Clarke Backs Up Book in 9/11 Commission Testimony

Condolezza Rice still a No-Show...

Published on March 24, 2004 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Politics

Today, after much fanfare, Richard Clarke testified before the 9/11 Commission. Throughout this week, there has been much coverage concerning his testimony after an explosive 60 Minutes interview and the release of his book on the subjects surrounding the war on terror. Some questioned his integrity and tried to discredit his 30 years of service, thru 4 administrations, working on terrorism in an extremely non partisan fashion.

Any question of his overall integrity was immediately dismissed when Clarke became the 1st person who has testified who went to the lengths of giving a very heartfelt apology for failing the families and loved ones of those killed on that day. Clarke went on to give compelling testimony consistant with previous words and despite a very partisan (ex Reagan council) Commisioner Thompson trying to discredit him based on a press backround briefing that was twisted by Fox news as being something it wasn't. Hawkish ex-senator Bob Kerrey, who questioned some of his views, but not his honesty, was the recipient of applause when he pointed out the misuse of the document should be cause for Fox to consider changing it's slogan to "sometimes fair and balanced."

Later, the frustrated Thompson all but conceded his attack when Clarke answered his last attempt to badger the witness into admitting he was lying by reminding the commissioner that when he was a Bush team member, as well as a member of other administrative bodies, that it was "just politics." A sentiment that everyone understood. And one that sheds a lot of light onto the attempts to discredit and slander Mr Clarke from the White House and it's pundits in conservative media, like Fox.

Throughout his 2+ hours of testimony, which was in addition to the many hours of already given testimony to the commision, Richard Clarke showed himself to have an excellent memory and a somewhat fair mind in his recollections. This was a man who was obviously not under the bidding of anyone to speak his mind. Where Clarke may have been a little overly optimistic about his own reactions to some hypotheticals, overall, he seemed to have a total grasp on what was going on with terrorism going back to the 1980's. Throughout his testimony, he was able to accurately back up much of his stands with historical events, corroborating testimony or evidence or documents in the commision's possession.

Also mentioned more than once wa the absence of Condi Rice's testimony. One of the commissioners, who has a track record going back to the Watergate scandal, repeated his offering of a document totally disproving her theory that someone in her position is above giving open testimony in such a matter. The document cited several examples that contradicted her and the administration's claims of some inherent immunity as claimed.

And perhaps Dr. Rice should reconsider her position. The White House is already under fire for many issues concerning their version of the terror war, and Dr. Rice's name seems to be coming up in every other person's testimony. And considering her willingness to shoot her mouth off on virtually every news program that she apparantly can, her ducking behind an immunity which simply does not exist is almost at the point of ridiculous.

Most of the bi-partisan commisioners found Richard Clarke's testimony to have a lot of credibility. He was as straightforward and honest as anyone who has been before this commission. I'm not sure if his view of everything is 100% accurate but the man showed his sincerity, and showed that one thing that he is not, is a liar. Here is some of what Richard Clarke has said recently...

Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9

In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10

On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11

Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12

The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13

The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."14

I believe this is a man who had one of the most intimate looks into the inside of the war on terror since the 1980's and at the very least, he should be listened to.

footnotes....

1. "Dissent from within on Iraq war," Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/8260216.htm?1c (Registration required) 2. "Bush Aides Blast Ex-Terror Chief," CBS News, 3/22/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/terror/main608107.shtml 3. "The book on Richard Clarke," Washington Post, 3/23/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16192-2004Mar22.html (Registration required) 4. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml 5. See 3, above. 6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 7. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html?hp (Registration required) 8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 9. See 7, above. 10. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 11. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/60minutes/main607622.shtml 12. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on NYTimes.com, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CWOR.html (Registration required) 13. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 14. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13607-2004Mar21.html (Registration required) 15. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. thanks to moveon.org for some quotes / footnotes

Comments (Page 2)

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 26, 2004

i think we make the same points on more than one occasion jeb,,,i just think you may have got caught up in the propoganda surrounding me not liking the way some can push around and effectively silence people on this forum and not being intimidated into complying. my methods are sometimes rough, but based on some of the emails i have gotten (i learned real quick how many peoople don't want to speak up and don't want to lose a comfortable forum for their journals and writings but supported my defiance),,,many did get the point, instead of the way the ownership of this board tried to paint me when they picked the fight in the 1st place and effectively set me up to look bad...as well as something and someone i am not. i found it interesting to see that the threats this week expanded into basically threatening the whole board to never say anything that might make others think because the only thing they are concerned with is being dominant and not looking bad (when you boil down all the eloquent sounding words)...what goes on here kind of reminds me of what has gone on in the political landscape in an analogous way.

but a fair look at my work, my writing and my life would be a clear showing of who i really am,,,i thank you for not getting caught up in the B.S. too much

my biggest flaw may be my unwillingness to edit myself and be longwinded,,,like here...so i'll stop rambling for now....take care:)

Draginol

on Mar 26, 2004

What Clarke said in his book and in congress directly contradicts his statements in 2002. So is he lying now or is he lying then?

Link

Clarke has managed to destroy his reputation quite efficiently.

Draginol

on Mar 26, 2004

BTW, Sconn, you were banned because you wrote an article called "an open letter to Brad Wardell" that went far beyond criticism into personal attacks and borderline libel. If you find basic decency in behavior to beyond your capacity then I suggest you find somewhere to go. Don't try to paint yourself as a victim of censorship.

As for the "threat" to the "whole board", if you call requiring users not to create libelous articles with their target's actual name as part of the article's title censorship, then I'm okay with that. I'll censor away then I guess.

I try to be fair, but I make no claims of objectivity or fairness. Feel free to read the terms of service on this site. We've run many very popular net communities over the years. There's always a certain percentage of people we intentionally drive off becaue they are toxic to the community. Our goal is not to satisfy everyone. Our goal is to create a friendly environment where people of all political persuasions are comfortable expressing their opinions. But your rights end where someone else's begin.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 26, 2004

brad's link is just a link to fox's misused piece of slander that the republican commission members unsuccessfully tried to hit Clarke with...when asked if he was lying in the 2002 backround briefing, which was mischarachterized by fox news and that was pointed out without objection by Nebraska's Bob Kerry during the testimony.

but what the neocons who are screaing for classified information to be released so they can use it for political purposes for get in making such a charge is" how do you know what it says?"

the commission made no inference or anything to say that clarke had perjured his 2002 classified testimony as the neocons want you to believe....and Sean Hannity isn't on the commission. and hannity is the type of journalist who wouldn't know a fact if it came down from fact heaven and sat on his face and wiggled on national fact day...

and of course,,,these are charges who come from people who have the pompousness to call other people cowards when they themselves refuse to do anything on an even playing field and can only bully...sometimes fighting the powers that be isn't pretty,,,but that doesn't make it wrong....about the weakest arguement anyone can make to back up their position is that the other side lacks the grace that they do and therefore are inherently beneath them...it can work on a lot of people, it's good propoganda to tell people that. still doesn't make it true. and it's a good thing the colonial settlers didn't believe it when the standard was to stand out in the open field and shoot at each other wearing a bright red coat.

i'll say it again,,,the best thing for the ideologues's strategy is to throw out the accusations like this, knowing full well that they can't be substantiated.and that the rumours thrown out have no basis in fact.

we've had enough of this ideology over relity, the ends justify the means and the facts be damned kind of goverment.

the ideologues can scream all they want that 2+2 = 5 but it doesn't, and we know it.

and the only reputation that is being destroyed is that of President Bush and his cronies. slowly, but surely.

sean:)

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 26, 2004

brad,,,why are you chasing me around and publicly posting my articles over issues we should have hashed out between us.? i offered a communication tool in my personal email to discuss these differences. i really do resent the fact that i haven't chased you around or commented on your articles that i disagree with like you have chosen too, in a sense, picking a fight.

i think you make a lot of bluster out of nothing. and i feel that if you wish to ban people with your ownership status, that is your perrogative. but you seem to be more about trying to publicly win this arguement than anything that has to do with what i have done.

i apologized to you for that public posting...i explained my motives...i explained what i found to be unjust. i don't expect you to put up wit hme or anyone who may personally go after you without provocation for nothing,,,but brad, i haven't...what i have done is stood up for myself against what i found to be unfair...from you, i got a virtual door slam in my face in a pompous manner....so i reacted,,,and yes, overreacted,,,but despite the action being crass, the motive behind it wasn't an attack, but a defense of one's self....which i will do every time...and i think you know it, so you bait me like this.......i'm sorry if you have a problem with that or want to paint it into something i'm not....but don't expect me not to stand up for myself in defense of my own writing.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 26, 2004

one more question,,,why don't ya comment on my deadwood article or something non political...instead of being wrapped up in these political debates that you and i both know that we are never going to agree...and at this point, you and i will both take the others words in the worst possible way without even trying,,,either that, or perhaps take me up on my repeated offer of discussing this thru private email instead of trying to "play to the audience" here.

Draginol

on Mar 26, 2004

Uh, are there TWO people who are using your account? I was responding to your post right above mine:

i just think you may have got caught up in the propoganda surrounding me not liking the way some can push around and effectively silence people on this forum and not being intimidated into complying. my methods are sometimes rough, but based on some of the emails i have gotten (i learned real quick how many peoople don't want to speak up and don't want to lose a comfortable forum for their journals and writings but supported my defiance),,,many did get the point, instead of the way the ownership of this board tried to paint me when they picked the fight in the 1st place and effectively set me up to look bad...as well as something and someone i am not. i found it interesting to see that the threats this week expanded into basically threatening the whole board to never say anything that might make others think because the only thing they are concerned with is being dominant and not looking bad (when you boil down all the eloquent sounding words)...what goes on here kind of reminds me of what has gone on in the political landscape in an analogous way.

Are you one of those people who are so lacking in empathy that you don't recognize how inflammatory your assertions are? You wrote this comment TODAY, on this very article and you ahve the nerve to argue that I'm "Chasing you around"?

You didn't "stand up" for yourself. You wrote an article with my name as part of the title that was essentially a bunch of personal attacks. Not criticisms of policy. Not criticisms of how the site is run. Personal insults at me. If you are incapable of grasping why that would be unacceptable behavior then you might as well cut your losses now and go elsewhere.

Draginol

on Mar 26, 2004

As for your dismissal of the transcript of what Clarke said in 2002, I think it just demonstrates who the actual idealogue around here is.

aconservative

on Mar 26, 2004

Jeblackstar and Sconn1

According to my reliable sources the chairman of the committee whom Clarke testified wrote to the Chairman of the 9-11 commission stating that his testimony was different.

As I am writing this comment the Speaker and the Senate Leader are requesting that his testimony be declassified. Perhaps you will read this late today or tomorrow.

Why don't you not get a hold of a book written by Richard Minter entitled "Losing Bin Laden". In this book Richard Clarke was the hero where he explained the meeting he attended with Defense Secretary Cohen, George Tenet, Madeleine Albright, Janet Reno and others when the USS Cole was bombed. According to Clarke he told them he knows who did it but nobody agreed with him. He said he heard only objections.

Jeblackstar and Sconn1 - perhaps you should also write to Congress and let Clarke's testimony be declassified. Since we are all seeking for the truth, this should be an opportune time to see if our hero is really what he says he is.

aconservative

jeblackstar

on Mar 26, 2004

I think perhaps we should also write to congress to have the Saudi Arabia section declassified as well. And while I'm at it I'll write to have Roswell, the Kennedy assasination, and alien spaceships declassified as well. I'm failing to understand how Richard Minter's book relates to your assertions. Who are your reliable sources? If Bush can insist that Kerry reveal who the foreign leaders that support him are, then you should be able to tell me that, yes? If the transcript of the commission hearings back up your assertions then I'll admit you are right, the problem is, you stated definitively, which you can't, since a) you aren't on either committee or

you don't work for someone on the committees, or c) if you are one of those two groups you just violated the fact that it was classified, which is a crime.

Brad, neither of us is dismissing the transcript of Clarke's testimony in September 2002, we're just poking fun at aconservative's use of the word "classified".

In brief, I am not holding Clarke as a bastion of goodness, all I've said is that Clarke seemed to be the most decent person who testified before the 9/11 commission.

Cheers

Draginol

on Mar 27, 2004

I think Clarke is just trying to sell his book.

Common sense tells us that 9/11 was pretty much going to happen no matter what. If people thought going after Iraq was controversal, invading Afghanistan PRE-9/11 would have been a nightmare.

russellmz2

on Mar 27, 2004

fun fact: nytimes article

Dr. Frist and other Republican Congressional leaders said their decision to seek declassification had not been coordinated with the White House. And it could put the White House in a potentially awkward spot since it is the administration that decides on declassification.

take those letters and change the address to 1600 pennsylvania avenue...

aconservative

on Mar 27, 2004

Jeblackstar -

The letter was written by Congressman Christopher Shay, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations addressed to the Chairman and Deputy National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, dated March 24, 2004.

If you wish to have a copy perhaps you can call the SubCommittee.

aconservative

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 27, 2004

ok,,,,where do i start?

1st off...i find it amusing that someone would call me an ideologue when they are coming in here with statements like " What Clarke said in his book and testimony directly contradicts..." when NO such evidence has been brought to light...nothing at all is backed up except for one reference to an already discredited fox news piece. and fox is about as good of a source to me as the nation is to you. ..just for the record...

the closest anyone has come to saying anything remotely resembling what you are charging ws Bill Frist yesterday on the senate floor. and he said something to the effect that if Clarke was giving contradictory testimony, of which, he did not know of, and if he was just being a good soldier, then shame on him, etc, etc,,," (i'm paraphrasing) but again, none of this testimony has been shown to be contradictory. In fact, a staffer for the commission was asked to compare both testimonies this week and found nothing to be contradictory.

more interesting was the independent testimony given to congress over medicare. this was a guy named foster (i forget his 1st name) and he testified that he was pressured to hide the real numbers as early as back in June of 2003. This was the guy in charge of that task of figuring out the cost by the way. His testimony was very sim. to Clarke's when asked about why he would give in to that pressure, as Clarke had on the backround briefing that Fox chose to misuse. he stated that he had 3 choices,,,and went on to reflect what Clarke had said, O'Neill had said and others who have been freed of what is becoming an increasing amount of suspicion towards this administration using very strong-armed tactics.

And if you want further proof that Clarke isn't alone in his assertions about the Bush administration's lack of urgency when they came in...there's this...

internal Department of Justice (DoJ) documents obtained by the Center for American Progress demonstrate. The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ's anti-terrorist budget but also shift DoJ's mission in spirit to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget changes, with Ashcroft, in effect, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this while the Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks.

And that makes about or around 20 or so things that i have stated with back-up and source information, some even footnoted. meanwhile, all the right has to offer is 1 tainted document and a whole lot of smokescreen. that combined with a personal attack on me. how typical...

and, all the while, not 1 peep about why Dr Rice won't testify in public after the claims of seperations of powers had been erased and she is shooting her mouth off on every show she can, including a full interview on 60 minutes this sunday.

you boys can quibble over this all ya want,,,think i'll move on...

and thanks for the back up jeb and others,,,you had no reason to step up, and ya did anyway, a true show of courage in one's beliefs....even tho i am an idndependent, the last 4 years have done nothing but confirm my orig. suspicions about this gang from texas, et al.,,,and over the past 4 years, i have seen what a powerful machine it is...indeed, it is an impressive political monster. ..guys like paul oneill, hans blix, richard clarke, joe wilson, david kay and others all seem to have 1 thing in common...when they speak out about what is wrong with the administrations methods or plans or assertions that they know to be false, they instantly become a bad guy all of a sudden. meanwhile, another constant sems to be backed up with the witnesses assertions about bullying tactics and threats of their job if they didn't comply with the party line. this is further evidenced to me when i see the rehearsed, almost robotic answers to questions that have been legally "fine toothed combed." more often than not. ...then it is no surprise how Dr Rice is refusing to go into a forum where she may not have any control or editorial oversight.

when i think about this situation,,,it puzzles me how some just don't see the inconsistancy of things right in front of them. Clarke's testimony suggested that the bush team wasn't quite as adamant and urgent minded about terrorism and al qaeda as they might want you to think. this to republicans seems to be a caharge on the level of blasphemy to hear them talk. But they have no problem calling every person who has disagreed withthe administration about ANYTHING a liar or some derrogatory or backhanded term...usually with nothing to back it up. They want this administration to have some air of infallibility like the catholic church has claimed thru the ages...and we see where that got us. meanwhile, they want us all to believe that anyone who speaks out against anything from the administration is a liar, a traitor or worse...is that really possible, that only bad, lying traitors would ever speak ill of an administration policy or tactic??? i have a really hard time believing that,,,especially when,,,

joe wilson was handpicked as a terorism expert to do what the vice president, the CIA and NSA asked him to do.

paul o neill was picked by bush to be in his cabinet

hans blix 's words were some of the ones used to justify going into iraq.

david kay was handpicked by the administration to go over and find the weapons...they were so confident he would dispell all those nasty rumours that last august they were leaking stories about it,,,that is where the now infamous "you don't roll out a new product in august when everyone's on vacation" stuff came out when the y were asked why wait...they acted as if they knew the report was going to show where the stockpile s were , and a month later, that was shown to be a lie. ...the company line then was "wee're gonna wait until he submits his final report"...when he did, and resigned his post, he was then an ideologue who just hated bush or something,,,every charachter assasination attempt was done by pundits of this administration and it's failed policies.

Richard Clarke was a 30 year veteran of the white house, a registered republican and had served under both parties loyally and faithfully...even after being shoved back by the neocons who knew better, Clarke stayed on loyally and faithfully and did everything he could to serve his president and his country. now his charachter is being assasinated.

and it goes on and on....

as Bill Shakespeare said "Me thinks the Lady doth protest too much"

Draginol

on Mar 27, 2004

I think you make the case much better than I do that...you are an ideologue. The Clarke transcript is available on the net for reading.

Link

This was a briefing Clarke gave to reporters. It's not confidential. It's a matter of public record. Clarke either lied then or is lying now. Either way, he's not a reliable source. He clearly has an axe to grind.

The reason why Clarke's testimony won't be compelling to American voters (but certainly to partisans like you) is because of common sense. There is no realistic way 9/11 could have been prevented. So even if Clarke was credible, which he isn't at this point, so what? What would Clarke (Clarke v2.0 that is) propose? The preemptive invasion of Afghanistan in early 2001? 9/11 happened 9 months after Bush got into office.

Clinton had this on his plate for most of 8 years and what did we get? Some missiles shot at empty tents? And let's be fair to Clinton -- what could he realistically have done? Invaded Afghanistan? But at the same time, maybe he was "too pre-occupied" with Kosovo to put his energies on Al Qaeda. There is no charge that Clarke makes against Bush that isn't even more true of Clinton. And Clarke 1.0 told the press in 2002 how great of a job Bush was doing on terrorism and how proactive they had been.

as Bill Shakespeare said "Me thinks the Lady doth protest too much"

Well said, it describes your position quite well.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!