[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 49 (Thursday, April 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3962-S3963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       RICHARD CLARKE ALLEGATIONS

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say a few words regarding some 
of the accusations we have seen in recent times coming out of the 9/11 
hearing and the Richard Clarke allegations in his book. I think it is 
important, through all the clutter, for the American people to 
understand one point, if they understand anything, about all the debate 
and the politics and the political rhetoric and posturing that is going 
on surrounding this issue. That is a question that was asked during the 
course of the Commission hearing by Commissioner Gorton.
  I think it is absolutely critical for the American people to 
understand both this question and this answer by Mr. Clarke. The 
question is from Commissioner Gorton of the 9/11 Commission, inquiring 
into the causes and circumstances giving rise to 9/11:

       . . . Assuming that the recommendations that you made on 
     January 25th of 2001 . . . which had been an agenda item at 
     this point for 2\1/2\ years without any action . . . assuming 
     that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, [when 
     President Bush came to office] year 2001, is there the 
     remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

  Mr. Clarke answered, ``No.''
  I believe the American people need to understand that Mr. Clarke is 
not assigning blame to President Bush or his administration for what 
happened on 9/11, nor could he. As a matter of fact, we had seen, 
during the preceding years of the Clinton administration when Mr. 
Clarke held the role of counterterrorism chief, a number of attacks 
against the United States of America and against our soil.
  In 1993, Osama bin Laden directed al-Qaida's first successful 
terrorist attack on U.S. soil, blowing up a car bomb in the basement 
garage of the World Trade Center in New York City killing 6 and 
wounding 1,000. In 1996, there was another attack on the U.S. Air 
Force's Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia killing 19 Americans and 
wounding 515 Americans and Saudis. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania were attacked by al-Qaida suicide bombers who killed 234 
people and wounded more than 5,000. In 2000, al-Qaida attacked the USS 
Cole killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39.
  So it is clear that during the preceding 8 years that Osama bin Laden 
had been terrorizing America and taking American lives in the process.
  It is simply unfair for Mr. Clarke, or anyone else for that matter, 
to suggest that during the 8 months President Bush was in office that 
he should have or could have somehow done anything more than was done 
to try to prevent the events of 9/11. And, indeed, Mr. Clarke in a 
flash of candor through all of the attempts he has made to try to 
promote his new book--and, by the way, he has been very successful; I 
see on Amazon.Com his book is the No. 1 or No. 2 most ordered book. He 
has been very successful in promoting his book--but in a flash of 
amazing candor, we see that he now admits there is nothing the Bush 
administration could have done in 8 months that the Clinton 
administration had not done in 8 years to prevent the tragic events of 
9/11.
  Some in Washington, DC, I guess we have all come to learn, are world-
class second guessers. Now armed with the benefit of hindsight, there 
are those who want to pick through the rubble, through e-mails, and 
through memos to try to assign blame.
  But we ought to be clear about this: The blame for what happened on 
9/11 lies squarely with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida--not on the 
American people, not on President Clinton and his administration, and 
not on the President or his administration. These are good, patriotic 
Americans who I am confident were doing everything they knew of that 
they could possibly do to prevent the terrible tragedy this Nation 
suffered on 9/11.
  It is insulting that anyone would suggest this administration or the 
previous administration, now with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, might 
have done something to stop this unfathomable horror.
  It is important to place responsibility where it lies; and that is 
with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
  We also find ourselves in a strange new dimension where on the one 
hand President Bush is criticized for acting too decisively to take out 
al-Qaida, to take down the Taliban government in Afghanistan and then 
remove a bloodthirsty tyrant in Saddam Hussein, and now, on the other 
hand, these same critics want to complain that he should have done 
more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I was told that the Senator from Texas 
didn't understand what I said. What I said earlier was that Senator 
Daschle wanted to speak and that is why I objected. I ask unanimous 
consent that the time on both sides be extended for an additional 10 
minutes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  We ought to be very clear about where the blame lies for the events 
of September 11.
  But I point out one thing: President Bush has acted as decisively as 
any leader could have possibly acted in removing the Taliban from 
Afghanistan, by disrupting the training camps of al-Qaida in that 
country and then acting decisively against Saddam Hussein. The United 
Nations issued 14 different resolutions threatening him with the use of 
force if he did not comply with those resolutions, which he had never 
complied with during the entire course of the post-gulf-war period from 
1991.
  I think most Americans would be a little surprised to learn we never 
had a peace treaty after 1991, because Saddam Hussein continued to defy 
the

[[Page S3963]]

United Nations and the free world by his continued acts of avoiding 
United Nations inspections. He played a game of cat and mouse. Just 
when he thought we were developing the courage--the United Nations and 
others--to take him to task, he would relent temporarily only to kick 
the inspectors out and continue to defy the United Nations inspections.
  My final point is there are some, including the Senator from 
Massachusetts, who have called the war in Iraq ``another Vietnam.'' The 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, I think did as good a job as possibly 
could have been done--certainly a person who has enormous credibility 
on that issue, having served so ably in Vietnam and, unfortunately, 
having been a prisoner of war there for a time--I think he did a very 
good job of refuting that and really showing the truth about that sort 
of scurrilous accusation. It is the kind of speech I worry has the 
possibility of a tremendously negative effect on our war on terror.
  Our enemies should not be confused about our commitment to follow 
through, win the war on terror and crush our enemies in the process.
  I grew up during the course of the Vietnam war. I remember what it 
was like in this country when our men and women in the field returned 
to this country only to find the American people did not support them 
as they should have and where America lost its resolve and strength of 
will. We should never let that happen again. It was a terrible American 
tragedy. For anyone to suggest that America is going to suffer loss of 
will or resolve in winning this war on terror is simply wrong.
  I think we should not be fooled into thinking when Senators or any 
government official or anyone stands up and equates what is happening 
in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan and what is happening 
generally in the war on terror with Vietnam--they are providing fodder 
for our enemies. They are encouraging our enemies to think that perhaps 
we will lose our resolve and give rise to, I think, increased attacks 
against our troops on the ground and undermining our war effort 
generally.
  I certainly don't suppose anyone is doing that intentionally. But I 
think we need to be careful about the words we use.
  I know a short time remains in our morning business. I see the 
distinguished majority whip on the floor.
  I would say in closing that words are important. Words have meaning. 
The words that are said today won't be remembered just in the context 
of election year and partisan politics; they will stand in history for 
future generations to read and study with a critical eye. In the end, 
we must focus on the battle with our common foe and not on each other.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________