Richard Clarke’s 'Double-minded' Testimony Before 9/11 Commission is Questionable

MARCH 25, 2004
By GREGORY J. RUMMO

     THE DEMOCRATS HAVE finally realized their only hope of winning the White House in November is to demonize President Bush in the area where he is strongest. He’s stolen their thunder on education reform, picked their pocket on prescription drugs for the elderly and the economy is righting itself so what’s left?

By politicizing 9/11 and attempting to paint Bush as one of their own—weak and ineffectual in the war against terrorism—they hope to level the playing field.

The latest shill volunteering to carry the Dem’s water is Richard Clarke, whose recently published book “Against All Enemies—Inside America’s War on Terror” attacks the Bush administration for its inattentiveness to respond to global terrorism, specifically al Qaeda. 

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission on March 24, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had “no higher priority,” than terrorism in contrast to the Bush administration which he claimed treated terrorism as an “important” but not an “urgent” issue.

Such a charge would almost be laughable if it weren’t being taken seriously by a number of journalists in the media.

But a brief comparison of the Clinton administration’s response to terrorism during his eight years in the Oval Office with Bush’s shows a stark contrast.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised, “We have already begun the process of determining what happened and who, if anyone, was responsible. We will devote an enormous effort to that.”

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 400 U.S. military personnel, Clinton said, “Let me be very clear: We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them. Anyone who attacks one American attacks every American, and we protect and defend our own.” It wasn’t until June 2001 when the Bush administration indicted twelve suspects, that here was any progress towards justice.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno said, “We're going to pursue every last murderer until justice has been done."

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, Clinton threatened, “[You] will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world.”

Despite all the bluster, Osama bin Laden was allowed to slip through the CIA’s fingers on several occasions. Meanwhile, the 9/11 terrorist cell continued to fester here, putting the final nuances on their hideous plans to kill Americans on that dreadful day.

Contrast this to the days immediately following 9/11, when President Bush said, “If Osama bin Laden is responsible for these attacks, he will be brought to justice, whatever the obstacles…If the Taliban regime controlling Afghanistan stands in our way, we will remove them if necessary.”

Richard Clarke realized which president responded more effectively to terrorism in a saner moment back in August 2002 during a “background briefing” attended by a number of reporters including Fox News’ Washington correspondent Jim Angle.

In a seven-point critique, the former counterterrorism coordinator praised the Bush administration for its response to terrorism.

Among Clarke’s comments in the transcript which can be read in its entirety at foxnews.com were the following: “There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration…The Bush administration decided…in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings. …[Then] to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda… 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.”

During the question and answer session which followed the briefing, when pressed about the Clinton Administration’s plans for going after al Qaeda after the US Embassy bombing in late 1998, Clarke admitted several times, “There was no new plan…No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ... Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

Some of these contradictions surfaced during the 9/11 Commission’s hearings earlier this week. Fox News reported that White House counsel Fred Fielding said to Clarke, “What I don’t understand is if you had these deep feelings and deep concerns … in the Bush administration that you didn't advise the [Sept. 11] joint inquiry.”

John Lehman, former Navy secretary under President Reagan, characterized the witness as “an active partisan selling a book” and then told him “You've got a real credibility problem.” Clarke responded: “I don't think it's a question of morality at all, I think it's a question of politics.”

No—it’s a question of character, as it almost always is. Apparently, Clarke has no problem speaking out of both sides of his mouth. The Bible describes such men as being “double-minded” and warning they are “unstable in all [their] ways.”   

Clearly, the accuracy of his testimony before the 9/11 Commission is questionable. n

Gregory J. Rummo is a syndicated columnist. Read all of his columns on his homepage, www.GregRummo.com. E-Mail Rummo at  GregoryJRummo@aol.com