Richard Clarks Praises Bush (transcript)

[storm1977 0]

You can find the article here:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html
THis interview was with Jim Angle of Fox News.

It is interesting that his story has changed in such a short time.... Maybe it could be bitterness for being "Demoted"....


Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: 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.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

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.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[JohnRich 4]

Oh man, now you've gone and blown the democratic strategy with this guy. You're supposed to just show selective *negative* things that he now says about Bush.

Now that you've shown his earlier statements *praising* Bush, you've revealed his hypocrisy, his turnabout of opinion, and his self-contradictory statements. Which of course, destroys his credibility.

You're no fun at all...

C'mon, get with the program: BASH BUSH! (facts be damned)



It's interesting how quickly the Bush-bashers jump on threads negative to Bush, in contrast to their absence in this one. Their silence is deafening...

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Oh man, now you've gone and blown the democratic strategy with this guy. You're supposed to just show selective *negative* things that he now says about Bush.

Now that you've shown his earlier statements *praising* Bush, you've revealed his hypocrisy, his turnabout of opinion, and his self-contradictory statements. Which of course, destroys his credibility.

You're no fun at all...

C'mon, get with the program: BASH BUSH! (facts be damned)



It's interesting how quickly the Bush-bashers jump on threads negative to Bush, in contrast to their absence in this one. Their silence is deafening...

OK, since you asked so nicely, I suppose I could point out that yesterday he was under oath to tell the truth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Everyone is so quick to give Clarke credibility, why? What about the testimonies of Armitage, Berger, and Tenet? Oh, they don't have a book out. Nevermind.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Please point out any hypocrisy, change of opinion, or contradictions in his statements. He praised both Bush and Clinton for some things and criticized them for others all along. Nothing seems to have changed.

[PhillyKev 0]

I haven't seen all their testimony. I did see the part where Tenet admits that the CIA didn't take available opportunities to kill OBL as per Clinton's orders.

Why give Clarke credibility? Because he is credible and backs up most of his claims with evidence. Oh...and he's also the only person to actually take responsibility and apologize to the American people for his own mistakes.

Has GWB ever apologized for anything ever?

[Gawain 0]

That's a fundamental difference. I do not feel the government owes an apology. I do feel that they need to continuously assess their mission of national defense and act on it. Pre-emptively.

Clarke in 2002: It was a priority.
Clarke in 2004: It didn't seem urgent.

Okay, yeah, that's credible.

Some of Berger's:

Quote

"Senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration agreed that, under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense, not an assassination," the staff statement on intelligence policy said. "... But if the policy-makers believe their intent was clear, every CIA official interviewed on this topic ... told us they heard a different message."

Specifically, the CIA believed they could only kill bin Laden -- who would be alleged to have orchestrated the 9/11 attacks -- in the context of a capture, according to the staff statement.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Please point out any hypocrisy, change of opinion, or contradictions

During testimony yesterday Clark said the Bush administration didn't do enough during the first 8 months. He also implied that THe Bush administration did not continue where The Clinton administration left off.

Yet in this transcript he said quite the opposite and in fact the Bush adminitration put in 5 FOLD the money the Clinton administration did toward covert operations...

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

During testimony yesterday Clark said the Bush administration didn't do enough during the first 8 months.

I don't see the transcript above disputing that. He's saying what they did do, but I don't see where he says that they couldn't have done more.

Quote

He also implied that THe Bush administration did not continue where The Clinton administration left off.

I don't recall seeing anything like that, I could be mistaken. What I read yesterday had him saying both administrations could have, should have, and were asked to do more.

[billvon 3,112]

>Everyone is so quick to give Clarke credibility, why?

He is, thus far, the only person to take any responsibility and/or admit any fault in not doing more to prevent 9/11. It's a refreshing change from the latest round of shrill denials of responsibility for any bad thing that ever happened. And it seems to have given a bit of closure to the people who lost loved ones in the WTC attacks, if reports from victims' groups are any indication.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I could point out that yesterday he was under oath to tell the truth.

I see; he only tells the truth when he is under threat of criminal punishment if he doesn't.

Well, that certainly restores his credibility...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Clark said the Bush administration didn't do enough during the first 8 months.

Yeah, first he says Bush didn't do enough, and now he says Bush is doing too much.

And no one has any idea how much Clark thinks is "just right". He would do better choosing porridge for Little Red Riding Hood.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

He would do better choosing porridge for Little Red Riding Hood.

LMAO!!! Then I could see Kerry, Clinton and Daschle whining about who's been eating their food...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,112]

>And no one has any idea how much Clark thinks is "just right".

You might ask the republicans who opposed Clinton's 1995 Omnibus Anti-terrorism Act and later claimed he wasn't doing enough to fight terror. Perhaps they have a better definition of "just right" (beyond "anything a republican president does" of course.)

[Michele 1]

Quote

You might ask the republicans who opposed Clinton's 1995 Omnibus Anti-terrorism Act and later claimed he wasn't doing enough to fight terror. Perhaps they have a better definition of "just right" (beyond "anything a republican president does" of course.)

The ACLU was against it - stridently - at the time, as well. Don't forget them. They're heavy lobbyists, IIRC...

And did Clinton, in your opinion, do enough to fight terror? Honest question.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,112]

>The ACLU was against it - stridently - at the time, as well.

Agreed. They are against the Patriot Act as well.

[Michele 1]

Agreed. My point was simply that the republicans weren't the only one opposed to it...

And do you think Clinton did enough?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,112]

>And do you think Clinton did enough?

I think he did some good things (i.e. his attempt to kill Bin Laden, the Omnibus Terror Act.) I think he could have done more, potentially a lot more. Which of course makes me a "flip-flopper" in the eyes of some people here, because I don't think he did a great job _or_ an abysmal job.

Do you think Bush has done enough to catch Bin Laden and stop Al Qaeda?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>And do you think Clinton did enough?

I think he did some good things (i.e. his attempt to kill Bin Laden, the Omnibus Terror Act.) I think he could have done more, potentially a lot more.

Clinton was offered bin Laden not once, not twice, but three times on a golden platter. He did nothing.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

I could point out that yesterday he was under oath to tell the truth.

I see; he only tells the truth when he is under threat of criminal punishment if he doesn't.

Well, that certainly restores his credibility...

Well, he can tell the truth now he's no longer a member of the most untruthful administration we've had in a long time.

"We KNOW where they are".

"The deficit WILL BE small and short-term"

"...Nation building.. ABSOLUTELY NOT"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Do you think Bush has done enough to catch Bin Laden and stop Al Qaeda?

8 months v. 8 years....that's an interestingly posed question. I will bifurcate it into before 9/11 and after 9/11.

Before 9/11:
There was not enough done, but I am not sure any more could've been done in the short time Bush was in office. I believe the beaurocratic, territorial nature of the defense groups (CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD) prevented a ton of information which, in hindsight, is very telling. This is not the first time territorial behavior has hogtied those departments; indeed, you see it on a local level as well, with PDs and Sherrif's and CA/DA's offices. Further, I think that there were many people in those beaurocracies which had not understood the depth to which AQ/OBL would go.

When Bush took office, he had to handle a lot of detritus left over from the Clinton Administration. He was further saddled - hindered, in fact - by the way the election came about.

He had made some starts, and clearly recognized that, unlike the Clinton Admin., terrorism cannot be treated as "criminality", ala WTC 93 - indictment, arrest, trial, incarceration. But to be able to change that mindset in time to take some action prior to 9/11 was impossible. Additionally, there is evidence that the plan had been set in motion - and cells inserted into the US - prior to 2000 (or in January 2001). With a plan like that, I don't think there was too much which could stop it once it started rolling.

Post 9/11
The actions in Afghanistan I wholly approve of, and think have done wonders to quell the terrorist activity here in my country. I think that the taking out of the Taliban, the liberation of the Afghani people, the liberation of the women (a particular sweetness for me), and the beginnings of a new era in that country is amazing and, over all, about the best outcome from 9/11 that one could've ever expected. From tyranny to liberty, because of an horrific attack across the world - I don't think AQ expected that would happen.

In the immediate moments after 9/11, with the freezing of the finances, the comprehensive naming of names, the interrogation of suspects, the recognizing and publicly indentifying the holes in our system, I couldn't ask for more. Closing those holes, though, seems to have gone more slowly than I would've hoped, but again, when you are dealing with a large area, with many different points of view, and with many different philosophical positions, I think it's gone as fast as it could've (although, like I said, not fast enough for my tastes.).

In terms of capturing AQ, I think Bush has done rather well. While he hasn't yet gotten the head of the snake, I believe he will. I know the terrain over there is about as harsh as it gets, and I'm willing to let those men and women serving in the military to go at it their way, without second guessing from me. In the mean time, I think Bush's policy has both helped and hindered AQ, in that many have been captured, many cells have been disrupted, and finances, as stated, have been nullified. However, it has scattered them, driven those survivors further underground, and will make getting OBL himself a more difficult proposition. When you look at the large picture, however, it's pretty good.

Overall, Bush did as well as could be expected, and better, in some regards, given the legacy of the Clinton administration and their balls-up treatment of AQ, OBL, and missing the imperative 90's issue: terrorism, homegrown and imported.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,112]

>Clinton was offered bin Laden not once, not twice, but three times on
>a golden platter. He did nothing.

Other than the cruise missile attack intended to kill him. It's easy to overlook that one I suppose; no live video on CNN.

In any case, Bush has so far been as successful as Clinton in getting Bin Laden i.e. neither one has.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

8 months v. 8 years....that's an interestingly posed question. I will bifurcate it into before 9/11 and after 9/11.

So none of the previous eight years worth of intelligence transferred from the Clinton administration to the Bush one?

Sorry but the people who run the day-to-day business of government don't change over night. It all has to do with what the elected officials want to believe.

As to fighting terrorism take a look at the Israeli success rate since inception of the country.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Michele 1]

Quote

As to fighting terrorism take a look at the Israeli success rate since inception of the country.

Agreed. They've had a hell of a run, but have defended their borders, repelled invaders, survived assassinations, wars where all their surrounding neighbors decided to take a piece of them, and have established a thriving democratic country. Not too bad for something like 54 years as a country....

As for the rest, I guess you didn't read the rest of my post...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,112]

>Post 9/11
>The actions in Afghanistan I wholly approve of, and think have done
>wonders to quell the terrorist activity here in my country.

But not much to quell Al Qaeda attacks against our troops and our allies. Al Qaeda has attacked the US exactly twice, in 1993 and 2001. So you'll have to wait until 2009 to see if Bush's policies are really quelling terrorist activities here.

>I think that the taking out of the Taliban, the liberation of the
> Afghani people, the liberation of the women. . . .

Good things on paper, but not much of a reality outside Kabul.

From CNN:
"We have a great deal of work left to do in Afghanistan," Biden said, adding that security outside of Kabul, the capital, was a problem. He said warlords were again in control of certain regions and that "murder, rape and torture" were "instruments of policy" in some places.

From BBC:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai used the conference to call for greater international support in tackling the country's growing drugs problem. He has banned opium poppy cultivation and trafficking but the drug industry has blossomed since the overthrow of the country's hardline former rulers, the Taleban. Nearly 7% of the Afghan population is said to now work in the opium trade, earning as much as Afghanistan receives in foreign aid. . . .

Three-quarters of the world's opium was produced in Afghanistan last year.

>In terms of capturing AQ, I think Bush has done rather well.

I think the effort has gone fairly well, but keep in mind that most arrests and killings of Al Qaeda's leaders have been by our allies. That's not to denigrate Bush at all, as he is partly responsible for our allies' desire to help us. It is, however, something of an indication as to how we can make the most progress in the war on terror.

>Overall, Bush did as well as could be expected, and better, in some
>regards, given the legacy of the Clinton administration and their
> balls-up treatment of AQ, OBL, and missing the imperative 90's
> issue: terrorism, homegrown and imported.

If those terrorists had not flown their aircraft into the WTC in 2001, there would be no "imperative 90's issue," and someone on this board would be bitching about how the anti-terrorist act that Clinton pushed was just another tax-and-spend piece of democrat pork. Clinton pushed hard with an anti-terrorism bill and the republicans pushed back hard. That's not because the republicans were pro-terror; it's just that they had no reason to really worry. The 1993 WTC attacks were forgotten as easily as we forgot the anthrax attacks of two years ago.

A lot of people like to believe that the world changed on 9/11. It didn't. Our perception of it certainly did, which is why Bush is now scrambling to portray his actions before 9/11 in a positive light. We are better off in some ways - our allies have stepped up their fight against terrorism, and that has helped tremendously. We are worse off in some ways - Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists, and we are losing hundreds of US and coalition troops to their attacks. A lot has been done, but a lot remains for us to undo.