QandO

March 26, 2004

The Shays letters
Posted by McQ

Representative Christopher Shays has shed a little more light on Richard Clarke's track record. He's released three letters which specfically address Clarke and Clarke's testimony before his Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International relations. To say they are damning to Mr. Clarke is an understatement.

The first is dated July 5, 2000 during the Clinton Administration, is addressed directly to Clarke and contains the following concerning his recent testimony before that subcommittee:

We asked if there was an integrated threat assessment prepared. You responded this would be difficult to accomplish because of all the different threats faced by the United States. When asked if there is a comprehesive strategy to combat terrorism, you responded it was "silly" to believe a comprehesive strategy could be developed to combat terrorism. You did add a domestic preparedness plan would be developed. And when asked how spending priorities are established, you responded by providing a list of terrorist organizations.

Saying it is difficult to prepare an integrated threat assessment, belittling a question about a comprehesive strategy, and providing a list of terrorist organizations does not answer our questions. If there are no clear requirements or plan, how does the administration prioritize the $12.9 billion it intends to spend on combating terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, preparedness and critical infrastructure protection?

Remember, Clarke is now claiming a plan was handed over to the Bush administration, but per the letter to Clarke from Shays, he's reminded that he called the idea of a plan "silly" 6 months before the Bush administration took office. In fact he didn't even have a plan for "domestic preparedness" written at that time.

Yet this was the man who'd been the "terrorism czar" for 8 YEARS!

Letter 2, addressed to Condoleeza Rice is dated January 22, 2001, a couple of days after the Bush administration took office. Shays discusses some issues considered during a hearing entitled "Combating Terrorism: Assessing Threats, Risk Management, and Establishing Priorities" held July 26, 2000.
In the letter, Shays tells Rice:

Witnesses persuasively expressed the view that the current US government organization to counter terrorism is flawed.

That would be the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S organization. Continuing:

The current focal point for terrorist related issues is the Special Assistant to the President and National Coordinator, Infrastructure and Counterterrorism, Mr. Richard Clarke. Mr. Clarke has stated his office lacks resources and has no authority over the 40 federal departments, agencies, and bureaus having a role in the effort to combat terrorism. As a result, agencies receive little guidance on funding priorities. Additionally Mr. Clarke must be continually be prompted before request for information from this Subcommittee are answered. We assume he either does not have the resources to respond, or his office chose to turn a deaf ear to our requests. Coupled with this lack of leadershipis the fact that Mr. Clarke's office is part of the National Security Council staff and beyond the purview of regular Congressional oversight.

Remember, Clarke now claims that there was no "higher priority" in the Clinton administration than terrorism. Yet here is Clarke claiming the office which was charged with being the focal point in combatting terrorism "lacks resources and has no authority over the 40 federal departments, agencies, and bureaus having a role in the effort to combat terrorism"

So after a couple of days in office, the Bush administration is essentially informed that their "terror czar" is uncooperative AND that he has no resources or authority. Sound like terror was the previous administration's "highest priority?"

Shays further informs Dr. Rice:

The hearings also indicate there is no coordinated national strategy. US government agencies combatting terrorism need a vision and mission statement, goals and objectives.

Question: Doesn't that seem like something a Special Assistant to the President and National Coordinator, Infrastructure and Counterterrorism might have been doing during the 8 years he held the office?

What the hell was this man doing the previous 8 years if he had an organization that STILL didn't have a vision, mission statement, goals, objectives and priorities which could be articulated? No WONDER the man was apologizing to the families of the vicitms of 9/11!

Shays continues in his letter to Dr. Rice:

Given the amount of spending, over $10 billion per year, and the large number of agencies involved, clear spending priorities must be established. List the threats, determining which are most likely, and establishing priorities will assist in determining which programs are most important and receive priority funding. Only then can the United States direct the resources into areas that will help prevent incidents such as the bombings of the Khobar Towers, U.S. emabassies in Tanzania and kenya, and USS Cole. During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated there is no need for a national strategy. This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that US government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks.

Do these recommendations seem like common sense to you?

Me too.

So WHY HADN'T CLARKE DONE THEM IN THE 8 YEARS OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION!?

In two hearings before the same subcommittee, one before July 5, 2000 and one on July 26, 2000, Richard Clarke said there was NO NEED for a national strategy to address terrorism. Yet now he says there was one in existance and it was handed over to the Bush administration (But wait ... in August of 2002, he told reporters that no plan existed!).

The final Shays letter is dated March 24, 2004 and addresses the present 9/11 commission. In it Representative Shays states:

Before September 11, 2001, we held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism issues. Mr. Clarke was of little help in our oversight. When he briefed the Subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive. He said a comprehensive threat assessment, as recommended by GAO, was too difficult.

Mr. Clarke said it would be "silly" to try to articulate a national strategy. In Lieu of a threat assessment or strategy, he offered a laundry list of terrorist groups, as if the fight against global terrorism were nothing more than a hunt for common criminals.

Clarke was part of the problem before September 11 because he too to narrow a view of the terrorism threat. His approach was reactive and limited to swatting at the visible elements of al Qe'eda, not the hidden global network and its state sponsors.

The blind spots and vulnerabilities that contributed to the September 11, 2001 tragedy were apparent to many throughout the years Mr. Clarke was in a position to do something about them. Three national comminssions - Bremer, Gilmore and Hart/Rudman - had concluded the US needed a comprehensive threat assessment, a national strategy and a plan to reorganize the federal response to the new strategic menace of terrorism.

Yet no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure. Instead, several presidental directives and a Justice Department five-year law enforcement plan were clumsily lashed together and called a stragegy. [emphasis added]

He ignored the recommendations of three commissions on terrorism. He ignored the recommendations of the GAO. He ignored the recommendations of the Shays subcommittee.

Yet, somehow, 9/11 is "Bush's fault".

Incompetance, thy name is Richard Clarke.

If you MUST point a finger for 9/11 ... Clarke's the one.

TrackBack