Another counterterrorism expert, and another
registered Repubican, speaks out and earns his name
scrawled on the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes...
"Out, out damp spot!"
Larry C. Johnson, www.tompaine.com: Here is the bottom line由ichard Clarke was right, and the Bush administration and the people of the United States would have been better off if his warnings in the early days of 2001 had been heeded. Rather than attack Richard Clarke's character, Republican operatives should focus their venom on the terrorists who killed Americans in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. George W. Bush should set the tone and thank his former terrorism chief, apologize for this week's ugliness, and focus on getting Osama Bin Laden. As one American, I say thank you, Richard Clarke.
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10158
The War On Clarke
Larry C. Johnson is a member of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity. He served with the CIA from
1985 through 1989 and worked in the State Department's
office of Counter Terrorism from 1989 through 1993. He
also is a registered Republican who contributed
financially to the Bush Campaign in 2000.
Richard Clarke must be wondering if explaining what
the United States did not do in the war on terrorism
is more dangerous than actually fighting the
terrorists. Clarke, the former terrorism czar for both
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, is now
being vilified by a host of Bush officials, including
Dick Cheney and Condeleeza Rice, as a liar.
The attack on Clarke, which consists of leaks, threats
and intimidation tactics, has become the genuine
hallmark of the Bush presidency. Previous victims of
the Bush smear machine include:
Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who challenged the
fantasy spun by Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and
correctly insisted that several hundred thousand
troops would be needed to pacify Iraq.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had provided the Bush
administration with a report that Niger had not
supplied Iraq with uranium yellowcake essential for
building a nuclear device. Not only were his character
and competence called into question, but his family's
security was jeopardized by a White House leak that
his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative.
Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, who reported
on the Bush administration obsession with Iraq and
talk early on of removing Saddam Hussein.
These smear campaigns were mild compared to the
vicious assault now underway against Richard Clarke.
What is the truth about Richard Clarke?
I was neither a personal friend nor fan of Richard
Clarke when I was in government. Richard Clarke, in my
experience, was arrogant and intense. He probably
still is. (People who know me would suggest that I am
the pot calling the kettle black.) However, Richard
Clarke also is a competent professional who has served
faithfully with Democratic and Republican
administrations since the 1970s.
My first contact with Mr. Clarke came during January
of 1991 in the operations center at State Department.
Clarke, who was the assistant secretary of state for
political military affairs, had been denied space in
the task force area, and my boss, State
Counterterrorism Chief Morris Busby, interceded for
Clarke and carved out space for his PM unit. Our two
groups shared space in the back rooms of the task
force area.
In 1992, Clarke was exiled to the National Security
Council over a flap involving Israel. I was told at
the time that this move was intended to get rid of
him. Those who hoped that banishing Clarke to the
National Security Council would lead to his dismissal
from government did not understand what a formidable
professional he was.
I left government service in 1993 but continued to
keep tabs on Clarke's counterterrorism activities
through friends and former colleagues in the various
policy and intelligence bureaucracies. Some close
friends complained (and still do) that Richard was too
alarmist and too pushy on some issues.
While some can quibble about his personality, there
should be no dispute that Richard Clarke was an
aggressive advocate for a tough response to terrorism.
Unfortunately, politicians in both parties chose to
ignore him on key issues. President Clinton, for
example, sat on the Presidential Decision Directive
39, which laid out his administration's plan for
fighting terrorism, for 28 months after taking office
in January of 1993. Clinton finally signed the
document after the Oklahoma City bombing in April
1995. Clarke pushed to get it done sooner but ran up
against political apathy in the early days of the
Clinton administration.
Clarke was just as pushy with the Bush administration.
In the first months of the Bush presidency a terrorism
issue unrelated to Al Qaeda, which first surfaced
during the Clinton administration, came to the front
burner. Four U.S. oil workers were being held by
individuals tied to Colombian terrorists in the
jungles of Ecuador. The U.S. Embassy requested the
deployment of U.S. counterterrorism forces (civilian
and military) to Ecuador to help find and rescue the
workers. Clarke chaired a meeting of the Counter
Terrorism Support Group (CSG) at the Old Executive
Office Building to consider the matter. He wanted to
grant the request and was backed by the Department of
State, the CIA and the FBI. The Department of Defense,
however, balked. At the end of the day, the Bush
administration, against Clarke's recommendation, chose
to treat terrorism in Ecuador as criminal matter
rather than a military issue. U.S. military forces
stayed at home.
Clarke has told the uncomfortable truth in his book,
and now finds himself the target of the full fury of
angry Bush partisans, who insist that fighting
terrorism was Bush's highest priority. The evidence
shows otherwise. For starters, Clarke presented a memo
to Condi Rice outlining the URGENT (this tag is on the
document) threat presented by Al Qaeda in January
2001. While Dr. Rice insists she made terrorism a top
priority, one of her first decisions in the early days
of 2001 was to downgrade Clarke's position as the
National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism. How is
that making terrorism an elevated priority? It is not.
Richard Clarke also requested in January 2001 that
President Bush convene a meeting of principal Bush
officials (e.g., the secretary of state, secretary of
defense and the attorney general) but this meeting was
postponed by Dr. Rice until Sept. 4, 2001. That
seven-month gap represents time that, in retrospect,
could have been used to prevent the 9/11 attacks.
The Clarke bashers also insist that that no more could
have been done before 9/11 than what was done during
the first eight months of the Bush presidency. Oh? If
that was the case, then why did Bush direct the
airlines to lock cockpit doors after 9/11? Why did the
Bush administration decide to arm pilots, put more air
marshals on planes and federalize the security force
doing screening at airports? Why did the Bush
administration order attacks on Al Qaeda camps in
Afghanistan if, in the words of the Bush spinners, "we
did all that we could do prior to 9/11"? Why did Bush
officials establish emergency financial task forces
comprised of intelligence and law enforcement
officials to hunt down the trails of terrorist
financing if all had been done prior to 9/11? The
uncomfortable facts show that Richard Clarke proposed
many of these measures in the early days of the Bush
presidency. Action was taken only in the aftermath of
9/11.
Here is the bottom line由ichard Clarke was right, and
the Bush administration and the people of the United
States would have been better off if his warnings in
the early days of 2001 had been heeded. Rather than
attack Richard Clarke's character, Republican
operatives should focus their venom on the terrorists
who killed Americans in the World Trade Centers and
the Pentagon. George W. Bush should set the tone and
thank his former terrorism chief, apologize for this
week's ugliness, and focus on getting Osama Bin Laden.
As one American, I say thank you, Richard Clarke.
Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch
and get the latest on what's new at TomPaine.com
before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time
and we will never distribute your information to any
other entity.
Published: Mar 29 2004