[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 24, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3055-S3057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERRORISTS
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this morning I heard the minority leader
talking about a couple of books that have been written, one by Mr.
O'Neill and one by Mr. Clarke. It appears there is an effort in the
Senate to use the September 11 Commission and its work as an effort to
point fingers, to say--in this instance, by the minority leader--
somehow President Bush and his administration were responsible for the
September 11 attack.
I took a post on the Senate Intelligence Committee this past year
because I believe the most important thing we can do to safeguard the
United States and our citizens from further terrorist attacks is to
figure out how to improve the intelligence-gathering system. There is
no question there were flaws, there were holes in the intelligence
system, that we did not get as good intelligence as we should have.
Some of those were legislatively mandated. We had walls between the
CIA and the FBI that prevented them from sharing information. We took
those down in the PATRIOT Act. We had problems with inadequate funding
for intelligence, particularly human intelligence. We found a lot of
areas with sophisticated electronic surveillance and aerial
surveillance. While they could tell us the movements on the ground and
pick up conversations, they were not good at knowing what was going on.
We did not have the sources we needed inside of the countries and even
inside of the terrorist organizations themselves to find out what
should be done.
I hope the focus of this body when we talk about intelligence is not
on what political advantage we can gain. I have seen some of Senator
Kerry's political advisers say we are going to carry the battle for the
White House to the floor of the Senate. When we start talking about
intelligence and trying to bring that in as part of the political
campaign, we are not serving the needs of this country and its
intelligence service well.
There is much we need to do and there are lots of votes in Congress
we ought to debate. The joint inquiry into September 11 has identified
a number of systemic problems which contributed to the intelligence
community's failure to prevent the September 11 attacks. There was a
lack of comprehensive counterterrorist strategy, a lack of information
sharing among intelligence agencies, and even a lack of military
response to al-Qaida and others.
There have been problems for a number of years, predating the Bush
administration, I might add. When Mr. Clarke points to the Bush
administration in his book and claims there were all kinds of failures
and faults on behalf of the Bush administration, those people who look
at his previous statements, read his testimony, and listen to the other
testimony, tend to believe there was a lot of fiction going into the
writing he put into that book. He has made unfounded statements that
are contradicted in a number of other places where he has made
comments.
The article that appeared in the New Yorker on March 24, by Jane
Mayer, in
[[Page S3056]]
an interview at Mr. Clarke's home in Arlington, VA, July 28, 2003:
Richard Clarke, the country's first counterterrorism czar
told me--the writer, in an interview at his home in
Arlington, Virginia--that he wasn't particularly surprised
that the Bush Administration's efforts to find Osama bin
Laden had been stymied by political problems. He has seen
such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public
service in February . . . served every President since Ronald
Reagan. . . . Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director,
George Tenet, President Bush and, before him, President
Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden.
Nonetheless, Clarke said their best efforts were doomed by
bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with
Pakistan.
Those efforts were clear if you listen to some of the testimony. I
will try to refer only to the testimony that is being made in public
before the joint terrorism, joint September 11 inquiry. There were
grave concerns raised. There were concerns raised about whether it was
appropriate for the United States, as has been suggested by some,
perhaps in 2001, to launch an attack on Afghanistan. Given the
reluctance some seem to have about launching an attack on Iraq, to
think we could muster votes or muster international support for
launching an attack on Afghanistan to disband the Taliban is a stretch
beyond reason.
Furthermore, we know by June of 2001, 16 of the 19 terrorists who
carried out the tragic airplane bombings on September 11 were already
in the United States. Even had we been able to take out bin Laden,
which is no easy task, we would not have stopped the terrorist cells
already in the United States planning the attacks.
There is a very good article in today's Washington Times by Jack
Kelly, national security writer for the Pittsburgh, PA Post-Gazette, a
former marine, Green Beret, and deputy assistant secretary for the Air
Force in the Reagan administration. He notes Mr. Clarke's charge that
worries about al-Qaida took a back seat to concerns about Iraq and
ballistic missile defense have been effectively countered by Dr.
Condoleezza Rice, security adviser. He notes the very first foreign
policy strategy adopted by the Bush administration in early September
prior to the attack was a plan to compel the Taliban in Afghanistan to
stop providing sanctuary to al-Qaida, but that was a program that would
take a long time to carry out.
Mr. Kelly goes on to say:
The thrust of Mr. Clarke's complaint is that Mr. Bush
failed to do in eight months what President Clinton failed to
do in eight years. But all he has to offer is a continuation
of the ``law enforcement'' approach to terrorism that failed
to deter the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993; the
bombing of the Khobar Tower barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996;
the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in
1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
He goes on to say, it is no wonder that Mr. Bush wanted a new
approach, a different approach. As President Bush told Dr. Rice, it was
time to stop swatting flies and to go after al-Qaida and its support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article from Cal
Thomas and Jack Kelly be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BOND. There are those who say the President was totally focused
on Iraq and he was unaware of the dangers of al-Qaida. Well, that is
just totally false. Was he focused on a regime change in Iraq? Did Mr.
O'Neill say he was focused on a regime change in Iraq? Perhaps. If so,
it was because this Congress in 1998 passed a very strong resolution
warning about the dangers of Iraq and saying its weapons of mass
destruction--which had not been accounted for, and particularly after
the U.N. had been moved out--posed a great danger and that we should
pursue a policy of regime change.
This was stated. This was the policy of the Clinton administration,
clearly stated by President Clinton; Secretary Albright; Secretary
Cohen; his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger. Well, when you go
beyond that, it is not unusual the new administration would have that
as a top concern. But to say they did not have a plan, they were not
concerned about al-Qaida, has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
I think you are going to find out as you look at the testimony before
the Joint Commission--and I hope we will have a report that will be
declassified coming out of the Intelligence Committee which will also
deal with these and other questions, not, as I emphasized before, in an
effort to point fingers, but as an effort to find out what we need to
do to get the kind of intelligence system we need.
If one is interested in pointing fingers and reading books, the
minority leader has talked about Mr. O'Neill's book, talked about Mr.
Clarke's book. I would urge my colleagues to also read a book written
by Richard Miniter called ``Losing bin Laden.'' Mr. Miniter, in that
book, talks a great deal about Mr. Clarke's role and the frustrations
apparently Mr. Clarke and others had because the Clinton administration
was either unwilling or did not have the will to take strong action to
deal with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Now, I do not think that is a necessary basis for our actions in this
body. I do not think that is a constructive matter for us to be totally
consumed in debating. Certainly, we did not have the intelligence we
needed, and there were extenuating circumstances why the Clinton
administration did not take action, did not accept the offer of Sudan,
did not move against suspected locations of al-Qaida. Those can be
debated by historians.
But for some people to come to the floor and say after 9/11 President
Bush was focused solely on Iraq is absolute nonsense. When you listen
to the testimony, it is clear when the attack occurred, the questions
were raised. Everybody thought it was probably al-Qaida. They asked
questions. Was it Hamas? Was it Hezbollah? Was it Iraq? Within a day or
so, the conclusion the intelligence community came to was it was, in
fact, al-Qaida. So when the President and his staff retired for the
planning conference, they had one map on the wall. It was a map of
Afghanistan. It was a map of the Taliban-controlled country of
Afghanistan, which was harboring the terrorist Osama bin Laden and his
al-Qaida.
They developed a plan. They formulated the plan, and they attacked.
They attacked and they disbanded the Taliban forces, and they drove
Osama bin Laden away from his training camps. We are still pursuing
him.
I think you will hear in testimony, if people are asked, that all of
the available resources have been focused on capturing Osama bin Laden.
It think it is clear when you look at the mountainous regions between
Afghanistan and Pakistan, this is not an easy area to track someone
down, particularly when that person has the support of a terrorist
organization in a very hostile country.
We note that it took 5 years to find the bomber of the Atlanta
Olympics in North Carolina. That should have been friendly territory.
But now the good news is, the Pakistanis are working with us, and we
are continuing the effort to capture al-Qaida and al-Zawahiri, who is
the mastermind behind it. We have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We
are slowly but surely taking down the leadership of al-Qaida, as we
have taken down the leadership of Saddam Hussein's regime.
I think it is clear when you look at what Dr. Rice has done--and I do
not need to apologize for Dr. Rice. I think if you listen to her
testimony, read the comments she has written, you will see she, through
her work, has earned the high reputation and distinction she has
received as a valued National Security Adviser.
As a matter of fact, Dr. Rice requested in January of 2001 that Mr.
Clarke present her with ideas to address the al-Qaida threat. The
administration acted on the ideas it made since: weaponization of the
Predator; increased funding to Uzbekistan, a front-line state opposed
to al-Qaida. Yet to say we did not go forward with an attack on
Afghanistan at the time was clear because there was not the sufficient
foundation readily developed by that time.
The President has never ignored al-Qaida. But the President and the
administration were legitimately concerned about the threat posed by
Iraq, which we know Iraq had sponsored terrorism, attacked its
neighbors, used chemical weapons, violated 16 U.N. Security Council
resolutions, kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, circumvented
[[Page S3057]]
sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal
activities, and continued to try to shoot down over 1,000 times United
States and United Kingdom aircraft that were patrolling the no-fly
zone.
Based on all that information and the intelligence provided to those
of us in Congress, 78 Senators--and I was one of them--voted to use
force for a regime change in 1998.
When senior advisers and the President met at Camp David on September
15, 2001, the Director of Central Intelligence said there was no
evidence Iraq was responsible. That is when the President focused, in
that time, on al-Qaida.
There is so much to be done to improve our intelligence. I would hope
we could leave our political battles for the campaign trail. I have
lots to say about some of the votes of our colleague who is running for
President. That is not going to help us with this battle on terrorism.
We need to use the 9/11 Commission and the work of the Intelligence
Committee to develop a sound policy for combating terrorism with good
intelligence.
I yield the floor.
exhibit 1
[From the Washington Times, Mar. 24, 2004]
The Blame Game . . . With Misfires
(By Cal Thomas)
At least two things should raise suspicions about the
motive of Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism adviser to
four presidents, whose name, face and book were all over the
newspapers last weekend and on ``60 Minutes'' Sunday night.
One is that Mr. Clarke's book, in which he accuses the Bush
administration of not heeding ``warnings'' from the Clinton
administration about possible terrorist attacks by al Qaeda,
was available only to journalists and not to those in the
administration on the receiving end of Mr. Clarke's
criticism. So says an administration spokesman with whom I
spoke.
The other red flag that should make us cautious about Mr.
Clarke's assertions is that his former deputy, Rand Beers, is
now an adviser to the presidential campaign of John F. Kerry.
Part of Mr. Kerry's campaign strategy is to persuade the
public President Bush has failed to effectively fight the war
on terror.
Mr. Clarke is right about one thing. He admits ``there's a
lot of blame to go around [for September 11, 2001], and I
probably deserve some blame, too.'' Yes, he does, and he can
begin with the first World Trade Center bombing and continue
with the bombing of the USS Cole and the attack on the
American Embassy in Tanzania, all of which occurred on the
watch of President Bill Clinton, whom Mr. Clarke was
advising.
Was Mr. Clinton not listening to Mr. Clarke's advice? Did
Mr. Clinton ``do a terrible job on the war against
terrorism,'' the charge he levels against President Bush, who
was in office less than nine months prior to September 11,
2001?
Responding to Mr. Clarke's allegations, senior
administration official told me Mr. Clarke is engaged in a
``flagrant effort to avoid responsibility for his own
failures.''
He added, ``The Clinton administration never gave the Bush
administration a plan that included the possibility of
hijacked airplanes used as missiles to be flown into
buildings. Most of their advice was general in nature.'' Even
if it had specifically warned the Bush people, he said, it
probably would not have prevented September 11, which was
well on its way to execution by the time the Bush
administration took office.
The official confirmed press reports that al Qaeda suspects
at Guantanamo Bay are providing ``good stuff that's
reliable'' and are helping locate wanted suspects still in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Does he think there is a possibility Osama bin Laden will
be captured or killed this year? ``There are a lot of
military and CIA people who are surprisingly optimistic he
will be found this year,'' he said. Even so, he noted,
capturing or killing Osama, while gratifying will be mostly
``symbolic,'' because others among ``the death worshippers''
will take his place.
The senior official thinks press reports of nuclear
suitcase bombs are exaggerated but he cannot rule out the
possibility.
Where was Mr. Clarke while all these threats were
developing? He was the chief adviser to President Clinton on
terror. The Clinton administration approached terror as a law
enforcement problem, not a national threat, which is
precisely the strategy Democratic presidential candidate John
F. Kerry would pursue were he to become president. At least
that is the strategy he says he will employ today. Who knows
what he'll propose tomorrow or next week?
The ineffective response to terrorism by the Clinton
administration encouraged the terrorists to go for broke with
such high-profile targets as the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon and the Capitol or White House. We know it was only
because of the bravery of passengers on the fourth plane,
which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, that the horror
was not greater.
If Mr. Clarke wants to cast blame for September 11, he
should look in a mirror. It was he, not the Bush
administration, who controlled the power, strategy and
direction of U.S. policy toward terrorism for the last
decade. That we were hit hard on September 11, 2001, was not
the fault of George W. Bush, but William Jefferson Clinton
and his chief adviser on terrorism, Richard Clarke.
____
(By Jack Kelly)
If the Clinton administration had a plan to capture or kill
Osama bin Laden and to dismantle the al Qaeda terrorist
network, as his former counterterrorism chief claims, how
come the Clinton administration didn't implement it?
Lesley Stahl of CBS did not ask this question of Richard
Clarke in her fawning interview on ``60 Minutes,'' but
somebody should.
Mr. Clarke claimed in the ``60 Minutes'' interview and in
his just-published book, ``Against All Enemies,'' that Bush
administration officials weren't much concerned about
international terrorism until the September 11, 2001,
attacks.
``I find it outrageous that the president is running for
re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things
about terrorism,'' Mr. Clarke told Miss Stahl. ``He ignored
terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something
to stop September 11.''
Mr. Clarke and other Democrats want to blame Mr. Bush for
his predecessor's failings, but it won't wash. The Bush
national security team did listen to the recommendations of
Mr. Clarke and other Clinton holdovers, but found them
wanting, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in
The Washington Post Mar. 22. ``We judged that the collection
of ideas presented to us were insufficient for the strategy
President Bush sought,'' Miss Rice said. ``The president
wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile
strikes. He told me he was `tired of swatting flies.' ''
Mr. Clarke's charge that worries about al Qaeda took a back
seat to concerns about Iraq and ballistic missile defense is
false, Miss Rice said. The first foreign policy strategy
document adopted by the administration was a plan to compel
the Taliban in Afghanistan to stop providing sanctuary to al
Qaeda, or to oust the regime if it failed to comply, she
said.
The thrust of Mr. Clarke's complaint is that Mr. Bush
failed to do in eight months what President Clinton failed to
do in eight years. But all he has to offer is a continuation
of the ``law enforcement'' approach to terrorism that failed
to deter the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993; the
bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in
1996; the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
No wonder Mr. Bush wanted a different approach. But a new
strategy takes time to devise and put into effect. The speed
with which Mr. Bush acted against the Taliban after September
11 indicates considerable planning had been done in the
preceding months.
The September 11 plot had been hatched well before Mr. Bush
became president. Most of the conspirators were in this
country before he took the oath of office. It would be unfair
to blame Mr. Clinton for the parlous state of intelligence
and counterintelligence in the CIA and FBI at the time. But
it is fair to note he did nothing to improve the situation
during his two terms of office.
President Bush has.
Though there is no evidence Mr. Bush lacked concern about
al Qaeda, there is considerable evidence Mr. Clinton didn't
worry about the terror group as much as hindsight suggests he
should have. Britain's Sunday Times reported Jan. 6, 2002,
that Mr. Clinton turned down at least three offers from
foreign governments to help seize Osama bin Laden.
``The main reasons were legal,'' the Sunday Times said.
``There was no evidence that could be brought against bin
Laden in an American court.'' Mr. Clinton's legalistic
approach to terror may explain why his administration also
passed up an opportunity to kill bin Laden in the fall of
2000.
NBC news obtained a surveillance videoshot by a Predator
drone of bin Laden at the Tarnak Farms training camp in
Afghanistan. An air strike could have taken him out. But Gary
Schroen, former CIA station chief in Pakistan, told NBC's
Lisa Meyers the White House instructed the CIA to try to
capture bin Laden alive, not kill him.
Can terrorism be defeated with subpoenas, dialogue and
nuance, or are bombs and bullets required? The key issue in
this election is whether we will continue waging war on
terror, as Mr. Bush plans, or retreat to the failed
legalistic approach of the Clinton years, as advocated by Mr.
Clarke and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________