I've got to say that the kerfuffle started by Richard Clarke just two short weeks ago has me flip-flopping like a Kerry wannabee. There are just so many factors to consider, and an honest look at the issues should give any honest person significant pause.
On the one hand, the timing of Clarke's book, his year of silence, and the ever-changing landscape of his story bring to mind the term "political hack" [One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling]. On the other hand, the guy did serve in no less than four different administrations [starting with Reagan] and likely has more experience in regards to this issue than nearly any other person in D.C.
Though I do believe Clarke has some ego issues, you have to take at least some of what he says seriously. Upon examination of his public testimony, there are quite a few points of agreement that I have with Clarke. For example:
- First, Clarke agrees with the Bush Administration that, by the time President Bush took office, it was already too late to avert 9/11. Asked during his public testimony if, for example, the Bush Administration had implemented every one of Clarke's recommendations on January 26, 9/11 could have been averted, Clarke's reply was an unambiguous, unhesitant "NO!"
- Clarke pointed out that, over the past twenty years, Washington politicians have crippled our intelligence services. Literally, Clarke told the commission that:
...our HUMINT program, our spy capability, had been eviscerated in the mid-1980s and early-1990s, and there was no such capability either to know that al-Qaeda existed, let alone to destroy it. And there's something else that I think we have to understand about the CIA's covert action capabilities. For many years they were roundly criticized by the Congress and the media for various covert actions that they carried out at the request of people like me in the White House - not me, but people like me. And many CIA senor managers were dragged up into this room and others and berated for failed covert action activities. And they became great political footballs.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hal Pawluk
Then Senator Bill Frist calls for the declassification of Clarke's 2002 closed-door testimony on the grounds that his testimony under oath is contradictory to his 2002 testimony.
Actually, he didn't .
I happened to have CSPAN on when Frist made his comments, and he started with a loud (deliberately so) "IF such and such..."
The media echo chamber, of course, dropped the 'if' as I'm sure Frist anticipated they would.
Clarke's call for releasing those and related documents was a good call. I'd really like to see them, now that Frist has managed to embed the believe that there is a contradiction.
2 - Hal Pawluk
if Republicans call for such a wide declassification of documents, Democrats will accuse Republicans of engaging in a witch hunt.
How on earth could you possibly know that?
3 - Shark
Next thing Frist should ask to be declassified is the 27 page gap in the report linking the SAUDIS to terrorism against the U.S.
Don't hold your breath.
4 - Hal Pawluk
My general take on the Clarke-generated ruckus:
1. No recent administration handled pre-9/11 terrorism well, not Bush and not Clinton.
2. Bush cannot be blamed for 9/11, no matter how you Monday-morning-quarterback events. That's just ludicrous, and frankly, pointless - let's figure out what needs to be done.
3. Bush is responsible for what was done after 9/11.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a great first move since the Taliban was providing the terrorists with a safe haven.
Leaving Afghanistan with 10,000 troops to invade Iraq instead of continuing the war on terror was a big mistake in a number of ways.
The bottom line is that the threat of terrorism world-wide is higher than it was before the invasion of Iraq.
For more details, check out Thomas Oliphant's piece "Understanding the real costs of Iraq war" in yesterday's Boston Globe.
5 - David Flanagan
Clarke's call for releasing those and related documents was a good call. I'd really like to see them, now that Frist has managed to embed the believe that there is a contradiction.
I agree with you. I think we should see those documents as well as all the Clarke's correspondance and transcripts with President Clinton since 1996, when we discovered that Osama bin Laden was the head of Al Qaeda. Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks. :-)
David
6 - Hal Pawluk
Geez, Shark - I forgot about that (gettting older isn't all it's cracked up to be :-).
Do you have any links?
7 - Hal Pawluk
I don't know if that was a smile or a smirk, David, but I'm all for open government and transparency so that's probably not a fruitful avenue for you :-)
And now that Shark has reminded me, what can you do to get the "redacted" linkage between terrorism and the Saudis made public?
And can you tell me why the administration airlifted 140 Saudis out of the country immediately after 9/11 when other planes were still grounded?
And ...
8 - David Flanagan
Hal,
I agree with your first three points and I take issue with your statement that the threat of terrorism world-wide is higher than it was before the invasion of Iraq.
I think people are confusing the fact that we have seen many more instances of attacks with the threat being "greater." What we saw on 9/11 was the launch of a major offensive against anyone that Al Qaeda perceives as a threat to their worldview. The attack on Afghanistan was key in the war while Iraq was a necessary step in the chain of eliminating terrorism.
Many of the benefits that will come out of Iraq's liberation are long-term, few are immediate, other than the elimination of one of the world's preeminent madmen. Setting Iraq up as a functioning Democracy may well change the face of the entire Middle East.
But, in aggressively going after Osama and terrorists worldwide, we have certainly stirred up the hornets nest. But the hornets were already there, waiting for their time to take action. I don't think we have "encouraged" the enlistment of many new fighters, except perhaps in Iraq, and the Madrid bombing did not occur because Al Qaeda "morphed," it occurred because it was a weakness that was easily exploited.
Now Europe understand what we learned on 9/11, that we are all vulnerable and that the only way to win the war on terror is to pull out all the stops and pursue them relentlessly. Many of our ongoing efforts are NOT military, rather they are covert, which is why you never hear about them. If you read about them in the papers, then its something that terrorists read as well and, therefore, is useless.
So, you don't see the victories that take place on a regular basis, you see only the above-the-scenes action in Iraq and and wherever there is a bombing.
Finally, what we have seen since at least 1993 is an increasing level of activity and support for groups such as Al Qaeda. Surveys have shown for a LONG time that arab nations have supported terrorist organizations. Remember, many in the Middle East danced with joy on 9/11!
I've got to run but those are my points in brief.
Thanks.
David
9 - Hal Pawluk
I found the infamously redacted report:
Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after
the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
If you download the full PDF report you can do searches on "Saudi" and "Clarke" to come up with a lot of interesting hits.
(Huge gobs are still redacted.)
10 - David Flanagan
And can you tell me why the administration airlifted 140 Saudis out of the country immediately after 9/11 when other planes were still grounded?
Perhaps in case Americans decided to attack them? Friends of mine were attacked by union members in Boston just for supporting Bush; I can imagine the fear that the Saudis would have regarding their safety after 9/11.
David
11 - Hal Pawluk
I think people are confusing the fact that we have seen many more instances of attacks with the threat being "greater."... in aggressively going after Osama and terrorists worldwide, we have certainly stirred up the hornets nest. But the hornets were already there, waiting for their time to take action.
Certainly the number of instances in any particular time frame is not a measure of the spread of terrorism, but the general consensus of those who have more info than you and I do is that it has indeed increased.
Even Rumsfeld thinks that more terrorists have been created (they weren't just sitting there) by the invasion of Iraq. That is also the opinion of many in the military, in our own and other intelligence agencies, in think tanks of various political stripes, and governments around the world.
Keep your eye on the op eds and news items and you'll see more and more of this come out. Here's a clip from the Oliphant article (again) in my prior comment for a flavor of what we're going to hear:
12 - David Flanagan
As the recent, shocking Pew Center survey of public opinion in Arab countries showed, support for terrorism is overwhelming...
The problem with making this statement is that this has been a condition for a long period of time in those nations. The US has been the "Great Satan" for a long time now. It's well known and well accepted that the US forces that were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the 12 years in which we were trying to contain Hussein were part of the reason for the rise in anti-Americanism there.
We were the infidels occupying holy ground, an argument that Osama used to recruit thousands to his cause. This is why, as soon as Baghdad fell, Bush began moving troops out of Saudi Arabia. The plan is to get them all out before much longer so as to remove this as an issue completely.
I think we are so focused on the short-term here, and that because, of course, its an election season, that we've lost some perspective. Even Wesley Clark admitted that our policy of containment for Saddam was failing at an accelerating rate. It was time to either finish the job or get out completely, but no President would just leave such an enemy behind.
President Bush couldn't leave Iraq alone because, if Saddam ever did support a terrorist attack and we found out, he would either lose a shot at a second term or be impeached, or both! He had to remove Saddam as a threat and the fact that we are facing tough opposition from loyalists and terrorists in Iraq should not be that big a surprise.
It wasn't to me.
David
13 - JR
David Flanagan: It's well known and well accepted that the US forces that were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the 12 years in which we were trying to contain Hussein were part of the reason for the rise in anti-Americanism there.
Wha?
Are you saying Our Troops: Warriors... Heroes... Ambassadors were actually part of the problem?
14 - Eric Olsen
Their presence - with American women not wrapped in fucking shrouds and chains and sans genital mutilation (I know, that's African but I'm on a roll) and with 98% (I'm guessing) of them not bowing in the direction of Muhammad's final fart five times a day, and worst of all, the presence of JEWS in the bunch - was an affront to delicate sand flea sensibilities.
Do I sound bitter? Fuck that cesspool of the desert. And no, my references are not to Islam, but to Wahabbi scum pissant terrorist-appeasing fuckbreaths.
15 - sheri
"Wahabbi scum pissant terrorist-appeasing fuckbreaths".
Wow Eric, I would say this is worth reading again on the weight of that description alone!!
16 - Hal Pawluk
David: "The problem with making this statement is that this has been a condition for a long period of time in those nations."
A comforting thought, perhaps, but it's simply not true. "Some" nations, yes; "those" nations, no.
Read the Pew report, then refute it.
17 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: "Do I sound bitter?"
No.
To me, you just sound like some sort of jingoist or racist.
But maybe that's just me.
18 - Eric Olsen
Hmm, that sounds rather hypocritical Hal, or do you now defend the wretched duplicity of the Saudi regime in its appeasement and even support of terrorists, and of the radical Islamist Wahabbi strain of Islam?
Do you agree that our troops - there to defend Saudi Arabia from attack by Iraq - should have been forced to adhere to psychotic radical Islamic codes of dress and behavior for fear of offending the psychos?
Or is this just grandstanding bullshit?
And when did Wahabbi become a race, Hal?
Or is this just grandstanding bullshit?
I vote grandstanding bullshit.
19 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: "that sounds rather hypocritical Hal"
Excuse me? I'm afraid that makes no sense whatsoever.
Unless you have your own definition of the word, but if so, I'd really like you to let me know what that is.
20 - Hal Pawluk
A factoid (which may gum up the works):
21 - Eric Olsen
Actually, Islam as officially sanctioned by the government of Saudi Arabia is very specifically Wahabbi, so I'm not sure what works are being gummed.
Beyond that, you figure it out. I am going to move on before I lose my temper.
22 - Hal Pawluk
Before you go, Eric, take another look at #14 and decide where the "grandstanding bullshit" lies.
23 - David Flanagan
Are you saying Our Troops: Warriors... Heroes... Ambassadors were actually part of the problem?
No, hate and ignorance was the problem, our troops were the excuse. For those who choose to hate, there is always someone to blame. Think about it.
David
24 - Eric Olsen
Hal, To answer your question in #17: yes, it's just you.
What you said and the way you said it is the very definition of snide, pissy grandstanding. And the way you have played coy - "Who me?!?" - has compounded my level of irritation. I would drop it.
25 - Mark Saleski
"Wahabbi scum pissant terrorist-appeasing fuckbreaths"
ya know, i thought that this just might be the ultimate in blogcritics potty-mouth putdowns.
but tonight i picked up this book called "100 Banned Books"
in the entry on King's "Cujo", they describe a character named Gary Pervier..who really hates hippies.
in fact, he considers them: "a bunch of long-haired miff-diving crab-crawling asshole pinko fucksticks".
now that my friends, is some serious potty mouth.