Bush's Secret Budget: $4.5 Trillion in Secret Spending
BUSH FICTION: Bush is fiscally responsible.
FACT: In just four years as President, George Bush has overseen the largest spending increase since World War II. Adjusted for inflation, total spending has increased by $354 billion annually – that’s the largest four-year spending increase since World War II. Of this total, $98 billion annually is in non-defense discretionary programs – the largest four-year spending increase on record.
BUSH'S BROKEN PROMISES ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
In 2000, America had a historic opportunity to use surpluses to save Social Security and Medicare. Instead, George W. Bush squandered the surplus on a large tax cut for the wealthy. Today’s Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report shows that under President Bush the outlook for Social Security and Medicare has not improved and in fact gotten worse under President Bush. Also, George W. Bush has a secret budget plan for the future that will spend more than $4.5 trillion.
TAX CUTS COST MORE THAN THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY: Instead of taking advantage of his historic opportunity, George Bush passed tax cuts for the wealthy that cost three times as much as the 75 year deficit in Social Security. The cost of making the tax cuts permanent is more than the cost of saving Social Security and Medicare combined for the next 75 years. [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Understanding the Social Security and Medicare Projections,” 3/22/04]
THE TRUE COST OF THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL MAKES THINGS WORSE: As has been widely reported, the Bush Administration hid from Congress and the American people the true cost of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. That extra $136 billion only exacerbates the fiscal challenges facing Medicare. [Wall Street Journal, 3/18/04]
GEORGE BUSH HAS WORSENED MEDICARE, BILL CLINTON IMPROVED IT: When Bill Clinton took office, Medicare was scheduled to go broke in 1999 and because of the fiscal responsibility and prudent choices of the Democrats, the program was strengthened nearly 30 years to 2029. Today’s Trustees report revealed that Medicare will be insolvent by 2019 – ten years earlier than its solvency date under President Clinton and seven years earlier than last year’s estimate. [Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports, 2001 & 2004].
GEORGE BUSH HASN’T IMPROVED SOCIAL SECURITY: Both Social Security and Medicare are projected to be unable to pay the full benefits they have promised to members of the baby boom generation. The new Trustees Report projects that Social Security will be insolvent by 2042 George Bush has done nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security or Medicare.
_____________________________________________________
BUSH’S SECRET BUDGET: $4.5 TRILLION IN SECRET SPENDING
George Bush is only going to put entitlements more at risk with his secret budget plan.
· $411 BILLION – THE MISSING YEARS IN THE BUSH BUDGET. George W. Bush only tells Americans about 5 years of his spending plans – although his campaign’s false attacks estimates Kerry’s plans over 10 years. Including the missing five years adds $411 billion to the Bush budget.
· $280 BILLION – IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND WAR ON TERROR. Despite the fact that the Administration’s acknowledgement that we are not leaving Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon, the President’s budget does not have any money to pay for the war on Iraq. This could cost $280 billion over ten years, based on analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
· $936 BILLION – EXTENDING THE TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY. Bush buries the cost of extending his tax cut for the wealthy. But you can find the number buried in his budget – and it’s nearly $1 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office thinks extending the tax cut will cost even more.
· $555 BILLION – 455 EXPLCIT ADDITIONAL SPENDING INCREASES IN THE BUDGET. Look through the fine print of the Bush budget, and you’ll find 455 explicit spending increases for programs, not even including defense or homeland security. The price tag for these programs adds up to $555 billion. Like the Bush “analysis” of the Kerry budget this does not count any budget cuts or savings that Bush proposes.
· $2,005 BILLION – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM. President Bush has repeatedly called for Social Security reform, but his budget does not have any money for it. His Commission developed a plan – all but endorsed in his Economic Report of the President – that the independent Social Security actuary estimated would add over $2 trillion to the deficit from 2005 to 2014.
· $250 BILLION – MARS MISSION. The President does not include the full ten year cost of the Mars mission in his budget, including it could add $250 billion.
· $24 BILLION – ENERGY BILL. The President promised to sign the Congressional energy bill, costing $31 billion. But he only included $7 billion for energy in his budget. Thus another $24 billion is missing.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Bush Taxes the Truth
BUSH FICTION: Bush is a straight talker when it comes to taxes.
FACT: On the stump and in a series of deceptive attack ads, Bush has taken a leading role in misleading America about John Kerry’s record.
THE PRESIDENT: My opponent has a different view of tax relief. When we passed an increase in the child credit to help families, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry actually voted to EXPAND the child credit by lowering the eligibility threshold for a refundable child tax credit from $10,500 to $5,000. [2003, #153]
THE PRESIDENT: When we reduced the marriage penalty, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry actually voted for FASTER marriage penalty relief; casting a YES vote for Conrad’s amendment to cause marriage penalty relief for those in the 15 percent bracket to take effect in 2002
THE PRESIDENT: When we created a lower 10-percent tax rate for working families, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry voted to EXPAND the 10 percent bracket [2003; #168]
THE PRESIDENT: When we gave small businesses a tax incentive to expand and to hire, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry voted to CUT taxes for small businesses
· Kerry voted to allow businesses for one year to write off $75,000 in investment, create a 50 percent tax credit for small business health care expenses. [2003, #167]
· Kerry voted to extend the business research and development tax credit through 2013. [2003, #154]
· Kerry voted to extend R&D tax credit and increase first-year write-off for small business. ($4.3 billion tax cut) [1993, #326]
THE PRESIDENT: When tax increases are proposed, it's a lot easier to get a "yes" vote out of him. Over the years, he's voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people --
THE TRUTH: Bush’s 350 tax increases charge is completely made up
· “The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.” But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions.” [factcheck.org]
· “The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. …The only tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey . . .) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.” [Kinsley, Washington Post, 3/24/2004]
Bush-Cheney Tax Claims Misleading and Dishonest
The misleading rhetoric of Bush and his Republican allies has not gone unnoticed. Whether it’s an unsupportable $900 billion in tax increases -- which suddenly grew to a ridiculous $1.7 billion – or the phony numbers that they have put on John Kerry’s tax increases, independent sources are growing skeptical.
· New York Times: Bush “commercial’s assertion is misleading”
”Even Mr. Bush's campaign cites figures saying that such a move would bring in (or cost taxpayers) $250 billion over a 10-year period — not $900 billion. . . . Though independent analysts have questioned how Mr. Kerry can play for his plan, the commercial's assertion is misleading.” [New York Times, 3/13/2004]
· Washington Post: Bush ads fall short of minimum level of honesty
”Voters are entitled to a minimum level of honesty in the argument. On that score, Mr. Bush's initial attacks fall short. … Likewise, it's fair to ask how Mr. Kerry's spending plans can be squared with his pledge to cut the deficit and whether he's overpromising. But the Bush campaign takes an unjustified leap in accusing Mr. Kerry of plotting to "raise taxes by at least $900 billion" because that is the estimated cost of his health care program.” [Washington Post, 3/14/2004]
· Bush uses a “made up number”
"The Bush administration now has an old-fashioned credibility gap. If numbers are released saying that the economy is perking up, why should anyone believe them? After all, it counts hamburger flippers as manufacturing jobs. The context of the election only magnifies the issue. New Bush ads charge that Kerry wants to raise taxes by $900 billion. This is a made-up number; Kerry has no such proposal. But even if he did, voters would not be able to take the Bush campaign's word on it, because its word is no longer good. The challenge for the Democrats is to resist the temptation to make their own phony claims, or to hype the usual petty distortions of politics into "lies." The truth is damaging enough." [Alter, Newsweek, 3/29/2004]
· Bush statements “ridiculous” and “phony”
Bush’s most recent misleading statements about John Kerry’s record on taxes is “unfair,” “ridiculous, and “phony.” [Kinsley, Washington Post, 3/24/2004]
· Campaign accusations are false
“In fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions.” [Brooks Jackson, FactCheck.org, 3/23/2004]
_____________________________________________________________________________
BUSH FICTION: Bush is a straight talker when it comes to taxes.
FACT: On the stump and in a series of deceptive attack ads, Bush has taken a leading role in misleading America about John Kerry’s record.
THE PRESIDENT: My opponent has a different view of tax relief. When we passed an increase in the child credit to help families, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry actually voted to EXPAND the child credit by lowering the eligibility threshold for a refundable child tax credit from $10,500 to $5,000. [2003, #153]
THE PRESIDENT: When we reduced the marriage penalty, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry actually voted for FASTER marriage penalty relief; casting a YES vote for Conrad’s amendment to cause marriage penalty relief for those in the 15 percent bracket to take effect in 2002
THE PRESIDENT: When we created a lower 10-percent tax rate for working families, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry voted to EXPAND the 10 percent bracket [2003; #168]
THE PRESIDENT: When we gave small businesses a tax incentive to expand and to hire, he voted against it.
THE TRUTH: Kerry voted to CUT taxes for small businesses
· Kerry voted to allow businesses for one year to write off $75,000 in investment, create a 50 percent tax credit for small business health care expenses. [2003, #167]
· Kerry voted to extend the business research and development tax credit through 2013. [2003, #154]
· Kerry voted to extend R&D tax credit and increase first-year write-off for small business. ($4.3 billion tax cut) [1993, #326]
THE PRESIDENT: When tax increases are proposed, it's a lot easier to get a "yes" vote out of him. Over the years, he's voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people --
THE TRUTH: Bush’s 350 tax increases charge is completely made up
· “The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.” But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions.” [factcheck.org]
· “The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. …The only tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey . . .) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.” [Kinsley, Washington Post, 3/24/2004]
Bush-Cheney Tax Claims Misleading and Dishonest
The misleading rhetoric of Bush and his Republican allies has not gone unnoticed. Whether it’s an unsupportable $900 billion in tax increases -- which suddenly grew to a ridiculous $1.7 billion – or the phony numbers that they have put on John Kerry’s tax increases, independent sources are growing skeptical.
· New York Times: Bush “commercial’s assertion is misleading”
”Even Mr. Bush's campaign cites figures saying that such a move would bring in (or cost taxpayers) $250 billion over a 10-year period — not $900 billion. . . . Though independent analysts have questioned how Mr. Kerry can play for his plan, the commercial's assertion is misleading.” [New York Times, 3/13/2004]
· Washington Post: Bush ads fall short of minimum level of honesty
”Voters are entitled to a minimum level of honesty in the argument. On that score, Mr. Bush's initial attacks fall short. … Likewise, it's fair to ask how Mr. Kerry's spending plans can be squared with his pledge to cut the deficit and whether he's overpromising. But the Bush campaign takes an unjustified leap in accusing Mr. Kerry of plotting to "raise taxes by at least $900 billion" because that is the estimated cost of his health care program.” [Washington Post, 3/14/2004]
· Bush uses a “made up number”
"The Bush administration now has an old-fashioned credibility gap. If numbers are released saying that the economy is perking up, why should anyone believe them? After all, it counts hamburger flippers as manufacturing jobs. The context of the election only magnifies the issue. New Bush ads charge that Kerry wants to raise taxes by $900 billion. This is a made-up number; Kerry has no such proposal. But even if he did, voters would not be able to take the Bush campaign's word on it, because its word is no longer good. The challenge for the Democrats is to resist the temptation to make their own phony claims, or to hype the usual petty distortions of politics into "lies." The truth is damaging enough." [Alter, Newsweek, 3/29/2004]
· Bush statements “ridiculous” and “phony”
Bush’s most recent misleading statements about John Kerry’s record on taxes is “unfair,” “ridiculous, and “phony.” [Kinsley, Washington Post, 3/24/2004]
· Campaign accusations are false
“In fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions.” [Brooks Jackson, FactCheck.org, 3/23/2004]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bush Inventing Numbers to Distort Kerry's Tax Record
BUSH FICTION: John Kerry has voted to raise taxes 350 times.
FACT: FactCheck.org looked into the "350" claim and said this: "The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career."
"Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.” [Emphasis added]
The "350" claim is part of a pattern of deceptive statistics used by the Bush team to paint John Kerry as a tax-raiser. It's a transparent tactic: make a false or misleading allegation and force your opponent to spend time and resources rebutting it.
This is not the first time that Republicans have used phony tax numbers to attack Democrats. Time and again, their numbers have been rejected by independent analyses:
Arkansas: “Throw that out”
Republicans accused Sen. Mark Pryor of voting for higher taxes a dozen times. In fact, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that “[Pryor Campaign manager] said the [Arkansas] House unanimously passed six of the 12 tax increases cited in supporting material issued late Friday by the GOP, meaning "all the Republicans voted for them, too, so throw that out." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/12/02]
Georgia: Republican ad flunked truth test
Republicans accused Sen. Max Cleland of voting “in favor of higher taxes 116 times.” WMAZ TV analyzed the ad and said: “After seeing the ad, we asked the Republican party to back up its accusations,” reported Savage. “We got this, five and a half pages listing Cleland’s congressional votes. But it doesn’t say what any of the votes were for…At best, the facts we found just don’t support the charges against Cleland in the ad, so this ad FLUNKS the truth test.” [WMAZ-13 9/19/2002]
Louisiana: “Voters might be a little annoyed” by false ads
Republicans accused Sen. Mary Landrieu of voting “in favor of higher taxes over 120 times.” When a nearly identical ad ran in Louisiana against Sen. Mary Landrieu, the Shreveport Times wrote, “Before accepting this alleged voting record as fact, voters ought to ask where these numbers came from - said voters might be a little annoyed to discover just how gullible the ad generators believe state citizens to be.” After finally obtaining the list of the 128 votes, WWL-TV in New Orleans found that 119 of the votes were either votes for lower taxes or procedural votes.
Oregon: Republican ads “Tried to mislead you”
In Oregon, Republicans accused Secretary of State Bill Bradbury of voting “in favor of sales tax legislation 8 times. And as Senate President, Bradbury pushed for the “biggest tax increase in Oregon history.” [NRSC TV Ad, 4/13/02] An NBC political analyst said the ad “stretches (the truth) almost to the point of tearing it … there’s a lot that (the ad) doesn’t tell you and it tries to mislead you,” and “in fact, 5 of those votes happened before Bradbury was even born.” [KGW News (NBC); 6:00 p.m., 4/16/02]
South Dakota: They even attacked a Senator who supported Bush on taxes
In South Dakota Republicans said that “Tim Johnson voted 141 times for higher taxes.” [NRSC TV ad in South Dakota, 7/19/02] In fact, Tim Johnson voted WITH President Bush on his 2001 tax cut.
________________________________________________________________
BUSH FICTION: John Kerry has voted to raise taxes 350 times.
FACT: FactCheck.org looked into the "350" claim and said this: "The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career."
"Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.” [Emphasis added]
The "350" claim is part of a pattern of deceptive statistics used by the Bush team to paint John Kerry as a tax-raiser. It's a transparent tactic: make a false or misleading allegation and force your opponent to spend time and resources rebutting it.
This is not the first time that Republicans have used phony tax numbers to attack Democrats. Time and again, their numbers have been rejected by independent analyses:
Arkansas: “Throw that out”
Republicans accused Sen. Mark Pryor of voting for higher taxes a dozen times. In fact, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that “[Pryor Campaign manager] said the [Arkansas] House unanimously passed six of the 12 tax increases cited in supporting material issued late Friday by the GOP, meaning "all the Republicans voted for them, too, so throw that out." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/12/02]
Georgia: Republican ad flunked truth test
Republicans accused Sen. Max Cleland of voting “in favor of higher taxes 116 times.” WMAZ TV analyzed the ad and said: “After seeing the ad, we asked the Republican party to back up its accusations,” reported Savage. “We got this, five and a half pages listing Cleland’s congressional votes. But it doesn’t say what any of the votes were for…At best, the facts we found just don’t support the charges against Cleland in the ad, so this ad FLUNKS the truth test.” [WMAZ-13 9/19/2002]
Louisiana: “Voters might be a little annoyed” by false ads
Republicans accused Sen. Mary Landrieu of voting “in favor of higher taxes over 120 times.” When a nearly identical ad ran in Louisiana against Sen. Mary Landrieu, the Shreveport Times wrote, “Before accepting this alleged voting record as fact, voters ought to ask where these numbers came from - said voters might be a little annoyed to discover just how gullible the ad generators believe state citizens to be.” After finally obtaining the list of the 128 votes, WWL-TV in New Orleans found that 119 of the votes were either votes for lower taxes or procedural votes.
Oregon: Republican ads “Tried to mislead you”
In Oregon, Republicans accused Secretary of State Bill Bradbury of voting “in favor of sales tax legislation 8 times. And as Senate President, Bradbury pushed for the “biggest tax increase in Oregon history.” [NRSC TV Ad, 4/13/02] An NBC political analyst said the ad “stretches (the truth) almost to the point of tearing it … there’s a lot that (the ad) doesn’t tell you and it tries to mislead you,” and “in fact, 5 of those votes happened before Bradbury was even born.” [KGW News (NBC); 6:00 p.m., 4/16/02]
South Dakota: They even attacked a Senator who supported Bush on taxes
In South Dakota Republicans said that “Tim Johnson voted 141 times for higher taxes.” [NRSC TV ad in South Dakota, 7/19/02] In fact, Tim Johnson voted WITH President Bush on his 2001 tax cut.
________________________________________________________________
Friday, March 26, 2004
THE ONLINE BEAT by John Nichols
Striking Where Bush Is Weakest
Clarke finds a more powerful weapon than Administration spin: an apology.
Every day in every city and town across America, progressives get up in the morning and go about the work of fighting racism and homophobia, defending the environment, organizing trade unions and tackling corporate hegemony. Sometimes they win--on the picket line, at the ballot box, in the streets and outside the WTO meetings in Seattle.
The purpose of The Online Beat is to report regularly and with immediacy on the political, social, economic and cultural activism that too often goes unremarked in so much of the mainstream media. The ultimate goal? To reveal the hidden reality that there is a left in America, and that it's active, growing and winning more consistently than the pundits or the politicians want you to know.
Striking Where Bush Is Weakest
03/25/2004 @ 12:37am
If the Bush administration had gone after Osama bin Laden with anything akin to the energy it is expending to discredit Richard Clarke, the story of America's response to terrorism might have been dramatically different. That, of course, is the point that Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, makes when he says that Bush and his aides "ignored" the terrorist threats before September 11, 2001, and, even more significantly, when he suggests that the administration diverted attention from the real war on terrorism with an unnecessary war on Iraq.
Those are powerful charges, and Clarke has made them convincingly in his testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, in various media appearances over the past few days, and in his book, Against All Enemies. Predictably, the White House spin machine has been churning out increasingly-visceral attacks on Clarke, a self-described Republican who still praises Bush's father as a masterful leader. Amid the tit-for-tat that has developed, however, Clarke has already prevailed. No matter what the Bush administration throws at the man who served in four White Houses, Clarke has already trumped his attackers.
Clarke did so by opening his testimony before the commission on Wednesday not with a bold pronouncement about the failings of the administration, but with an apology: "I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence. I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11," he began. "To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
In that statement, Clarke proved to be a more masterful political strategist -- and, be clear, a duel between a renegade aide and a president in an election year is about politics -- than White House electoral strategist Karl Rove. Why? Because Clarke recognized the ultimate vulnerability of the Bush administration: An absolute inability on the part of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and, above all, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, to admit when they have failed, when they have been proven wrong and when they have been caught in lies.
The administration that began by neglecting George Bush's popular-vote deficit in the 2000 and claiming a mandate for radical change has been consistent in nothing so much as its refusal to accept unpleasant realities. Bush and his aides always refuse to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong. As such, they are always pointing fingers of blame at others. September 11? Blame evil or Bill Clinton -- pretty much the same thing in the Bush administration's collective mind. False information about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction program gets into the State of the Union Address? Blame the CIA or someone, anyone, in Europe. Economic downturn? Blame Democrats in Congress for not backing bigger tax cuts for corporations and more-of-the-same trade policies. False figures on the cost of Medicare reform go to Congress? Blame, well, er, gee, gay marriage?
No matter what goes wrong, the ironclad rule of the Bush administration has been to find someone outside the administration -- preferably a Democrat or a foreigner -- to blame. And if there is no way to blame someone else, the policy has been to keep expressing an Orwellian faith in the prospect that the failure will become a success, or that the lie will be made true -- witness Cheney's refusal to back away from his pre-war "they'll greet us with flowers" fantasy about the Iraqi response to a U.S.-led invasion.
Supposedly, this refusal to bend in the face of reality is smart politics. But a constant pattern of avoiding responsibility tends, eventually, to catch up even with the smartest politicians. Richard Nixon never recognized that fact and it destroyed his presidency. Bill Clinton, for all of his failings, did recognize it and, with his televised apology for mishandling of the Monica Lewinsky mess, thwarted Republican attempts to destroy his presidency.
Richard Clarke, who lived inside the belly of the beast that is the Bush administration, recognizes its many vulnerabilities. And, by reminding the American people that apologies are owed for failings before 9/11 and since, he struck Bush and his aides where they are weakest.
__________________________________________________________
Striking Where Bush Is Weakest
Clarke finds a more powerful weapon than Administration spin: an apology.
Every day in every city and town across America, progressives get up in the morning and go about the work of fighting racism and homophobia, defending the environment, organizing trade unions and tackling corporate hegemony. Sometimes they win--on the picket line, at the ballot box, in the streets and outside the WTO meetings in Seattle.
The purpose of The Online Beat is to report regularly and with immediacy on the political, social, economic and cultural activism that too often goes unremarked in so much of the mainstream media. The ultimate goal? To reveal the hidden reality that there is a left in America, and that it's active, growing and winning more consistently than the pundits or the politicians want you to know.
Striking Where Bush Is Weakest
03/25/2004 @ 12:37am
If the Bush administration had gone after Osama bin Laden with anything akin to the energy it is expending to discredit Richard Clarke, the story of America's response to terrorism might have been dramatically different. That, of course, is the point that Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, makes when he says that Bush and his aides "ignored" the terrorist threats before September 11, 2001, and, even more significantly, when he suggests that the administration diverted attention from the real war on terrorism with an unnecessary war on Iraq.
Those are powerful charges, and Clarke has made them convincingly in his testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, in various media appearances over the past few days, and in his book, Against All Enemies. Predictably, the White House spin machine has been churning out increasingly-visceral attacks on Clarke, a self-described Republican who still praises Bush's father as a masterful leader. Amid the tit-for-tat that has developed, however, Clarke has already prevailed. No matter what the Bush administration throws at the man who served in four White Houses, Clarke has already trumped his attackers.
Clarke did so by opening his testimony before the commission on Wednesday not with a bold pronouncement about the failings of the administration, but with an apology: "I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence. I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11," he began. "To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
In that statement, Clarke proved to be a more masterful political strategist -- and, be clear, a duel between a renegade aide and a president in an election year is about politics -- than White House electoral strategist Karl Rove. Why? Because Clarke recognized the ultimate vulnerability of the Bush administration: An absolute inability on the part of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and, above all, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, to admit when they have failed, when they have been proven wrong and when they have been caught in lies.
The administration that began by neglecting George Bush's popular-vote deficit in the 2000 and claiming a mandate for radical change has been consistent in nothing so much as its refusal to accept unpleasant realities. Bush and his aides always refuse to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong. As such, they are always pointing fingers of blame at others. September 11? Blame evil or Bill Clinton -- pretty much the same thing in the Bush administration's collective mind. False information about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction program gets into the State of the Union Address? Blame the CIA or someone, anyone, in Europe. Economic downturn? Blame Democrats in Congress for not backing bigger tax cuts for corporations and more-of-the-same trade policies. False figures on the cost of Medicare reform go to Congress? Blame, well, er, gee, gay marriage?
No matter what goes wrong, the ironclad rule of the Bush administration has been to find someone outside the administration -- preferably a Democrat or a foreigner -- to blame. And if there is no way to blame someone else, the policy has been to keep expressing an Orwellian faith in the prospect that the failure will become a success, or that the lie will be made true -- witness Cheney's refusal to back away from his pre-war "they'll greet us with flowers" fantasy about the Iraqi response to a U.S.-led invasion.
Supposedly, this refusal to bend in the face of reality is smart politics. But a constant pattern of avoiding responsibility tends, eventually, to catch up even with the smartest politicians. Richard Nixon never recognized that fact and it destroyed his presidency. Bill Clinton, for all of his failings, did recognize it and, with his televised apology for mishandling of the Monica Lewinsky mess, thwarted Republican attempts to destroy his presidency.
Richard Clarke, who lived inside the belly of the beast that is the Bush administration, recognizes its many vulnerabilities. And, by reminding the American people that apologies are owed for failings before 9/11 and since, he struck Bush and his aides where they are weakest.
__________________________________________________________
War Rationale: Version 10.0
P.J. Crowley is senior fellow and director of national defense and homeland security and Robert O. Boorstin is senior vice president of national security at the Center for American Progress
In the year since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has repeatedly shifted its justification for going to war and constantly changed its story on intelligence, the United Nations, reconstruction, political transition and the cost to the American taxpayer. More than anything, the administration's war in Iraq resembles a software program that, at first, works brilliantly, but then catches the user in a cycle of "fatal error" messages.
Here then, in Silicon Valley terms, is a review of the Bush administration's year in Iraq:
Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.
Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat
Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat
Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat
Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait
Version 1.3 - We never said imminent
Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice
Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise
Saddam Hussein is ready to use weapons of mass destruction.
Version 2.1 - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.2 - Saddam has nuclear weapons
Version 2.3 - Saddam has biological agents he's never accounted for
Version 2.3.1 - The trailers are mobile labs for producing chemical weapons
Version 2.3.2 - Unmanned aircraft are ready to spread Saddam's biological weapons
Version 2.4 - Saddam's going to make more of all these weapons
Version 2.5 - We all know where the weapons are
Version 2.5.1 - Well, Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.5.2 - Iraq is a big country. We'll find the weapons eventually.
Version 2.5.3 - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs
Version 2.5.4 - Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities"
Version 2.5.5 - David Kay? Who's David Kay?
Version 2.6 - It's not about misleading the American people—Saddam Hussein is gone and that's the most important thing
The intelligence is clear.
Version 3.0 - We based our statements on our available intelligence
Version 3.1 - Saddam tried to buy uranium ore in Niger
Version 3.1.2 - Well, that was what the British told us
Version 3.1.3 - Did we tell you about Joe Wilson's wife?
Version 3.1.4 - Do you know a good lawyer?
Version 3.2 - The intelligence is absolutely clear
Version 3.2.1 - Intelligence is never 100 percent certain
Version 3.2.2 - We didn't manipulate the intelligence
Version 3.3 - There was no consensus within the intelligence community
Version 3.3.1 - We saw the same intelligence the last administration did
Saddam Hussein has deep ties to Al Qaeda.
Version 4.0 - Saddam has long-standing ties to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.1 - You can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.2 - There is an Al Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq
Version 4.0.3 - Saddam has provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Version 4.0.4 - Saddam will give his weapons to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.5 - Colin Powell: I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Al Qaeda and Iraq]
Version 4.0.6 - Vice President Cheney: I still believe there's a connection.
Version 4.0.7 - CIA Director George Tenet: I told Dick not to say that.
The United Nations just can't handle this.
Version 5.0 - The UN had 12 years to deal with this
Version 5.1 - We don't trust the UN to handle this
Version 5.1.1 - We don't need the UN's help
Version 5.1.2 - The UN should play a vital, but not central role
Version 5.1.3 - You there, UN, tell Ayatollah Sistani that elections aren't possible
Version 5.1.4 - UN, please oversee the election process
Version 5.1.5 - Pretty please? We'll pay our dues
The war in Iraq won't hurt our efforts in Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden.
Version 6.0 - Iraq won't affect our hunt for bin Laden
Version 6.1 - Assets have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq
Version 6.1.1 - Assets are being returned to Afghanistan
Version 6.2 - We're mounting a spring offensive against bin Laden
Version 6.2.1 - We'll catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.2.2 - We hope to catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.3 - Even if we catch bin Laden, the threat will still exist.
Mission accomplished.
Version 7.0 - We won't need hundreds of thousands of troops—that's wildly off the mark
Version 7.1 - Mission accomplished
Version 7.1.1 - We'll stay as long as needed and not one day more
Version 7.1.2 - The troops will be home in six months
Version 7.1.3 - The Iraqi Army will provide security
Version 7.1.4 - Where's the Iraqi Army?
Version 7.1.5 - We've disbanded the Iraqi Army
Version 7.1.3 - The troops will stay a year and be replaced
Version 7.2 - We're training the Iraqi army—Iraqification will work
Version 7.2.1 - We don't need any more American troops
Version 7.2.2 - Well, maybe we do
Version 7.2.3 - We're keeping 30,000 more troops on active duty than were authorized
Version 7.2.4 - We don't know if this increase in troops is a spike or a plateau
Version 7.2.5 - We're establishing stop loss so troops can't leave
Version 7.2.6 - The Army is planning multi-year rotations
The cost to the American taxpayer.
Version 8.0 - Economic advisor Larry Lindsey: The war will cost $200 billion
Version 8.0.1 - President Bush: You're fired!
Version 8.1 - The war will pay for itself very quickly
Version 8.1.1 - Iraqi oil revenue will pay for reconstruction
Version 8.2 - Our allies will help us
Version 8.3 - We'll pay for the war through supplementals
Version 8.3.1 - Congress wouldn't let us put it in the budget
Version 8.3.2 - Can we please have $87 billion?
Version 8.3.3 - Well, we really can't calculate what it will cost...
Version 8.3.4 - Well, maybe we can—$50 billion may be on the low side
Version 8.3.5 - Ask us after November 2...
Democracy comes to Iraq.
Version 9.0 - We will be greeted as liberators
Version 9.0.1 - We'll establish democracy in Iraq
Version 9.1 - We'll turn this back to the Iraqis quickly
Version 9.1.1 - President Chalabi will be welcomed with open arms
Version 9.1.2 - Well, not so fast—we're prohibiting political parties
Version 9.2 - We have the November 15 agreement—it's unchangeable
Version 9.2.1 - We will appoint a small governing council
Version 9.2.2 - Well, maybe a larger one
Version 9.3 - We don't favor elections
Version 9.3.1 - Caucuses work in Iowa, why not Iraq?
Version 9.3.2 - OK fine, we'll have elections
Version 9.4 - We can't return sovereignty until there is a constitution
Version 9.4.1 - Never mind, we'll turn over sovereignty first
Version 9.4.2 - We need to return this to the Iraqis—How about June 30?
Version 9.4.3 - We're still focused on elections—the ones on November 2
The bottom line.
Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing
Editor's Note: This piece originally appeared on the Center For American Progress website on March 19, 2004.
__________________________________________________________
P.J. Crowley is senior fellow and director of national defense and homeland security and Robert O. Boorstin is senior vice president of national security at the Center for American Progress
In the year since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has repeatedly shifted its justification for going to war and constantly changed its story on intelligence, the United Nations, reconstruction, political transition and the cost to the American taxpayer. More than anything, the administration's war in Iraq resembles a software program that, at first, works brilliantly, but then catches the user in a cycle of "fatal error" messages.
Here then, in Silicon Valley terms, is a review of the Bush administration's year in Iraq:
Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.
Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat
Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat
Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat
Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait
Version 1.3 - We never said imminent
Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice
Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise
Saddam Hussein is ready to use weapons of mass destruction.
Version 2.1 - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.2 - Saddam has nuclear weapons
Version 2.3 - Saddam has biological agents he's never accounted for
Version 2.3.1 - The trailers are mobile labs for producing chemical weapons
Version 2.3.2 - Unmanned aircraft are ready to spread Saddam's biological weapons
Version 2.4 - Saddam's going to make more of all these weapons
Version 2.5 - We all know where the weapons are
Version 2.5.1 - Well, Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.5.2 - Iraq is a big country. We'll find the weapons eventually.
Version 2.5.3 - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs
Version 2.5.4 - Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities"
Version 2.5.5 - David Kay? Who's David Kay?
Version 2.6 - It's not about misleading the American people—Saddam Hussein is gone and that's the most important thing
The intelligence is clear.
Version 3.0 - We based our statements on our available intelligence
Version 3.1 - Saddam tried to buy uranium ore in Niger
Version 3.1.2 - Well, that was what the British told us
Version 3.1.3 - Did we tell you about Joe Wilson's wife?
Version 3.1.4 - Do you know a good lawyer?
Version 3.2 - The intelligence is absolutely clear
Version 3.2.1 - Intelligence is never 100 percent certain
Version 3.2.2 - We didn't manipulate the intelligence
Version 3.3 - There was no consensus within the intelligence community
Version 3.3.1 - We saw the same intelligence the last administration did
Saddam Hussein has deep ties to Al Qaeda.
Version 4.0 - Saddam has long-standing ties to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.1 - You can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.2 - There is an Al Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq
Version 4.0.3 - Saddam has provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Version 4.0.4 - Saddam will give his weapons to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.5 - Colin Powell: I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Al Qaeda and Iraq]
Version 4.0.6 - Vice President Cheney: I still believe there's a connection.
Version 4.0.7 - CIA Director George Tenet: I told Dick not to say that.
The United Nations just can't handle this.
Version 5.0 - The UN had 12 years to deal with this
Version 5.1 - We don't trust the UN to handle this
Version 5.1.1 - We don't need the UN's help
Version 5.1.2 - The UN should play a vital, but not central role
Version 5.1.3 - You there, UN, tell Ayatollah Sistani that elections aren't possible
Version 5.1.4 - UN, please oversee the election process
Version 5.1.5 - Pretty please? We'll pay our dues
The war in Iraq won't hurt our efforts in Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden.
Version 6.0 - Iraq won't affect our hunt for bin Laden
Version 6.1 - Assets have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq
Version 6.1.1 - Assets are being returned to Afghanistan
Version 6.2 - We're mounting a spring offensive against bin Laden
Version 6.2.1 - We'll catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.2.2 - We hope to catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.3 - Even if we catch bin Laden, the threat will still exist.
Mission accomplished.
Version 7.0 - We won't need hundreds of thousands of troops—that's wildly off the mark
Version 7.1 - Mission accomplished
Version 7.1.1 - We'll stay as long as needed and not one day more
Version 7.1.2 - The troops will be home in six months
Version 7.1.3 - The Iraqi Army will provide security
Version 7.1.4 - Where's the Iraqi Army?
Version 7.1.5 - We've disbanded the Iraqi Army
Version 7.1.3 - The troops will stay a year and be replaced
Version 7.2 - We're training the Iraqi army—Iraqification will work
Version 7.2.1 - We don't need any more American troops
Version 7.2.2 - Well, maybe we do
Version 7.2.3 - We're keeping 30,000 more troops on active duty than were authorized
Version 7.2.4 - We don't know if this increase in troops is a spike or a plateau
Version 7.2.5 - We're establishing stop loss so troops can't leave
Version 7.2.6 - The Army is planning multi-year rotations
The cost to the American taxpayer.
Version 8.0 - Economic advisor Larry Lindsey: The war will cost $200 billion
Version 8.0.1 - President Bush: You're fired!
Version 8.1 - The war will pay for itself very quickly
Version 8.1.1 - Iraqi oil revenue will pay for reconstruction
Version 8.2 - Our allies will help us
Version 8.3 - We'll pay for the war through supplementals
Version 8.3.1 - Congress wouldn't let us put it in the budget
Version 8.3.2 - Can we please have $87 billion?
Version 8.3.3 - Well, we really can't calculate what it will cost...
Version 8.3.4 - Well, maybe we can—$50 billion may be on the low side
Version 8.3.5 - Ask us after November 2...
Democracy comes to Iraq.
Version 9.0 - We will be greeted as liberators
Version 9.0.1 - We'll establish democracy in Iraq
Version 9.1 - We'll turn this back to the Iraqis quickly
Version 9.1.1 - President Chalabi will be welcomed with open arms
Version 9.1.2 - Well, not so fast—we're prohibiting political parties
Version 9.2 - We have the November 15 agreement—it's unchangeable
Version 9.2.1 - We will appoint a small governing council
Version 9.2.2 - Well, maybe a larger one
Version 9.3 - We don't favor elections
Version 9.3.1 - Caucuses work in Iowa, why not Iraq?
Version 9.3.2 - OK fine, we'll have elections
Version 9.4 - We can't return sovereignty until there is a constitution
Version 9.4.1 - Never mind, we'll turn over sovereignty first
Version 9.4.2 - We need to return this to the Iraqis—How about June 30?
Version 9.4.3 - We're still focused on elections—the ones on November 2
The bottom line.
Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing
Editor's Note: This piece originally appeared on the Center For American Progress website on March 19, 2004.
__________________________________________________________
Progressive Air America Radio, featuring Al Franken, will launch on March 31st!
Tune in. Get the stream online. Do something about Rush, Hannity, and the rest of those right wing nut cases! Here's the link:
AIR AMERICA RADIO
Air America Radio's program lineup is as follows:
Monday-Friday
Morning Sedition: 6:00-9:00am
This is a fast paced morning show that will entertain and engage audiences with wit and political satire. It will feature the latest news, offering up to-the-minute interviews with newsmakers, analysis and strong opinions.
Co-Host: Marc Maron
Co-host: Sue Ellicott
Co-host: Mark Riley
Unfiltered: 9:00am- 12:00pm
Air America ’s midmorning program is a showcase for conversation about the political and culture state of the union. Unfiltered introduces listeners to fresh new voices not available in mainstream media.
Co-host: Lizz Winstead
Co-host: Chuck D
Co-host: Rachel Maddow
The O’ Franken Factor: 12:00-3:00pm
After debunking right-wing propaganda in his bestselling books Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot , Al Franken is taking the fight to America 's airwaves--and he's doing it drug-free. With his co-host, veteran radio personality Katherine Lanpher, Franken will deliver three hours a day of fearlessly irreverent commentary, comedy, and interviews. Franken and Lanpher have a mean streak a smile wide. The O'Franken Factor will energize fans, infuriate liars, and deliver the truth--in what Al Franken likes to call the Zero Spin Zone .
Host: Al Franken
Co-host: Katherine Lanpher
Producer: Billy Kimball
The Randi Rhodes Show: 3:00-7:00pm
Randi Rhodes has spent the last 20 years burning up the airwaves in southern Florida with her pointed and provocative brand of talk radio. Combining live interview, call-in and commentary, Randi engages her audience with a passionate presentation.
Host: Randi Rhodes
So What Else is News?: 7:00-8:00pm
Based in Los Angeles , this is a one-hour program showcasing the intersection of politics, media and popular culture. This program will feature analysis and reports from the presidential campaign, as well as a daily reporters’ roundtable on how the news of the day is affected and reflected by the media. Marty will also cover the spinning of the news with a regular segment called “The Corrections.” This is also the place to hear the political voice of Hollywood , with celebrity guest interviews from the entertainment industries.
Host: Marty Kaplan
The Majority Report: 8:00pm-11:00pm
This program will introduce new, younger voices and opinions, with live guests from the world of politics, the arts and entertainment.
Host: Janeane Garofalo
Co-host: Sam Seder
Saturday and Sunday
Air America Radio’s weekend line-up will offer more original programming, like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mike Papatanio’s “Champions of Justice,” a program that brings a fresh and entertaining perspective to talk radio from the top legal and social issues focused minds in the country. Additional programming will include Best-of Air America Radio and Best-of-O’Franken Factor as well as other original programming to be announced soon.
______________________________________________________
Tune in. Get the stream online. Do something about Rush, Hannity, and the rest of those right wing nut cases! Here's the link:
AIR AMERICA RADIO
Air America Radio's program lineup is as follows:
Monday-Friday
Morning Sedition: 6:00-9:00am
This is a fast paced morning show that will entertain and engage audiences with wit and political satire. It will feature the latest news, offering up to-the-minute interviews with newsmakers, analysis and strong opinions.
Co-Host: Marc Maron
Co-host: Sue Ellicott
Co-host: Mark Riley
Unfiltered: 9:00am- 12:00pm
Air America ’s midmorning program is a showcase for conversation about the political and culture state of the union. Unfiltered introduces listeners to fresh new voices not available in mainstream media.
Co-host: Lizz Winstead
Co-host: Chuck D
Co-host: Rachel Maddow
The O’ Franken Factor: 12:00-3:00pm
After debunking right-wing propaganda in his bestselling books Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot , Al Franken is taking the fight to America 's airwaves--and he's doing it drug-free. With his co-host, veteran radio personality Katherine Lanpher, Franken will deliver three hours a day of fearlessly irreverent commentary, comedy, and interviews. Franken and Lanpher have a mean streak a smile wide. The O'Franken Factor will energize fans, infuriate liars, and deliver the truth--in what Al Franken likes to call the Zero Spin Zone .
Host: Al Franken
Co-host: Katherine Lanpher
Producer: Billy Kimball
The Randi Rhodes Show: 3:00-7:00pm
Randi Rhodes has spent the last 20 years burning up the airwaves in southern Florida with her pointed and provocative brand of talk radio. Combining live interview, call-in and commentary, Randi engages her audience with a passionate presentation.
Host: Randi Rhodes
So What Else is News?: 7:00-8:00pm
Based in Los Angeles , this is a one-hour program showcasing the intersection of politics, media and popular culture. This program will feature analysis and reports from the presidential campaign, as well as a daily reporters’ roundtable on how the news of the day is affected and reflected by the media. Marty will also cover the spinning of the news with a regular segment called “The Corrections.” This is also the place to hear the political voice of Hollywood , with celebrity guest interviews from the entertainment industries.
Host: Marty Kaplan
The Majority Report: 8:00pm-11:00pm
This program will introduce new, younger voices and opinions, with live guests from the world of politics, the arts and entertainment.
Host: Janeane Garofalo
Co-host: Sam Seder
Saturday and Sunday
Air America Radio’s weekend line-up will offer more original programming, like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mike Papatanio’s “Champions of Justice,” a program that brings a fresh and entertaining perspective to talk radio from the top legal and social issues focused minds in the country. Additional programming will include Best-of Air America Radio and Best-of-O’Franken Factor as well as other original programming to be announced soon.
______________________________________________________
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
At last. Some honesty and grace about what happened.
March 25, 2004 NY TIMES
Assessing the Blame for 9/11
The seminal moment of this week's hearings on 9/11 surely came yesterday when Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton administrations, opened his testimony by apologizing to the families whose loved ones died in the terror attacks. The government, Mr. Clarke said, had failed them, "and I failed you." He added, "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed." It suddenly seemed that after the billions of words uttered about that terrible day, Mr. Clarke had found the ones that still needed saying.
The two days of hearings by the commission investigating the attacks have been invaluable in helping the American people better understand the chain of miscommunications, wrong guesses and misplaced priorities that left the nation so poorly defended against the terrorists. Mr. Clarke, by accepting responsibility, offered the American people the freedom to hold their leaders accountable for an event most had come to see as an unstoppable bolt from the blue.
Mr. Clarke is clearly haunted by the thought that if things had gone differently, the attacks might have been averted. That seems like the longest of long shots. But there are still plenty of questions to be answered about what happened, particularly about the apparent lack of urgency in the Bush administration's antiterrorism efforts before 9/11.
The Clinton administration also made mistakes. Although aware of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden, it was somehow unable to create and carry out an effective strategy to deal with him. Bill Clinton, distracted by the threat of impeachment, failed to educate the American people adequately about the nature of the danger, and what it might take to fight it. Senior officials from the Clinton and Bush administration testified, one after another, that in the pre-9/11 world, they could not have gone further in trying to run down Mr. bin Laden because, they believed, the country and our allies would not have supported it.
But there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism, and on occasion, like the December 1999 alert that appears to have averted an attack on the Los Angeles airport, it produced results.
The attitude of the Bush administration seems harder to pin down. Mr. Clarke's conclusion was that after George Bush became president, neither he nor the terrorism agenda got the same top-level attention. The Bush administration officials who testified denied that vociferously. Their arguments suffered from the absence of Condoleezza Rice, the person to whom Mr. Clarke reported. Ms. Rice has been doing the rounds of talk shows in an attempt to bolster her argument that the administration had found Mr. Clarke's plans wanting and immediately began a full-bore effort to come up with a new antiterrorism strategy. What the nation deserved to hear her address publicly before the commission is why that process took eight months. A new plan was not approved by the White House until the eve of the terror attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
The real impression gleaned from the hearings is not that the Bush administration was indifferent to the threat of terror, but that its officials had trouble fully understanding it. Ms. Rice was trained as a Sovietologist. Many of Mr. Bush's other top advisers are also former cold warriors who remained loyal to the agenda of the gulf war era, the early 1990's. Their mind-set did not allow for the possibility of an extranational threat not orchestrated by any one particular government. Once 9/11 happened, they organized an effective attack on Afghanistan, where Mr. bin Laden had been operating, but they then turned their attention to Iraq, a country that no one in Mr. Clarke's operation regarded as an incubator of international terrorism.
Despite attempts by a few commission members to paint Mr. Clarke as a disgruntled former employee trying to get publicity for his new book, the former counterterrorism chief was an impressive, reasonable witness. He has done the country a service in focusing attention on the failures leading up to 9/11. The only problem with his apology was that so few of those failures really seemed to be his.
_______________________________________________________________
March 25, 2004 NY TIMES
Assessing the Blame for 9/11
The seminal moment of this week's hearings on 9/11 surely came yesterday when Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton administrations, opened his testimony by apologizing to the families whose loved ones died in the terror attacks. The government, Mr. Clarke said, had failed them, "and I failed you." He added, "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed." It suddenly seemed that after the billions of words uttered about that terrible day, Mr. Clarke had found the ones that still needed saying.
The two days of hearings by the commission investigating the attacks have been invaluable in helping the American people better understand the chain of miscommunications, wrong guesses and misplaced priorities that left the nation so poorly defended against the terrorists. Mr. Clarke, by accepting responsibility, offered the American people the freedom to hold their leaders accountable for an event most had come to see as an unstoppable bolt from the blue.
Mr. Clarke is clearly haunted by the thought that if things had gone differently, the attacks might have been averted. That seems like the longest of long shots. But there are still plenty of questions to be answered about what happened, particularly about the apparent lack of urgency in the Bush administration's antiterrorism efforts before 9/11.
The Clinton administration also made mistakes. Although aware of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden, it was somehow unable to create and carry out an effective strategy to deal with him. Bill Clinton, distracted by the threat of impeachment, failed to educate the American people adequately about the nature of the danger, and what it might take to fight it. Senior officials from the Clinton and Bush administration testified, one after another, that in the pre-9/11 world, they could not have gone further in trying to run down Mr. bin Laden because, they believed, the country and our allies would not have supported it.
But there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism, and on occasion, like the December 1999 alert that appears to have averted an attack on the Los Angeles airport, it produced results.
The attitude of the Bush administration seems harder to pin down. Mr. Clarke's conclusion was that after George Bush became president, neither he nor the terrorism agenda got the same top-level attention. The Bush administration officials who testified denied that vociferously. Their arguments suffered from the absence of Condoleezza Rice, the person to whom Mr. Clarke reported. Ms. Rice has been doing the rounds of talk shows in an attempt to bolster her argument that the administration had found Mr. Clarke's plans wanting and immediately began a full-bore effort to come up with a new antiterrorism strategy. What the nation deserved to hear her address publicly before the commission is why that process took eight months. A new plan was not approved by the White House until the eve of the terror attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
The real impression gleaned from the hearings is not that the Bush administration was indifferent to the threat of terror, but that its officials had trouble fully understanding it. Ms. Rice was trained as a Sovietologist. Many of Mr. Bush's other top advisers are also former cold warriors who remained loyal to the agenda of the gulf war era, the early 1990's. Their mind-set did not allow for the possibility of an extranational threat not orchestrated by any one particular government. Once 9/11 happened, they organized an effective attack on Afghanistan, where Mr. bin Laden had been operating, but they then turned their attention to Iraq, a country that no one in Mr. Clarke's operation regarded as an incubator of international terrorism.
Despite attempts by a few commission members to paint Mr. Clarke as a disgruntled former employee trying to get publicity for his new book, the former counterterrorism chief was an impressive, reasonable witness. He has done the country a service in focusing attention on the failures leading up to 9/11. The only problem with his apology was that so few of those failures really seemed to be his.
_______________________________________________________________
Commission on 9/11 Paints Picture of Failure
Wed Mar 24, 5:40 PM ET
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON - Two days of testimony before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have revealed that U.S. officials from President Bush (news - web sites) down failed to respond adequately to growing signs that a terror strike was imminent in the summer of 2001.
Senior officials of both the Bush and Clinton administrations have faced tough questioning by commissioners, suggesting that the bipartisan body could issue an extremely critical report in late July.
For Clinton officials, that may affect the way historians judge their tenure. But it could be a much bigger problem for Bush, coming at the height of his re-election campaign.
This week's testimony has made it much clearer that there was a wealth of intelligence available in the summer of 2001 indicating that a major terrorist attack was coming.
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), said she read the intelligence briefings given to Bush before Sept. 11 and the information on the gathering threats "would set your hair on fire."
But Richard Clarke, the head of counterintelligence under both Bush and Clinton, said he could not get the incoming Bush administration in 2001 to convene a top level meeting to even discuss the threat.
Finally, Clarke wrote to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) asking her to imagine how she and others would feel if an attack did happen and killed hundreds of Americans. The letter was sent on Sept. 4 -- one week before hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
American University historian Allan Lichtman said the commission's report in July would be all the more damaging if it is unanimous. "Much will depend on whether the commission divides along partisan lines or whether it remains unified in its conclusions," he said.
Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, clearly intends to try to present a united report, even in the pressure cooker atmosphere of a presidential campaign.
"We have been meeting for over a year. We haven't yet had a vote where five Democrats were on one side and five Republicans on the other," Kean told Fox News.
10 GOOD AMERICANS
"Does somebody make a partisan comment every now and then? Yes. Do I wish they wouldn't? Yes. But I think at the end of the day these are 10 good Americans who are going to give the best report possible and hopefully make it unanimous so the American people can get the answers to all these questions."
The Bush administration has been nervous about the commission all along, but was forced to go along with it, largely because of pressure from family members of some of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bush initially insisted he would answer questions for only one hour and then only from Kean and commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton, not the full commission. When Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) criticized that decision, the White House said Bush would give more time if necessary.
Republican political consultant Rick Davis said it was important for Bush and his aides and supporters to avoid getting into a dispute with the commission, however damaging its conclusions.
"They need to be able to work with whatever they say and not to become too defensive. Whatever happens, they need to avoid getting into name calling," Davis said.
A commission report criticizing his administration for failing to anticipate the 2001 attack, despite ample warnings, could damage Bush, whose re-election campaign is leaning heavily on his record of "keeping the country safe."
The other dangerous accusation is Clarke's contention that Bush and his top advisers were obsessed with attacking Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and did not take the threat from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) seriously enough.
In their defense, administration officials said they spent several months devising a comprehensive strategy against bin Laden which was completed just before Sept. 11.
However, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a commission member, shot holes in that argument, saying he had seen the plan, which is still classified, and there was "almost nothing in it ... It's not in my judgment what it was sold to be."
______________________________________________________________
Wed Mar 24, 5:40 PM ET
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON - Two days of testimony before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have revealed that U.S. officials from President Bush (news - web sites) down failed to respond adequately to growing signs that a terror strike was imminent in the summer of 2001.
Senior officials of both the Bush and Clinton administrations have faced tough questioning by commissioners, suggesting that the bipartisan body could issue an extremely critical report in late July.
For Clinton officials, that may affect the way historians judge their tenure. But it could be a much bigger problem for Bush, coming at the height of his re-election campaign.
This week's testimony has made it much clearer that there was a wealth of intelligence available in the summer of 2001 indicating that a major terrorist attack was coming.
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), said she read the intelligence briefings given to Bush before Sept. 11 and the information on the gathering threats "would set your hair on fire."
But Richard Clarke, the head of counterintelligence under both Bush and Clinton, said he could not get the incoming Bush administration in 2001 to convene a top level meeting to even discuss the threat.
Finally, Clarke wrote to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) asking her to imagine how she and others would feel if an attack did happen and killed hundreds of Americans. The letter was sent on Sept. 4 -- one week before hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
American University historian Allan Lichtman said the commission's report in July would be all the more damaging if it is unanimous. "Much will depend on whether the commission divides along partisan lines or whether it remains unified in its conclusions," he said.
Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, clearly intends to try to present a united report, even in the pressure cooker atmosphere of a presidential campaign.
"We have been meeting for over a year. We haven't yet had a vote where five Democrats were on one side and five Republicans on the other," Kean told Fox News.
10 GOOD AMERICANS
"Does somebody make a partisan comment every now and then? Yes. Do I wish they wouldn't? Yes. But I think at the end of the day these are 10 good Americans who are going to give the best report possible and hopefully make it unanimous so the American people can get the answers to all these questions."
The Bush administration has been nervous about the commission all along, but was forced to go along with it, largely because of pressure from family members of some of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bush initially insisted he would answer questions for only one hour and then only from Kean and commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton, not the full commission. When Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) criticized that decision, the White House said Bush would give more time if necessary.
Republican political consultant Rick Davis said it was important for Bush and his aides and supporters to avoid getting into a dispute with the commission, however damaging its conclusions.
"They need to be able to work with whatever they say and not to become too defensive. Whatever happens, they need to avoid getting into name calling," Davis said.
A commission report criticizing his administration for failing to anticipate the 2001 attack, despite ample warnings, could damage Bush, whose re-election campaign is leaning heavily on his record of "keeping the country safe."
The other dangerous accusation is Clarke's contention that Bush and his top advisers were obsessed with attacking Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and did not take the threat from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) seriously enough.
In their defense, administration officials said they spent several months devising a comprehensive strategy against bin Laden which was completed just before Sept. 11.
However, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a commission member, shot holes in that argument, saying he had seen the plan, which is still classified, and there was "almost nothing in it ... It's not in my judgment what it was sold to be."
______________________________________________________________
OPINION L.A. TIMES
Harsh Light on 9/11 Errors
March 24, 2004
Top national security officials of two consecutive administrations agreed Tuesday before the 9/11 commission headed by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean that they weren't responsible for the failure to disrupt Al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001. Witnesses from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to her successor, Colin L. Powell, from former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen to his successor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, offered spin control. Their words contrasted weakly with allegations about Bush administration inaction on terrorism in Richard Clarke's new book, "Against All Enemies."
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who made complaints similar to Clarke's, was dismissed by critics as a crank. Clarke is undoubtedly doing his best to promote his book, and administration officials have questioned his motives and veracity, but as counterterrorism chief under presidents Clinton and Bush, he holds strong credentials. In the book, he denounces the Iraq war as a diversion from terrorism, a sideshow that he says is creating "the next generation of Al Qaedas." Clarke also traces a bipartisan decade of bungling in identifying and targeting Al Qaeda — much as the 9/11 commission does in its preliminary finding, released Tuesday.
Clinton, Clarke says, was willing to authorize military action against Al Qaeda but the government bureaucracy, including the military, balked. The 9/11 commission reaches the same conclusion in its new report, stating that the CIA and FBI "tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks. The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years."
Powell testified that the current administration had prepared a plan to go on the offensive against Osama bin Laden. "We wanted to destroy Al Qaeda," he said. But what Powell and other officials don't want to concede is that in its essentials, the plan for targeting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that landed on Bush's desk Sept.10, 2001, was much like the diplomatic strategy the Clinton administration had pursued, and that reinventing it delayed action.
It's likely that, as Rumsfeld suggested Tuesday, killing Bin Laden would have done little to stop the airplane attacks, already planned for years. But that doesn't settle the question, bluntly raised by Clarke and backed with examples from his service in the administration, of whether Bush and his subordinates, in their determination to go after Saddam Hussein, actually increased the international terrorist threat. "There have been far more major terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda and its regional clones … since Sept. 11," Clarke says.
As the 9/11 commission reconvenes today, with Clarke scheduled to testify, it will not provide the final word on the terror threat before and after Sept. 11. But it and Clarke's book have provided new information for an urgent debate, not fully engaged before the war in Iraq, over the effectiveness of the current administration's approach to terrorism.
____________________________________________________________
Harsh Light on 9/11 Errors
March 24, 2004
Top national security officials of two consecutive administrations agreed Tuesday before the 9/11 commission headed by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean that they weren't responsible for the failure to disrupt Al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001. Witnesses from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to her successor, Colin L. Powell, from former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen to his successor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, offered spin control. Their words contrasted weakly with allegations about Bush administration inaction on terrorism in Richard Clarke's new book, "Against All Enemies."
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who made complaints similar to Clarke's, was dismissed by critics as a crank. Clarke is undoubtedly doing his best to promote his book, and administration officials have questioned his motives and veracity, but as counterterrorism chief under presidents Clinton and Bush, he holds strong credentials. In the book, he denounces the Iraq war as a diversion from terrorism, a sideshow that he says is creating "the next generation of Al Qaedas." Clarke also traces a bipartisan decade of bungling in identifying and targeting Al Qaeda — much as the 9/11 commission does in its preliminary finding, released Tuesday.
Clinton, Clarke says, was willing to authorize military action against Al Qaeda but the government bureaucracy, including the military, balked. The 9/11 commission reaches the same conclusion in its new report, stating that the CIA and FBI "tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks. The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years."
Powell testified that the current administration had prepared a plan to go on the offensive against Osama bin Laden. "We wanted to destroy Al Qaeda," he said. But what Powell and other officials don't want to concede is that in its essentials, the plan for targeting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that landed on Bush's desk Sept.10, 2001, was much like the diplomatic strategy the Clinton administration had pursued, and that reinventing it delayed action.
It's likely that, as Rumsfeld suggested Tuesday, killing Bin Laden would have done little to stop the airplane attacks, already planned for years. But that doesn't settle the question, bluntly raised by Clarke and backed with examples from his service in the administration, of whether Bush and his subordinates, in their determination to go after Saddam Hussein, actually increased the international terrorist threat. "There have been far more major terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda and its regional clones … since Sept. 11," Clarke says.
As the 9/11 commission reconvenes today, with Clarke scheduled to testify, it will not provide the final word on the terror threat before and after Sept. 11. But it and Clarke's book have provided new information for an urgent debate, not fully engaged before the war in Iraq, over the effectiveness of the current administration's approach to terrorism.
____________________________________________________________
Monday, March 22, 2004
March 23, 2004 NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Debating 9/11
Richard Clarke is an angry man. Mr. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for the Bush and Clinton administrations, seemed to be seething during an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" on Sunday night, when he said the president had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." The more colorful anecdotes he offered up in support of that judgment are bound to be cited over and over in the presidential campaign — like his contention that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld argued for post-9/11 strikes against Iraq rather than the Taliban's Afghanistan by saying "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan."
Mr. Clarke is scheduled to testify this week before the special presidential commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, as are members of the Clinton administration who warned top Bush officials during the transfer of power about the terrorism threat. The hearings are sure to produce fireworks — both from Mr. Bush's critics and his defenders, who will demand to know why the Democratic administration didn't act more aggressively against Al Qaeda if the Clinton White House was so aware of the threat it posed to the United States.
Since the hearing is taking place during a presidential campaign, it's unlikely that a spirit of bipartisan decorum will prevail. Nevertheless, it's good to bring this debate out in the open. The memories of Sept. 11, 2001, are still so raw that it has been hard to regard anything about that terrible day as a subject for political debate. But now President Bush is running for re-election on his record in responding to the terrorist attack, and that transition needs to take place.
Richard Clarke has served honorably under presidents of both parties, going back to Ronald Reagan. His words are very much worth listening to, but it's not necessary to find all of his criticisms of the current administration equally persuasive. Mr. Clarke's central complaint — that the president failed to respond to his urgent request for a cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until days before 9/11 — is far from conclusive evidence that the administration failed to take the threat seriously until disaster struck. (Sam Note: Bull$#@*! The president dumped the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security's recommendations, almost a three year study on exactly the threats such as 9/11 prior to the attacks and then congress RUSHED most of it into law afterwards. Conclusion: Bush ineptly handled national security when given a chance to do something right about it when handled to him on a BIPARTISAN silver platter. Hell, he could have also proven to be a "uniter" as he campaigned but we all know what a lie that was.)
The most persuasive part of the critique by the former anti-terrorism czar concerns the administration's obsession with Iraq. Mr. Clarke says he and intelligence experts repeatedly assured top officials — and Mr. Bush himself — that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 or in supporting Al Qaeda. This fall, when the public has to judge Mr. Bush's decision to invade, voters will know that the president's own counterterrorism adviser had warned him that he was on the wrong track.
_____________________________________________________________
Debating 9/11
Richard Clarke is an angry man. Mr. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for the Bush and Clinton administrations, seemed to be seething during an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" on Sunday night, when he said the president had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." The more colorful anecdotes he offered up in support of that judgment are bound to be cited over and over in the presidential campaign — like his contention that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld argued for post-9/11 strikes against Iraq rather than the Taliban's Afghanistan by saying "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan."
Mr. Clarke is scheduled to testify this week before the special presidential commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, as are members of the Clinton administration who warned top Bush officials during the transfer of power about the terrorism threat. The hearings are sure to produce fireworks — both from Mr. Bush's critics and his defenders, who will demand to know why the Democratic administration didn't act more aggressively against Al Qaeda if the Clinton White House was so aware of the threat it posed to the United States.
Since the hearing is taking place during a presidential campaign, it's unlikely that a spirit of bipartisan decorum will prevail. Nevertheless, it's good to bring this debate out in the open. The memories of Sept. 11, 2001, are still so raw that it has been hard to regard anything about that terrible day as a subject for political debate. But now President Bush is running for re-election on his record in responding to the terrorist attack, and that transition needs to take place.
Richard Clarke has served honorably under presidents of both parties, going back to Ronald Reagan. His words are very much worth listening to, but it's not necessary to find all of his criticisms of the current administration equally persuasive. Mr. Clarke's central complaint — that the president failed to respond to his urgent request for a cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until days before 9/11 — is far from conclusive evidence that the administration failed to take the threat seriously until disaster struck. (Sam Note: Bull$#@*! The president dumped the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security's recommendations, almost a three year study on exactly the threats such as 9/11 prior to the attacks and then congress RUSHED most of it into law afterwards. Conclusion: Bush ineptly handled national security when given a chance to do something right about it when handled to him on a BIPARTISAN silver platter. Hell, he could have also proven to be a "uniter" as he campaigned but we all know what a lie that was.)
The most persuasive part of the critique by the former anti-terrorism czar concerns the administration's obsession with Iraq. Mr. Clarke says he and intelligence experts repeatedly assured top officials — and Mr. Bush himself — that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 or in supporting Al Qaeda. This fall, when the public has to judge Mr. Bush's decision to invade, voters will know that the president's own counterterrorism adviser had warned him that he was on the wrong track.
_____________________________________________________________
March 23, 2004
Lifting the Shroud
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.
But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.
It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.
The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."
On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.
Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.
Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.
Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)
Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.
Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.
Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.
So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
___________________________________________________
Lifting the Shroud
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.
But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.
It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.
The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."
On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.
Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.
Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.
Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)
Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.
Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.
Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.
So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
___________________________________________________
US business group slams Bush 'deception' over Iraq war
Mon Mar 22,12:22 PM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - A US business group that monitors federal spending took out a full-page advert in The New York Times, likening President George W. Bush to a corrupt chief executive officer who has forfeited public trust.
Timed to coincide with the weekend anniversary of the US-led war against Iraq, the advertisement -- paid for by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities -- said Bush's case for invasion "was built entirely out of falsehoods."
Highlighting the cost of the war in terms of hundreds of US casualties and tens of billions of dollars, the ad said the "state-sponsored deception" underpinning the conflict dwarfed the damage caused by the series of corporate scandals that recently rocked Wall Street.
"It's past time for finger pointing," it said.
"It's time for someone in this government to step forward and take personal responsibility for the deadly deceptions used to mislead this great nation into war.
"And that someone must be George W. Bush."
Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities was formed in 1996 on concerns that federal government spending priorities were undermining national security.
The group's 500 members include the present or former CEOs of Bell Industries, Eastman Kodak and Goldman Sachs, as well as CNN founder Ted Turner.
__________________________________________________________
Mon Mar 22,12:22 PM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - A US business group that monitors federal spending took out a full-page advert in The New York Times, likening President George W. Bush to a corrupt chief executive officer who has forfeited public trust.
Timed to coincide with the weekend anniversary of the US-led war against Iraq, the advertisement -- paid for by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities -- said Bush's case for invasion "was built entirely out of falsehoods."
Highlighting the cost of the war in terms of hundreds of US casualties and tens of billions of dollars, the ad said the "state-sponsored deception" underpinning the conflict dwarfed the damage caused by the series of corporate scandals that recently rocked Wall Street.
"It's past time for finger pointing," it said.
"It's time for someone in this government to step forward and take personal responsibility for the deadly deceptions used to mislead this great nation into war.
"And that someone must be George W. Bush."
Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities was formed in 1996 on concerns that federal government spending priorities were undermining national security.
The group's 500 members include the present or former CEOs of Bell Industries, Eastman Kodak and Goldman Sachs, as well as CNN founder Ted Turner.
__________________________________________________________
PHILADELPHIA, PA: On CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter told America that the Bush Administration NEVER CLAIMED a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
Specter Claim:
“The Bush administration never made any claim that there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.” – Senator Arlen Specter, 3/21/04
Bush Administration Claims:
“You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02
“There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03
"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
“There was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
"Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions." – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 9/26/02
"There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." – National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, 9/25/02
_________________________________________________________
Specter Claim:
“The Bush administration never made any claim that there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.” – Senator Arlen Specter, 3/21/04
Bush Administration Claims:
“You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02
“There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03
"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
“There was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
"Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions." – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 9/26/02
"There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." – National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, 9/25/02
_________________________________________________________
From the Center for American Progress:
CLAIM #1: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.” No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #2: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection.
CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #4: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations…The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.’” - Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #5: “The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” – Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04
FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #7: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: “Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place.” - Washington Post, 1/20/02
___________________________________________________________________
CLAIM #1: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.” No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #2: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection.
CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #4: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations…The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.’” - Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #5: “The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” – Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04
FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #7: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: “Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place.” - Washington Post, 1/20/02
___________________________________________________________________
9/11: Internal Government Documents Show How the Bush Administration Reduced Counterterrorism
March 22, 2004
Backgrounder: TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES, The Bush Administration and September 11
Download: (Click on link above for rest of article and downloads)
Since September 11, President Bush and his supporters have repeatedly intimated that many of the President's political opponents are soft on terrorism. In his State of the Union address, the President declared: "We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us." In comments aimed at those who seek changes in the Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft said: "Your tactics only aid terrorists." One recent ad asserts, "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others."
But the real story is far different, as the following internal Department of Justice (DoJ) documents obtained by the Center for American Progress demonstrate. The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ's anti-terrorist budget but also shift DoJ's mission in spirit to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget changes, with Ashcroft, in effect, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this while the Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks...
_____________________________________________________________
March 22, 2004
Backgrounder: TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES, The Bush Administration and September 11
Download: (Click on link above for rest of article and downloads)
Since September 11, President Bush and his supporters have repeatedly intimated that many of the President's political opponents are soft on terrorism. In his State of the Union address, the President declared: "We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us." In comments aimed at those who seek changes in the Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft said: "Your tactics only aid terrorists." One recent ad asserts, "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others."
But the real story is far different, as the following internal Department of Justice (DoJ) documents obtained by the Center for American Progress demonstrate. The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ's anti-terrorist budget but also shift DoJ's mission in spirit to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget changes, with Ashcroft, in effect, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this while the Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks...
_____________________________________________________________
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Bush dumped the bipartisan Hart Rudman Commission on Terrorism BEFORE 9/11 after they spent almost three years creating a report WARNING of just such an attack! So this is not anything new to me!
Bush Accused of Ignoring Al Qaeda Until After 9/11
Mon Mar 22, 2004 01:17 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush ignored the threat of al Qaeda for months and did too little to stop the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, a former administration counterterrorism official said Sunday.
Richard Clarke's accusations, aired in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview, drew a detailed point-by-point rebuttal from the White House as it attempted to defend Bush's standing as a presidential candidate who is tough on terrorism.
In the program on his book to be launched Monday, Clarke charged that Bush had done "a terrible job" in addressing the threat from terrorism.
"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.
"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," said Clarke, who was Bush's top counterterrorism expert until he resigned in February 2003 after serving in every U.S. government since the Reagan administration.
In an unusually detailed statement seeking to debunk what it labeled "myths" from Clarke's book, the White House denied the assertion that Bush did not treat al Qaeda as a serious threat before it attacked the United States.
"The president specifically recognized the threat posed by al Qaeda and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda," the White House said.
"The president specifically told (national security adviser) Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."
Rice defended the administration's response to the terrorism threat in a Washington Post op-ed column Monday, saying that through the spring and summer of 2001, Bush's national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.
"This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq, not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda," Rice said.
Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board before resigning, is set to testify this week before the independent commission investigating the 2001 hijacked airplane attacks in New York and on the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people.
The White House rebutted Clarke's charge that before the Sept. 11 attacks the administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al Qaeda and that immediately after the attacks it searched for a way to blame Saddam Hussein.
Clarke said Bush took him aside the day after the 9/11 attacks and ordered him to "see if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
Clarke said he responded that al Qaeda was responsible and that Iraq was not linked to the attacks. However, he agreed to look into Bush's request and again found no cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley disputed Clarke's characterization of the president's request.
"The point, I think, is that of course the president was trying to find out who caused 9/11. ... And he couldn't rule out the possibility that it might have been Iraq, and he asked for the intelligence that we had on a possible link between Iraq and 9/11," Hadley told "60 Minutes."
Clarke also said the day after the Sept. 11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested bombing Iraq, despite the lack of any evidence of Baghdad's involvement.
When told al Qaeda's bases were in Afghanistan, not Iraq, Clarke said Rumsfeld responded that there were no good bombing targets in Afghanistan, but there were plenty of such targets in Iraq. Clarke said he thought at first that Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly realized that he was serious.
Among other claims in Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," is that the Bush administration ignored intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, according to CBS.
© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved
_______________________________________________________________________________
Bush Accused of Ignoring Al Qaeda Until After 9/11
Mon Mar 22, 2004 01:17 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush ignored the threat of al Qaeda for months and did too little to stop the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, a former administration counterterrorism official said Sunday.
Richard Clarke's accusations, aired in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview, drew a detailed point-by-point rebuttal from the White House as it attempted to defend Bush's standing as a presidential candidate who is tough on terrorism.
In the program on his book to be launched Monday, Clarke charged that Bush had done "a terrible job" in addressing the threat from terrorism.
"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.
"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," said Clarke, who was Bush's top counterterrorism expert until he resigned in February 2003 after serving in every U.S. government since the Reagan administration.
In an unusually detailed statement seeking to debunk what it labeled "myths" from Clarke's book, the White House denied the assertion that Bush did not treat al Qaeda as a serious threat before it attacked the United States.
"The president specifically recognized the threat posed by al Qaeda and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda," the White House said.
"The president specifically told (national security adviser) Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."
Rice defended the administration's response to the terrorism threat in a Washington Post op-ed column Monday, saying that through the spring and summer of 2001, Bush's national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.
"This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq, not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda," Rice said.
Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board before resigning, is set to testify this week before the independent commission investigating the 2001 hijacked airplane attacks in New York and on the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people.
The White House rebutted Clarke's charge that before the Sept. 11 attacks the administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al Qaeda and that immediately after the attacks it searched for a way to blame Saddam Hussein.
Clarke said Bush took him aside the day after the 9/11 attacks and ordered him to "see if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
Clarke said he responded that al Qaeda was responsible and that Iraq was not linked to the attacks. However, he agreed to look into Bush's request and again found no cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley disputed Clarke's characterization of the president's request.
"The point, I think, is that of course the president was trying to find out who caused 9/11. ... And he couldn't rule out the possibility that it might have been Iraq, and he asked for the intelligence that we had on a possible link between Iraq and 9/11," Hadley told "60 Minutes."
Clarke also said the day after the Sept. 11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested bombing Iraq, despite the lack of any evidence of Baghdad's involvement.
When told al Qaeda's bases were in Afghanistan, not Iraq, Clarke said Rumsfeld responded that there were no good bombing targets in Afghanistan, but there were plenty of such targets in Iraq. Clarke said he thought at first that Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly realized that he was serious.
Among other claims in Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," is that the Bush administration ignored intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, according to CBS.
© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)