It Begins: Clarke goes public with allegations of terror mishandling

Great Debates
41

You’re right, manny. If one is against parts of the Patriot Act, one is automatically against its every provision.

Also, remember where this particular pissing match started. The Bush campaign called Kerry soft on terrorism on account of his proposal to cut $1.5B from the NRO’s budget in the mid-1990s. (That’s the one where the GOP cut the NRO budget by $3.8B.) When that didn’t fly, they shot at Kerry for being against a bunch of specific stuff that was in the $87B Iraq bill from late last year, despite Kerry’s having favored a measure that was identical except for requiring the funding of the $87B through reduction of tax cuts rather than borrowing.

By playing such ‘gotcha’ games that were far more about trying to hoodwink the voters than about debating actual substance, the Bushies have thereby opened up the debate to every last bit of evidence that they, themselves, been less than fully prescient about the terrorist threat. And there’s quite a stack of evidence that’s piled up. And it’s all gonna come crashing down on their heads.

42

Just a quick clarification on something I realized after I posted the link to the famoust Time story this morning. Clarke was directly quoted only briefly in that article, and not on the guts of the story. It seems clear in retrospect that he was a major source for the article, since it so closely mirrors what he is saying today. But at the time, he was still working for the White House, so I guess he didn’t want to go on the record. Nevertheless, the point still stands that Clarke’s story has been well publicized since the summer of 2002.

43

CalPundit has a good read on this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_03/003526.php

Instead of the honest “you know, 9/11 took all of us by surprise and changed lots of people’s thinking, it’s not fair to use hindsight to say we didn’t do more about this: no one knew that Al Qaeda was THE threat to worry about, even Clarke. just because he was right on some things doesn’t mean he was in the know” they are going with the claim that they were even MORE focused on terrorism as a #1 priority than anyone else. This is just laughable nonsense. And the idea that Cheny proposed: that Clarke was out of the loop on their REAL plans, makes things worse, not better. They weren’t informing the CIA or their terrorism czar of what their secret plans for Al Qaeda were? At least asking for their advice?

Their “plans” had every element of something they were putting off to do-nothing committees and the backburner. The first major meeting on terrorism was postponed for a month and a half to make room for Bush’s vacation, and the basic idea that came out of that was to simply moderately increase support for the Northern Alliance: in other words, Soviet Afghanistan part deux, with the Taliban standing in for the Russians and the Northern Alliance standing in for the Tablian. Not exactly a quick or immediate strike.

-Freeze and investigate known terrorist funding sources (politically sticky, especially since some had close family and economic ties to the administration, but certainly doable)
-Air marshals, yep.
-Unified intelligence information and Cabinet level position/homeland defense agency
-more money for intelligence and counter-terrorism instead of less

etc.

You know, the sorts of things people like Clarke and in Congress were urging be done.

Any one of these could have made a difference. Again, hindsight is 20/20: if history had been slightly different, and maybe the North Koreans would have snapped and launched a missle we hadn’t known about and THAT would have been the true threat and missle defense would have failed miserably because it doesn’t work but at least they tried…

but that’s not the response the administration is making.

44

You bet I did, and I stand by it. Show me what was worth the loss in innocent casualties and a gazillion bucks. Is the piple line from the poppy fields to junkie’s veins shut down? Is Afghanistan a showplace of democracy, or have we installed a perfectly decent fellow as mayor of Kabul? Is the countryside entirely free of the pestilence of rule by warlords? Is Al Queda wiped from the face of the Earth, or have we merely inconvenienced them?

If we weren’t forced to play cozy with Musharaff by these circumstances, don’t you think our reaction to the knowledge that Pakistan was selling nuclear proliferation might we have been a more forceful response than thumping them on the back and calling them our bestest buddies, outside of NATO? We’re rattling sabers at North Korea for making nukes, and these guys are selling them!!

I’ve more on that, but my hi-jack meter just went off.

45

Between Clarke’s 60 Minutes bombshell(*) and this week’s Congressional testimonies, am I the only one who thinks Bush-Cheney 2004 will be spending a lot of time this week on spin control?

(* = A bombshell only for those who haven’t been paying attention, natch. For the rest of us, this is all long overdue…)

46

What hijack? It’s perfectly on-topic. I’m sure that at the time, you were just following Bush’s lead. :wink: Coz he didn’t want to invade Afghanistan, either:

47

I think this is all a bit thriller novel really, isn’t it? Clarke said his piece, some people listened, some didn’t. In public life if people have heard your point but aren’t that excited, going on about it in an increasingly shrill way just gets you labelled a crank. Clancy novels notwithstanding.

I don’t blame Bush for failing to block 9/11 particularly. I think in all probability 9/11 would have happened even if Bush had hung on Clarke’s every word. But that’s not the point. Bush is dangerously incompetent not because he failed to stop 9/11 as such, but because he wilfully refused to look in the right direction because that would have interfered with his Iraq obsession. He had a top trusted advisor telling him about AQ, but he sidelined the advisor because the advisor didn’t want to talk about Iraq. Even after 9/11 all he wanted to hear (and by the sound of it, all but ordered his minions to tell him) was how 9/11 was connected to Iraq.

And the pattern continues: the intelligence services have at best minimal evidence regarding WMD, but again the message comes through: if you want to get somewhere, you’d damn well better tell Bush that Iraq has them.

Such one-eyedness is not compatible with good judgment.

48

So, let me get this straight

[ul]
[li]Bush steals the 2000 Presidential election from Al Gore[/li][li]Bush ignores Clark’s warnings on the dangers posed by Al-Qaeda in Jan 2001, allowing them to proceed with their plans[/li][li]Bush invades Iraq on the pretext that they have WMDs, despite the fact that he’s had many warnings that they don’t have them, leaving us mired in a Middle Eastern war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism[/li][/ul]

Think about what would’ve happened if Gore had been allowed to assume the Presidency as would have been lawful: while we can’t say for sure that Gore would have prevented 9/11, we can be damn near absolutely certain that the odds are MUCH better that Gore would have prevented it. Gore would undoubtedly have given Clark’s warnings greater weight, and might actually have instituted some if not all of the plans Clark was suggesting, if only because Gore didn’t have the Bush admin’s ideological blinders on, and he didn’t have a hard-on for invading Iraq.

Which brings up another point: Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11. I think he WOULD have invaded Afghanistan, but afterward, instead of getting us mired in the Iraqi quagmire, he would have pursued the Taliban vigorously. He would not have gotten sidetracked.

Bushistas may say this is blue-sky stuff, but I think it’s all fairly predictable given what we know.

We would be living in a MUCH better world if we hadn’t allowed Bush to steal the 2000 election.

49

I’m calling “bullshit” on this one - Clarke was “the guy” during Clinton’s admin, and didn’t get too much credibility there, either. USS Cole, anyone? Or WTC Bombing #1 in '93? I doubt Gore would have paid much more attention to him than Clinton did. Mayhap Clarke was actually ignored by the Bush admin because he was ineffectual as a terrorism czar in previous administrations…

Not that he should have been totally ignored, mind you, but, the question should be asked why he was ignored, and it may not all be because of a “…hard-on for Iraq…”

50

Where did you get the idea that Clinton didn’t take Al Qaeda seriously? Remember those cruise missiles (or was that “wagging the dog”, I can’t remember which story the goppers are telling these days)? Or the handover briefing in which the Bush team was advised they were probably the biggest problem they’d face? The call of “bullshit” is noted and dismissed.

Now, can anyone explain why Rice has so much time to appear on talk shows (only with compliant hosts) and write editorials, but not to appear at the committee formally conducting the inquiry? Has the Bush WH forgotten about the appearance of trying to hide something, or is the reality they’re hiding that damaging to their remaining credibility? The fact that they’re not refuting Clarke with real facts or a minimally-detailed public summary of their version, just making juvenile cracks about “Dick Clarke’s American Grandstand” and such, only adds to that suspicion, doesn’t it? Gotta come out with it - the sooner, the better, so it can blow over by Election Day.

51

Let’s take an honest look for a moment. I know lots of you folks here really, and I mean really hate Bush with an almost visceral contempt…BUT…
That doesn’t mean you should just put aside the otherwise reasonable, concise and clear-thinking mindsets I see in regards to other subjects. I’m not here as a Bush apologist, but rather, shouldn’t we be critical of ALL sources, checking them thoroughly and not cherry-picking what lines up with our own opinions? I see a lot of questioning of Bush here, and that’s good…but where’s the questioning for Clarke? Seems like he’s getting off easy because he lines up with what a lot of folks already want to hear. Let’s not forget that Clarke was the antiterrorism guru through several administrations, and some questions should be asked, especially in light of his claim that he thought Al-Qaeda was a serious threat for nearly a decade. Maybe some of this will help, as I’d like to see what his answers would be:
As antiterrorism adviser to the previous administration, what was your advice when Sudan offered to capture and extradite bin Laden?
What was your advice after the USS Cole attack in 2000?
What was your advice after WTC bombing #1 in '93?
What was your advice after the barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia?
What was your advice after the attacks on our embassies in North Africa?
What was your advice after ANY KNOWN TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. interests in the last 15 years?

I’m not attacking Clarke, specifically, but I really want to know what his responses were at the time. Looking back, if he was making advice to actually do something about terrorism, then it appears that he was ignored for the last 15 years or so, too…if that was the case, why would he have not been ignored in the current administration, as well?

52

No misdirecting here, Dirk. Clarke isn’t the subject, Bush and Clinton are. Clarke didn’t make any policy decisions. That was Clinton’s and Bush’s role, and all responsibility is ultimately theirs. Who they chose to listen to, and why, and what they did in response, is what matters. The questions to ask are directed toward them, along those lines. But we already know from their actions what they concluded, and pretty much who they listened to, don’t we? Do you have some basis for believing that Clarke didn’t really advise then what he now says he did, or is that list of contrived questions a lame attempt at shooting the messenger?

Now, you’re not helping yourself by dismissing sober analyses of the facts as “visceral hatred” of anyone just because the findings point toward that person. If you see where any such analysis is guided that way, please point it out. If you can’t, then don’t make the accusation, okay?

53

I wish I had said that.

Bush has always been an inept bungler in my opinion. He has never had to deal with the consequences of his business failures because he got bailed out by his connections. And that’s OK because those who bailed him out could afford it. Now, however, he is demonstrating ineptitude in planning and his lack of good judgement in a place where he is doing a lot of harm to all of us.

As to those posters who keep harping on “it would have been as bad or worse if Gore had been elected,” who cares? Gore didn’t get elected and that is a common debate tactic to diffuse the argument into a hypothetical area where anyone’s opinion is OK. Likewise the argument that “Clinton didn’t do anything either.” A totally immaterial point and a waste of time. The problem right now is GW and his cabal who were for some reason that I don’t grasp were obssessed with Iraq.

Iraq has demonstrated a notable lack of rose petals thrown at our feet as we march in and is nothing but an exceedingly expensive distraction in the counterterrorism area. How far do you suppose $185 billion a year would go toward helping get the international financial community to cooperate in drying up terrorists’ financial support?

54

The WTC bombing happened less than a month after Clinton’s inauguration; surely you’re not trying to blame Clinton for that. In any event, I do believe that the WTC bombing has been cited as the event that first alerted the Clinton White House to the danger posed by al Qaeda, so perhaps AQ wasn’t seen as a threat to the United States before that?

As for the USS Cole, Clinton did not respond to that because he didn’t want to hand a major military action to Bush. The plans to attack AQ in Afghanistan were drawn up then, and IIRC one of the topics that Clarke tried to push with the incoming Bush Administration – their ignoring of Clarke is the whole point of this thread.

I call bullshit on this. What about the thwarted al Qaeda plan to blow up Los Angeles International airport? What about the Gore Commission’s proposed bill for improved airline safety, in 1997 (defeated by the Republican-controlled Congress, by the way)? What about increased anti-terrorism funding for the FBI and other agencies? What about preventing Project Bojinka, a plan to hijack and blow up 12 U.S. airliners in one day? Just because Clarke and Clinton’s anti-terrorism efforts didn’t make big headlines doesn’t mean things weren’t getting done.

55

No, it’s more like he lines up with what folks in positions to know have already said.

Congrats. That’s right up there with the “we didn’t invite the anti-terrorism guy to our anti-terrorism meetings” type stuff being peddled by Rice and Cheney.

I think you were positing this half tongue-in-cheek but anyway if what you say is true, then it still wouldn’t bode well for Bush because it would indicate that he didn’t care enough about terrorism to put a person in Clarke’s position that he would listen to.

56

There is a point Mr. Clarke makes that is very telling, but not as inflammatory, and therefore somewhat ignored.

He asserts that the Bush Admin., being largely recycled poobahs from the previous Bush Admin., retained an outmoded strategic world view, one entirely appropriate for the Cold War, but woefully inadequate for present circumstances. I think this is a fundamental issue, worthy of consideration. (YMMV)

Put another way, this mind-set is appropriate for a world of state on state threats. But it also wear blinders, as our history shows. On any number of occasions, we assumed that any insurgency (Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc.) was a direct result of Soviet internationalism. We refused to accept the notion that a revolution might be simply based on disgust with the governance. Time and again, in direct rebuke of our own revolutionary history, we sided with the oppressors because they assured us that they were “anti-Communist”.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, this mindset should have gone straight into the dustbin. Yet we continued to pursue policies that presumed that state to state conflict was the essence.

Why is this important? I suspect that this is the real core of the suspicion bordering on obsession with Iraq. Iraq became the geopolitical boogeyman. Of course Iraq was involved in 9/11, just as the Soviet Union was directing the Sandanista movement from the Comintern. No hard headed, realistic person could deny that. If there was no evidence, it was only because those cunning Iraqi rascals had hidden it so well! But we were not to be fooled, nosir!

When it comes to state-on-state conflict, we are the baddest MF’s the world has ever known. But it is a sad fact that a man who has a hammer tends to regard all problems as nails. A five pound sledge is an awesome weapon, but its not much good to a man attacked by a swarm of wasps. And this is where the Bushiviks made thier fundamental misjudgement. They wanted to strike back. Preferably, NOW! They could not grasp that an armored division isn’t much use against shadowy enemies, they couldn’t come to grips with the fact that it is useless to launch an artillery barrage against an incoming fog. It is loud, it is dramatic, it certainly looks impressive…but it is largely useless.

The Bush Admin. has been fulsome in its contempt for the “law enforcement” approach to terrorism. This is its grave and fundamental error, and a tragic mistake.

We were perfectly placed for such an approach. We had they sympathy of the entire world. Hell, people who didn’t even like us very much held candlelight vigils! An intelligence/police approach must depend on sympathetic cooperation. It isn’t enough to intimidate, we needed people to come forward with information and cooperation.

But they couldn’t accept that the terrorist movement, which we have personifed as a creature named “Al-Queda”, might exist indepently of state sponsorship. Who hates us the most? Used to be Libya, but now its Iraq. Well, of course! Everybody who hates America is on the same team, its been like that forever.

Allow me a conjecture, it is this: if Saddam knew about a plot like 9/11, he would have dropped the dime. Anonymously, of course. Why? Because he would have been blamed if it went forward, as indeed, he was. Saddam was evil, but hardly stupid. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, he would still be there, and American businessmen would overlook their moral horror to conduct la biziness.

Instead, we pursued a policy of relying on our military strength and raw, bullying power to carry the day. The merest smattering of diplomacy, a polite deference to the good intentions of our allies, and a covert fostering of a network of snitches, and Al Queda would have suffered the fate of our own Mafia. Did we bomb New York to bring down John Gotti? Nope, we got Sammy “the Bull” to rat him out.

As it happens, the policy that the Bushiviks are eager to heap scorn upon was precisely the correct approach, everything was lined up in our favor. And these clowns had to piss it all away playing tough guy.

I am not really suggesting we can pursue this policy now, the air is full of the smoke of burned bridges. Like the old joke goes, you can get there, but you wouldn’t start from here.

57

Well, sure, ranting about something with no hard evidence to back it up does get you labelled a crank, but if you’ve got evidence, well, now, that’s a different story, isn’t it? Of course, were one to present classified documents to the press which proved your contention that the current administration could care less about terrorism or some other life and death issue and this was certain to cost the lives of innocent folks, you’d probably be facing some jail time (though you might not, I think it was the release of the “Pentagon Papers” which gave folks a way out in such cases, though I might be wrong and it might not apply here). Even if you didn’t wind up in jail, however, you’d never work in Washington again, and would most likely have a hard time finding a high paying job ever again, since you weren’t the kind of fellow who was willing “to play ball.”

And I suppose doing nothing is better? Or should we have put all of NATO forces (and I mean every single military person possible) in Afghanistan? I seriously doubt that doing that would have garnered a much better result. Afghanistan has a long history of violently opposing outsiders, and as we’ve found out, many Afghans are happy to continue that tradition. At least some positive things have come out of the invasion (we’ve inconvienced AQ and improved living conditions for a few). As for the poppy fields, well, the Taliban did an excellent job of shutting them down, surely you’re not suggesting we should we adopt their methods?

Yeah, brilliant strategy, ain’t it? We’re not even all that torqued that the Pakistani scientist who did this didn’t even get a slap on the wrist. Look at the bright side, it’s going to come back to haunt us, and you get to say, “I told you so.”

58

But it didn’t exist independtly of state sponsorship. Al Qaeda has years to build itself into what it is today under the umbrella of the Taliban in Afghanstan.

Can you describe how the law enforcement approach would have dealt with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? I don’t see it, even if we had asked Mullah Omar if he would “pretty please” arrest Mr. bin Laden (after reading him his Miranda rights, of course).

59

The administration’s approach now appears to be misdirection. They are responding as if they were being accused of not invading Afghanistan or assisinating Bin Laden: responding to easily refuted straw men. But these are not the key problems being raised at all. They are certianly right that massive operations or even an assination would not have prevented 9/11. But it is a total lack of urgency and even outright scorn at the idea of doing anything at all that is what’s being suggested: from cutting intelligence funds (which MIGHT have made a difference without being politically hard to do at all) to getting serious about freezing funds to stonewalling the idea of a homeland defense based reorganization.

60

Just allow me to observe that I am sick to fucking death of the claim that criticism of Bush and his administration is caused by blind hatred of Bush and his administration. And the main reason that I’m sick to fucking death of it is that it’s the standard response to pretty much every substantive criticism of the Bush party line. Why bother to discuss the facts when you can just whine about the motives and patriotism of the other guy? Feh.

I can’t speak for Clarke, but my advice at the time would have been to let the Saudis take him and execute his sorry ass. Seeing as how there was no indictment against bin Laden in the US at the time, he couldn’t have been extradited here anyway.

The exact same advice he tried to give to the Bush administration. Recall that Clinton asked Clarke to come up with a response to the Cole attack, and that Clarke came back with basically the plan that the Bush admin belatedly (and half-assedly, I believe) implemented after 9/11.

About what? Considering that al Qaeda and bin Laden wasn’t even a blip on the radar at that point–ISTR that the names first came up during the trials of the '93 conspirators, years later–it’s doubtful that any advice he could have given would have been terribly relevant to the current (Phony) War on Terrorism.

Dude, you do know that that wasn’t al Qaeda, right? (Answer, for those of you who care about actual facts: Shiite freelancers, possibly directed or at least backed by elements within Iran.)

Maybe that we should launch a bunch of cruise missiles and direct our forces to kill the s.o.b. should the opportunity arise, and to do our best to make sure that the opportunity arises? That is, after all, the policy implemented by the Clinton administration after the embassy bombings.

I don’t know for certain, but I imagine that you might find the answer to that question in this new book.