OK, this is the last one today, I promise . . .
For all her snarkiness, Maureen Dowd can be a good columnist. Today she says:
"I'm not sure whether Mr. Tenet [CIA director] — a mystifyingly beloved figure even though he was in charge during the two biggest intelligence failures since Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs — has a faulty memory, which is scary. Or if he's fuzzing things up because he told the president more specifics than he wants to admit. But in a town where careers are made on face time with the president, it's fishy that the head spook can't remember a six-hour trip to Crawford for some."
This is the first hint I've seen in print of what I've suspected since Tenet miraculously survived the CIA's grand failures: He may still be around because he kept quiet about the specifics of what he'd passed along to the Administration (including Bush himself) prior to 9/11. It's hard to otherwise explain the continuing employment of a CIA director who says it will take five more years to fix the problems that put us at risk then and now. A CIA spokesperson today confirmed that Tenet briefed Bush twice in August 2001. Watch for those briefings to become the newest subject of intense scrutiny.
If you're losing track of the blame game, here's a scorecard:
Richard Clarke: Blames everyone, especially Condi Rice
Condi Rice: Notably refrained from publicly blaming Clarke. Instead blames lack of specificity contained in bald-faced warnings like "Al Qaeda Determined to Strike in U.S." and the lesser known "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly."
Thomas Pickard [former FBI chief]: Blames John Ashcroft, whom he alleges said pre-9/11 he "didn't want to hear about terrorism anymore."
John Ashcroft: Blames Reno
Janet Reno: Blames Ashcroft
George Tenet: The timeless "We Made Mistakes"
Hey, it's good to be back - that real world ain't near what it used to be. Anyway, how about one more round? In his last msg, TOF says:
> Clarke is trying to sell books.
His publisher is. Some people, patriots - for example, do things without total allegiance to the almighty dollar. Let's also not forget there's abundant external evidence substantiating his testimony and the contents of the book.
> He [Clinton] had multiple chances to nail bin Laden and didn't take them.
I'm getting far too predictable with my responses, but hey - Richard Clarke wrote a very useful book! I lifted this: if you're referring to any of the 11 'terrorist' events in the early days of the Clinton admin, not one of them was blamed on al Qaeda by CIA, or by FBI.
Clinton was a giant of a president - we can all agree - but even he could only do so much, when his intel doesn't label Osama as the perp.
What about when Clinton launched those cruise missiles? He took that chance to nail bin laden then. But the Right chastized him. Damned if he do, damned if he don't.
> I think we are much safer now than before 9/11.
I wish I could agree with you and that's no lie. But how can you say this, when even Rumsfeld now dodges that question?
And the list of warning signs grows:
* A new al Qaeda warning tape surfaces yesterday.
* The two distinct domestic fronts, plus outside agitators in Iraq.
* Suicide bombings are increasing in frequency and geographical dispersion.
* al-Qaeda is _not_ claiming responsibility for the one in Riyadh last week - is there some new group we now have to also worry about? The predicted ascension of the many-headed hydra?
* The IOC is taking out 'cancellation' insurance.
* And we haven't even begun to discuss Israel/Palestine here.
The Department of Homeland Security remains a joke. Don't conservatives hate big bureaucracies because they're wasteful, inefficent, ineffective, slow to react, etc. So what does cowboy george do to protect us - he starts building a massive new bureaucracy. It will take decades to become effective, if ever! Meanwhile, our Iraqi quagmire provides al Qaeda with golden recruitment propaganda, totally free of charge. But it's not free of cost to us - the currencies are in both blood and money.
No, I don't feel any safer, simply because we take our shoes off when we go through airport security, or because Saddam is jailed. Both actions are irrelevant to our safety. It's going to get a hell of a lot worse, before it gets better.
> I think the American people have a right to know what happened, including who is to blame, but I don't see the 9/11 commission making any recommendations that will make us safer.
Well, they first have to finish their inquiry. Afterwards, they write the report and recommendations.
> Bush was disastrously wrong about WMD but taking Saddam out now may have saved many American lives in the long run.
Even Bush has finally conceded there is no direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. State-sponsored terrorism isn't necessary, from the fanatics perspective. They do just fine themselves. So how else, except via a direct act of war against the US, could Saddam kill more Americans than are being killed in Iraq right now? Given no WMDs and the pathetic inneffectiveness of the Iraqi military machine in GWI and GWII, saddam could have never effectively waged war against us. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
> I believe the military community believes this to be true.
If they did, shouldn't re-enlistment statistics be up, or at least steady, rather than falling as rapidly as they are?
Unprovoked, unilateral invasions, combined with poorly planned post-invasion tactics, which turn into quagmires...does this sound like a good day at West Point? Cowboys, however, love this kind of shit. Shit-kickers. They proudly wear footwear designed to deal with it.
Thank god saner heads at the Pentagon (you know the president is insane, when you hear a liberal using a phrase like that last one!) pulled Bush back from his Axis Of Evil rhetoric. After over 15 years visiting South Korea, I have bought many, many beers (support the troops!) in Itaewon bars for 8th Army regulars. Even before the nuclear threat emerged, they had a no-joke attitude when it came to keeping a lid on the situation over there. Disaster remains only minutes away, in the form of a fully mechanized 1 million man army. Even small tactical missteps could set it off - and great care was/is given to avoiding that. When you happen to be one of the guys expected to meet that 1 million man assault, you tend to be a bit less trigger-happy.
This is logic Bush and Cheney do not understand. They are not part of the military community.
Vern has left the building!
Posted by: deano at April 28, 2004 02:28 AMClarke is trying to sell books. I would tend to rely more on his not-for-profit comments.
I don't believe a word Clinton says. He had multiple chances to nail bin Laden and didn't take them.
I think we are much safer now than before 9/11. I think the American people have a right to know what happened, including who is to blame, but I don't see the 9/11 commission making any recommendations that will make us safer. It's been 2 1/2 yrs since 9/11. Anything Bush wanted to do he's already done.
Bush was disasterously wrong about WMD but taking Saddam out now may have saved many American lives in the long run. I believe the military community believes this to be true.
Posted by: TOF at April 26, 2004 07:57 PM> Bill Clinton personally told George Bush that the Clinton administration left "unfinished business" WRT Al Qaeda (See: buck, passing the).
That's not passing the buck. That's what should happen, when transitioning power. What would you have had him do - not tell Bush about al Qaeda? Come on, don't let your politics misdirect your ability to be rational. That's pure Bush-league. ;-)
> Clinton had eight years to "fully realize" his own Al Qaeda plan and failed.
Absolutely. I am positive I can say with full accuracy that Clinton and Clarke would both agree with you - they did fail the nation. 9.11 happened. How/why they failed, let Clarke have his say, by reading the book. Did the Bush Admin compound the probability of that failure? Definitely. All that most rational people want, is for Bush and Co to quit playing politics and admit they screwed up too... and now fix the problem. But instead, they've gotten us into an even more dangerous situation.
Clinton's/Clarke's committment to cooperation and disclosure, in the national interest, stands in stark contrast to the Bush Administrations' obstinance. You're supporting a bunch of people who were originally opposed to an effective 9/11 Commission inquiry. They are now, arguably, cooperating only at the necessary minimum level, in reaction to public outcry and out of worry it's hurting their reelection chances. I would like to think my president would want to proactively do whatever is possible to insure something like this never happens again. He owes that to the families of the victims and to the rest of us - as potential future victims. I think his non-cooperation was/is flirting with impeachable action, frankly. Worst of all, his misguided policies have now made us *less* safe from terrorist attack, abroad and at home. Do you disagree? I think I know your answer to that, but maybe you'll surprise me.
(but first, I must sign off, for a visit to the real world, for at least a couple of hours)
Posted by: deano at April 26, 2004 03:49 PMHere's what I got out of your first paragraph: Bill Clinton personally told George Bush that the Clinton administration left "unfinished business" WRT Al Qaeda (See: buck, passing the).
Clinton had eight years to "fully realize" his own Al Qaeda plan and failed.
Clarke said that, by "the first week in February" (within one month after taking office) Bush "initiated" a "process" to "increase CIA resources" "to go after Al Qaeda" "five-fold."
I never said that you accused me of labeling him a partisan.
Posted by: TOF at April 26, 2004 02:15 PMOlam, I tried to answer that, in my first paragraph. If it's not adequate for your purposes, then I suggest you read the book for yourself.
The FBI was still noncommital on whether there was definitive evidence of sleeper cells in the US. Clarke's office, however, was convinced al Qaeda had been here since '95. Tenet personally agreed with Clarke, yet large blocks of CIA were also covering their asses on the subject. Clinton admin was lame duck and castrated by Monica-media - you ever work in a bureaucracy? The point made is, al Qaeda, as the predominant threat, was on the table; yet the Bush Admin opted to put it on the back burner, over ballistic missiles (Condi had a speech prepared on that very subject, to be given Sept 11) and state-sponsored terrorism. Whether a change in priority would have actually made any ultimate difference, we'll never know.
And I didn't accuse you personally of labeling him partisan, but the white house is trying to.
Posted by: deano at April 26, 2004 12:59 PMI have not labeled him a partisan. I asked a simple and fair question: Is the book consistent with August 2002 comments? Yes or No?
Posted by: TOF at April 26, 2004 11:54 AMMy interpretation of Clarke's position, but you should read the book, is there was a Clinton-era al Qaeda plan (see page 225 for a summary), but it wasn't fully realized. And key players (including Clinton, directly to Bush, in a pre-innaguration meeting) were stressing that there was unfinished business. That message fell on deaf ears, in the house of bush.
Clarke isn't apologizing, yet he does remind us of the poisoned environment, pre-bush. Remember the completely moronic 'Wag The Dog' accusations being leveled at Clinton for his cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan? He also goes into great detail about the bureaucratic obstacles seen at the FBI, CIA and DOD.
Clarke is a life-long bureaucrat, serving 7 presidents. It's absurd to label him partisan. He had been held over, by Rice, to be the White House counterterrorism expert. Yet she refused his request to brief the principals on the al Qaeda threat on Jan 25 - a week after the innauguration. He was allowed to brief only the deputies, 3 months later. In that meeting, Wolfowitz is quoted as saying: "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things, like the '93 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor." W was holding onto the already discredited Mylroie theory, that Iraq was behind the '93 truck bombing of the WTC. Significantly, in that meeting, CIA concurred with Clarke that al Qaeda was the top threat. State also agreed.
The originally requested Principals briefing was stone-walled until Sept 4, 01. Clearly too late. But what transpired in that meeting is also illuminating - still more of the same incredulity about al Qaeda. See pages 237~238.
Clarke presents the new administration as not believing al Qaeda was a significant threat, in spite of the facts being presented to them. He says they began to label it just another Clinton-legacy oddity. They were proven to be catastrophically delusional, at the very least.
I recommend you read the book. The full saga is far more illuminating than discussing excerpts, out of context.
Vern, thanks for the Woodward offer, but seeing how quickly you get through your reading pile, I'll pick up a copy. ;-) There's another new one, by Walter Russell Mead, that also looks interesting...
Anybody see Kerry get tripped up by his own words again today? Of course, we can't forget that it took place at the hands of that evil GOP spin-meister, Charlie Gibson, on the neo-con-ultra-right-wing show Good Morning America. The vast right wing conspiracy is bigger than I thought!!! I can't wait until Katie Couric gets a hold of him.
Posted by: TOF at April 26, 2004 08:12 AMIt takes a real spinner to call a direct question "spin." Is asking, "What does one plus one equal?" constitute good "spin" on arithemtic?
Posted by: TOF at April 23, 2004 01:59 PMDean, that'd be cool if you want to send the Clarke book, though I still haven't gotten to Fermat's Last Theorem. Bad me.
If you want to hold off on buying the Woodward book, I'll read it fast and return the favor.
Re: GOP spin control on Clarke, it's pretty belated. The most persuasive evidence against him, which went undiscussed when he was in the spotlight last month, is that he was significantly responsible for the U.S. policy of inaction regarding Rwandan genocide.
How does the book jive with Clarke's comments from August 2002:
"Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."
"So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda."
Posted by: The O'lam Factor at April 22, 2004 08:14 AMLet me know if you'd like me to send you my copy of "Against All Enemies." It's an amazingly readable recent history of US counterterrorism policy and operations, over the last 4 administrations.
W/O trying to condense it into a sound-bite, Clarke covers far more than just finger-pointing at Condi. That does happen, but he also develops a much more detailed, almost undeniable, case against all the key players in the dubya admin. It's a cluster screw of this particular pooch.
Posted by: deano at April 21, 2004 03:34 PM