This page was last updated on August 26, 2004.

Unfortunately, Mr. Horter bases his letter on the book by Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies.  As we learned from the 9/11 Commission hearings, Mr. Clarke presented conflicting views of history.

I believe all administrations going back to Jimmy Carter could have done more to deter terrorism.  At one point, Mr. Horter appears to agree but his letter does nothing but praise Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism efforts and bashes President Bush’s efforts.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The other day, letter writer Michael Wallace related a story about how in 1996 Clinton turned down an ‘offer’ for Osama bin Laden on a platter (‘Clinton is to blame for 9/11,’ Tuesday).

“Well, as it turns out in a lot of these right-wing fantasies that’s a ‘far from the truth statement.’  I refer him to Richard Clarke’s book, ‘Against all Enemies.’  He’ll find that story to be not true.”

[RWC] Unfortunately for Messrs. Clinton and Horter, former President Clinton is on audiotape making the following statement.

“We’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.  They released him.  At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

“So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ‘cause they could have.  But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.”

Mr. Clinton made this statement when addressing a New York business group in February 2002.  Unless Mr. Clinton chose his words very poorly, it sure sounds like the Sudanese offered bin Laden and we refused the offer.  The 9/11 Commission Report confirms Sudan approached the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other governments to determine what actions could ease pressure resulting from Sudan’s terrorism safe-haven policy, but stops short of claiming Sudan offered bin Laden to us.

“But what Clarke does state, throughout his book, is that Clinton was very interested in finding and destroying bin Laden and the terrorist group we now call al Qaeda.  And contrary to Mr. Wallace’s assertion, he gave a standing order that bin Laden was an open target.”

[RWC] I have no doubt Mr. Clinton wanted al-Qaida and bin Laden to go away, but his actions didn’t make that apparent.  Indeed, the ongoing lack of serious action – from bin Laden’s viewpoint – is what made each al-Qaida attack bolder.  Being “very interested” is not the same as doing.

The above Clinton quote directly contradicts the “bin Laden was an open target” statement.  If bin Laden were an “open target,” why would we hesitate to take him given the chance?  Did he become an open target sometime after 1996?

“But at the end of Mr. Clarke’s book, he goes into quite specific detail as to how the new Bush administration blew him off (my words) and refused to listen as both he and Mr. Clinton, who warned them about al Qaeda.”

[RWC] Mr. Clarke himself presented a different view to reporters.  The following points come from a 2002 background briefing given by Richard Clarke.¹

·        No plan on al-Qaida was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

·        The Bush administration decided in mid-January 2001 to pursue vigorously the existing Clinton policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings.

·        The Bush administration decided to initiate a process to review issues that had been on the table for a couple of years in the Clinton administration and get them resolved.

·        The Bush administration decided in spring 2001 to augment the existing Clinton strategy and increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaida.

·        During summer 2001, the Bush administration developed and approved implementation details.  They changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, and changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.  [This prep work is what allowed the United States to enlist the aid of Pakistan, the Northern Alliance, et cetera, so quickly when we attacked al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.]

·        The Bush administration changed the strategy from one of rollback of al-Qaida over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al-Qaida.

The plan was finalized on September 4, 2001, and was presented to the President on September 10th.  Does this sound like the Bush administration “blew off” Mr. Clarke?

“Mr. Clarke, as most know, was our foremost terrorism expert for many years, and as far as pinning blame for Sept. 11, 2001, he, let alone Mr. Wallace, can’t pin the blame on anyone, or on any one misstep.

“The facts of this sad episode in our history are all too clear, but what is not clear is that Clinton was more engaged than any of us knew.  And sadly, Mr. Bush was about as disengaged as he could have been.”

[RWC] According to Mr. Clarke’s 2002 press briefing, the Bush administration was definitely “engaged.”  In fact, the primary reason President Bush kept Clinton’s counterterrorism team – including Clarke, CIA director, and FBI director was to minimize transition lapses.  Does that sound like a “disengaged” president?

“Was this disaster Clinton’s fault or Bush’s fault?  The fact will always remain, it happened on Bush’s watch, and you know what Harry Truman said: ‘The buck stops here.’”

[RWC] al-Qaida was to blame for 9/11, no one else.  It’s clear we could have been a lot more vigilant, but al-Qaida committed the murders.  Since when do we blame the victim of a crime?

Was FDR to blame for Pearl Harbor?  After all, it happened on his watch and he was president for the preceding nine years.

“Would the results been different if Bush had paid more attention to the Clinton-Clarke warnings?  I guess we’ll never know, but affixing blame to Clinton is no fairer than affixing it to Bush.”

[RWC] Given his varying stories, I have my doubts about Mr. Clarke’s truthfulness.  Consider the following exchange between Clarke and 9/11 Commission member Slade Gorton during a public hearing, however.

9/11 Commissioner Gorton: “Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?”

Richard Clarke:                   “No.”²

There you have it from Mr. Horter’s information source.  Even if President Bush had implemented Clarke’s fictitious plan – the one Clarke said did not exist in the 2002 press briefing, it would not have prevented 9/11.

1. Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in ’02; Fox News Channel; March 24, 2004.

2. Transcript: Wednesday’s 9/11 Commission Hearings; The Washington Post; March 24, 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.