Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close
The Washington Times Online Edition

Clarke then …

Excerpts from the August 2002 press briefing by Richard A. Clarke:

RICHARD CLARKE: There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration … In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. [They] decided to … vigorously pursue the existing policy [and] … initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years.

In their first meeting [the principles] changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding [for covert action against al Qaeda] five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [They] then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda … to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against … the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with [the] terrorism issue … There was never a plan [in the Clinton administration].

QUESTION: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. In the spring [of 2001], the Bush administration … began to change Pakistani policy. We began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis … [to] join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that’s really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration … prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points … to think about it. And they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

QUESTION: You’re saying … there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ‘98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it …The other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the [policy] from one of rollback to one of elimination.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like
  • (Associated Press Photographs)

    Worried conservatives descend on Washington’s CPAC

    By Ralph Z. Hallow - The Washington Times

  • Taliban leaders have havens in Quetta and Peshawar in Pakistan, said retired Army Gen. Jack Keane,

    General: ‘Use drones to kill’ the Taliban in Pakistan

    By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times

  • **FILE** An auction sign is shown outside the Fremont, Calif., headquarters for bankrupt solar company Solyndra headquarters on Oct. 31, 2011, before the auction on the following day. Solyndra received a $500 million loan guarantee from the government before filing for bankruptcy in September. (Associated Press)

    Solyndra sold assets cheap for fast cash

    By Jim McElhatton - The Washington Times

  • In Case You Missed It
    Talk of the Web
    Happening Now

          Independent voices from the TWT Communities

          Middle Class Guy

          What does the middle-class conservative think about everything? Find out here.

          Culinary Quest

          Great discoveries in the world of restaurants and chefs fulfill the quest for delicious food and cooking.

          Legally Speaking

          Despite cynicism about the law, it can provide you justice, protection, and ensure your rights. It can be exasperating, and at times, wildly entertaining.