Clark says he can keep U.S. safe from attacks
Candidate: No need to fear if right steps taken
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
Wesley Clark said yesterday the two greatest lies of the last three years are that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks couldn't have been prevented and that another attack is inevitable.
He said a Clark administration would protect America in the future.
"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark said in a meeting with the Monitor editorial board. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."
Clark, a retired Army general, envisioned a future in which Americans "have more confidence in ourselves as a people." He continued: "Nothing is going to hurt this country - not bioweapons, not a nuclear weapon, not a terrorist strike - there is nothing that can hurt us if we stay united and move together and have a vision for moving to the future the right way."
Former U.S. senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire led a bipartisan commission that warned a year ago that the country remains at risk of a terrorist plot. And former U.S. senator Sam Nunn, a member of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told a college convention in Manchester yesterday that the risk of a biological attack remains high.
Told of Clark's remarks, Dr. Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who appeared with Nunn, said he was troubled by Clark's certainty.
"I'm looking to leaders today who are not out there trying to unnecessarily scare the public. But I think it's equally dangerous to try to reassure the public," said Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease and Research at the University of Minnesota. "We have to tell the truth, and the truth of the matter is that America still remains vulnerable."
Clark's comments to the Monitor came in response to being asked how to keep America from becoming a "giant Jerusalem" - a place where people live in constant fear of a suicide bombing or other terrorist attack.
Asked whether the current administration is doing enough to keep the country secure, Clark said he would increase homeland security efforts.
He added: "But if you're asking me, as a citizen, you know, should you be worried about this, I'm going to tell you, you should not be worried about this. And if I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents.
"I think the two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years are: You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen."
In a follow-up interview last night, Clark said he agrees with the assessment that the country remains vulnerable and said he would spend more on homeland security: on the order of $50 billion. In addition, he stressed the need to work with allies to target the terrorist threat abroad.
Clark reaffirmed his belief that taking appropriate measures would keep America safe.
"I think it could have been prevented," he said of the Sept. 11 attacks. "I think it can be prevented again if we have the right leadership. That's me. I will protect America."
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, one of Clark's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, also met with the Monitor editorial board yesterday. When a Monitor editor read Clark's comments regarding the inevitability of 9/11 or a future attack, Edwards called Clark's comments overstated.
"We are vulnerable; we are always vulnerable," Edwards said. "It is very difficult for us defensively to prevent an attack from occurring. . . . As long as we live as we live now, there is always going to be a hole somewhere."
Nunn's work as co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a public charity, prevents him from commenting on a political candidate's position, his spokeswoman said. Osterholm, whose 2000 book about terrorism predicted the World Trade Center attacks, said the country has increased its protections since then, but not enough.
Osterholm said recent scares concerning mad cow disease and SARS, although not terrorist attacks, demonstrate how easily a threat can disrupt the country and world markets.
"I would say right now that we are a target-rich nation, (and) we largely remain unprotected from most of those targets," he said.
Rudman and former U.S. senator Gary Hart released a study of the 9/11 attacks last fall that concluded future attacks are unavoidable.
"I don't want to be an alarmist, but I would be less than frank if I (said), based on all the work I've done in the last few years, that we've seen the end of terrorism against U.S. citizens," Rudman told the Monitor at the time. "We haven't."
He also said that even had the president heeded his warnings before Sept. 11, the attacks probably would have occurred anyway.
Reached at his Washington, D.C., office yesterday, Rudman, a Republican, declined to comment, saying it would be inappropriate to inject himself in the Democratic primary. When told what Clark had said about the state of the nation's security, Rudman paused.
"Well," he said, "Let Wes Clark debate that out with Howard Dean."
Friday, January 9, 2004 |
