Storm Warnings

Richard Clarke is discussing all this on 60 minutes atm. He's really going off on the Clinton and Bush administrations, but moreso the Bush administration, who he feels was more interested in attacking Iraq than going after Al-Qaeda.

Richard Clarke was the "Terrorism Czar" for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and the first 3 years of Bush II's administration.
 
Just watched it. He definitely painted a picture of trying to set off alarms for the entire length of '01, trying to get a cabinet-level meeting throughout the year, and only getting that meeting exactly 1 week prior to 9/11. Probably most damning is his meeting with Bush, which 60 Minutes claimed to independently corroborate, during which the president basically told Clarke to forcibly connect AQ and Saddam. When his subsequent report, signed off by both CIA and FBI, failed to do so, it was rejected.
 
John Reynolds said:
the president basically told Clarke to forcibly connect AQ and Saddam
Really?
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' ...
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' ...

Now I left out his color commentary, but I don't see the told "Clarke to forcibly connect" part.
 
Clarke himself said the specific words were avoided but the intent of the conversation was clear: connect AQ and Saddam. Obviously if on 9/11 itself Rumsfeld wanted Iraq bombed for the events of the day, the administration's top brass had already made this connection in their minds. It seems logical to me that they'd therefore need the intelligence community to provide evidence to present the our allies to subsequent action(s).
 
Well, this is what clarke had to say 2 years ago, when he didn't have a book being published.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/interviews/clarke.html

A lot of people looked at Sept. 11, and said "Massive intelligence failure. Haven't seen an intelligence failure like this since Pearl Harbor." What's your opinion on that allegation?
I think it's a cheap shot. I think when people say, no matter what event it is, they say, "Oh, it was an intelligence failure," they frequently don't know what the intelligence community said prior to the event. In June 2001, the intelligence community issued a warning that a major Al Qaeda terrorist attack would take place in the next many weeks. They said they were unable to find out exactly where it might take place. They said they thought it might take place in Saudi Arabia.

We asked, "Could it take place in the United States?" They said, "We can't rule that out." So in my office in the White House complex, the CIA sat and briefed the domestic U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, Immigration, Federal Aviation, Coast Guard, and Customs. The FBI was there as well, agreeing with the CIA, and told them that we were entering a period when there was a very high probability of a major terrorist attack. Now I don't think that's an intelligence failure. It may be a failure of other parts of the government, but I don't think that was an intelligence failure.


Because one of the things that surprises a lot of the public, I think, is that immediately after Sept. 11, the administration knew exactly who had done it. Was that why?
No. On the day of Sept. 11, then the day or two following, we had a very open mind. CIA and FBI were asked, "See if it's Hezbollah. See if it's Hamas. Don't assume it's Al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's Al Qaeda." Frankly, there was absolutely not a shred of evidence that it was anybody else. The evidence that it was Al Qaeda began just to be massive within days after the attack.
It doesn't quite jive with his current tack, or at least the media's take on his current tack.
 
Russ,

John Snow is on record as being one of the most ardent deficit hawks among economists. When he joined the Bush Administration, all of a sudden he repudiates everything he said and says that deficits don't really matter.

People who are not part of political bodies tend to be more honest with their assertions.

Clarke has lambasted not only Bush II, but Clinton as well. He's got blame to go all around, and yet he's biased because he's making a profit? Russ, the man spent decades in the service of multiple presidents and administrations, working in the couter-terrorism outfits of those administrations and providing warnings loud and clear. I seriously doubt the man is as shallow as you're alluding.
 
Back
Top