Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[oedo]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
If the terrorists strike again, Kerry can kiss his ass goodbye.

do I smell a wishful thinking here?

[lord of the mark]

From Winds Of change

However, last night NRO's the Corner linked to an extremely critical column on Clarke by George Smith of Global Security which quoted an article in The New Republic stating that Clarke played a key role in the Clinton administration's decision to launch a cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. That article, if true, puts Clarke's comments about a war in Iraq detracting from the larger war against al-Qaeda in an entirely different context.

As any number of media reports indicate from the time period in question, those US officials who ordered the cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa plant did so because they believed that bin Laden was producing precursors for VX there with Iraqi assistance. It is worth noting that the basis for this conclusion even found its way into the November 4, 1998 US indictment of both bin Laden and his military commander Mohammed Atef, stating that bin Laden had formed a non-aggression pact with Iraq and had agreed to work with the Iraqi government with regard to weapons development.

One might note rather cynically that all of these claims were made long before the Office of Special Plans or Douglas Feith ever appeared on the scene, a point I noted during my analysis of the Weekly Standard memo.

In light of all of this evidence, if Clarke was indeed a key player in convincing President Clinton to attack al-Shifa but does not believe that Iraq had any connection to al-Qaeda then he should be subjected to some extremely serious questioning regarding whether or not he still stands by the decision to attack the al-Shifa plant. As anybody who has read The Age of Sacred Terror by former Clinton administration defense advisors should know, other key officials from the previous administration continue to stand by the decision to attack the plant, Sandy Berger amongst them. At the very least, Clarke might want to let Salah Idris know that he supports his case and perhaps agree to testify in court on his behalf
.

So has Clarke clarified his position on the al-Shifa plant?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Sorry, I dont know what you're referring to.

Tenet was CIA chief when the Indian and Paksitanti nuclear tests caught everyone of guard..

[GePap]

The amdin. would be far better of saying:

no, we did not feel urgency at the AQ threat prior to 9/11 becuase for all the Clinton's amdin. words, they did not act as if it were that urgent, and we had other things in our plate we saw as more urgent. We were wrong, we have moved on....

and Iraq is right becuase...

That sort of counterattack would be far more effective, and truthful. But they are trapped by their imagemaking.

LoTM: maybe Clarcke, after that attack and with time, GASP, saw he was wrong at the time and has seen the error of his ways....

[lord of the mark]

Well at least SOME ex-Clinton admin officials stand by the claims


Again from Winds of Change:

As I noted on Tuesday, one of the chief problems with former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's claim that the war in Iraq detracted from the campaign against al-Qaeda is that Clarke himself had been instrumental in convincing President Clinton to attack the al-Shifa plant in Sudan on the grounds that it was producing a precursor to the deadly nerve agent VX and that numerous Clinton administration officials, notably Sandy Berger, continue to stand by these claims. Now Ranck and File has an excerpt from former US defense secretary William Cohen saying pretty much the same thing. If these claims are accurate, it would tend to throw the whole notion that Saddam Hussein would never work with al-Qaeda out the window, yes?

In any case i havent seen anything from Clarke clarifying the matter, have you?

[rev]

Please clarify -- how does the Sudan bombing have anything to do with Iraq?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

In any case i havent seen anything from Clarke clarifying the matter, have you?

Have those Clinton officials that STILL hold that view ever criticized the Iraq war on the grounds of no connection to AQ?

And last tme I cheked, the conventional wisom was that the Sudan attack was wrong, so if it was wrong, the idea there was a link between Osama and Saddam there was also wrong..

AND Clarcke felt the war in Iraq undemrined the overall war on terror. That is NOT the same as saying Iraq and AQ had NO connections-since you could believe Iraq and AQ to have had minor and eventually irrelevant connections not large or important enough to warrant an Iraq invasion based on those AQ threats.

[rev]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
If the terrorists strike again, Kerry can kiss his ass goodbye.

That depends on several factors.

1. How does the Bush administration handle the press in the aftermath? Do they blame al-Qaeda or imply that it was an act of domestic terrorism, or of a group unrelated to al-Qaeda? This is what did Spain's former government in -- they tried to blame it on domestic terrorists when all the evidence said it was al-Qaeda.

2. Of course, who's behind the attacks? If it's domestic terrorism, Bush might not be in the best situation, having paid most attention to international terrorists and nearly none to the potential domestic threats. If it's al-Qaeda, the entire Iraq thing is a problem, unless Bush has fully convinced Americans that Iraq was a necessary stop in the war on terrorism.

3. What kind of attack? Now, if members of the administration or first family were harmed, it would draw in overwhelming sympathy. If it's innocent Americans, the 'patriot' thing would be a factor, but given the polarity of this nation in regard to how they feel about Bush, it could simply propel more and more people into the polls to vote both ways.

All in all, I don't think a terrorist attack in the days before the election would bode well for Bush.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rev
Please clarify -- how does the Sudan bombing have anything to do with Iraq?

slate, October 2001

The "smoking gun" that prompted the United States to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles was a soil sample taken from outside the factory by a covert operative. Lab tests revealed that the soil sample contained EMPTA, one of four precursor chemicals needed to make VX. Also, CIA Director George Tenet told U.S. senators during a classified briefing that the United States had intercepted telephone conversations from within the plant that showed evidence of a chemical weapons program. Senior intelligence officials later told the Washington Post that the factory's chairman had visited Iraq to meet with "the father of Iraq's VX program."

[chequita guevara]

Except for the whole al-Shifa plant never making chemicals thing. The former government officials can't admit they were wrong, lest Sudan sue for damages and win an easy victory. Consider that the U.S. government fought forever to deny that Agent Orange was poisonous and still denies that DU causes health problems. SOP, deny everything.

LotM, that soil sample has ben called into question. Subsequent studies of the former plant revealed that there were no chemicals there.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Have those Clinton officials that STILL hold that view ever criticized the Iraq war on the grounds of no connection to AQ?

And last tme I cheked, the conventional wisom was that the Sudan attack was wrong, so if it was wrong, the idea there was a link between Osama and Saddam there was also wrong..

AND Clarcke felt the war in Iraq undemrined the overall war on terror. That is NOT the same as saying Iraq and AQ had NO connections-since you could believe Iraq and AQ to have had minor and eventually irrelevant connections not large or important enough to warrant an Iraq invasion based on those AQ threats.

\

GEpap : one of the more liberal commenters on the Winds of Change site indicates that in his testimony this week Clarke stood behind the Al-Shifa bombing, and said critics of it were wrong. Unfortunately that testimony has not been posted yet, and so I am unable to verify this.

Now it may be that this is garbled, and he has in fact renounced the bombing, as you seem to assume.

Or it maybe that he stands behind the bombing, and considers it justified without believing that there was any connection to Iraq (but in that case the justification for the bombing looks REALLY THIN)

But IF he continues to beleive that there was a connection between Iraq and VX at Al-Shifa this IS NOT a minor thing. This isnt just AQ saying we might like a fall back place, and Iraq saying no, or Iraq suggesting some limited cooperation and AQ saying no. Or someone from Iraq intel helping an AQ/Abu Sayaf operative in the Phillipines some travel documents. Its Iraq passing CHEMICAL WEAPONS expertise to a fundamentalist muslim regime, one which harbored Bin Laden, and which could reasonably be suspected of sharing such expertise with Bin Laden.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Except for the whole al-Shifa plant never making chemicals thing. The former government officials can't admit they were wrong, lest Sudan sue for damages and win an easy victory. Consider that the U.S. government fought forever to deny that Agent Orange was poisonous and still denies that DU causes health problems. SOP, deny everything.

LotM, that soil sample has ben called into question. Subsequent studies of the former plant revealed that there were no chemicals there.

A soveriegn state cant sue another for damages, as a general rule Guev. Agent Orange was a different matter - the US by statute allows its own citizens to sue it - in any case the Agent Orange thing was largely about vet benefits and domestic politics. They do deny the DU thing - AFAIK rightly so - the fact that they deny what you believe is hardly proof that theyre lying.

all irrelevant - Why would Clarke care about damages against the US govt??? The issue here is NOT is the US govt lying - its is CLARKE lying.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

LotM, that soil sample has ben called into question. Subsequent studies of the former plant revealed that there were no chemicals there.

Indeed - I AM NOT standing behind the assertions about the Al-Shifa plant - but Clarke seems to be. THATS the conundrum.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
\

GEpap : one of the more liberal commenters on the Winds of Change site indicates that in his testimony this week Clarke stood behind the Al-Shifa bombing, and said critics of it were wrong. Unfortunately that testimony has not been posted yet, and so I am unable to verify this.

What are yu talking about? his entire testimony is already up on the NYTims

Now it may be that this is garbled, and he has in fact renounced the bombing, as you seem to assume.

I don;t assume anything- I don;t care about the Sudan bombing-I do not think it relevant like you do.

Or it maybe that he stands behind the bombing, and considers it justified without believing that there was any connection to Iraq (but in that case the justification for the bombing looks REALLY THIN)

Maybe his justification is the same as that from the admin. "At the time the evidence we had said X and thus we were not wrong!". You buy it from them, why not from Clarke? As I said, I don;t think Sudan relevant, so I don;t care it Clarke was right or wrong then-his main accusation which has the admins. panties in a bunch is that prior to 9/11, from 1/01 to 9/01 the admin. did not see AQ as urgent. It is that claim that has the amdin. screaming like a little girl.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
LoTM: maybe Clarcke, after that attack and with time, GASP, saw he was wrong at the time and has seen the error of his ways....

" I had the US attack an innocent 3rd world country on slim evidence, i now see I f***ed up, Im sorry, so now you should take my advice on grand strategy in the WOT cause, im like, such a wise and experienced man"