[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 39 (Thursday, March 25, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3122-S3123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             RICHARD CLARKE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber this morning to 
talk about Richard Clarke's testimony yesterday.
  We all now know who Richard Clarke is. He has sort of burst on the 
national scene with his effort to defeat President Bush. Richard Clarke 
was the man in charge of counterterrorism under the previous 
administration for 8 years. During those 8 years, we had three 
terrorist attacks against America: In 1993, the first attack against 
the World Trade Center in New York; against the U.S. Embassies in 
Africa in 1998; and against the USS Cole in 2000.
  The most aggressive action, apparently, Mr. Clarke was able to 
convince his superiors to take during those years was to launch a few 
cruise missiles at a single terrorist camp in Afghanistan and take out 
a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan--not a really robust response to 
multiple terrorist acts against American interests both in the United 
States and overseas.
  Now Mr. Clarke has the gall to come forward and suggest that 
President

[[Page S3123]]

Bush was not particularly interested in the war on terrorism or in 
going after al-Qaida. But interestingly enough, back in an August 2002 
interview with the news media, Mr. Clarke himself said the Bush 
administration, in the spring of 2001, sought to increase CIA resources 
for covert action fivefold to go after al-Qaida. Back in 2002, he was 
singing an entirely different tune than he was portraying either in his 
testimony yesterday before the 9/11 Commission or in his new book, 
which I am sure he hopes will be a best seller and help defeat 
President Bush.
  But before he had some epiphany and went in a different direction, in 
August 2002, he said the Bush administration plan was actually more 
aggressive than Clinton's, and that the Bush administration changed the 
strategy from one of rollback by al-Qaida over the course of 5 years, 
which it had been under the Clinton years, to a new strategy that 
called for the rapid elimination of the al-Qaida terrorist network.
  That is what Mr. Clarke was saying in August of 2002--quite different 
from what he said yesterday before the 9/11 Commission or in his new 
book.
  Also in this August 2002 interview, Clarke noted the Bush 
administration, in mid-January of 2001--before the 9/11 attack--decided 
to do two things to respond to the threat of terrorism: ``One, to 
vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all the lethal covert 
action finds which we have now made public, to some extent; the second 
thing the administration decided to do was to initiate a process to 
look at these issues which had been on the table for a couple of years 
and get them decided.''
  In other words, what Clarke was saying in 2002 to members of the 
press was that the Bush administration's response to the war on terror 
was much more aggressive than it was under the Clinton years.
  Now he is singing an entirely different tune. This is a man who lacks 
credibility. He may be an intelligent man, he may be a dedicated public 
servant, but clearly he has a grudge of some sort against the Bush 
administration. If he was unable to develop a more robust response 
during the Clinton years, he would only be able to blame himself. He 
was in charge of counterterrorism during those 8 years. How could the 
Bush administration be to blame in 8 months for the previous 
administration's failure over 8 years to truly declare war on al-Qaida?
  Let me be clear, I do not believe the Clinton administration is 
responsible for September 11. Rather, I believe Osama bin Laden and his 
al-Qaida terrorist network are responsible. I also believe there exist 
other terrorists organizations that share al-Qaida's goal of murdering 
innocent civilians who oppose their violent and extremist ideology. 
These terrorists don't hate us because of our policies. They hate us 
because of who we are. And if we don't work together to bring the fight 
to the terrorists, they will almost certainly bring it to us.
  Bringing the fight to the terrorists is, of course, exactly what 
President Bush has been doing.
  Instead of partisan finger-pointing, we should instead be working to 
bolster our intelligence infrastructure, continue our aggressive 
efforts to monitor, apprehend and bring to justice terrorists around 
the world, and improve our ability to defend America and its ideals 
from attack.
  Although work remains to be done, I believe the Bush administration 
has made truly admirable progress in the war on terrorism. Who could 
argue with a straight face that America is not safer today than it was 
on September 10, 2001? The Taliban is gone. Saddam Hussein is gone.
  We have destroyed all--not just one--all of al-Qaida's training camps 
in Afghanistan. All of them are gone from that country.
  We have apprehended or killed two-thirds of al-Qaida's leaders.
  We have launched international efforts to make it difficult for 
terrorists to raise or transfer their funds to fund their deadly 
activities.
  We have worked with allies across the world to break up al-Qaida 
cells and other terrorist networks.
  We passed the PATRIOT Act, which provides U.S. law enforcement better 
capabilities to monitor, apprehend, and bring to justice terrorists 
plotting in the United States.
  We have won new allies in Pakistan and Uzbekistan. And by engaging 
these countries we have scored further victories against terrorists.
  As I said earlier, there has been the end of the regime of Saddam 
Hussein who provided direct material support to Palestinian terrorists 
and who offered safe haven to other Islamic terrorists.
  We have rounded up and continue to kill foreign terrorists in Iraq. 
These terrorists would rather be blowing up buses in midtown Manhattan. 
Believe me, that is where the terrorists would rather be on the attack. 
Instead they are in Iraq. That is where the war on terror is going on, 
right in Iraq.
  While we mourn the loss of every American soldier and innocent Iraqi 
citizen, we are glad we are dealing with al-Qaida over in the Middle 
East and not on American soil.
  Finally, I think it is important to remember what is happening in 
Libya. Prime Minister Blair is meeting with the Libyan leader today. He 
has been somewhat born again. He is now denouncing terrorism. His 
weapons of mass destruction are now being eliminated.
  It is noteworthy that Qadhafi seemed to have gotten religion in March 
2003, the same month we launched the invasion of Iraq, and seemed to 
have fully converted shortly after Saddam Hussein was found hiding in a 
hole. Clearly, our Iraq policy is helping reduce or eliminate rogue 
regimes with weapons of mass destruction.
  Let me conclude by saying by any objective standard, the war on 
terrorism is going well. I think Mr. Clarke's efforts to convince the 
American public somehow President Bush was inattentive to the war on 
terror or obsessed with Iraq are simply foolish and erroneous and will 
not be believed by the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Hawaii.

                          ____________________