Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 2004, pages 18-19

Special Report

Former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke is sworn in before testifying to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Capitol Hill March 24 (AFP photo/Luke Frazza).

A BOOK OF BARELY more than 300 pages written by Richard A. Clarke, the former chief terrorism adviser to the Bush administration, may be key to the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. From the time he was sworn in on March 24, the second day of hearings held by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Clarke dominated the proceedings.

In a masterful display of timing, Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, was released the day before the public hearings commenced. His testimony on Capitol Hill kept the audience enthralled—from beginning to end, virtually no one left the proceedings.

A master of drama and suspense, Clarke, speaking in hushed tones, began by issuing an apology to the packed hearing room, which was filled with the relatives of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. “Your government failed you,” he said. “Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”

Visibly moved by this dramatic beginning to Clarke’s frank testimony, the audience’s attention never wavered as he was grilled, cross-examined and grilled again by commission officials who realized that everything else in the two-day session would only be an anti-climax.

Bush stalwarts were aware that Clarke’s testimony was almost certain to be a devastating attack on the president himself, and they were ready to meet it directly—having lined up virtually the entire administration to attack Clarke’s credibility and spent hours, perhaps days, preparing for the hearings.

It began to appear as if the administration’s case on how it handled terrorism threats before the 9/11 attack might rise or fall on Clarke. The former terrorism expert had the demeanor of an unprepossessing bachelor until he began to speak. Then he displayed a riveting intensity—a talent he has used over his many years of U.S. government service.

In the course of his career, Clarke was involved in the investigation of Oliver North (on North’s side). Much more pertinent at the moment, as he is attacked for partisanship, is the fact that Clarke served in the Reagan and Bush presidencies, as well as for the entire eight years of the Clinton administration. He then served for more than two years in the current administration of George W. Bush until his retirement a year ago.

During the Clinton era Clarke became, in his own words, “obsessed with the danger of al-Qaeda.” He was aware that, because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the resulting possibility of impeachment, President Clinton was unable to cope with this danger. Clarke assumed, however, that Clinton’s successor would turn his attention to the al-Qaeda threat, and that Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger would highlight this problem in the transition from the Clinton to the Bush administration. Clarke also assumed that Berger’s successor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice would agree that the al-Qaeda threat was so crucial that something had to be done immediately, and turn her attention to the problem.

None of this happened, however, when the new Bush administration took over. Early on, Clarke said, he asked Rice for some high-level time to map out a strategy to deal with the threat, but Rice did not implement his proposals until much later. When Clarke finally had Rice’s attention, it was only days before the 9/11 catastrophe occurred.

Ironically, and astoundingly, Clarke testified, when President Bush and his national security team assembled following the attacks, two things happened. First, Rice put Clarke and some members of his staff in charge of the situation room. Fearing that more attacks might be coming, the national security adviser and other members of the Bush team moved to an off-site location.

When that alarm ended and members of the Bush team reappeared, Clarke said, the president made an astonishing request. He asked Clarke and one or two of Clarke’s aides to join him in a small room adjacent to the situation room. He then asked Clarke to check everything that might shed light on whether Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. Clarke told the president that there was no connection, but Bush insisted he try to recall anything that would connect the two. Bush was so insistent, even intimidating, Clarke said, that he took it as a direct order to re-check everything bearing on the problem.

Clarke proceeded to do as he was told and, a day or two later, reported there was no way to connect 9/11 with Iraq. Bush dropped the subject for the moment, but neither Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld nor his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, was deterred from raising the subject over and over again. Nor did it stop Vice President Richard Cheney from making the same nonexistent linkage on several occasions.

Eventually Bush acknowledged that there seemed to be no direct connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda—presumably because Secretary of State Colin Powell urged him to. Amazingly, to this day Cheney has continued to connect Iraq with the fight against terrorism and al-Qaeda, as if such a linkage had been established.

The 10 members of the bipartisan 9/11 commission began advancing their own partisan views as they questioned Clarke. Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey made a strong pitch for Clarke’s credibility. “Everything you have said today and done has not damaged my view of your integrity,” he said. “It’s very much intact.”

Former Navy Secretary John F. Lehman, a Reagan appointee, implied more than once that Clarke was interested in becoming a member of a potential Kerry administration. Clarke scotched that by replying, “Let me say here, as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in a Kerry administration, should there be one.”

Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, has benefitted from an extraordinary promotional effort. Literally on the eve of its publication, Clarke appeared on “60 Minutes,” America’s best-known television news program, which devoted 40 minutes to Clarke and his book. Within a week, 500,000 copies were printed. Thanks to the publicity, nearly nine of 10 Americans responding to a Pew Survey said they had heard of the book.

In the few days between his “60 Minutes” appearance and his testimony on Capitol Hill, 15 separate interviews with Clarke appeared in major American news media. By the time of his extraordinary apology to the American public and the victims’ families, hardly anyone was not aware of Clarke and his story.

It now is up to the Bush administration to try and blunt the extensive damage Clarke’s accusations have created for Bush. At the moment, however, its efforts smack of overkill—making it even more obvious that something important has happened, and guaranteeing that anyone who missed Clarke’s book or his testimony will seek them out.

So far this election year, the conventional wisdom has been that the run for the presidency will be a horse race, if not a photo finish. Now, however, it seems conceivable that nothing that happens between now and November will overturn the verdict voters may have reached during an extraordinary week in March.

Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.