anchor link to jump to start of content

The Seattle Times Company NWclassifieds NWsource Home delivery Contact us Search archives
Your account  Today's news index  Weather  Traffic  Movies  Restaurants  Today's events

Between the Lines

March 24, 2004

Richard Clarke, one more time

No, this is not Richard Clarke’s blog. But the guy has been saying so much in recent days about the Clinton and Bush administration’s antiterrorism efforts that I just can’t move on to other things yet.

I’ve been watching his public testimony today before the bipartisan 9/11 commission, where Clarke said:

-- President Bush “greatly undermined” the war on terrorism by invading Iraq. He’s hardly alone on this. Other analysts have complained that Iraq a) drained resources from the campaign to find Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida and its sibling networks and b) fed al-Qaida propaganda that the real U.S. goal was the occupation of oil-right Muslim countries in the Middle East.

-- In 15 hours(!) of closed testimony before the commission no one had asked his opinion of the Iraq war. Well, they are tasked with investigating 9/11, but you would think the little matter of the war might have come up at some point.

-- “No, it is not,” when asked if National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s characterization of the Bush administration’s antiterrorism efforts – which she claimed included the option of military action and “taking the fight to the enemy where he lives” before 9/11 -- was accurate.

We also learned that one week before the disastrous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Clarke sent Rice a letter urging administration officials to imagine how they would feel if hundreds of Americans were killed in a terrorist strike.

That letter certainly was prescient, and it underscores Clarke’s contention that he was doing everything he could to spur the Bush administration into faster action against the threat posed by al-Qaida.

The administration and its supporters clearly are livid over Clarke’s appearance on “60 Minutes,” about his new book, and about his testimony before the 9/11 commission. Republicans on the commission, in particular former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, John Lehman, who was Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the Navy, and Fred Fielding, who was Reagan's counsel, attacked Clarke for what they said was inconsistency and partisanship. IMHO, they didn’t make much of a dent in Clarke’s credibility.

When questioned, harshly, about his stinging criticisms of the Bush administration, Clarke denied he was doing any work for the campaign of Sen. John Kerry and said he would not accept any position in a Kerry administration if one was offered.

“The reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because ... by invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism,” he said.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who followed Clarke before the commission, conceded that:

-- “In retrospect, you can say we weren’t going fast enough” in developing a policy to respond to the al-Qaida threat – one of Clarke’s key assertions.

-- Rice was not accurate in claiming that an invasion of Afghanistan was being considered before 9/11.

-- The administration “didn’t have the imagination” to envison an attack as horrific as 9/11.

Clarke did. No one knows if a quicker, more determined attempt to deal with al-Qaida would have prevented 9/11. But it’s tragic that it didn’t happen.

Footnote: For a conservative take on Clarke's testimony, here's a link to Gregory Djerijian's blog, Belgravia Dispatch.

Update: The 9/11 commission also issued a report that said efforts to kill or capture Bin Laden were hamstrung by reliance on Afghan rebels for intelligence and confusion over whether Bill Clinton had given the OK to kill the terrorist if necessary.

Posted by tbrown at 01:49 PM

9/11 moms wonder what Rumsfeld was doing?

"He needs to answer to his actions on Sept. 11," said Mindy Kleinberg, mother and widow whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center. "When was he aware that we were under attack? What did he do about it?"

Good question. And she and three other women, who were instrumental in getting a broad public investigation of what happened on 9/11, weren’t real happy with the defense secretary’s testimony before the investigatory commission.

Gail Sheehy has the story.

Posted by tbrown at 01:48 PM

 July 2006
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003

Richard Clarke, one more time
9/11 moms wonder what Rumsfeld was doing?


Blogs to watch

Abu Ardvark
Andrew Sullivan
Atrios Eschaton
Best of the Web
Drudge Report
Joe Conason (subscription required)
Josh Marshall
Kaus files
No More Mr. Nice Blog
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Whiskey Bar

Mideast blogs

Salam Pax (Iraq)
G. in Baghdad
L.T. Smash (U.S. military in Iraq)
Lady Sun (Iran)

City blogs

L.A. Examiner

Africa blogs

Cathy Buckle

Media blogs

Dan Gillmor's eJournal
Media Whores Online


Newspapers online (guide to papers on the web)
International Herald Tribune
The Guardian U.K.
New York Times (free registration required)

Economy blogs

Brad DeLong

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2 home
Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site map | Low-graphic
NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info | The Seattle Times Company


Back to topBack to top