About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Blitzer failed to challenge Townsend's claims about Bush administration's pre-9-11 terror record

September 26, 2006 2:55 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: CNN's Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend's claims that "there's no question that terrorism was a priority" in the Bush administration before 9-11 and that the Bush administration was unaware of the "comprehensive strategy to proceed with the war on terror" former President Clinton said he left with the incoming administration, despite the fact that the 9-11 Commission offered claims to the contrary.

26 Comments

Appearing on the September 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser to President Bush, claimed that "there's no question that terrorism was a priority" in the Bush administration before 9-11, and that "[t]here had been multiple meetings" to that effect. Townsend also claimed that no one in the Bush administration was familiar with a "comprehensive strategy to proceed with the war on terror," which former President Clinton said he left with the incoming administration. Blitzer failed to challenge Townsend on either of these statements, even though the 9-11 Commission found to the contrary.

For example, regarding Townsend's claim that "[t]here had been multiple meetings" dealing with terrorism, the 9-11 Commission Report found that Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar under Clinton and Bush urgently called for a meeting of the National Security Council's principals committee -- a committee from which Clarke was removed upon his demotion by the Bush administration -- to discuss the Al Qaeda threat. That meeting, however, was deferred for eight months, though the principals had met to discuss other issues during that time. According to the report:

He [Clarke] wanted the Principals Committee to decide whether al Qaeda was "a first order threat" or a more modest worry being overblown by "chicken little" alarmists. Alluding to the transition briefing that he had prepared for Rice, Clarke wrote that al Qaeda "is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy." Two key decisions that had been deferred, he noted, concerned covert aid to keep the Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring, and covert aid to the Uzbeks. Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on "when and how . . . to respond to the attack on the USS Cole."

The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the Persian Gulf). But Rice and Hadley began to address the issues Clarke had listed. What to do or say about the Cole had been an obvious question since inauguration day. When the attack occurred, 25 days before the election, candidate Bush had said to CNN, "I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action. There must be a consequence." Since the Clinton administration had not responded militarily, what was the Bush administration to do?

Clarke went into more detail in his book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, 2004):

Within a week of the Inauguration I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking "urgently" for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent al Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been "framed" by the Deputies. I assumed this meant an opportunity for the Deputies to review the agenda. Instead, it meant months of delay. The initial Deputies meeting to review terrorism policy could not be scheduled in February. Nor could it occur in March. Finally in April, the Deputies Committee met on terrorism for the first time. The first meeting, in the small wood-paneled Situation Room conference room, did not go well. [pp. 230-231]

[...]

The delay in the Deputies Committee continued in the spring of 2001, in part because of Hadley's methodical, lawerly style. It was his idea to slowly build a consensus that action was required, "to educate the Deputies." The truth was also that the Principals Committee was meeting with a full agenda and a backlog of Bush priority issues: the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto environment agreement, and Iraq. There was no time for terrorism. [p. 234]

[...]

On September 4, 2001, the Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda that I had called for "urgently" on January 25 finally met. [p. 237]

Townsend went on to suggest that Clinton had lied during a contentious interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, aired on September 24, during which the former president claimed: "So I tried and failed [to kill bin Laden]. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted." Townsend said:

TOWNSEND: President Clinton also mentioned having left behind a comprehensive strategy to proceed with the war on terror, and I'm not familiar that anybody in the administration at the time -- the Bush administration, when they came in -- is familiar with that.

Again, the 9-11 Commission report contradicts Townsend. According to the report, near the end of 2000, the CIA and the National Security Council drew up policy papers that laid out anti-terrorism strategies for the succeeding administration. While the report said that the CIA/NSC memo, known as the "Blue Sky memo" was not "discussed during the transition with incoming top Bush administration officials," its ideas were nonetheless presented as options by the CIA to the Bush administration. Clarke and his staff also drafted a counterterrorism strategy memo in the waning days of the Clinton administration, which the 9-11 Commission Report described as "the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998 [a paper written by Clarke laying out a strategy to "immediately eliminate any significant threat to Americans" from the "Bin Ladin network"]. The resulting paper, entitled 'Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida [sic]: Status and Prospects,' reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options."

Clarke, the report noted, presented his policy paper to Rice and other senior national security staffers when he requested the principals committee meeting on Al Qaeda:

Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her-and the new President-to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need ... a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.

Clarke also noted Clinton's enduring contributions to the war on terrorism in Against All Enemies:

Clinton left office with bin Laden alive, but having authorized actions to eliminate him and to step up the attacks on al Qaeda. He had defeated al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defense of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks. He had seen earlier than anyone that terrorism would be the new major threat facing America, and therefore had greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs. He had put an end to Iraqi and Iranian terrorism against the United States by quickly acting against the intelligence services of each nation.

[...]

Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more. Nonetheless, he put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.

From the September 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Well, we're almost out of time, but why didn't the president, President Bush, do anything about that Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole after he took office, before 9-11?

TOWNSEND: Well, there was no question that terrorism was a priority. There had been multiple meetings. President Clinton also mentioned having left behind a comprehensive strategy for to go -- proceed with the war on terror, and I'm not familiar that anybody in the administration at the time -- the Bush administration, when they came in -- is familiar with that.

BLITZER: Fran Townsend, we're going to have to leave it there, but we'll continue this down the road. Thanks very much for joining us.

TOWNSEND: Thank you, Wolf.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by chaosmas (September 26, 2006 3:27 pm ET)
         

      Check">[link to blog.myspace.com] it out on my blog!!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by chaosmas (September 26, 2006 3:28 pm ET)
         

      HERE

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (September 26, 2006 3:28 pm ET)
         

      Actually that is perfectly believable... that no one in the Bush administration was 'familiar" with Clinton's "comprehensive strategy". According to Richard Clarke Bush's people virtually ignored him and practically everything he wanted to tell them.

      It's rather disingenuous for them to now say that they were "not familiar" with anything that Clinton did with respect to terrorism and Bin Laden.

      Richard Clarke's book should be required reading...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 3:50 pm ET)
           

        BUUUUT, ever stop to think that Clarke was just trying to make a buck or two or influence an election (released just months prior to the 2004 election), rather than just be an angelic whistleblower who just couldn't remain silent anymore? (Hey, the Repubs do it all the time... why wouldn't the Democrats?)

        Clarke has done a wonderful service to the country and we should all thank him, BUUUT much of what he writes in his book is self-contradictory. Just thought I'd point out that Clarke's book may not be the only reliable source on this. Cheers, mate.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by skeptical (September 26, 2006 4:11 pm ET)
             

          I haven't read the book, but can yu give an example of where he is contradictory?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 4:18 pm ET)
               

            In 2002, he said one thing (that no comprehensive plan had been passed from Clinton to Bush, and Bush had even built on what had been passed along), but in his book he refutes himself.

            How specific would you like me to get? Out.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by steve k (September 26, 2006 4:54 pm ET)
                 

              This was addressed by Clarke in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. In 2002 he was still working for Bush and couldn't openly criticize him. In 2004 he wasn't, so was free to be more frank about Bush's lack of interest in counterterrorism. What is so difficult about understanding that?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 5:34 pm ET)
                   

                That Clarke has no integrity and is a shill for whoever he works for? Really?

                I would have thought you would have been standing up for him. Clarke could have stood up and said, "Nope, Bush didn't listen." People stand up to their employers all the time. But he didn't. I just don't know if I can trust him.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (September 26, 2006 6:28 pm ET)
                     

                  In public you do not contradict the administration you work for.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by steve k (September 26, 2006 6:53 pm ET)
                     

                  People stand up to their employers all the time.

                  There is an enormous difference between arguing with your boss in private, and publicly denouncing him as incompetent on TV. Especially if your boss is the President of the United States!

                  OK, so Clarke wasn't willing to martyr himself over his disagreements with Bush. But who's putting him up for sainthood? Does the fact that he's gasp! a self-interested human being like everyone else automatically invalidate his criticisms of Bush and the "war on terror"?

                  Like many in the Bush administration, he disagreed with their policies but felt he could still try to do some good in his job. When it got to the point where he felt he could no longer take their BS, he left. In the meantime he had to continue performing his duties--which included compromising himself by telling the public Bush was strong on terrorism.

                  And are you saying he shouldn't have spoken up after he resigned? Wouldn't it have been worse for everyone if he had let the lie he had had to tell go forever uncorrected? Wouldn't that, in fact, truly make him a shill and a coward?

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (September 26, 2006 8:05 pm ET)
                     

                  did the bush administration spend the time on counterterrorism that clinton did? no, not even close. bush was involved in no meetings that had terrorism as the main theme. clinton held them three or more times a week. if bush had done so then the warnings of the two fbi agents about the flight schools might have come to the top, and the plot exposed or adequate warnings issued. janet reno put terrorism at the top of her last budget plan. bush's attorney general did not even list it among his priorities. and it was not clarke alone who said the bush people did nothing. in "the clinton wars", sidney blumenthal wrote about donald kerrick, a three star general who was deputy national security adviser under clinton and remained on the nsc during the first four months of bush's term. kerrick wrote a two page memo to his replacement, stephen hadley: " it was classified. i said they needed to pay attention to al qaida and counterterrorism. they never once asked me a question nor did i see them having a serious discussion about it. they didn't feel it was an imminent threat the way the clinton administration did. hadley did not respond to my memo. i know he had it."

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by skeptical (September 26, 2006 5:05 pm ET)
                 

              I actually agree with you that Richard Clarke was promoting his book and the best way to do that is create controversy.

              I also don't necessarily discount what he said just because it helped him sell his book.

              This guy was deeply involved in this stuff for along time and worked for both Democrats and Republicans.

              From what I have read about him (not by him) he was fairly obsessed with Bin Laden.

              He may actually have come across as a kook before 9/11, he was that obsessed.

              But, he was actually right to be kooky about Bin laden and it appears that Bush and Co. were not really interested in Bin Laden pre-9/11.

              My problem with all of this is how can anyone blame Clinton, if at best Bush & Co. were only as agressive as Clinton. Not more agressive. Also, Bush & Co. after 9/11 should have been much more agressive and still haven't gotten Bin Laden.

              Maybe I'm missing something?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 5:10 pm ET)
                   

                People blaming Clinton for 9/11 that don't think Bush f (_) cked up are just awful. And you are right that the fact Clarke may have been trying to hawk a book has no bearing on it's veracity. I didn't mean to imply that was the case.

                Report Abuse
        • Author by rusty shackleford (September 26, 2006 4:12 pm ET)
             

          Do you actually have anything with which to refute Clarke, or are you just engaging in idle speculation?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 4:22 pm ET)
               

            I don't know which Clarke to believe... Clarke2002 or Clarke2004. Have you heard the tape of the interview he gave in 2002 where he said that Bush actually increased some efforts to defeat al Qaeda including increasing CIA resources for covert action by five?

            I just don't know which one to trust. And no, I don't have any evidence that he was just trying to make a dollar or influence an election, but there is no proof he was just doing it for the good of the country either.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by rusty shackleford (September 26, 2006 4:29 pm ET)
                 

              the contradiction. Clarke says in 2002 that Bush assigned five more people to al Qaeda (according to you), and says in 2004 that the administration ignored most of what he tried to tell them (according to Irony 101). I just don't see why those claims are mutually exclusive.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 4:39 pm ET)
                   

                Not just five, my bad.

                Anywho, Clarke stated that "the Bush administration decided then... in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy... [and] to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided." (Duh... Bush is the Decider).

                So Clarke was saying that Bush was actively pursuing al Qaeda in 2002, but in 2004, he was saying the opposite.

                I just don't know which one to trust. That's all I'm trying to say.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by rusty shackleford (September 26, 2006 4:46 pm ET)
                     

                  That clarifies things for me. I admit I haven't read the book.

                  It is hard to know which is right. If Clarke 2002 is right, Bush tried and failed. If Clarke 2004 is right, Bush didn't try at all. Either scenario is certainly believable.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 4:54 pm ET)
                       

                    My humble opinion is that he tried and failed. (If only he could admit it like Clinton... I won't hold my breath)

                    It seems he was trying somewhat to continue Clinton's policy by extending in June 2001, Executive Order 13129 to block money to the Taliban enacted by Clinton in 1999, etc.

                    I know it's not much, but it is a small sign of an attempt. Oh well. Out.

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by bravenewworld (September 26, 2006 3:32 pm ET)
         

      will never "challenge" anything said supporting the Bush Adminstration. That's no longer a surprise at all. Too bad we can't impeach him.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mb (September 26, 2006 5:26 pm ET)
         

      By the end of the Clinton administration, the then national-security adviser Sandy Berger had become “totally preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack, a colleague recalls. True, the Clintonites had failed to act decisively against Al Qaeda, but by the end they were certain of the danger it posed. When, in January 2001, Berger gave Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: “You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other.” Rice was alarmed by what she heard, and asked for a strategy review. But the effort was marginalized and scarcely mentioned in ensuing months as the administration committed itself to other priorities, like national missile defense (NMD) and Iraq. Yes the ineptness of this administration is finally getting some exposure.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (September 26, 2006 5:37 pm ET)
         

      wringing his hands because isn't sure which edition of Richard Clarke to believe - '02 or '04.

      Typical rightwing deflection tactic: bring up a seeming contridiction two years apart, and question whether Clarke raised his concerns "just to make a buck", or influence an election . . . all the the while ignoring the LARGER point: despite Townsend's claims, BushCo was largely unconcerned about OBL or terrorism before 9/11.

      If we believe your interpretation of Clarke's statements, either Bush made a half-a$$ed attempt to get OBL, or didn't try at all. Either way, that's pretty sad.

      Tell you what, Con . . . since you're having so much trouble deciding which Clarke to believe, chew on this in the meantime: read Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty" . . . in it, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, whom bush fired in 2002, details how getting rid of Saddam Hussein was "topic A" on the administration agenda "within days of the inauguration" . . . it has also been documented how, inside one day after 9/11, Bush was telling Rice and Rumsfeld "see if Hussein is connected to this. Find me a way to do this."

      Pretty much sums up Bush's pre-9/11 terror record . . .

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Con Man (September 26, 2006 5:46 pm ET)
           

        I'll have to look into that book. Thanks for the lead. No need to feel bad for me... I just have different stories and I don't know which is true. Thanks.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mb (September 26, 2006 5:42 pm ET)
         

      The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda on September 4. On the day of the meeting, Clarke sent Rice an impassioned personal note. He criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts past and present. The “real question” before the principals, he wrote, was “are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? . . . Is al Qida a big deal? . . . Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US,” Clarke wrote. “What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time.” That is right they held the first meeting on sept. 4th. Why so long to hold a damn meeting?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mb (September 26, 2006 5:45 pm ET)
         

      Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals’ meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials. This happened months before 9-11. Another sign to Clark that Bushies didnt take the threat seriously.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by chimpevil (September 26, 2006 6:04 pm ET)
         

      but why didn't the president, President Bush, do anything about that Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole after he took office, before 9-11?

      Notice how Townsend sidesteps this, but this is THE critical question regarding the Bush admin failure to respond to the terror threat before 9/11. Why did they do nothing at all to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in response to the Cole attacks? I guess we'll have to wait for that moment "down the road" when Wolf gets another opportunity to seize the moment and ask the question again.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.