The 9/11 Debate - Clarke Hits the Mark

The ubiquitous Richard Clarke has sparked an intense debate over the Bush Administration's attitudes and policies toward terrorism before and after 9/11. Clarke, in my opinion, hits the mark on two counts:

* It seems clear, based on the public record to date, that the Bush Administration did not treat terrorism and the al Qaeda threat as seriously as it should and could have prior to 9/11. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. targets overseas on several occasions - and apparently was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center - and there was significant evidence that a major attack - possibly here on our own soil - was imminent in 2001. Whether or not going to "battlestations" - regular cabinet-level meetings, a Presidential directive to make our counter-terrorism efforts a top priority, existing and additional intelligence gathering and analysis resources being tasked to those efforts - would have prevented 9/11 will never be known. But clearly our chances of preventing it were greatly diminished by not going to "battlestations."

* The Bush Administration's immediate focus on - if not obsession with - Iraq after 9/11 was ill-timed and diverted resources and attention from the war on terror. Senior Bush Administration officials - it seems quite evident - forced a linkage between Iraq and the War on Terrorism, and even strongly encouraged the bureaucracy to find a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, find Bin Laden, and diminish Al Qaeda's capabilities have obviously been limited by the diversion of our military and intelligence assets to Iraq.

Where Clarke misses the target is with regard to the Clinton Administration's record. Al Qaeda attacked us several times on Clinton's watch, yet "battlestations" for the Clinton team meant meetings, pin-prick airstrikes in Afghanistan, and little more. Did Clinton do more than Bush II? Yes. Did Clinton take it seriously enough? No.

That should not be used to absolve Bush of his failures. Two wrongs never make a right. But let's make sure Clinton does not get a passing grade, either. That's important for history and it's important in terms of analyzing what went wrong and how we can try to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Clarke's other problem is that he is an easy target for the Bush smear campaign. He's not terribly pleasant, his book publication was clearly timed to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings, and he is getting more TV exposure than Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." Plus, his buddy is Kerry's national security advisor. But no matter what they say about Clarke and his motives or agenda, the bottom line is whether or not what he says rings true and if the Bush Administration can credibly refute what he says. So far, Clarke seems to have hit his mark, and all the Bush Administration can do is attack him - not refute what he charges.