American Progress
Condi Rice's 60 Minutes Interview, 3/28/04
Mon Mar 29 03:08:41 2004
63.228.144.66


FACT CHECK: Condi Rice's 60 Minutes Interview, 3/28/04

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes in an effort to quell growing questions surrounding the Administration's inconsistent claims about its pre-9/11 actions. Not only did Rice refuse to take Richard Clarke's lead and admit responsibility for her role in the worst national security failure in American history, but she continued to make unsubstantiated and contradictory assertions:

RICE CLAIM: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism before 9/11.

FACTS: President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism. Similarly, Newsweek reports that his attitude was reflected throughout an Administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall priority. As proof, just two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held during this period addressed the terrorist threat, and the White House refused to hold even one meeting of its highly-touted counterterrorism task force. Meanwhile, the Administration was actively trying to cut funding for counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001.

Source: "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward

Source: Newsweek & vetoed request - http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

Source: Refusal to hold task force meeting - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer

Source: Only two meetings out of 100 - http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0207/01/politics-526326.htm

RICE CLAIM: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?"

FACTS: There are many things that could have been done: first and foremost, the Administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001. As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."

Source: Slash counterterrorism funding - http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm

Source: CIA knew 2 hijackers in the U.S. - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/111044.shtml

RICE CLAIM:“Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress.”

FACTS: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress…There are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questions…There are plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this.” 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying “Our commission is sui generis…the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are distinguishable from Congress.” Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste “cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress." Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same "principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.

Source: Quote from Tony Snow Show - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-rice-usat_x.htm

RICE CLAIM: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.

FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." The President therefore did not put Iraq aside -- he merely deferred it to a second phase, after Afghanistan. To the question of Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush replied: let's do both, starting with Afghanistan. In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported, "the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."

Source: September 17th directive - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer

Source: Rumsfeld orders Iraq plan - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Source: Shifting special forces - http://www.iht.com/articles/106783.html

Send feed back to: pr@americanprogress.org
====================
Who's Lying - Rice And Bush, Or Clarke?
http://www.senderberl.com/bushrice.htm

Analysis: Richard Clarke -- Meet the Press -- March 28, 2004

Richard Clarke’s remarks and revelations on Meet the Press are so vital to the public interest that we decided on top of all else we have recently done to highlight and analyze what he said in the context of 9-11.

First, we want to say that it is shameful that it takes the courage of one man to represent the oversight that should have been the task and burden of government. If we had loyal government officials Clarke would not have to stand alone, as he does, in the attempt to tell the American public that something is seriously amiss with government. Jessica Lynch and Richard Clarke have done a great deal to serve and save our nation and the tragedy is that we can offer the accolades to two people, both of whom have been targeted in their own special ways to be forever forgotten. Thus, it is incumbent for us to keep bringing up their contribution and it is imperative that you don’t let their sacrifices to the nation expire. What about Richard Clarke making money on his book. As he alluded to today, he will be an outcast instead of a hero until and unless Kerry comes into power. If Bush wins a second term, heaven forbid, he will not get the time of day because that’s the way Washington plays the game, it feels it has no choice but to bow to the powers seated in the Oval office. However, if the treachery of the Bush administration unravels, Washington and the rest of the country will -- and it better -- hang Bush, the oil cabal, and all those complicit in 9-11.

Now, what is important is that Richard Clarke filled in some vital missing links of information that compels us to now conclude that Condy Rice was a knowing member of the NWO agenda regarding 9-11. While we knew she did carry board memberships with ExxonMobil and TexacoChevron, we didn’t think she would sink that low to be complicit in the deaths of 3000 souls on 9-11. However, it appears that we were mistaken.

Now, to the analysis (based on excerpts in sequential order)…

MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, Mr. Clarke, you would urge Congress, the intelligence committees, to declassify your sworn testimony before the congressional inquiry two years ago as well as your testimony before the September 11th Commission?

MR. CLARKE: Yes, and those documents I just referred to and Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission because the victims' families have no idea what Dr. Rice has said

*** SenderBerl: One of the reasons for Rice foregoing public testimony is the hope that it keeps her remarks (not under oath) away from those, like ourselves, who wish to scrutinize it. Quite frankly, what Richard Clarke said today on Meet the Press says it all because we doubt Condy Rice is going to reveal anything further unless under oath and questioned by Richard Ben-Veniste.

***{One year post 911, Time Magazine}

Time magazine had come out with a cover story, after extensive research, and the cover story was devastating. The cover story of Time magazine was that the White House had been given a plan by me on January 25 and had taken the entire nine months to get around to looking at it, at the principals level, that there had been over 100 meetings of Dr. Rice's committee on subjects involving Iraq, Star Wars, China, but only one on terrorism and that one was on September 4.

*** SenderBerl: It is obvious that someone, and they probably thought it was Clarke, leaked that terrorism was a subject persona non grata at the Bush White House (until of course 9-11, which fact would be consistent with the element of complicity).

MR. CLARKE: Because I have no obligation anymore to spin. When you're in the White House, you spin. And people have been doing a lot of that against me this week. You know, they're engaged in a campaign. People on the taxpayers' rolls, dozens of people, are engaged in the campaign to destroy me, personally and professionally, because I had the temerity to suggest that the American people should consider whether or not the president had done a good job on the war on terrorism. The issue is not me. The issue is the president's job on the role on terrorism.

*** SenderBerl: This is where Clarke has the resolve and courage to pursue his course to let the American people know that something is wrong. In the upside down world where evil controls over good, people tend to shun the very person who offers them truth. Thus, it is fitting that the Mel Gibson movie speaks on this issue. It would be a stain on this country if the American people don’t speak up to criticize the Administration about moving out on all fronts to attack Clarke. He didn’t violate any secrets but like all those intent on serving the greater good he wanted to bring truth to the American people, made especially important when government controlled and influenced media fail miserably in that very regard.

After 9/11--I say by going into Iraq, he has really hurt the war on terrorism. Now, because I say that, the administration doesn't want to talk on the merits of that. They don't want to talk about the effect on the war on terrorism of our invasion of Iraq. And so, instead, A, they try to do character assassination of me; but, B, they try to punish me for having said it by going after my professional life, by going after me, besmirching me. This is just not appropriate.

***

Every day George Tenet was going in to see the president in the Oval Office. Because George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, now gives the president his daily briefing. And almost every day the president was hearing from George Tenet that there's an impending al-Qaeda attack. As far back as February, George Tenet testified before the Congress that al-Qaeda was the major national security threat. And yet, they have 100 meetings before they get around to dealing with it. KEY QUOTE

MR. RUSSERT: On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate President Bush's performance on the war on terror prior to September 11?

MR. CLARKE: Well, there wasn't any personal performance by the president prior to September 11. Now, the only thing that I was ever able to detect that he did on the war on terrorism was after Tenet had been briefing him day after day after day after day about an al-Qaeda threat, the president said, in May, "Well, let's, you know, get a strategy." That's the only thing I ever heard that he got involved in personally. And when he said that, Dr. Rice called me and said, "The president wants a strategy." And I said, "Well, you know the strategy was what I sent you on January 25, and it's been stuck in these low-level committees." And she said, "Fine. I'll deal with that." Well, she didn't deal with it until September.

And, interestingly enough, the president never said after that May conversation, "Where's the strategy?" And, again, if you go back to what the president himself says to Bob Woodward, he said, "I knew there was a strategy in the works. But I didn't know how mature the plan was." He's saying this on September 11. He didn't know where the strategy was. The strategy that he had asked for in May? He'd never come back and asked where it was. You know, basically, it wasn't an urgent issue for them before September 11.

MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like a failing grade.

MR. CLARKE: Well, I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did before because, frankly, they didn't do--they never got around to doing anything. They held interim meetings, but they never actually decided anything before September 11.

***SenderBerl: This is critical and direct support for anyone who wishes to connect the dots, as we have to date to attest to government complicity allowing 9-11 to occur. As you know, we considered the evidence to date a given as to complicity. Now, what Clarke does is give DIRECT factual support therefor. When you tie these facts into what we have highlighted is Bush administration complicity, you have more than probable cause, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of it. Thus, as we said from day one, this country should not have allowed Bush to invade Iraq because it would prove to be a fruit of a poisonous tree. How right we were. KEY

You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, "You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process."

MR. RUSSERT: Who told you that?

MR. CLARKE: Condi Rice. And I said, "Well, can I brief him on cybersecurity?" "Oh, yes, you can brief him on that."

***SenderBerl: This is de facto conclusive that Condy Rice was directly complicit. It was malfeasance of office for her to preclude Clarke from speaking to Bush regarding terrorism based on the fact that there was a known serious threat that ultimately unraveled as 9-11.

MR. RUSSERT: We'll get to that particular debate, but let me go back to September 11 and what led up to it. The Washington Post captured this way: "On July 5 of 2001, the White House summoned officials of a dozen federal agencies to the Situation Room. `Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,' the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, told the assembled group, including the Federal Aviation Administration, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service, Imm