BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Richard Clarke and the 9/11 panel

 
 
Baz Auckland
03:19 / 22.03.04
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism guy has written a new book called 'Against All Enemies'. Excerpts have not been kind to Bush:

Talking Points Memo has some good bits posted

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq, 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."

"Initially, I thought when he said "There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan" I thought he was joking. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."


...and...

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department. For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States." Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."


...denials are flying around the papers, and maybe he's just trying to publicise his book, but it doesn't exactly sound far-fetched.
 
 
Baz Auckland
16:06 / 26.03.04
Geez, they're really going after this guy now...

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.

Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath — either in 2002 or this week — when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war on terror.

"Until you have him under oath both times you don't know," Frist said.
 
 
sleazenation
17:11 / 26.03.04
The administration is sounding scared.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:15 / 26.03.04
They should be.
 
 
ibis the being
17:22 / 26.03.04
I watched some of Clarke's testimony in the 911 Investigation on CNN (until my coworkers started yammering). He said that during the Clinton administration (for which he was also a Counterterrorism Advisor), Al Qaeda was considered to be at the highest priority level. Clarke said there were other things considered equally as important - such as Middle East conflict - but there was certainly nothing higher on the list of security/terrorism concerns. He then said that when the Bush admin took over, Al Qaeda became a much lower level issue and was not considered "urgent" for the first 8 mo of Bush's presidency.

Also, it's worth noting that in the 90's Rumsfeld signed a letter (along with 18 other politicians) to then-President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, so this is an old favorite for old Rummy. (Did anyone see the special "Rumsfeld's Rules of War" last night? Scary.)
 
 
Baz Auckland
17:25 / 26.03.04
It's such a horribly obvious and pathetic response though... I mean, you could take everything Bush (or anyone for that matter) has said, and find contradictions... if they find any in this old testimony, they'll try and hang him for it... his 'credibility problem' as the panel put it yesterday...

I guess even worse was yesterday, where Robert Novak and Ann Coulter were trying to paint him as a racist for speaking against Condolezza Rice
 
 
Not Here Still
18:44 / 26.03.04
Oh, and Ann Coulter's usually so respectable.

Nearly bought this book today - decided to get a Greg Palast book instead, but regretted it almost instantly. Maybe I'll go for this and the Paul O'Neill together in a twofer instead.

Anyone read either?
 
 
Not Here Still
18:46 / 26.03.04
Paul O'Neill the treasury fella, not the baseball player, BTW...
 
 
Baz Auckland
21:26 / 26.03.04
From TPM: I've heard through the grapevine that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss was going to ask the Justice Department to bring perjury charges against Richard Clarke.

This is getting really really bad now...
 
 
Nobody's girl
08:03 / 27.03.04
Just saw the Daily Show coverage of the 9/11 hearing with Richard Clark last night. I'd recommend it, if only for a giggle, download the episode for the 25th of March. They'll be interviewing him on the episode of the 26th though I've not seen it yet.
 
 
sleazenation
08:22 / 27.03.04
its the new hyper-reality TV.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
09:46 / 27.03.04
He then said that when the Bush admin took over, Al Qaeda became a much lower level issue...

Did he mention whether some other issue in particular bumped Al Qaeda down?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:57 / 27.03.04
Iraq.

This is deeply unpleasant.
 
 
Bacon the Pimp
09:00 / 29.03.04
China and Iraq were both considered more important when Bush was inagurated
 
 
ibis the being
13:40 / 29.03.04
Clarke's rebuttal to accusations of changing his story:

James Thompson entered the ring with a swagger, holding up a copy of Clarke's new book in one hand and a thick document in the other. "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002," he bellowed. "Which is true?" He went on to observe that none of his book's attacks on Bush can be found anywhere in that briefing.

Clarke calmly noted that, in August 2002, he was special assistant to President Bush. White House officials asked him to give a "background briefing" to the press, to minimize the political damage of a Time cover story on Bush's failure to take certain measures before 9/11. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects," Clarke said, adding, "When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing. I've done it for several presidents."


- from Slate.

Rice denies Clarke's claims and wants to present her arugment to the 911 panel, but has refused to testify under oath.
 
 
Baz Auckland
03:27 / 30.03.04
More 'incredibly-absurd-but-still-true' news from TPM:

"U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke’s testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions.

You know something's wrong -- when an administration is truly out of control -- when they discuss their dirty tricks on background.

Look at what this is: using the CIA and the classification process for an explicitly and exclusively partisan purpose, at the direct behest of the White House. Call me old-fashioned but back in the good-old-days this used to be done with a bit more indirection, subterfuge and cover, no?"
 
 
sleazenation
06:55 / 30.03.04
in related doublethink Captain James Yee, the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo bay who was accused of spying, is 'not guilty and he is not innocent'...
 
 
Perfect Tommy
07:21 / 30.03.04
Y'know, I can't tell if this is meaningless brouhaha or not. I mean, in some sense "Is Iraq involved?" is an entirely reasonable question to have been asked on 9/11. But "Iraq is involved, right? Right?" is a bit different.
 
 
sleazenation
14:16 / 30.03.04
Whitehouse do a U-turn - Condi Rice to testify in public under oath
 
 
Baz Auckland
14:30 / 30.03.04
With the conditions:

"The decision was conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent and that the commission does not request "additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."

So... they're determined to get to the bottom of this whole 9-11 thing... unless it involves actually asking anyone in the White House. There's something very wrong going on over there.
 
 
Baz Auckland
18:05 / 01.04.04
Yikes: The speech Rice was set to give on September 11th:

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech...mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States. The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

"We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway," according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post. "[But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?"

The White House declined to release the complete text of Rice's speech, since it was not given. The White House did confirm the accuracy of excerpts given to The Post, and former U.S. officials provided a detailed summary of the speech.


well... do you think that sort of confirms what Clarke's been saying?
 
 
ibis the being
18:51 / 02.04.04
White House blocks classified Clinton papers from the 911 Investigation

[to log in to the NYTimes, username cpunx, psswd cpunx.]
 
 
Hieronymus
20:22 / 08.04.04
So what are people's opinions of Condi's testimony today? I haven't gotten a chance yet to dig through the Google news sites and only caught a brief bit of it when she was being grilled by Senator Kerrey. Did she save the White House's bacon or open up more exposing questions than answers?
 
  
Add Your Reply