Search

How does a civil servant who has launched a major attack on the Bush presidency protect himself from what he has unleashed? Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser to Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush--who saw al-Qaeda expand under his watch, attack U.S. interests abroad and produce the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history--knew he couldn't pin the blame on his bosses if he didn't start by apologizing himself. Clarke, who quit his job at the National Security Council a year ago, would not have survived Washington's brutal ways in the service of three Presidents if he had not been a good politician. And last week he needed all the political skills he could muster for what he was about to do--direct a missile at the very fortress that so far has protected Bush's presidential advantage in this campaign season: the perception that, for all his faults, Bush has done everything he could to keep the country safe and managed the war on terrorism well. With all the dust flying around Clarke last week, the question ofwhether Washington appropriately handled the terrorist threat tended to get lost. That question is of course the one of greatest interest to the public in the wake of 9/11. In his strongest public statement, to 60 Minutes, Clarke said Bush "ignored" the terrorist threat before 9/11. To the commission he testified, more soberly, that, for the Administration, it was an "important issue but not an urgent issue." the end, the drama produced by Clarke in Washington was not about the last terrorist attack against the U.S. but about the next one. Since it began its work in early 2003, the commission has uncovered huge failings in the national-security system, including how even a presidential order can be misunderstood down the chain of command. But these dangers got lost in a high-stakes political showdown. Unless Washington can focus on them, someone may risk having to ask forgiveness again.

Argues that, contrary to the recent claims of former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, the administration of U.S. president George W. Bush has legitimate excuses for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the war against Iraq will help stem future terrorist activities. Details of Clarke's criticisms of the Bush administration; Claim that the Bush administration had developed a counterterrorism strategy prior to September 11; Argument that neither Bush nor Bill Clinton would have been allowed to take military action against Afghanistan or Iraq prior to September 11; Discussion of whether the attacks could have been predicted; Argument that Bush's decision to take pre-emptive action against Iraq was a key step in the effort to stop weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists; Report that CIA director George Tenet has claimed that the U.S. has taken out as much as two thirds of Al Qaeda leadership.

Discusses former anti-terrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke's case against the Bush administration concerning the global war on terror. Highlights from interviews on "60 Minutes"; Failure of the U.S. to mobilize against terror before September 11th; Concern of Clarke about the focus placed on Iraq instead of al-Qaeda; Comments on weapons of mass destruction; Suggestion by Clarke that the U.S. enterprise in Iraq is equivalent to indifference to the greater threat of al-Qaeda.