|
OK....I know it is lengthy, but here is a transcript of Richard Clarke on CNN's Late Edition, when he discussed Clinton's efforts against bin Laden, vs. what Bush did (or didn't do).
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Interview With Richard Clarke; Interview With
Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton
Aired March 28, 2004 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: It's noon in Washington, 9 a.m. in Los Angeles, 7 p.m. in Jerusalem, and 8 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thank you for joining us for "LATE EDITION."
I'm Judy Woodruff. Wolf is away today.
In a few minutes I'll talk with the man who sparked a firestorm in the investigation into the September 11th attacks, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.
But first the hour's top stories.
(NEWSBREAK)
WOODRUFF: Now we turn to the fallout from this week's 9/11 hearings.
The Bush administration remains in full damage-control mode after criticism about its handling of the war on terrorism from former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke.
CNN's Dana Bash is at the presidential ranch in Crawford, Texas -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judy, the administration continues to question Richard Clarke's motivation in writing this book and in making the charges that he has.
The vice president telling "Time" magazine, quote, "He has taken advantage of his circumstances this week to promote himself and his book. I don't know the guy that well. I've had some dealings with him over the years. But judging based on what I've seen, I don't hold him in high regard."
Now, this week, in an effort to prove that he is not credible and to prove that he is changing his story, congressional Republicans sought to declassify testimony he gave in 2002. They say it contradicts what he is saying now.
This morning Richard Clarke said he would agree not only to declassify that, but to declassify other things he said proves that he tried to make the case that they needed to be better prepared when he was working in the Bush White House. Secretary of State Colin Powell said this morning that he is willing to declassify as much as possible, but noted that it's not necessarily up to him.
Now, another big issue here is the whole question of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and her refusal to testify publicly before the 9/11 commission. Her colleagues were out today saying that she's getting a bum rap.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify.
But she -- the lawyers, I think, probably properly, have concluded that to do so would alter that balance, if we got into a practice of doing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: So administration officials are essentially blaming the lawyers. 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean said this morning that he thinks that it's not appropriate to subpoena her to come and testify in public. But he also thinks that, with this kind of issue, to stand on legal principle and worry about legal precedent is not appropriate, that she should still think about and she should come and testify in public -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: All right, a lot to be following.
Dana Bash is at the Bush ranch in Texas.
Dana, thank you very much.
Well, while the 9/11 Commission this week heard from several top members of both the Bush and the Clinton administrations, the most dramatic moments came during the testimony of former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke. Claims made in his new book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," set off a fury at the White House.
Richard Clarke joins us now.
Welcome to "LATE EDITION."
RICHARD CLARKE, AUTHOR, "AGAINST ALL ENEMIES": Thank you.
WOODRUFF: We appreciate your being here.
CLARKE: Good to be here.
WOODRUFF: Condoleezza Rice has said that your book is 180 degrees different from what you said when you worked in the Bush White House. Is one of you lying?
CLARKE: No. And let's stop using words like "lying."
You know, if you look back at his last week, things have gotten very overheated in Washington and very personal and very vitriolic. And I'm told that the White House has decided to destroy me. Let's bring it back to what the issue is.
The issue is not about me. The issue is about the president's performance in the war on terrorism. And because I had the temerity to suggest he didn't do much of anything before 9/11, and by going into Iraq he's actually hurt the war on terrorism after 9/11, the White House has geared up this personal attack machine and is trying to undermine my credibility.
Let's get more civil. If I have been guilty of overheating the argument, as well, then I apologize. Let's see if we can retain some level of civility here in Washington and talk about the issues.
WOODRUFF: Well, let's listen, Mr. Clarke, to something that President Bush said this past Tuesday about what he did do before 9/11. This is just a brief excerpt of the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America. And had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11th, we would have acted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: He's saying he didn't have the information.
CLARKE: Well, let's contrast the performance of that administration when they had word from George Tenet that some attack was going to take place somewhere, with the performance of the Clinton administration in December of 1999 when they had similar information.
In December 1999, the president ordered daily meetings of the FBI director, the attorney general and the head of the CIA and the secretary of defense in the White House, with the national security team, to shake out any information and prevent the attacks. And they were successful in doing that.
Presented with even more frightening information, President Bush did not choose to do that, did not choose to get personally involved, except getting those morning intelligence briefings.
The principals committee, the top secretaries of the departments, met according to the Associated Press, over 100 times from the beginning of the administration to September 11th. One of those meetings, one of those meetings, was on terrorism.
All I'm saying is that this wasn't a priority for them.
WOODRUFF: If there was such a contrast between these two administrations, why does The Washington Post, in a front-page story yesterday, two reporters who have read all of the material, followed the 9/11 Commission, their conclusion is that the Bush and Clinton administrations -- Bush up until 9/11 -- their policies against terror were virtually the same.
CLARKE: The policy that the president was given in September was the same policy that I wrote in the Clinton administration. It took until after 9/11, however, to get that policy to him for him to make decisions.
Listen to what the president himself says, in his own words, to Bob Woodward in the book, "Bush at War": "He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus nor that of his national security team. 'I didn't feel a sense of urgency prior to 9/11.'"
Well, George Tenet was briefing him every morning, telling him that there was a coming attack. And it wasn't a focus, it wasn't a sense of urgency? I don't think that's appropriate.
WOODRUFF: Let me quickly turn you, though, back to President Clinton. You talk in your book, "Against All Enemies," about the fact that President Clinton, that there were steps that he took, that he could have done more.
Was the Monica Lewinsky scandal one of the reasons President Clinton couldn't pursue a war against terror on a more sustained basis?
CLARKE: I think it probably was. And here's why I think that. George Tenet, Sandy Berger and I went to the president and said, "We think bin Laden is going to be at a certain location in Afghanistan at a certain time." And Clinton said, "Fine, let's blow it up." And he fired a lot of cruise missiles at that location, apparently just missing bin Laden.
The reaction of the American people was not, "Great job, you're fighting terrorism with military force," something previous presidents had not done. It was, "Wag the dog," meaning, you're using this to divert attention from your own personal and political problems.
So, when we went back to him, he was prepared to authorize further attacks if we had better intelligence about where he would be. But you have to understand the environment in which all of that took place.
I still think Clinton made a mistake. I think Clinton should have bombed all of the camps, whether or not bin Laden was...
WOODRUFF: Politics got in the way, is what you're saying?
CLARKE: I think it was a factor, Judy.
WOODRUFF: Could President Clinton have done more to educate the American people about the al Qaeda threat to change the public?
CLARKE: If you look, beginning in 1996, in his last four years in office, President Clinton gave about 40 speeches where he mentioned terrorism, five speeches that were devoted just to terrorism. He did a lot, but, frankly, if you look at the media play on those speeches, the media didn't pick up those speeches. When he made a speech on terrorism, it wasn't on the front page, it wasn't on CNN.
Because only 35 -- I hate to say it this way, because every life we lost is one too many -- but 35 Americans died over the course of those eight years at the hands of al Qaeda. And based on that level of problem, Clinton authorized the unprecedented assassination of bin Laden and his top lieutenants, and he fired cruise missiles at him, and he launched a major covert action program.
WOODRUFF: So you're saying, given the...
CLARKE: He did a lot, and he was personally involved. He didn't just sit there in the morning and get intelligence briefings.
WOODRUFF: Well, let's move up to President Bush and your book, which came out the day before -- in essence, was made public the day before the 9/11 Commission did its work.
Here's what Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, said on the floor of the Senate this week about the timing of your book.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information, and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September the 11th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: And he went on to say, you should give up any profits you're going to make. And I understand you said earlier this morning you're prepared to give some of that money to the families, depending on how much money you make.
CLARKE: I'd intended to do that all along.
WOODRUFF: This is a very tough charge that the Senate majority leader's making.
CLARKE: It is. And also, you know, having ads, when you're running for reelection with pictures of the World Trade Center is also problematic, and I understand that.
I've talked to the families. I was very moved in discussions with the families. I asked for their forgiveness, and several of them came up to me and said, "I forgive you, I forgive you." And that meant a lot to me.
I intended all along to make substantial donations from the profits of this book. I'm now being told that there are people in the White House who are trying to destroy me personally, people who are saying, "Dick Clarke will never make another dime in this city." So I have to take that into account too, that there's this personal vendetta and destruction machine that's aimed at destroying the rest of my life.
WOODRUFF: It's not just Bill Frist. Lee Hamilton, who's the cochair of the commission, said your releasing that book right before the commission hearings hurts the work of the commission.
CLARKE: Well, I'm sorry it was released then. I wanted it released in December. The White House tied it up.
I got out of the White House in February, began writing in March, completed it in October, and turned it in in October to the White House, hoping to have the book released in December. The White House approval process took all of that time. It wasn't me.
WOODRUFF: What about, you know -- when you talk about the families -- and here is what -- and you apologized to those families when you began your testimony before the commission. Here's what Senator Frist had to say about that apology.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIST: In his appearance before the 9/11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, it was not his privilege, it was not his responsibility. In my view, it was not an act of humility, but it was an act of arrogance, of manipulation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: What do you say?
CLARKE: Well, I didn't apologize on behalf of the nation. Maybe Senator Frist didn't read what I said. I apologized personally.
I have felt an enormous sense of guilt since September 11th. Writing the book was about explaining what we did wrong, and hoping that it would never happen again because we've learned from those lessons. That's the motivation for writing the book, and I was wanting to find an opportunity to apologize.
There are 3,000 families around the world who lost loved ones, and they weren't all in the hearing room. There was no way to talk to them after the hearing. The only way to get to all of them was to talk to them during the hearing.
And I'm sorry if Senator Frist thinks I don't have a right to apologize, but I do.
WOODRUFF: All right. We are going to take a very short break, and when we come back, more of my conversation with former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke.
And then, Bush administration officials testified before the 9/11 Commission. I'll talk with former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle about the potential fallout. And later, two family members of 9/11 victims talk about the search for answers and for peace of mind.
You're watching "LATE EDITION," the last word in Sunday talk.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Just ahead, more of my interview with former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke about the 9/11 investigation and his new book.
And our Web question of the week: could the United States have done more to prevent the September 11th attacks? Go to cnn.com/lateedition to cast your votes. We'll have the results later in the program.
LATE EDITION will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population and is unconstrained by rules of warfare and respects no law of morality.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: Vice President Dick Cheney speaking this week about the war on terrorism.
Welcome back to "LATE EDITION." We're talking with former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke.
Given what the vice president says about this enemy out there, is it ever going to be possible to get the kind of hold, the kind of control on al Qaeda and any other terrorist threat that is threatening the United States?
CLARKE: We had a window after 9/11 when we could have changed opinion in the Islamic world. Opinion could have been moved away from the radical agenda, because a lot of people in the Islamic world were horrified by what happened on 9/11. We had the window of opportunity. We blew that window of opportunity by invading Iraq.
This is about not just arresting and killing terrorists, because you can never catch them all. It's about winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. And that's how we defeat terrorism, in addition to the military steps and the law-enforcement steps.
Now that we're in Iraq, having invaded a country that was not threatening us in any way, 90 percent of the population in most of the Arab and Islamic countries hates the United States. So we now have a much higher hurdle to mount to win the war on terrorism.
WOODRUFF: So are you saying that even if -- and I gather you've said in the last day or two you think Osama bin Laden will be killed or captured, and Mr. al-Zawahiri, his number two. Are you saying that, even if they are killed or captured, that this al Qaeda has grown...
CLARKE: It will go on. If we catch him this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late, because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq and were not going after him -- many of the forces are going after him now were actually the forces in Iraq going after Saddam Hussein, the same special forces group.
If we catch him now, that's a good thing. But al Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently. And so, we're going to face this threat for a long time.
And the fact that we are in Iraq, went into Iraq, has made it so much more difficult for us for a number of reasons. One, as I said, it inflamed Islamic opinion, drove recruitment for al Qaeda. Two, it diverted resources from the hunt for bin Laden at a time when we needed to do that. And three, it diverted resources from reducing our vulnerabilities here at home, like protecting our subways and trains and chemical plants. $180 billion going in Iraq, we didn't need to spend a penny of that in Iraq.
WOODRUFF: So you're putting all the blame for this on President Bush?
CLARKE: No, no, not at all. The blame for this goes back to President Reagan and President Bush the first and President Clinton.
You know, President Reagan allowed 276 United States Marines to be killed in Beirut, and he did not retaliate against the terrorists.
President Bush, George W. Bush, allowed Libya to blow up Pan Am 103 and kill 259...
WOODRUFF: George H.W., the father?
CLARKE: Right -- 259 Americans killed by terrorists on Pan Am 103. No military retaliation.
You know, I think the terrorists began thinking they could push the United States around a long time ago when there were major terrorist attacks like that and there was no military retaliation.
WOODRUFF: And yet you've said in an interview this week on CNN with Larry King that you think when it comes to national security, this president's father, President George H.W. Bush, was the best president you ever served with.
Compare the two presidents, their approaches, their styles.
CLARKE: Well, the first President Bush was a national security professional. He had been head of the CIA. He had been ambassador to the U.N. He had been ambassador to China. He knew people all over the world. He traveled all over the world. He knew how the national security system worked. He had had that experience.
And President Clinton did not. President Clinton had no national security experience. He learned on the job. And I think he did some things well and other things not well.
WOODRUFF: But what about father and son?
CLARKE: Well, they're vastly different, vastly different. This President Bush began to learn about foreign policy from a team of advisers that called themselves the vulcans a year before he was elected. The vulcans are Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice and people who populate his administration. And he really has learned about national security from them. He still gets all of his national security information, policy advice from them.
I don't think he himself reaches out and reads a lot about foreign policy. We were told early in the administration he's not a big reader.
I think he has a set of core values, but I don't think he has -- well, he himself says he doesn't do nuance. And a lot of this requires you to do nuance.
WOODRUFF: Let's look forward, Richard Clarke. You probably -- you understand the thinking of al Qaeda as well as probably anyone on our side, if you will, on the U.S. side. Put yourself in their shoes right now. What do you think they would like to accomplish right now?
CLARKE: Well, I know what their long-term goals are and what their mid-term goals are.
Long-term, they want an Islamic world. Mid-term, they want to overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia, the government of Pakistan, and put in place in Egypt and these other countries in the region that are on the edge, put in place an al Qaeda-style government, a Taliban style of government.
Now, near-term, how do they get there from here, now that they're broken up into 60 or 70 cells around the world? I'm not sure I know what their strategy is, but it's clear it continues to involve attacking Western interests like the Madrid attack.
WOODRUFF: Which came just before an election. I mean, are we -- should the United States be on alert for them to do something here just before the election?
CLARKE: Well, the FBI director said this week that we should be. And I no longer read classified information. Bob Mueller still does. If Bob Mueller says we should be on alert before the election, then I think I would have to agree.
WOODRUFF: What about in terms of, you know, people think, well, the most spectacular, the most -- the thing that would get the most attention would be an attack on Washington or New York. Are they so sophisticated to think maybe attacking the middle of America somewhere would... CLARKE: They're always going to go after the high-visibility targets, the symbolic targets. They could be attacking things around the country now, but I think they want to attack in a spectacular way and at an opportune time.
So, I think we do have to worry about New York and Washington, but the good news is, our security is highest in New York and Washington.
WOODRUFF: And so how vulnerable are these cities? How vulnerable are the ports, the railroads? I mean, these are all pieces of the network that...
CLARKE: Well, they're very vulnerable.
WOODRUFF: ... homeland security.
CLARKE: They're very vulnerable. And the Department of Homeland Security is now beginning to start small programs in these areas.
But we should have, right after 9/11, spent billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars, reducing vulnerabilities of chemical plants, the ports, the containers that come into our country, the subways, the railroads. And we haven't done that, in part because we're spending $180 billion in Iraq.
WOODRUFF: And that, you're saying, is the fault of President Bush. So...
CLARKE: Well, it's the fault of President Bush and the Congress. The Congress voted for it, as well.
WOODRUFF: But that is a very heavy charge to lay at the feet of one man and, you say, Congress, but...
CLARKE: I think the president wanted to fight the war on terrorism as hard as he could. I just think, in my professional opinion, he made a mistake about how to fight the war on terrorism. And I think what he did, in fighting Iraq and thinking that that was part of the war on terrorism, was a mistake.
Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. And it's made the war on terrorism that much harder. I think he made a strategic mistake, not because he didn't want to fight the war on terrorism, but because he got bad advice and decided to do it in the wrong way, in a counterproductive way.
WOODRUFF: We're going to leave it there. Richard Clarke, former adviser to four presidents on counterterrorism. His book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror." Thank you very much for coming by.
CLARKE: Thank you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: We appreciate it.
CLARKE: Thank you.
WOODRUFF: Thank you.
And coming up next, a check of the hour's top stories, including the latest on this weekend's deadly attack in Iraq.
And then, countering Richard Clarke, I'll talk with former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle.
More "LATE EDITION," straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLARKE: I knew before I wrote this book that the White House would let loose the dogs to attack me, and that's what they're doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, earlier this week, defending his assertions about the Bush administration and terrorism.
We are joined now by Richard Perle. He served as an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, and he is the co-author of the new book, "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror."
Richard Perle, good to see you. Thank you very much.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
