Bush, Clarke and A Shred of Doubt
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 23, 2004; Page A19
Pity poor George Bush. For some reason, he has been beset by delusional aides who, once they leave the White House, write books containing lies and exaggerations and -- this is the lowest blow of all -- do not take into account the president's genius and all-around wisdom. The latest White House aide to betray the president is Richard Clarke, who was in charge of counterterrorism before and after the attacks of Sept. 11. He says Bush "failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda."
As with former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, another fool who had somehow risen to become chairman of Alcoa, Clarke's account of his more than two years in the Bush White House was immediately denounced by a host of administration aides, some of whom -- and this is just the sheerest of coincidences -- had once assured us that Iraq was armed to the teeth with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Among them, of course, was Condoleezza Rice, who on Monday insisted in a Post op-ed column that Bush not only did everything just right, but so, really, did Bill Clinton. Both administrations "worked hard," she wrote.
This is not what Clarke says in his new book and in interviews conducted in tandem with its publication. On the contrary, he says the Bush administration not only belittled the terrorist threat -- China and missile defense were its initial preoccupations -- but it took its own sweet time coming to grips with al Qaeda. From the start, he says, certain White House aides were fixated on Iraq -- and after Sept. 11, apparently so was Bush. He said he encountered the president the next night in the Situation Room. "See if Saddam did it," the president ordered.
"But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," Clarke says he replied. The president persevered: "I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."
Rice's real gift is situational rhetoric. Now, with Bush under criticism from a respected terrorism expert -- and a Republican, to boot -- she makes common cause with the Clinton administration. But that was not always the case. Last October, she faulted previous administrations for doing little about the terrorist threat. In a New York speech, she said of the terrorists: "They became emboldened, and the result was more terror and more victims."
A similar point was made back in 2002 by Vice President Cheney's chief aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. He, too, virtually blamed the Clinton administration for Sept. 11. In a New Yorker interview, he listed terrorist attacks on U.S. or allied interests going back to 1993 and concluded that America had shown only weakness in response. "The Americans don't have the stomach to defend themselves," he quoted an imaginary Osama bin Laden as saying. "They won't take casualties to defend their interests. They are morally weak."
Libby has a point. The United States did do precious little. But it took a while to stir the United States and pinpoint bin Laden. That juncture was reached during the Clinton administration when, among other things, an attempt was made to kill bin Laden with missiles. If the Clinton administration had indeed acted slowly, what can then be said about the Bush administration, which had been warned by Clinton aides about al Qaeda? Clarke says the Bush team refused to come to grips with bin Laden. Among other things, he asked for a Cabinet-level meeting or access to the president to discuss the al Qaeda threat. For eight months, he got neither.
Instead, he says, the administration was obsessed with Saddam Hussein. As did O'Neill, Clarke says that the Sept. 11 attacks were viewed by some high administration officials as an opportunity (pretext?) for going after Hussein. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz wondered out loud why so much attention was being paid to bin Laden -- "this one man" -- when Iraq was the clear danger. Other observers said similar things, and so have European defense and intelligence officials who met with their American counterparts right after Sept. 11. Iraq was on the table by Sept. 12.
The White House has opened its guns on Clarke. He is being contradicted and soon, as with poor O'Neill, his sanity and probity will be questioned. It's getting to be downright amazing how former White House aides tell the same tale -- a case, the White House wants us to believe, of hysteria or unaccountable betrayal. I'd like to believe my president, but as Clarke quotes him in a different context, "I'm looking for any shred."
As with Saddam Hussein, it doesn't exist.
washingtonpost.com |
