SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (555109)3/23/2004 10:27:42 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769667
 
An Accuser's Insider Status Puts the White House on the Defensive

By TODD S. PURDUM
March 23, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS

nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, March 22 — John Kerry himself has never dared to make such a bald charge: That President Bush failed to adequately grasp the threat of Al Qaeda in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, then followed up with "an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."

But that is the stinging indictment of Mr. Bush's own former top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, published this week in a memoir. At the worst possible moment, it undercuts Mr. Bush on the issue that he has made the unapologetic centerpiece of his administration and a linchpin of his re-election campaign: his handling of the global war on terror.

For more than a year, Mr. Bush has portrayed the invasion of Iraq as a critical battle in that war, and despite some significant setbacks and stiff international and domestic criticism, he has so far won broad political support for his position. Mr. Clarke agrees that Iraq and terrorism are linked in the president's mind, but in a way that he contends runs counter to the facts.

"In the end, what was unique about George Bush's reaction to terrorism was his selection as an object lesson for potential state sponsors of terrorism not a country that had been engaging in anti-U.S. terrorism but one that had not been, Iraq," Mr. Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror." "It is hard to imagine another president making that choice."

Just as Mr. Bush appeared to be gaining the upper hand over Mr. Kerry in the fledgling general election campaign after weeks on the defensive over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Mr. Clarke has put the White House squarely on the defensive again. He paints a scene that it is easy to imagine turning up with spooky music in a Kerry commercial as evidence of Mr. Bush's determination to invade Iraq. On Sept. 12, 2001, Mr. Clarke writes, Mr. Bush approached him in the White House Situation Room and three times asked him to "look into" whether Iraq had been involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"And in a very intimidating way, I mean, that we should come back with that answer," Mr. Clarke elaborated in an interview on the CBS program "60 Minutes" on Sunday night.

Mr. Clarke is far from the first person to disagree with the president's Iraq policy. But his insider status gives him special standing and credibility — a reality that a parade of Bush administration officials implicitly acknowledged with their swift and unified efforts to dismiss Mr. Clarke's accusations as a blend of 20-20 hindsight and sour grapes from a civil servant whose status suffered before he resigned last year.

In 30 years in government, Mr. Clarke had a hard-charging reputation. He wore a sidearm to the office, and made many bureaucratic enemies. He acknowledges his close friendship with Rand Beers, a foreign service officer who succeeded him at the White House and who now advises Mr. Kerry's campaign on national security.

But his critique can hardly be chalked up to partisan politics as usual. He was a registered Republican in 2000, a career White House civil servant under three presidents, one of the few national security experts held over from the first Bush administration into the Clinton years, and then held over again under the current President Bush.


"Dick Clarke had a front-row seat on America's counterterrorism efforts for almost two decades," said Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He added: "The facts are that within six months of the first bombs falling on Afghanistan, this administration was diverting military and intelligence resources to its planned war in Iraq, which allowed Al Qaeda to regenerate. As the people of Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and most recently, Spain, have learned painfully well, this president failed to execute the real war on terrorism."

Morton I. Abramowitz, whom Mr. Clarke served as a deputy when he was assistant secretary of state for intelligence in the Reagan administration, and who later served as the first Bush administration's ambassador to Turkey, said he had always valued Mr. Clarke's advice.

"I can only tell you I think Dick has enormous credibility," Mr. Abramowitz said. "He's got a first-class intellect. He's very dedicated. He tries to make things happen. He doesn't hesitate to take unpopular stances, and he doesn't hesitate to push the envelope." He added: "Dick is a serious player. He's been involved in this business for years. You can't overlook what Dick is saying."

Mr. Clarke's accusations have electrified the small world of Washington insiders, and elated the Kerry campaign, which made a point of sending them around by e-mail just after he made them on "60 Minutes." Just what impact they will have on the broader electorate remains an open question.

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, polls have consistently shown large pluralities — if not a majority — of the public believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Equally large pluralities say that they view the fighting in Iraq as part of the global war on terror, and that the war there has made the United States safer.

But the continuing failure to find chemical or biological weapons has put Mr. Bush's basic credibility in jeopardy, and several recent polls have found that a bare majority of Americans now say the war in Iraq was not worth the loss of American lives and other costs.

Mr. Clarke's comments put him firmly among the doubters. In his "60 Minutes" interview, he said the administration had repeatedly fostered the impression that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The White House carefully manipulated public opinion, never quite lied, but gave the very strong impression that Iraq did it," he said, adding: "They did know better. We told them. The C.I.A. told them. The F.B.I. told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging Sept. 11, when Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. I think for a commander in chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: PROLIFE who wrote (555109)3/23/2004 10:31:57 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JUDITH MILLER
March 23, 2004

nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, March 22 — As the White House opened an aggressive personal attack against its former counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke, a furious debate broke out on Monday about the credibility of his assertion that President Bush pushed him the day after the Sept. 11 attacks to see if there was a link with Saddam Hussein.

The White House dismissed the accusations, described in a new book by Mr. Clarke, by casting him as a disgruntled, politically motivated job seeker and a "best buddy" of a top adviser to Senator John Kerry. But Mr. Clarke defended his account, and several allies rallied to his defense.

One ally, Mr. Clarke's former deputy, Roger Cressey, backed the thrust of one of the most incendiary accusations in the book, about a conversation that Mr. Clarke said he had with Mr. Bush in the White House Situation Room on the night of Sept. 12, 2001. Mr. Clarke said Mr. Bush pressed him three times to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The accusation is explosive because no such link has ever been proved.

"I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything," Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. "See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to "look into Iraq, Saddam," and then left the room.


Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, responded at a White House briefing on Monday that Mr. Bush did not remember having the conversation, and that there were no records that placed the president in the Situation Room at the time.

Mr. Clarke countered in a telephone interview on Monday that he had four witnesses, including Mr. Cressey, who is a partner with Mr. Clarke in a consulting company that advises on cybersecurity issues. In an interview, Mr. Cressey said the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, also witnessed the exchange. Administration officials said Ms. Rice had no recollection of it.

Mr. Cressey cast Mr. Bush's instructions to Mr. Clarke less as an order to come up with a link between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11, and more as a request to "take a look at all options, including Iraq." He backed off Mr. Clarke's suggestion that the president's tone was intimidating. "I'm not going to get into that," Mr. Cressey said. "That is Dick's characterization."

Mr. Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," also asserts that the administration did not heed warnings about the Sept. 11 attacks, and then neglected the threat of Al Qaeda as it turned its attention to Saddam Hussein.

Another ally of Mr. Clarke, Thomas R. Maertens, confirmed the outlines of Mr. Clarke's critique of the White House. Mr. Maertens, who served as National Security Council director for nuclear nonproliferation on both the Clinton and Bush White House staffs, said that Mr. Clarke had repeatedly tried to warn senior officials in the Bush administration about the growing threat of Al Qaeda.

"He was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S.," Mr. Maertens said Monday from his home in Minnesota. But Mr. Maertens said that the Bush White House was reluctant to believe a holdover from the previous administration.

"They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration," Mr. Maertens said. "So anything they did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it. And it's disgusting to see the administration now putting a full-court smear on Clarke — for being right."


Mr. Clarke also charges in his book that Mr. Bush waged "an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq" that strengthened Islamic terrorist movements around the world, and has left the nation more vulnerable to future attacks.

His book is the first by a former administration member to challenge the president directly on what Mr. Bush considers his greatest electoral strength, national security. It is arriving in book stores not only during a presidential campaign, but in the same week that Mr. Clarke and Clinton and Bush administration officials are to publicly testify before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Clarke said last week that he was prepared to testify that Clinton administration officials repeatedly warned members of the incoming Bush administration in late 2000 about the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

In the hearings, which begin on Wednesday, the panel will call as witnesses four high-ranking officials from the Bush and Clinton administrations: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; his predecessor, Madeleine K. Albright; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; and his predecessor, William S. Cohen.

The angry White House response to Mr. Clarke, which was authorized by Mr. Bush, reflects the administration's fears over the book's potential political damage. In a daylong assault on Monday, administration officials portrayed Mr. Clarke, a secretive, combative terrorism expert who spent more than three decades working in the Reagan, Clinton and both Bush administrations, as a bitter former employee who had been denied the No. 2 position in the Department of Homeland Security and who was now trying to help the Kerry campaign.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, noted that Mr. Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism at the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 2000 attack on the American destroyer Cole, and "I didn't notice that they had any great success dealing with the terrorist threat."

Mr. McClellan told reporters: "He conveniently writes a book and releases it in the heat of a presidential campaign. We know that his best buddy is Senator Kerry's principal foreign policy adviser." Mr. McClellan was referring to Rand Beers, Mr. Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser.

Clearly, Mr. McClellan said, "this is more about politics and a book promotion than it is about policy."

Mr. Clarke fired back that the White House attacks were an effort to divert attention from the substantive information in his book, including his impression that Ms. Rice, as the new national security adviser in early 2001, had not heard of Al Qaeda. (Administration officials disputed the claim about Ms. Rice.)

"This is the way the Bush administration deals with people, with ad hominem attacks, and trying to suppress the truth," Mr. Clarke said by telephone from New York. He added that he had been friends for 25 years with Mr. Beers, "and I'm not going to run away from him just because he's John Kerry's national security adviser."


Administration officials said Mr. Clarke, who was on Ms. Rice's staff, was kept on after the Clinton administration because she wanted to maintain continuity in counterterrorism policy.

Mr. Clarke, they said, proved to be almost obsessive — a description he applies to himself in the book — about attacking Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and impatient that many of his ideas, like forging a closer alliance with the Northern Alliance, the Taliban resistance in Afghanistan, were not adopted.

But administration officials said that throughout his tenure in the Bush administration, Mr. Clarke appeared to be generally supportive of the president's policies, and never brought to Ms. Rice a broad critique of either the administration's approach to terrorism or its plan for invading Iraq.

Sean McCormack, Ms. Rice's spokesman, said that Mr. Clarke ate lunch with Ms. Rice in her West Wing office after he had left the administration, a month or two before the attack on Iraq, and gave none of the warnings he gave in the book.

In addition to Mr. Cressey, at least two other former officials with knowledge of what occurred in the Situation Room that day also backed up the thrust of Mr. Clarke's account, though one of the two challenged Mr. Clarke's assertion that Mr. Bush's demeanor and that of other senior White House officials was intimidating.

Elisabeth Bumiller reported from Washington for this article and Judith Miller from New York. Richard W. Stevenson contributed reporting from Washington.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company