For the record...Richard Clarke, like Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta), Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fraudida) and Gen. Wesley Clark (D-NATO), is not equivocating or parsing his words or retreating in the least...Quite the contrary, like JFK, Clark and Kerry, he is sticking it to the Bush cabal...
Richard Clarke on CNN: "They're trying to divert attention from the truth here," he said. "... And they've got all sorts of people on the taxpayers' rolls going around attacking me and attacking the book and writing talking points and distributing them to radio talk shows and what not, around the country."
But the facts, Clarke said, are that "the
administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior
to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director [George
Tenet] was telling them virtually every day that there
was a major threat."
And unlike the Bush cabal, Clark is directly
responding to their attacks...VICE _resident Cheney
and the others are not responding directly to Clark's
allegations because his allegations are corroborated
by the facts...
Richard Clark on CNN: Clarke answered Cheney's
question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration,
he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of
"fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with
military action, covert CIA action and by supporting
United Nations sanctions. "They stopped al Qaeda in
Bosnia," Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from
blowing up embassies around the world."
"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S.
soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,]
Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said.
"Contrast that with the first Bush administration
where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of]
Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."
"I would argue that for what had actually happened
prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a
great deal," Clarke said. "In fact, so much that when
the Bush people came into office, they thought I was a
little crazy, a little obsessed with this little
terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on
Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/bush.clarke/index.html#
Clarke rebuffs White House attacks
Defends allegations that Bush used 9/11 to start Iraq
war
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former White House counter-terrorism
expert Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration
on Tuesday of going on the offensive against him to
"divert attention from the truth" that the
administration did "virtually nothing about al Qaeda
prior to September 11, 2001."
Clarke, author of the newly released book, "Against
All Enemies," also said the administration focused on
alleged Iraqi ties to the terrorist attacks while
there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's
dictatorship was involved.
"The White House is papering over facts, such as in
the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed
a national security directive instructing the Pentagon
to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, even though they
knew at the time -- from me, from the FBI, from the
CIA -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," Clarke
said. (Transcript)
Clarke, a 30-year White House veteran who served under
Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton before
the current president, referred to Bush's own comments
to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, author of
"Bush at War," in which the president said he "didn't
have a sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden or al
Qaeda.
"He is saying that," Clarke said. "President Bush said
that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say
this."
"They're trying to divert attention from the truth
here," he said. "... And they've got all sorts of
people on the taxpayers' rolls going around attacking
me and attacking the book and writing talking points
and distributing them to radio talk shows and what
not, around the country."
But the facts, Clarke said, are that "the
administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior
to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director [George
Tenet] was telling them virtually every day that there
was a major threat."
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made various news
media appearances defending the administration, while
other administration officials did the same in news
conferences. In most cases, they tried to turn the
attention back to Clarke and away from an important
issue in the president's reelection campaign --
national security.
Rice -- whom Clarke says ignored his memo requesting
an "urgent" meeting on the al Qaeda threat in January
2001 -- accused Clarke of "retrospective rewriting of
history."
"To somehow suggest that the attack on 9/11 could have
been prevented by a series of meetings -- I have to
tell you that during that period of time, we were at
battle stations," she said.
"The only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was
here throughout those eight years going back to 1993
and the first attack on the World Trade Center, in
[1998] when the [U.S.] embassies were hit in east
Africa, in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit," Cheney
told conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
"The question that has to be asked is, 'What were they
doing in those days when he was in charge of
counter-terrorism efforts?'"
Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the
Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was
responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50
Americans," and Clinton responded with military
action, covert CIA action and by supporting United
Nations sanctions. "They stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia,"
Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up
embassies around the world."
"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S.
soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,]
Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said.
"Contrast that with the first Bush administration
where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of]
Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."
"I would argue that for what had actually happened
prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a
great deal," Clarke said. "In fact, so much that when
the Bush people came into office, they thought I was a
little crazy, a little obsessed with this little
terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on
Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
Clarke also called Rice's contention that he never
offered a plan against al Qaeda "counterfactual."
"We presented the plan to her -- call it a plan or
strategy -- we presented it to her before she was even
sworn into office," Clarke said.
And, he said, there were four witnesses to Bush
telling him to look for links between Iraq and the
September 11 attacks.
z
"This is the president in a very intimidating way,
finger in my face, saying, 'I want paper on Iraq and
this attack,'" Clarke said. "Everyone in the room got
the same impression, and everyone recalls it vividly.
So I'm not making it up. I don't have to make it up."
"It's part of a pattern that this administration --
even before they came into office -- was out to get
Iraq even though Iraq was not threatening the United
States," he said.
White House supporters continued their attacks Tuesday
on Clarke and his book.
Rep. David Dreier, R-California, pointed out that
Clarke, in his interview, praised Clinton and
criticized the three Republicans -- although Clarke's
comments were a direct response to the vice
president's query about Clinton's eight years -- and
suggesting that the timing of Clarke's book is clearly
"presidential politics."
Clarke said it was the White House itself that was
responsible for the book's timing.
"I wrote the book as soon as I retired from
government," Clarke said. "It was finished last fall.
And it sat in the White House for months because as a
former White House official, my book has to be
reviewed by the White House for security purposes."
"They're saying, 'Why is the book coming out at the
beginning of the election?'" Clarke said. "I didn't
want it to come out at the beginning of the election.
I wanted it to come out last year. They're the reason,
because they took so long to clear it."
Finally, Clarke said his comments would not absolve
any administration from culpability in the lead-up to
September 11.
"The message is that the United States' mechanisms --
the CIA, the FBI, the DOD, the White House -- failed
during both the Clinton administration and the Bush
administration," Clarke said.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/bush.clarke/index.html
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced
in the article.