy territory -- done in the past via microfilm dropped at dead drops by couriers.
---------
Re Licquia's comment
"Most who say different have an agenda, and Mr. Williams's agenda seems pretty transparent to me.

One could simply call him ignorant; then again, he loudly ascribes malice to the Bush administration with the benefit of less evidence. Perhaps he could give us some reason why we should give him more grace than he gives the President, who is, after all, doing something much more difficult than merely getting his facts straight."
----
It is Mr Licquia who is ignorant both of encryption and of international affairs. My facts --regarding both one time pads and Mr Bush --are true. Mr Licquia, by contrast, has contributed garbage.

"There is no factual conflict. There are differences in interpretation."

By the same individual. We sometimes call that schitsofrenia.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but:

2003
"He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months,"

2002
"Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. "

Toast -- Here's my take...

The honorable thing for Clarke do have done was resign about the time the Bushies were gearing up fo Iraq. That way, he could have told his Iraq obsession story at a time when it would have done the country some good.

This said, the real question is not Clarke's honor, but his veracity and judgement. His judgement is probably colored by some very evident bitterness at the way he was treated by the incoming Bushies. (He felt threatened by Bush, when challenged on his expert opinion? Gee, what's Bush gonna do? Punch his lights out?)

But nobody is saying that the event he describes didn't happen. They are saying that he did not know the whole story, and put the worst interpretation possible on what he did know. (Out of the loop,as Cheney put it.)

I guess I don't put much stock in the idea that somehow, if Bush had paid more attention to Clarke, 9/11 would have been prevented. Clarke's nostrums were not salable to a 50.1-49.9 nation, particularly when the 49.9 guy had been appointed president. I find the Iraq stuff credible -- it explains a lot that happened later -- but not credible as a reason why the Bushies did not pay attention to the 9/11 signs.

It seems pretty clear that Clarke did not have the full trust of the Bush people, and that must have been galling to Clarke. That would explain his attitude, his perceptions, and also why nobody paid him much mind.

Ultimately, we don't seem to have much of a scandal here. No overheard conversation from Osama announcing 9/11, or similar smoking gun. No evidence of WMD fakery. We just have something that will be dismissed by the right (and they'll have sufficient reasons) and embraced by the left (and they'll have sufficient reasons.)

As for moderates -- I don't know. I take it as another indication that we were knowingly fibbed into Iraq. I view most of the other problems that have hit the press as the complaints of someone who feels he was ignored by his intellectual inferiors.

Picking up on a question asked way way up in the thread by Appalled Moderate (hope you're still with us):

Has Clarke,in any way, said anything about why he didn't speak up during the run up to Iraq? He easily could have resigned in 2002, and his message -- look, these guys are nuttier than fruitcakes on the Iraq business, let me giuve you the details -- would have been an extremely important and influential part of that debate.

He was asked this in his hearing today. Unfortunately, I don't have a transcript, so I'll have to paraphrase. The gist is that by that time he had been transfered out of his old position and was working on computer security / cyberterrorism. He felt that he was doing important work and making significant progress at that task and that the best way to serve his country was to stay on-task.

Did he make the right judgement? Who knows - but I doubt he could have done much towards stopping the inexorable march to war. And we'll never really know what he contributed to stopping cyberterrorism - that's just the nature of preventive work.

The briefing was cleared by the White House for broadcast as stated in the header of the Fox web page, a point either not known or made to Kerrey. As the backgrounder was held by the white house, it can be said that the were the source and approved of "outing" themselves. No ownership of the interview can be imputed to Clarke. If I ask my employee to talk to the press, he talks to the press as my employee. If I choose to make my employee's off the record remarks public, it is my choice.
Did they have a motive in making the briefing public? uh yeah. But no ethical breach occured, other than the current inconsistencies in the Clarke record

This is a difference in interpretation ONLY if you disconnect Iraq from the war on terror... which the Democrats and Clarke are now trying to do. Interesting, he didn't think that way before.

ka-Ching.

He resigned from the government January of last year, at the climax of the Iraq debate. In fact at the moment where his opinion could have arguably had the most influence.

To add to my most recent comments:

Mark Young, today:

The last pillar, however, was the most interesting, and went to the heart of the strategy adopted by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and, ultimately, Bush. By intervening in the relationship between the brutish Iraqi regime and its long-suffering subjects, the US adopted a policy of enforced democratization. As far as the Bush administration was concerned, a democratic Iraq at the heart of the Arab world could become a liberal beacon in the region, prompting demands for openness and real reform inside neighboring states. Ridiculous you say? The Syrian regime, faced in the past two weeks with protests by individuals seeking greater freedom and a revolt by disgruntled Kurds, would surely disagree.
This is where Clarke's allegations, and those of critics who see a disconnect between Al Qaeda and Iraq, are misleading. Iraq always was essential to the anti-terrorism battle precisely because victory there was regarded as necessary to transform societies from where terrorists, spawned by suffocating regimes, had emerged. One can disagree with the practicability of such a strategy, but it is difficult to fault its logic.

Glenn Reynolds agrees that Clarke is toast:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014723.php

"March 24, 2004
IT'S CLARKE V. CONASON NOW: This is almost starting to look like a Karl Rove setup.

UPDATE: Or maybe Clarke set himself up. Here's what he said in 2002:

January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

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.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. . .

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

(Emphasis added.) So Clarke in 2002 says that the Bush Administration picked up the Clinton ball and ran with it, redoubling (er, quintupling!) effort. Clarke in 2004 -- an election year, with a book to sell -- says the opposite, that the Bush Administration ignored the problem.

Which Clarke do you believe?

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader points out this excerpt from the same transcript:

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no [Clinton] plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the [Bush] administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

It's hard for me to see how this leaves Clarke with any credibility at all.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at March 24, 2004 11:29 AM"

Glenn Reynolds agrees that Clarke is toast

Wow. Glen Reynolds has swallowed the White House smear campaign hook line and sinker.

I'm shocked.

It is worth pointing out that Richard Clarke confirms Paul O'Neill and that Paul O'Neill confirms Richard Clarke...

It never fails to amaze me how you can spend a whole day debating, people posting links for and against, agree on some points and differ on others, occasionally come to something of a consensus, and then some lame brain shuts off his brain and goes into default mode. Yeh, 167 mainly insightful posts to the contrary, but its all an unfair smear campaign. Reporting words that came out of someones own mouth is now smearing. *bang head on keyboard*

...and Joe Wilson and David Kay...

and each of them BRad has developed into serious liabilities in the credibility dept,a nd dropped off the face of the planet.

Tell me, when's the last time you saw O'Neil in a headline?

*THe other half of the equation that I think we havent quite reached yet but cant be far is that there is a critical mass of how much partisan bickering the US public will be willing to stomach on the issue of terrorism, particularly 911. If the dems are viewed as attacking Bush for political gain at this time its going to hurt them, again rightly or wrongly.*

I can agree with that. But this isn't partisan bickering, unless you belive the Republican smear that Clarke is acting as a DFL tool. This is a serious foreign policy hawk, highly critical of Bush for national security reasons.

And, it's the headlines that independents see.

Mark,

Are you saying that the Bush administration is not engaging in a smear campaign?

Are you really that naieve?

Smear: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization.

Do you seriously consider whats been presented here unsubstantiated? If anything its oversubstantiated. Or perhaps your suggesting its a substantiated smear. Theres an interesting concept.
Smear implies that what is happening to Clarke is unfair or unethical. Is quoting a persons own words unethical?

This is along the same lines as Kerry (Snowman) claiming that anyone who questions his voting record is attacking his patriotism. How can you take peoples records off the table when deciding how heavilly to weigh their opinions?

uh clem
y'all might try learnin 'how ta spel afore ya call a body "naieve"

"And, it's the headlines that independents see."

And tomorrow the headlines (not in the NYTs certainly, but perhaps in the WSJ) will say that the man throwing accusations at Bush was saying precisely the opposite 2 years ago. Oh and that he is selling a book at the moment.
I dont consider that smear. Its truth in advertising. Draw your own conclusions.

I think it certainly started as a smear campaign. But after 4 days, they are starting to dig up some substantial contradictions to some of Clarke's assertions.

However, I hardly agree with Reynolds that Clarke is already "toast". That sounds like a partisan summary dismissal before everything is completely assessed on it's relative merits.

“And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.”

Mark

These are just words – in fact the strategy did not change at all. They made policy decisions about Pakistan, Uzbekistan and the NA and decided to increase covert funding for the CIA. That’s it. “Rollback” vs “rapid elimination” was meaningless unless those issues were dealt with first, and there is no way to know if they had the “magic bullet” with which to flip Pakistan. They were still going to try diplomacy first and the military action, if necessary, just as the Clinton team was going to do.

The Fox piece sounds like a typical “we are working on the problem” puff piece and the later interview sounds like the real deal. Both are interpretations of the facts, as I know them to this point. In a sense, 8 months of meetings puffed to be progress while he really thought that little progress was being made.

AM

I don’t see a scandal either – I only see further confirmation that the Bush team viewed Iraq as the more important part of the war on terror and that it had priority over the pursuit of AQ. This view preceded 9/11. I suspected this already.

Every witness has a bias – but the facts as recited by Clarke are still not controverted. I suspect you are correct and we will all place our own interpretations on what he has reported.

Bithead writes: "Tell me, when's the last time you saw O'Neil in a headline?"

This week. Headline about him being exonerated of the charges of having released classified documents in his book.

"These are just words "

Toast, these are the words of the guy your asking me to believe! Wtf? Is he credible or not? Or was he not credible in 2002, but he's credible now? Can i get a witness?

"They were still going to try diplomacy first and the military action, if necessary, just as the Clinton team was going to do."

Well, was Bush ignoring the problem or not? Thats all I want to know? And now suddenly you're saying BUsh was doing what Clinton was doing when Clark lauds Clinton and savages Bush. Again, can I get some coherance here?

And even so, how does that explain this:
"ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no [Clinton] plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the [Bush] administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right."

That sounds like a fundamental change in policy. 5-fold increase in spending, thats a change in policy. A plan to topple the Taliban militarilly, thats a change in policy. Now maybe you have a point that not a lot concrete was actually executed, fine. But lets not forget the man was only in office 8 months.
Either way it sure doesnt sound like BUsh was 'ignoring' terrorism.
Give me a straight answer: Do you believe this guy or not? And more importantly, which parts?

More trouble for Clarke at the hearings today:

"Several panelists said they were taken aback by the brouhaha surrounding Clarke’s book and his allegations in it, since his closed-door sessions with the commission panel were completely different in tone.

“What I don’t understand is if you had these deep feelings and deep concerns … in the Bush administration that you didn’t advise the [Sept. 11] joint inquiry,” said former White House counsel Fred Fielding (search).

“You’ve got a real credibility problem,” John Lehman, former Navy secretary under President Reagan, told Clarke, calling the witness “an active partisan selling a book.” "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115045,00.html
hattip instapundit via command post

Allright, Im going to stop now. This is just getting sadistic now. The guy is ruined. This just in:

"CNN is reporting that Condi Rice just held a press conference to release an unclassified portion of an email sent to her from Dick Clarke just after September 11 in which he states that he worries the Bush Administration might be accused of not doing enough to prevent September 11, and listing actions that the Administration had taken against terrorism and Al Qaeda to combat that perception."
http://www.command-post.org/gwot/2_archives/011134.html

Unless Toast would like to present his reasoning why Clarkes personal coorespondenses with Condi Rice would be "we are working on the problem” puff pieces", I think I will just let the mans record speak for itself. He served his country for many years well and faithfully. I dont understand this self destruction and I dont want to pile on any more.

wishIwuz2,

Clarke's known errors of judgment in his official capacity substantiate the implications of presently known contradictions between his statements this year and in his book vs. his statements in 2001-2002. That is why I said earlier:

"Clarke's allegation that the Bush administration did not regard Al Qaeda as a serious enough threat to take effective action on it prior to 9/11 is pretty well refuted by the record just produced by the Bush administration. This raises questions about Mr. Clarke which find support in his own record."

Bluntly, he has been known to step on his d**k bigtime, which supports a hypothesis that he is doing so again now.

TexasToast,

The Bush administration did change the Clinton administration's policy towards Al Qaeda. The latter had decided not to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, for a variety of reasons, of which hindsight says both that the most important was Pakistani opposition, and that Clinton was right. The Bush administration decided just before 9/11 to try anyway through Masood's Northern Alliance based on data provided by, among others, Richard Clarke.

It would be interesting to learn how much influence Clarke's input had on the Bush administration's pre-9/11 decision to forcibly remove Al Qaeda from Afghanistan.

Good stuff, Dan . . . this goes a lot deeper than Kennan and Nitze, though, since Kennan and Nitze largely agreed on the nature of the threat, and were more in disagreement about how to counteract it (although they and their followers did eventually reach a somewhat analogous split over whether communism's expansion needed to be stopped in places like Vietnam and Central America).

I dont understand this self destruction and I dont want to pile on any more.

Self destruction?!? WTF?

The White House has people going through every piece of writing they have from the guy and selectinvely releasing whatever they find that supports their case and you call that self destruction???

I dont understand this self destruction and I dont want to pile on any more.

Self destruction?!? WTF?

The White House has people going through every piece of writing they have from the guy and selectinvely releasing whatever they find that supports their case and you call that self destruction???

uh_clem,

Not keeping one's lies straight is self-destruction.

The CNN story posted by Marc Buehner seems to be more confirmation of my hypothesis that Mr. Clarke is again stepping on his **** big-time.

"The White House has people going through every piece of writing they have from the guy and selectinvely releasing whatever they find that supports their case and you call that self destruction???"

Funny, but I have yet to see a single peice of correspondence produced by Clarke or anyone else written by Clarke before this book came out to back up a *&@^ word he's said. Yeh, self destruction. You dont suddenly out of no-where right a book completely contrary to the way youve presented your views for the last X years. Especially you dont go in front of a congressional committee in public and basically say the opposite of everything you told them in private. How in gods name did he think that would fly? THis is a serious, serious issue and this man is making a mockery of it, intentionally or not. The book being involved sure as &*#$ doesnt help.

It seems like Bill Cohen should be shouldering a great deal of responsibility for Clinton's "inaction" towards Osama's camps. This doesn't let Clinton off the hook, but it's not clear why Clinton didn't fire him when he basically refused to come up with military responses when asked. I understand that it is more nuanced than just described - the joint chiefs were wary, etc., but are there any conjectures as to why Cohen wasn't dumped?

I really don't understand your position on Richard Clark. His book is so different from what he has told people in the past, that I would assess it simply as yet another partisan, anti-Bush hit-piece. He has made too many statements that clash with the book, to take him seriously.

I laughed at the concept that the Clinton administration was stronger on terrorism than the new Bush administration. Again, there is too much in the record to take such statements seriously.

Regards,

Jim Bender

Tom

“Not keeping one's lies straight is self-destruction.”

You're pounding the table ;)

Can anyone point to a substantive deconstruction of what Mr. Clarke has to say?

I’ll take your word for it on the use of the NA.

Mark

“Well, was Bush ignoring the problem or not? That’s all I want to know? And now suddenly you're saying Bush was doing what Clinton was doing when Clark lauds Clinton and savages Bush. Again, can I get some coherence here?”

No – but it looks like Rice downgraded the problem. Focus was shifted to other foreign policy issues and Clarke apparently objected. “Ignored” is probably hyperbole, but neither of us can really know this because we weren’t there.

It looks like “rapid elimination” was the term that Clarke was fighting for. The Bush team wanted “substantive degradation”. Can you blame the man for wanting the words to match his desire for a stronger push against terror?

Clinton talked daily to his “terrorism adviser”. Rice downgraded him to a “deputy” level, which substantially slowed down the process. Clarke’s opinion was that that showed a lowering of priority for counterterrorism between the administrations. Is that not a reasonable assumption? Rice’s selective release of E-mails without testimony is NOT persuasive on this point. There may be 50 other emails from Clarke requesting a stronger line.

“And even so, how does that explain this:
"ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no [Clinton] plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the [Bush] administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right."

This is how:
The “plan” as CLARKE DEFINED IT IN THE FOX PIECE was a change in strategy. The Clinton team did not suggest a change in strategy, leaving to the Bush team a determination if change was needed. That’s why there was no “plan”.

There was no “delay” in the sense that no one did any counterterrorism planning; instead, there was a downgrading and change of emphasis in Clarke’s view because of the changes in the bureaucratic chain of command. Sounds reasonable to me.

"The Clinton team did not suggest a change in strategy, leaving to the Bush team a determination if change was needed"

The Clinton plan was a law enforcement plan. According to Mansoor Ijaz, it was Richard Clarke amongst others that stood in the way of any 'extra-judicial' means of dealing with OBL, up to and including the handover Clinton declined 3 times from Sudan. Look, fine, hindsight. But that doesnt change the fact that Bush's policy change was to get away from the Clinton policy of law enforcement and pin pricks that had achieved exactly one bombed out aspirin factory and some burned up tents. But sadly 8 months didnt end up being enough time to switch over to Bushs more agressive strategy (and I admit in hindsight 110% effort wasnt made). It is simply wrong to characterize a switch from a passive, demonstrably failed Clinton strategy into an agressive Bush strategy as 'ignoring' the problem. The bottom line is Clarke didnt like the Bush's agressiveness, he especially didnt like being ignored and demoted, so he chose this moment to take a swipe at Bush (and possibly make a few bucks). All the evidence points to that _including Clarke's own words and deeds_. If you dont believe, that, please suggest one peice of evidence that Clinton ever had a single plan to go a step further, outside of pure rhetoric.

Let's say assume that Clarke is NOW being honest. Let's assume that what he said in August 2002(released by Fox News, but NBC's Andrea Mitchell was on the same conference call) was just fluff on behalf of the administration to deflect any doubts about the actions being taken by the administration to combat terror. But before I proceed let's get something else clear. Richard Clarke is a bureaucrat, and not the kind that the Senate has advise and consent on. He's the kind that never has a single vote from any American cast for or against him. As this can be good, ie the Military, this can also be a disaster.

In any bureaucracy you will always have powers at play going into the recipe with something like sausage coming out. The Media, the people, interest groups and the political parties all make it into the mixing bowl. Some drown out the flavor of the others and they swap as the recipe changes.

For Richard Clarke it would appear, if taken at his current statements, that he provided false statements to the media that misled the American people on what the Bush Administration was really doing. Why would Clarke tell the media something that he now says wasn't true? Is the answer to this question even a question? Clarke's a career bureaucrat that has always escaped congressional confirmation. Not bad either considering the amount of sensitive information that he had access to. He has told us that he was attempting to transition into the Deputies role at Homeland Security.

Now it is unclear what Clarke thought of a Homeland Security department BEFORE 9/11, but even after 9/11 President Bush was opposed to it at first. Then sometime in 2002 the President shifted to support it with Lieberman and McCain taking the lead in the Senate. The public was supportive of the idea and later it became a big 2002 campaign issue(Karl Rove of Dumbledore again?). In August 2002 we have Clarke apparently, as he obviously contradicts today, a fluff piece in support of the White House that held the two jokers in its hand that eventually were given to Tom Ridge and Asa Hutchinson. By the time they got to Clarke there were no more cards to hand out.

In Jan 2003 he resigns with a warm letter of thanks to the President. Throughout 2003 he writes he book. By December he completes his book and submits it to the White House so they can sign off on the material for release. Clarke claims the White House took their time and the book gets a April scheduled release. The release is moved up to mid March on the day the 9/11 commission hearings begin.

I tried to get the book today which reportedly had a first print of 200,000 copies. My Barnes & Noble was out of stock. Ditto at Borders. The three closest libraries near me all have waiting lists of 10 or more people.

What I gather from this whole event is that Richard Clarke may have served his country for 20 years and 4 Presidents yet in the end he put fluff and himself FIRST and the truth second. He opened his testimony today with an apology to the American people.

You decide.

Hi, Jon;

Bithead writes: "Tell me, when's the last time you saw O'Neil in a headline?"

This week. Headline about him being exonerated of the charges of having released classified documents in his book.

Touche'.... but of course, I was talking about his being taken seriously on his original charges.

All;

You'll recall Richard Clarke suggesting that Terrorism was the highest priority in the Clinton administration.

John Weidner over at Random Jottings asks what seems an indicative question:

"Does anyone else find it odd that in his entire run for president, Al Gore never mentioned the most urgent foreign policy issue of the administration he was helping to lead?
Somehow I think that Clarke saying that the Clintonites had 'no higher priority' than combatting terrorists just isn't going to stick. It won't adhere."

Does anyone else have a problem with accusations that bloggers, commentators or regular people are taking "the administration's bait hook, line and sinker"?

How can one observe and react to a situation in which one side makes a claim and the other side offers a rebuttal and avoid the "partisan" label of just accepting one side over the other?

Maybe other's don't get this, but I spend probably more time defending my positions if they coincide with the Bush Administration than I do defending my positions as exclusive to my opinion. If my view is similar to the Bush Adminstration I have to deflect all the accusations that I am a lackey.

Does anyone else have a problem with accusations that bloggers, commentators or regular people are taking "the administration's bait hook, line and sinker"?

Actually, I almost rose to that bait when I first saw it. But look, after a while of being known as someone who doesn't do the leftist lockstep, you tend to shrug your shoulders and keep moving.

Clem:

Self destruction?!? WTF?

The White House has people going through every piece of writing they have from the guy and selectinvely releasing whatever they find that supports their case and you call that self destruction???

Oh, come on, Clem, I expected better.

You can't possibly tell me that Terry McAwful and company are not at this moment paying hundreds of people to pour over their T1 based feeds from the news services and the net archives trying to dig up anything they can on the President, so as to allow him to destroy himself with his own words, assuming they manage to find such?

The bottom line here is that's exactly what Clarke has done... he couldn't keep his own lies straight, and so destroyed himself. It's not that those looking up Clarke's history are that good, mind you... and the press has been reluctant to release much of the material that contradicts his book... look at the reaction rto the Fox News transcript, for example... It's just that Clarke is a rather target rich environment in that area.

I have been truly amazed at how quickly a mechanism sprang into action to try and discredit Clark, throwing every kind of allegation at him. It was hard to believe this was a man who worked for members of BOTH parties at the White House, if you listed to the various allegations. I have to add: I have SUPPORTED the administration's war on terrorism and the Iraq war. I find the stuff being thrown at him makes me believe him even more...but maybe because I am a former fulltime journalist and when people started trying to paint a whistleblower as a disgruntled employee it usually mean the whistleblower was telling the truth. I'm a typical swing voter and White House and surrogate spokesmen allegations are making me believe it LESS. Most of them don't hold up upon examination. I agree with your post: there is a more fundamental, underlying policy issue. A good case can be made that this administration veered policy after 911 in a long overdue direction; they would have done much better by simply admitting some errors, taking credit for crucial changes...and moved on.

I found Clarke's testimony credible and the Administration's smearing as desperate.

Bush is fucked

...remaking Iraq is a vital part of the war on terror because it will help to remake the Middle East...

"Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it." -Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek 3/24/03*

From the 3/22/04 FT by Roula Khalaf and Guy Dinmore:

It was through the website of a pan-Arab newspaper that most Arab governments last month learned details of Washington's post-Iraq war strategy for the Middle East.

Rumours of an ambitious project had been circulating for weeks as US and European officials met in Washington to discuss the "Greater Middle East initiative" intended to be unveiled at the G8 summit in June.

But when a leaked copy of preliminary proposals to promote social and political reforms appeared in the London-based daily al-Hayat, the Arab reaction was harsh.

Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, and Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, told the US that the region would "not accept" reform being "imposed on Arab and Islamic countries from the outside". Stability, they said, required Washington's attention to crisis - namely the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Iraq.

The botched handling of the initiative and the Arab reaction underlines the growing polarisation between the US and the Arab world a year after the US invasion of Iraq.

While the language in the US initiative - which the administration is redrafting - was somewhat patronising, the document was modest in its aims. Its proposals included aiding parliamentary exchanges, giving help in drafting legislation, promotion of literacy, micro-finance and the establishment of a regional development bank.

The furore, however, was driven primarily by the sense that the US had failed to consult its Arab allies in its quest to impose change.

You can support remaking Iraq et al as "a vital part of the war on terror," yet still not support Bush rationally because of the poor job he's done of it. Just sayin'...

* http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/032403.html
** http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1079419837887&p=1012571727282

Is Clarke a Democratic Party tool? I would have been hesitant to say so before, but after watching him on Larry King tonight, I can say, without doubt, that he is. Why? It was actually something fairly off topic. He repeated the ballad of Max Cleland, which is that the Bush Admistration "questioned his patriotism" over the Homeland Security bill. This is a lie. This is not subject to debate. The Bush administration has never used the word "unpatriotic". It's a fact. But more important than Clarke lying on national television is the fact that this is an official part of the DNC propaganda line. When someone repeats this story, they are asserting their membership in the club. It's like a secret handshake. There was plenty more to undermine his credibility, but this was the nail in the coffin.

GREAT post on Clark. I would normally email you privately but this is my first trip with my new laptop and for some reason I can get my at&t internet but my mail is NOT working unless it's on a comment box like this or my cox webmail. IN any event, I just posted something on clark and quoted you extensively. I read a lot of posts on Clarke; yours was one of the very best.

Wow, so much information!!! I am new here but in tryng to distill what I am reading I have a few questions. I have read the prepared testimony and the statements put together by the staff in the 9/11 commission and it seems as if Clinton did what he could in the circumstances he could, Bush may have had other priorities coming in. THe whole Iraq thing I think was a personal vendetta that he used any means possible to take care of. However in regards to Clark's book, seeing as how I am sure most of us have not read it yet I am not willing to comment fully on it.
My questions are as follows: Without reading it, how can we know the extent of what he is saying? In his prepared testimony he seemed very equal in discussing Clinton and Bush.
If everyone that speaks out against Bush are liars, what does that say about those that are still there? The odds would be pretty interesing that every whistle blower has a vendetta and is a liar when that is what Bush is repeatedly accused of.
No one else addressed the post regarding Bin Laden's speeches about Israel etc. does anyone know more about this?

It is late, sorry I am not too eloquent it will get better though.

Kat: I've outlined the "liar" claims in a few of my posts in this thread. While I'm not saying that Clarke is a liar or lying, I am questioning why he would say one thing while working for the administration and then say another thing when not working for the administration.

It is imperitive for Clarke - although the people asking him questions are unreliable for this, Stahl, Rose, Conason, Larry King - to answer questions detailing first why he said the things he did in August 2002 and in addition I would like to see him explain what part of his statements in 02 were true, what parts were false and what parts were a little of both. Until this is answered the punditocracy will continue to sling mud back and forth attacking Clarke and defending Clarke.

The other concern I have is that Clarke has been known in media circles as one of the most open people that will sit down to answer questions. He's a regular interviewee on Frontline about terrorism and National Security. In fact, PBS has the shows with him on their website you can watch. He appears in the "The Man Who Knew", "the Hunt for Al Qaeda" and "the War Behind Closed Doors". I know I have seen him on other Frontline programs, but these are the three I can directly recall.

Frontline Streaming Video Link

“Everyone is forced to deal with Richard Clarke’s credibility. None of us were there during these alleged discussions. The point I made concerning the marketing aspects of the book are most accurate. Clarke makes lots of money only if he attacks President Bush. Does anybody disagree? Where am I wrong?
posted by: David Thomson on 03.23.04 at 07:29 PM [permalink]”

My question above was written two days ago. I have yet to receive a good answer. What do I think of Richard Clarke now after giving his accusations a fair hearing? This man is a lying scum bag! We are constantly finding more contradictions and outright lies in his book and testimony. Why is he behaving this way? The liberal establishment pays its whores very well. Clarke will earn enormous sums of money on the book---and receive countless speaking engagements and foundation grants.

I rarely call anybody a liar. It is usually best to stay away from such harsh rhetoric. A person can often be wrong but still well meaning. You can even be sued in a court of law for slander. The benefit of the doubt should normally be given to one’s fellow human beings. After all, none of us are God. But the evidence is piling up quickly to prove without a doubt that Richard Clarke is both a dishonorable individual and a liar.

Let me set the record straight here, just for future reference:

Is it an 'attack' to present previous statements made by a witness that are diametrically opposed with what they are telling you now?

Next question, if it were the other way around, and Clarke was out defending Bush tooth and nail, and then the DNC produced a bunch of interviews from 2 years ago where Clarke said the opposite, and then someone produced an email from 9/12 where Clarke laced into the administration for ignoring terrorism, would you Clarke defenders say that the DNC was sliming him? That the McAuliff attack machine was unfairly slandering the man? Or would you be howling in rage at the lying hack?
Just curious.

Query, for those who have started reading the book:

How much of what Clarke has to say is -- I went to this meeting and Rumsfeld said x and Cheney said y? And how much of it is, I was intimidated, I thought, I perceived, he was an ignorant dufus.

I guess I am trying to get a sense of whether Clarke's Bush complaint is any more than "They wouldn't have a meeting on terrorism and kept jabbering on about Iraq."

“Next question, if it were the other way around, and Clarke was out defending Bush tooth and nail, and then the DNC produced a bunch of interviews from 2 years ago where Clarke said the opposite, and then someone produced an email from 9/12 where Clarke laced into the administration for ignoring terrorism, would you Clarke defenders say that the DNC was sliming him?”

I have a another question to add. Does anyone think that the liberal media would not be making a big deal out of Richard Clarke’s contradictions if he were an adamant Bush defender? I have been taking a quick look at a few headlines this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25HUNT.html?hp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24.html

These headlines should make any decent human being want to puke. It is overwhelming proof that the liberal media are not to be trusted.

"the Administration's smearing"

Quoting people is now a "smear."

“Next question, if it were the other way around, and Clarke was out defending Bush tooth and nail, and then the DNC produced a bunch of interviews from 2 years ago where Clarke said the opposite, and then someone produced an email from 9/12 where Clarke laced into the administration for ignoring terrorism, would you Clarke defenders say that the DNC was sliming him?”

I have a another question to add. Does anyone think that the liberal media would not be making a big deal out of Richard Clarke’s contradictions if he were an adamant Bush defender? I have been taking a quick look at a few headlines this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25HUNT.html?hp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24.html

These headlines should make any decent human being want to puke. It is overwhelming proof that the liberal media are not to be trusted.

Opps! I'm sorry for the multiple posting. Please ignore the second one.

David Thomson-

Clarke is a highly regarded, apolitical (until now) technocrat, with a reputation for getting things done.

What he is doing now is taking Bush down.

Selling his book is part of that takedown. I just heard on the radio two things

A: Clarke's "Against All Enemies" is #1 on Amazon,

and B: a Kew poll is showing 90+% of Americans are aware of Richard Clark. That would be Janet Jackson Superbowl half-time territory.

Clarke and his successor as the President's chief advisor on terrorism, Rand Beers, another highly regarded, apolitical (until now) technocrat, with a reputation for getting things done, have both quit in disgust and are now working to defeat Bush.

Spin that.

Jody

Clarke and his successor as the President's chief advisor on terrorism, Rand Beers, another highly regarded, apolitical (until now) technocrat, with a reputation for getting things done, have both quit in disgust and are now working to defeat Bush.Spin that.

Spin isn't needful; just simple fact;
Neither one of the two had much to say prior to 9/11 despite ample opportunity to do so, and in the case of Clarke in particular, HE RAN THE SHOW under Clinton.

HH-
Yep. And Bob Kerry thinks that your knowing the truth about someone's complete reversal is none of your business.

And all the journalism freshmen yearning to work for the Times, and learning to despise Fox news because they don't carry water for the left.

Disgusting.

Richard Clark seems to be a classic case of the disappointed bureaucrat who didn't get his big promotion. This Hoover like vindictive priss knows how to work the system. His phony apology to the "911 families and the "american people" stunk of bloted self importance. I say good-bye your 15 minutes are up. You've had your close-up Mr.Desmond.