[Nicko]

March 26, 2004
Rice Is Agreeable to Return for More of 9/11 Panel's Queries
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

ASHINGTON, March 25 � Under mounting pressure from Democrats about its response to the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the White House offered Thursday to have Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, answer more questions from the Sept. 11 panel. At the same time, President Bush forcefully denied accusations that he had ignored the severity of the threat from Al Qaeda.

The White House announced late Thursday that Ms. Rice was willing to appear before the panel again, but only in private and not under oath. Some Republicans said that Mr. Bush was being undercut by the perception that a senior White House official would not cooperate, while his aides were out pummeling Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief who has accused the Bush administration of not heeding warnings before Sept. 11.

The moves came as the White House also sought to deflect new criticism of Mr. Bush for his handling of counterterrorism issues in the months before the attacks and to contain the fallout of an investigation that Democrats and some Republicans said could cast a shadow over his re-election campaign.

The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, called on the White House to cease "character attacks" on Mr. Clarke.

"I have a simple request for the president today: Please ask the people around you to stop the character attacks they are waging against Richard Clarke," Mr. Daschle said. "Ask them to stop their attempts to conceal information and confuse facts. Ask them to stop the long effort that has made the 9/11 commission's work more difficult than it should be."

An array of White House officials, including Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, have gone on television to discredit Mr. Clarke's testimony as either politically motivated, to help John Kerry, or as a ruse to sell books.

In New Hampshire, Mr. Bush showed up at an event about the economy accompanied by the widow of a pilot of the plane that flew into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Only a day earlier, television news programs were filled with images of Mr. Clarke surrounded by thankful families of other Sept. 11 victims after he apologized to them for failing to head off the attack.

Mr. Bush prefaced his remarks by pointedly noting that the commission was looking at "the eight months of my administration and the eight years of the previous administration."

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people," Mr. Bush said to a burst of applause.

In a letter to the commission's chairman, the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, said a return session would allow Ms. Rice to clear up "a number of mischaracterizations" of her statements and positions. Mr. Gonzales said she would not appear at a public session of the panel because, he wrote, it was critical that presidential advisers "not be compelled to testify publicly before Congressional bodies such as the commission."

James R. Thompson, the former governor of Illinois and a Republican member of the commission, said in an interview on Thursday that in the commission's private four-hour interview of Ms. Rice last month, she offered to meet again with the panel to answer other questions. "She said, `If you need me back at any time, I'd be delighted,' " Mr. Thompson said. "So my guess is that we will call her back."

By publicly restating her offer on Thursday, the White House sought to deflect criticism that it was trying to block a full investigation of the Bush administration's performance in the months leading to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Ms. Rice told commissioners that White House officials had told her she should not testify under oath. While the panel requires officials appearing in public to testify under oath, there is no such requirement for those testifying in private.

The decision by Mr. Bush to directly address this issue underlines the extent to which the questions raised by Mr. Clarke and the commission appear to have shaken the White House. It came during a trip that was intended to address economic issues and to focus on New Hampshire, a state with a battered economy that is expected to be a critical in the presidential election.

Mr. Kerry, the expected Democratic presidential nominee, on Thursday again avoided directly engaging Mr. Bush on Mr. Clarke's assertions. Several advisers said they argued that an attack by Mr. Kerry at this point might be a welcome distraction to the White House, and make it easier to portray the criticism voiced by Mr. Clarke as orchestrated by the Kerry campaign.

Some of Mr. Bush's advisers said they believed that they had raised enough questions about Mr. Clarke's motives and credibility to negate any damage he might have caused Mr. Bush with his statements to the panel, his just-released book and a steam of television appearances this week.

"Clarke's own words contributed to the end of his credibility with people," said Terry Holt, Mr. Bush's campaign spokesman.

But Democrats and some Republicans not associated with the campaign questioned that assessment. They described Mr. Clarke's appearance before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States as compelling and said that Mr. Bush's campaign, which had already been criticized by some families of victims for using footage of World Trade Center destruction in its campaign advertisements, would have to deal with the emotional show of support by victims of Mr. Clarke after he said, "I failed you."

In addition, even some Republicans questioned the wisdom of the White House involving itself in such a public and muscular campaign to discredit a critic who was, by his account, a Republican who served in Mr. Bush's own administration.

"While it was their intent to undermine Clark's credibility, it will be interesting to see if their credibility now comes into question more than his," said Don Sipple, a Republican consultant. "I saw the parade of the victim's families on the morning shows who all applauded him. He was the first person who took any responsibility. What that does is underscore his perception as a truth teller. I think the American people are paying attention to this episode."

With the economy faltering and Democrats so united, Mr. Bush's terrorism credentials are portrayed by his supporters as the strongest assets he has going against Mr. Kerry. The revelations � in particular, the account offered by Mr. Clarke � could give Mr. Kerry ammunition to attack Mr. Bush on foreign policy.

Adam Nagourney reported from Washington and Richard W. Stevenson from Nashua, N.H.
nytimes.com

could be, enlightening.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by slow moe:
http://nationalreview.com/document/r...0403241110.asp

Within 63 days of the 9/11 attacks, Kabul, Afganistan fell to coalition forces. You don't just do in two months what the Soviets couldn't do in eight years by pulling rabbits out your ass, Mr. Clarke.

damn good point.

bordering on *smackdown*, but not quite there.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by slow moe:
http://nationalreview.com/document/r...0403241110.asp

Within 63 days of the 9/11 attacks, Kabul, Afganistan fell to coalition forces. You don't just do in two months what the Soviets couldn't do in eight years by pulling rabbits out your ass, Mr. Clarke.

Yes, and it effectively ended Al Queda for good, eliminating Bin Ladin and all terro....er...no, wait a minute, I'm wrong.

Seriously, though, I don't see a lot of people addressing Clarke's contentions head on, just finding different ways to attack his credibility.

From what he says, and just from my own musings, we are left with some very valid questions:

1. If Iraq was not connected to 9/11, why did we then divide our military resources between Iraq and Afghanistan (with the majority in Iraq) instead of combining them in a more concerted effort in Afghanistan and against Al Queda. Weren't they the ones that actually attacked us?
2. Why did we go ahead with the intent to invade Iraq, oblivious to international opinion or support, if Iraq was unconnected to the 9/11 attack?
3. Why have we not done anything more to secure vulnerable targets, like nuclear plants, etc?
4. If the Bush administration disagreed with Clinton's administration handling of terrorism preparedness, why wasn't his method continued UNTIL a more comprehensives Bush version could be implemented? Why was the ball dropped in between?
5. We NOW know the intelligence was faulty, according to Bush (of course, in an attempt to scapegoat the intel community, but that's another topic). Why did we commit ourselves to an irrevocable action on such flimsy evidence, or non-ironclad evidence?
6. Why would we commit a large portion of our troops to a foreign country unrelated to the 9/11 attack on our own soil instead of keeping them here to scramble for any future attacks on our "homeland"?
7. WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE FUTURE TO PREVENT A 9/11?


How about we start addressing those questions?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
2. Why did we go ahead with the intent to invade Iraq, oblivious to international opinion or support, if Iraq was unconnected to the 9/11 attack?

Better targets. (As per Rumsfeld.)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
From what he says, and just from my own musings, we are left with some very valid questions:

1. If Iraq was not connected to 9/11, why did we then divide our military resources between Iraq and Afghanistan (with the majority in Iraq) instead of combining them in a more concerted effort in Afghanistan and against Al Queda. Weren't they the ones that actually attacked us?
2. Why did we go ahead with the intent to invade Iraq, oblivious to international opinion or support, if Iraq was unconnected to the 9/11 attack?
3. Why have we not done anything more to secure vulnerable targets, like nuclear plants, etc?
4. If the Bush administration disagreed with Clinton's administration handling of terrorism preparedness, why wasn't his method continued UNTIL a more comprehensives Bush version could be implemented? Why was the ball dropped in between?
5. We NOW know the intelligence was faulty, according to Bush (of course, in an attempt to scapegoat the intel community, but that's another topic). Why did we commit ourselves to an irrevocable action on such flimsy evidence, or non-ironclad evidence?
6. Why would we commit a large portion of our troops to a foreign country unrelated to the 9/11 attack on our own soil instead of keeping them here to scramble for any future attacks on our "homeland"?
7. WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE FUTURE TO PREVENT A 9/11?


How about we start addressing those questions?

From my POV.

1. Afghanistan didn't attack us. Islamic extremists operating under an umbrella organization did. That organization had a base of operations in Afghanistan and in effect, controlled state resources there (e.g. the state airline), as well as had trainng bases there. Going in removed the state support and broke up the training operation. But it did not, and could not remove al-Queda as a threat, because al-Queda in Afghanistan was not the entirety of the threat. Al-Queda, and more broadly, Islamic extremism is a world-wide phenomenon. We shouldn't get hypnotized by its "lair" in Afghanistan.

1b. Iraq was indirectly connected and key to the overall strategy for three reasons, and two other good side reasons:

One, it removed a potential (and variously disputed, actual) source of support for international Islamic terrorism. FOr example, Iraq was deeply implicated in the first World Trade Center bombing. So even if it didn't have its fingerprints on the second WTC attack, it was involved.

Two: everyone agrees that Iraq had WMD ambitions. Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations were convinced that there was an unacceptable risk that those WMD weapons could end up in the hands of Islamic terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to use them and who could not be deterred by conventional means since the terrorists don't possess territory that can be the subject of retaliation, and frankly, because they don't fear death.

Three: because the root of the problem is despotic and corrupt regimes in the region, who ferment hatred against the west mainly to divert attention from their own failures. In addition, the long history of the West supporting those regimes gives legitimacy to those claims. Iraq isn't central to that (we didn't recently support them, but did in the past), but it is central to the region. Change the climate of government and give people democratic self-government that works, and you drain the swamp that makes terrorism possible.

Four: Iraq and Saddam were symbols of aggressive defiance toward the institutions of international order. It was important to underscore that their way was not going to be the winning side. Throwing Saddam in a jail cell is like lancing a boil.

Five: Pour encourager les autres.

2. Because, frankly, we believe we were right, and international opinion was wrong. It works that way sometimes.

3. Defensive measures are hugely expensive. I agree that more can be done to secure nuclear plants, etc. But no war has ever been won by defenseive measures alone. Anything you do defensively can be circumvented in the end. Sword v. shield technological races always end with better or more ingenious swords winning over the clumsy shield.

4. Clinton's approach was all shield, not much sword. There is nothing wrong with building up your shield, and so those policies remain in place. What was needed was to add the sword policy. That's been done, but it didn't happen rights away, and as Madeline Albright and Former Secretary of Defense Cohen said, it probably took 9/11 to make the public climate make it possible.

5. The only intelligence that is ever ironclad is an actual present attack. Any time you try to predict intentions there is a chance your prediction is wrong. So if the rule is ironclad intelligence only, the rule is wait for the attack first. But many of us think that is unacceptable when the attacks are getting bigger and bigger, and when the attack might be nuclear, chamical, or biological.

6. You deploy troops to meet the threat where it develops. This isn't a military invasion of the Continetal United States. Troops cooling their heels in the US wouldn't be dealing with the threat developing overseas, and wouldn't be particularly useful here in the US after an attack. We have enough people here to dig rubble. The armed forces have more important things to do -- like prevent the attack before it happens.

7. What can be done? All of the above, hopefully.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by slow moe:
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

Clarke's obviously disgruntled. You don't just serve as "terrorist czar" under 4 administrations without beginning to feel like you deserve something special - like maybe, oh I dunno, being named head of Homeland Security instead of Tom Ridge possibly.

Riddle me this though, if the Clinton Administration had no higher priority than terrorism, as Clarke now says, then how come we never heard a peep from Al Gore about it during his 2000 campaign?

The Dems expect everyone else to delude themselves. Then when they don't, the cry foul.

Just like the video I posted in another thread.

[Lerkfish]

thanks, Simey. I have a different POV, but I appreciate you stating yours.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks, Simey. I have a different POV, but I appreciate you stating yours.

You are welcome. And I think that this is the key to all these issues. When people like Clarke stand up and say that X didn't do enough, or did the wrong thing, and so on. What it really shows is that there is a deep policy division on what the strategy in the War on Terror should be. Rather than pursue this as scandal and revelation, accusations and counter accusations, I wish our leaders would just grow up a bit and address that difference of opinion the way it should be addressed -- as something utterly important that we have to deal with.

[dialo]

Originally posted by dialo:

Originally posted by slow moe:
Within 63 days of the 9/11 attacks, Kabul, Afganistan fell to coalition forces. You don't just do in two months what the Soviets couldn't do in eight years by pulling rabbits out your ass, Mr. Clarke.

What's that? Take Kabul without controlling the rest of the country? Seems to me that's exactly what the Soviets did.

But regardless of the fact that your statement is already wrong in fact, let's just ignore that it was a totally different situation.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by dialo:
What's that? Take Kabul without controlling the rest of the country? Seems to me that's exactly what the Soviets did.

But regardless of the fact that your statement is already wrong in fact, let's just ignore that it was a totally different situation.

We already dismissed that the first two times you wrote it.

But don't let that stop you from quoting yourself a third time.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We already dismissed that the first two times you wrote it.

Of course you ignored it. It's the only way you can go on with your false beliefs.

[Zimphire]

You confused dismissed with ignored.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You confused dismissed with ignored.

You need some help with your definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dismiss

But, hey, maybe english isn't your native language. Nothing wrong with that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dialo:
You need some help with your definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dismiss

But, hey, maybe english isn't your native language. Nothing wrong with that.

Dismiss means we read it, and dismissed it as being highly improbable.

dismissed the claim as highly improbable.

Ignoring something means you don't pay ANY attention to it at all.

There is indeed a difference.

Before you go "schooling" people. Get your facts straight.

It will stop you from embarrassing yourself in further discussions.

Again, it was not ignored.

Maybe English isn't your native language?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by dialo:
What's that? Take Kabul without controlling the rest of the country? Seems to me that's exactly what the Soviets did.

Our goal isn't to control the rest of the country. It's for the new Afghan government to control the rest of the country. The Soviets put about 100,000 troops into Afghanistan. We have about 10-15,000 troops there. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of our Afghan mission, it's clearly NOT what the Soviets did.

But regardless of the fact that your statement is already wrong in fact, let's just ignore that it was a totally different situation.

Except his statement wasn't wrong. Kabul did fall 63 days after 9/11. Clearly SOMEBODY was planning SOMETHING prior to 9/11.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Kabul did fall 63 days after 9/11. Clearly SOMEBODY was planning SOMETHING prior to 9/11.

I am fairly certain the US has war plans for just about any nation or situation. That's what the military does...prepare for battle - create hypothetical situations just in case. Wargames...they have a purpose.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am fairly certain the US has war plans for just about any nation or situation.

Are you listening, France?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you listening, France?

I think that war plan consists of marching a troop of boy scouts into paris with slingshots and spitballs

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I think that war plan consists of marching a troop of boy scouts into paris with slingshots and spitballs

A single troop of Girl Scouts would be enough. Boy Scouts would be overkill.

But, then again, maybe some Cub Scouts...or Brownies.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are welcome. And I think that this is the key to all these issues. When people like Clarke stand up and say that X didn't do enough, or did the wrong thing, and so on. What it really shows is that there is a deep policy division on what the strategy in the War on Terror should be. Rather than pursue this as scandal and revelation, accusations and counter accusations, I wish our leaders would just grow up a bit and address that difference of opinion the way it should be addressed -- as something utterly important that we have to deal with.

What I wonder is -- and you hinted at it briefly earlier -- how much difference it would all have made. Presume, for the sake of argument, that Clarke is right about everything. Remember where we were in the summer of 2001. Gary Condit, tax cuts, no 9/11 yet, etc. What would the Bush administration have done effectively? The Gore adminstration, McCain administration, Bradley administration, Nader administration, Mo administration? The government was (is) such an aircraft carrier that takes forever to turn around, I really wonder, in the true sense of the word, whether any administration wouldn't have screwed it up similarly.

Imagine how weird the (possibly ineffectual) pre-emptive actions taken in August would have looked. Imagine how strange everything would've seemed to us. You can believe the Bush administration screwed up, and still believe it wouldn't have mattered. They are not mutually exclusive thoughts.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by mo:
What I wonder is -- and you hinted at it briefly earlier -- how much difference it would all have made. Presume, for the sake of argument, that Clarke is right about everything. Remember where we were in the summer of 2001. Gary Condit, tax cuts, no 9/11 yet, etc. What would the Bush administration have done effectively? The Gore adminstration, McCain administration, Bradley administration, Nader administration, Mo administration? The government was (is) such an aircraft carrier that takes forever to turn around, I really wonder, in the true sense of the word, whether any administration wouldn't have screwed it up similarly.

Assuming Clarke is correct (for speculation sake), if the two known members of the 9/11 incident had filtered up to the appropriate authorities, there might have been an investigation that might've, keyword here, unraveled the whole plot. Remember, we're talking about guys who took control of those planes with boxcutters, not exactly WMD's.

I'm sure if we DID foil the plot Afghanistan might still be under the Taliban right now but I bet Saddam wouldn't be around. Particularly since there are so many sources who have leaked the Administration's fixation with removing him.

We'd be looking on the failed hijacking attempt the way we look back on the failed LAX attempts and the guy who got caught at the border with explosives.

[IceBreaker]

Clarke is selling a book for profit.

His sudden change of story from 2002 to what he is saying now just reveals he is successfully marketing the book.

Everyone knows he has made steady contributions to the Democratic Party for years, and not once to a Republican ever.

His actions and lies are pathetic.

IF he is so sorry for 9/11 he should give all the proceeds on the sale of the book to victoms of 9/11.

[slow moe]

Clarke's right, the Clinton Administration had no higher priority than terrorism...errr! the Arab Street.

After the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in July 1998 killing 224 people, there could be no more excuses by the Clinton administration for not starting to prepare the American citizens for a war in Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden and exterminate Al-Qaeda. Instead, what did they do? They convinced us we needed to bomb the hell out of our fellow christian Serb allies, and prop up the muslim Kosovars.

[zigzag]

After a week of testimony, commentary, and interviews - including Rice's on 60 Minutes - I've concluded that, on the topic of whether the Bush Administration made al Qaeda a lower priority than the Clinton Administration, Clarke is generally more credible than Rice and the rest of the administration. One doesn't even need Clarke to understand this - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said as much, the former Treasury Secretary has said as much, and the friggin' President himself has said as much. No evidence has been produced to the contrary. The main difference is that Clarke is pissed off about it, is hawking a book, and made some politically convenient statements while working for the administration. But Rice has also made inconsistent and incorrect statements - I have no more reason to believe her than Clarke. They're both self-serving to a degree.

Of course, everyone is free to come to their own conclusions as to whether and how much it matters. One could concur with Clarke's observations yet conclude that the administration was acting within reason. However, even if one isn't interested in placing blame for an event that might or might not have been prevented, as a number of Republicans as well as Democrats have said, legitimate questions have been raised. Personally, I think those questions go to whether the people running things are sufficiently competent, or at least whether they're pursuing the most prudent course.

I know I'll be jumped on for saying so. Tough ti**ies. It's a sad day when even sober skepticism of the government is derided as mere "Bush-bashing."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
After a week of testimony, commentary, and interviews - including Rice's on 60 Minutes - I've concluded that, on the topic of whether the Bush Administration made al Qaeda a lower priority than the Clinton Administration, Clarke is generally more credible than Rice and the rest of the administration. One doesn't even need Clarke to understand this - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said as much, the former Treasury Secretary has said as much, and the friggin' President himself has said as much. No evidence has been produced to the contrary.

What Rice said (which is also consistent with Bush's and the Joint Chief's statements) is that the Clinton policy was being continued while a more robust, aggressive policy was being developed. On this, no evidence has been produced to the contrary.

As for Clarke, his statements are all over the place. The fact that it took over a million dollars for the "truth" to come out via his book (whose release was strategically timed to coincide with the commission) does not lend itself towards credibility, especially when most everyone who witnessed his prior testimony to the commission claims that his book and recent remarks are practically the polar opposite of what he stated in the past.

Add in that Clarke has only contributed to Democrats (and voted for Gore), and that his best buddie and co-professor is Kerry's foreign policy advisor...it's not hard to see that the man has become a major league hack.

[Zimphire]

Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth - Why is he is right

Here is to those who jump the gun before all is known.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What Rice said (which is also consistent with Bush's and the Joint Chief's statements) is that the Clinton policy was being continued while a more robust, aggressive policy was being developed. On this, no evidence has been produced to the contrary.

General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff: the Bush administration pushed terrorism "farther to the back burner."

Bush administration terrorism report, April 2001, via CNN: When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus on Osama bin Laden, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."

Thomas Maertens, NSC nonproliferation director for Clinton and Bush: "[Clarke] was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." But Maertens said the Bush White House was reluctant to believe a holdover from the previous administration. "They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration," he said. "So anything they did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it."

Lieutenant General Don Kerrick, Clinton deputy NSA who was held over for several months by Bush, comparing Bush's sense of urgency regarding terrorism to Clinton's: "Candidly speaking, I didn�t detect that kind of focus." And this: "I don't think it was above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen."

President Bush himself, quoted by Bob Woodward: "I didn�t feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus; it was not the focus of my team."

Drum

[dialo]

Also:

Declassifying the transcripts is not compatible with national security. But taking the transcripts, cutting the individual words into scraps and pasting them back together into incriminating sentences might be okay.

How far different is this ...

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.

That's the last graf from a late story from NBC.

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?

It's one thing to declassify the whole thing. Perhaps there's some rationale for that -- though why Clarke's testimony and no one else's should be released seems questionable.

But the whole thing won't be released -- which would be only way to really judge what he said -- only portions which can be selected to highlight apparent contradictions.

We're moving on to dangerous enough ground when the White House starts using the nation's intelligence agencies for explicitly domestic political purposes. But you know we're really in trouble when they don't even try to hide it

TPM

[saab95]

Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth - Why is he is right

Dick Clark knows his rock 'n roll

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by saab95:
Dick Clark knows his rock 'n roll

AHahhaha