NEW YORK (March 21) - A former White House anti-terrorism adviser has accused U.S. President George W. Bush of ignoring terrorism threats before the Sept. 11 attacks and of making America less safe.

Richard Clarke, Bush's top official on counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity board, told CBS "60 minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he thought Bush had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.

Clarke, who was an adviser to four presidents, says in a book to be published next week that the Bush administration should have taken out al Qaeda and its training camps in Afghanistan long before the attacks of Sept. 11, for which the militant network was blamed.

"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," Clarke told CBS.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration followed former President Bill Clinton's policy on al Qaeda until it had developed its own terrorism strategy.

In a transcript of a NBC News interview, made available by the White House on Saturday, Rice said terrorism was a high priority for Bush from the outset of his term.
"We did pursue the Clinton administration policy and pursued it actively, until we could get in a place a more comprehensive policy -- not to roll back al Qaeda -- but to eliminate al Qaeda," Rice said.

She said Bush had only been in office 230 days when the Sept. 11 attacks happened.

"Even if we had been able to do it in 190 days, or 150 days, it was a policy that our counterterrorism people told us was going to eliminate al Qaeda over three to five years," she said. "This was not something that was going to stop September 11th."

Asked why the government did not retaliate after intelligence in Spring 2001 showed al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the USS Cole warship in Yemen, Rice said:

"We were concerned that we didn't have good military options, that really all we had were options like using cruise missiles to go after training camps that had long been abandoned and that it might have just the opposite effect, it might, in fact embolden the terrorists, not frighten them, or not think that they were being taken seriously."

CBS said Clarke asserts in his book, "Against All Enemies," that Bush ignored ominous intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, but Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley, said Bush did hear those warnings and was impatient for intelligence chiefs to develop a new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland," Hadley told CBS.

He said "the president put us on battle stations. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland."'

Clarke, who left his position in February 2003 after 30 years in government service when the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security, said Bush's decision to invade Iraq had strengthened terror groups.

Sounds like sour grapes to me! It is funny how his book was released just days before he testified before the commission and how CBS promoted it. It is also suspicious how Clarke has contradicted himself in his book and his past testimony a few years ago.

I think Dr. Rice made a very strong showing today to the same commission. It will be very interesting if the major media outlets show the way she put some of those partisan interrogators in their place. I'm sure CBS, ABC, NBC, & CNN will spin today's testimony to make it look like they had Dr. Rice in the hotseat. I am very glad we have such a strong person as Dr. Rice in her position. She did not let them shut her up when she wanted to answer their questions.

I could go on but enough of my soapbox for now.

Maybe Clinton should be asked what he did about it all? Or was he too busy with his own pleasures to even worry about running your country?

Remember, policies put in place take 4-8 years to have an effect. What is happening in the US economy now is partially the result of policies and decisions put into place in the Clinton years.

He was, yesterday I believe.

From what I understand - both Clinton and Bush knew there was a threat, but the information was not detailed enough - and the internal rivalry between the CIA and FBI kept data from being exchanged to make a more complete picture. That rivalry has been there for years and isnt the fault of either Clinton or Bush. Now there is no evidence currently (or at lest publically) to suggest enough information was present to predict and/or prevent 9/11 - So im not incined to fault either one for that tragedy.

Maybe Clinton should be asked what he did about it all? Or was he too busy with his own pleasures to even worry about running your country?

Remember, policies put in place take 4-8 years to have an effect. What is happening in the US economy now is partially the result of policies and decisions put into place in the Clinton years.
By the Republican controlled Senate and Congress which took power in 1992 after 50 years of Dems rule. This economy survived the devasting attack on 9/11. People forget how that completely changed things. Business travel, leisure, etc. For the economy to be were it is, (and yes I know many people feels it sucks) is truly fantastic, because it could be a heck of a lot worse. If we can stay away from a few more attacks on our soil for another year or two, things will really be cooking. Of course, then maybe Kerry gets elected and takes all the credit for it just like Clinton did with the Internet age. Everybody was paying taxes on their huge stock (paper) gains and then that bubble sure popped.