Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[rev]

Nobody except the 9/11 panel knows what he said under oath. Frist is just publically speculating that he lied, knowing that it probably WON'T be declassified, thusly damaging Clarke when there's no way of actually knowing.

Either way, now Condoleeza Rice wants to testify and rebut Clarke's under-oath claims, but she wants to do it in private and refuses to testify under oath. In other words, she'll rebut what Clarke said, but she refuses to promise to tell the truth.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Figures. Ogie posts a relevent and on point article and it gets ignored by everyone.

Yup.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

BOOFRICKINHOO!

I feel so underappreciated.

I cast pearls before the swine.

[Verto]

From MSNBC

Bush, Clinton varied little on terrorism
9/11 hearings suggest administrations pursued similar policies


For all the sniping over efforts by the Bush and Clinton administrations to thwart terrorism, information from this week's hearings into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks suggests that the two administrations pursued roughly the same policies before the terrorist strikes occurred.

Witness testimony and the findings of the commission investigating the attacks indicate that even the new policy to combat Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts, developed just before Sept. 11, was in most respects similar to the old strategy pursued first by Clinton and then by Bush.

The commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

....

Bush officials have claimed that their al Qaeda strategy took eight months to develop because it was significantly more aggressive and sweeping than the tactics employed by the previous administration. "Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in an op-ed article published in The Post earlier this week.

In fact, according to the details that emerged this week, most of the strategies approved by high-level Bush officials on Sept. 4 and Sept. 10, 2001, were nearly identical in thrust to the policies pursued by the Clinton team. The plans grew out of long-standing proposals made by Clarke in 1998 and 2000 -- ideas derided this week by Rice as a "laundry list" of ideas that were previously "tried or rejected."

Clarke's 1998 and 2000 proposals were not formally adopted by the Clinton administration, but most of the ideas, except his call for continuous bombings of al Qaeda and Taliban targets, served informally to guide policy. Clarke submitted both proposals, along with a request for short-term actions, to the Bush team on Jan. 25, 2001. The suggestions formed the basis for the Bush strategy that was adopted nearly eight months later.

The Bush plan called for further diplomatic pressure on the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, which had refused entreaties to expel bin Laden, along with the continuation of sanctions and a resumption of the use of unmanned reconnaissance drones to spy on terror camps and locate the al Qaeda leader, according to descriptions of the policies by commission investigators, panel members and Bush officials. The Predator drones also would have been armed, as Clinton officials had begun debating in 2000.

Bush officials say that Clarke's 1998 plan and particularly his 2000 proposal were not actual Clinton policies and included many wish-list items that the Bush administration was turning into actual policy. They say the strategy assembled by the Bush administration moved more quickly to arm the Predator and included plans to thwart terrorist financing and to counter al Qaeda propaganda with public diplomacy.

"The White House quickly sought a new strategy that would eliminate al Qaeda, not roll it back or try to contain it," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the National Security Council. While the Clinton administration said it wanted to "roll back" al Qaeda into a "rump group," Wilkinson said the Bush plan to "eliminate the threat" of al Qaeda meant something different. "It's a contrast between simply responding to attacks and going out and seeking threats where they hide and plot," he said.

But Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, testifying this week in place of Rice, who declined to give public testimony to the commission, said there was "stunning continuity" in the transition from Clinton to Bush. "We made the determination under the guidance of Dr. Rice and the president to vigorously pursue the policy which we inherited while developing our own approach," he said.

The Bush administration's approach, which was in draft form by Sept. 4, 2001, did not differ substantially from Clinton's policy. The commission staff, in the "key findings" it released this week, said: "The new administration began to develop new policies toward al Qaeda in 2001, but there is no evidence of new work on military capabilities or plans against this enemy before September 11" -- a point on which Armitage concurred.

The primary differences in the Bush proposal were calls for more direct financial and logistical support to the Northern Alliance and the anti-Taliban Pashtuns and, if that failed, to eventually seek the overthrow of the Taliban through proxies. The plan also called for drafting plans for possible U.S. military involvement, according to testimony and commission findings.

But those differences were largely theoretical; administration officials told the panel's investigators that the plan's overall timeline was at least three years, and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans or significant funding at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The similarities between the two administration's approaches led several Democratic members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States to play down the importance of the Bush plan and to criticize the administration for not taking more aggressive action against bin Laden and his network earlier in 2001. A Democratic commission member, former Indiana representative Timothy Roemer, said in an interview that the eventual Bush strategy was "not significantly different, except for a few adjectives and rhetorical flourishes," from the proposals made by Clarke.

Former Clinton aides feel vindicated. Daniel Benjamin, a Clinton administration National Security Council official, said that "after seven months of chewing on it, they reached essentially the same conclusions as the previous administration" and did not have the funding in place to support more aggressive policies.

But Clarke, who was counterterrorism director for both Clinton and Bush, has been much more critical of Bush. In testimony this week, he said al Qaeda and terrorism "were an extraordinarily high priority" and there was "certainly no higher a priority" under Clinton. On the other hand, he said, "the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue but not an urgent issue."

In fact, Clarke was constantly agitating for a more aggressive response to terrorism from the Clinton administration, including more significant bombing of al Qaeda and Taliban targets. The commission staff described him as "controversial" and "abrasive" and included an observation that several Clinton colleagues wanted him fired.

"He was despised under Clinton," said Ivo H. Daalder, who worked under Clarke in the Clinton National Security Council on issues other than terrorism. James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people "thought he was exaggerating the threat" and said he "always wanted to do more" than higher-ups approved.

Daalder and Lindsay say Clarke's criticism of Bush is based on the administration's emphasis, not its policy. "His criticism of Bush pre-9/11 is not necessarily that they didn't have a good strategy but that they didn't take the threat sufficiently seriously."

[Tripledoc]

To me this whole business seems like a charade. What Richard Clarke, who no-one have ever heard of before but seems to have learned a few Hollywood manners, is essentially pushing is this scenario where because the US did not intervene pre-emptively in Afghanistan Al-Qaeda were capable of striking at the WTC.

However he pushed for a plan of launching an attack against Afghanistan before 9-11, and get 'boots on the ground', but this plan was held back because Commander Bush wished for an attack against Iraq.

Now if Al-Qaeda had knowledge of the intent to strike at both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9-11, was that attack then a preemptive strike? That is very likely. If that is the case then 9-11 was actually a direct result of US planning.

But the way the media spins it is that now it is even more important than ever to launch pre-emptive strikes at percieved terrorist threats. Thus the actual intent of the hearing is actually to create a policyframe where preemptive strikes remain not only unquestioned, but the popular support for it is actually strengthened.

There is no opposing interests in the US administration concerning the fundamentals; unchallanged hegemony, and monopoly on oil resources. What you have is carefully designed 'hearings' which egg on the people to demand ever more security, or remove their scepticism. That the lapse in security is a direct result of the overarching US foreign policy is not even dealt with in the most superficial manner. Clarke means to say that 9-11 did not happen because the vast bulk of Americans are expendable in furthering imperialism, but that it happened because the US was not aggresive enough in pursuing its aims.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Verto
From MSNBC

Many words hardly saying anything but Bush officials said blahblahblah.
So what was this so called superior plan about, the article mentions? 2 1/2 years after 911 I still can't see any plan, let away a superior one. Is the Iraq war part of that superor plan? Or the misslie defence programm? The mini nukes?

How about the statement of the State Department member, "that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast." (here's another link about that.) It mainly contradicts the claims in the MSNBC-article.

If, as the article says, "the Bush plan called for further diplomatic pressure on the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, which had refused entreaties to expel bin Laden, along with the continuation of sanctions", why did they support the taliban leader with 43 Million $ in May 2001? How does that fit together?


And here's something about Condoleeza Rice who wants to meet the panel once again after Clarke's testimony:

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

She didn't lie, she "misspoke", yeah.

[Verto]

If, as the article says, "the Bush plan called for further diplomatic pressure on the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, which had refused entreaties to expel bin Laden, along with the continuation of sanctions", why did they support the taliban leader with 43 Million $ in May 2001? How does that fit together?

According to spinsanity.org, "the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban."

[Ramo]

Kerry: Indict Clarke, I dare ya.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040326/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_clarke&cid=1506&ncid=1963&sid=96378801

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath, Kerry told CBS's MarketWatch

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder if Kerry thinks Clarke is telling the truth, when he says the Clinton Administration is equally to blame .

[Ramo]

Doesn't matter since Slick Willy isn't running for POTUS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course it does. Because if Kerry thinks Clarke is lying about Clinton's blame, then his statement to the Bush administration is kinda hypocritical.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I wonder if Kerry thinks Clarke is telling the truth, when he says the Clinton Administration is equally to blame .

Kerry's line of thinking: Clarke is somehow telling the truth about Bush but not Clinton.. afterall I'm getting endorsed by Clinton so better not blame him for anything.

[Ramo]

Of course it does. Because if Kerry thinks Clarke is lying about Clinton's blame, then his statement to the Bush administration is kinda hypocritical.

I don't think that Kerry's rabidly partisan enough to think that Clinton doesn't deserve some of the blame, even if he'd never admit it. Remember, he's evil, not stupid.

[GePap]

From Verto, from MSNBC

In fact, Clarke was constantly agitating for a more aggressive response to terrorism from the Clinton administration, including more significant bombing of al Qaeda and Taliban targets. The commission staff described him as "controversial" and "abrasive" and included an observation that several Clinton colleagues wanted him fired.

"He was despised under Clinton," said Ivo H. Daalder, who worked under Clarke in the Clinton National Security Council on issues other than terrorism. James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people "thought he was exaggerating the threat" and said he "always wanted to do more" than higher-ups approved.

Daalder and Lindsay say Clarke's criticism of Bush is based on the administration's emphasis, not its policy. "His criticism of Bush pre-9/11 is not necessarily that they didn't have a good strategy but that they didn't take the threat sufficiently seriously."

I love fun with bolding-it makes selective reading so easy!

As for declassifying Clarcke previous testimony-why not? Let them-after all, Graham, who was also present at the testimony says there were no inconsistencies-
wow. the republicans say there are, the democrats say there aren't-what a immense surprise!

I would LOVE to see the Bushies try to get him on perjury..so much fun-think of it, every day the media just keeps the story alive! Fun. And if he got off.... Cause then what does the admin. do?

[Boris Godunov]

I particularly enjoyed the moment in his testimony when Clarke embarrassed the GOP questioner regarding the memo he wrote in 2002 for the Bush Administration. The questioner, displaying typical snottyness, help up his book and the memo and asked "which is true?" Of course, he didn't bother to elucidate, such as pointing out any actual inconsistincies or such.

Clarke proceeded to explain that he wrote the memo while working for the Bush Administration and under specific, direct orders to highlight the positive aspects of their counterterrorism efforts and downplay the negative. He did as ordered. Thus the Administration came off ultimately looking bad from this line of questioning, and the GOP questioner was visibly embarrassed and, more importantly, unable to respond.