Clarke: Iraq war 'undermined' war on terror
But 9/11 wouldn't have been stopped by stronger Bush terrorism policy.
In a day of high drama before the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States in Washington, one of the key moments came Wednesday when the former Bush administration's counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, under pointed questioning from former Navy Secretary John Lehman,
explained the difference between his previous testimony before the commission and his new book, "Against All Enemies." Mr. Lehman had told Mr. Clarke that he lacked credibility because the comparison between the two highlighted inconsistancies.
"There's a very good reason for that," Clarke said. "In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq. And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."
Clarke stopped there, writes Ken Fineman in an analysis for
Newsday, "letting his last sentence hang in the air as he awaited Lehman's next question." It never came, and Clarke "finally leaned back, a small smile on his face."
CBS also reports that Clarke said the 9/11 attacks
could not have been prevented, even if the Bush administration had been more aggressive about terrorism. But Clarke said that by focusing on Iraq after 9/11, it had undermined the war on terrorism and made the US less, not more, safe.
CNN reports that the White House is "
fiercely rebutting" Clarke's testimony that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that administration records prove false his "scurrilous allegation that somehow the president of the United States was not attentive to the terrorist threat."
What pundits and others thought of Clarke's testimony seemed to depend which side of the political spectrum they are on. Conservative columnist Glenn Reynolds, of
Instapundit, blogged extensively about the "flip-flops" in Clarke's statements, saying he is only producing "
incoherent grandstanding." But liberal Fred Kaplan, writing in
Slate, says that Clarke "
KO'ed the Bushies," and that three of the Republicans on the commission tried to "throw punches Clarke's way, but none of them landed." These opinions are more or less repeated by other conservatives, like Rich Lowry in
National Review ("
Clarke's self-immolation") and liberals, like Sydney Blumenthal in the
Guardian ("
Bush's brand new enemy is the truth").
Another moment that produced high drama was Clarke's apology to the 9/11 families at the beginning of his testimony.
The New York Daily News reports that the apology set off a "
wave of emotion" among the families.
"Clarke is the first person who's ever apologized," said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband was killed at the World Trade Center. "I felt like crying." Mary Fetchet, who lost her son Bradley, said she appreciated Clarke accepting blame and praised him for being "brave enough to talk openly about the truth."
But the
MetroWest Daily News of Massachusetts reports that the apology "
fell short" for other 9/11 families.
Clarke's apology rang hollow to Harriet Fuller, who lost her daughter on Sept. 11. "I don't appreciate it at all. Because Sept. 11 could have been prevented, or at least if it had happened all those people didn't have to die or be injured," she said in a telephone interview. Many of the families, especially those who
successfully pressed the Bush administration to hold hearings into the events surrounding 9/11 when it did not want to do so, are now coming under attack from many of the
same conservative sources that are attacking Clarke.
As for those with a less political agenda,
The Baltimore Sun reports that many of the 9/11 commission's staff reports have "buttressed" the criticism's made by Clarke. The panel noted
numerous instances of failed diplomacy and a reluctance by both Clinton and Bush administrations to consider decisive military action against Al Qaeda.
Patrick Lang, a former head of the Middle East section of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said that Clarke was perhaps too "shrill" in his complaints about Bush. But Clarke's analysis about the Bush administration, Lang observed, is correct. "What he's talking about is these guys were not interested in Al Qaeda. They wanted Iraq."
As for the 9/11 commissioners, they say they're not prepared to
reach any conclusions yet on whether the Bush administration failed. Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said the investigation is proceeding in a bipartisan way despite Wednesday's focus on Clarke.
Finally, the White House reversed position on Tuesday about statements it had made about Clarke. On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Clarke had been "out of the loop" in the months before the 9/11 attacks. But
The New York Times reports that Ms. Rice said Tuesday that
this was not the case and that Clarke "was very much involved in the administration's fight against terrorism."
Also...
•
9/11 victims' lives worth more than others? (
Naples Daily News)
•
Four 9/11 moms watch Rumsfeld and grumble (
New York Observer)
•
Wolfowitz vs. Clarke (
National Review Online)
•
Turkey says Yassin assassination was an act of terror (
Haaretz)
•
Welcome to Armageddon - WMD in the US (
Salon)
•
Yee story: Absolving suspect not so newsworthy (
San Jose Mercury News)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Matthew Clark.
|
RSS feed