T Nation

Clarke Claims Responsibility

This has been widely ignored by the media. I tried copying/pasting the article below but there are typos that could not be corrected.

Here is the link:
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

This should put to rest Moore’s/Liberals’ claim that Bush soley authorized the flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


Clarke claims responsibility
Ex-counterterrorism czar approved post-9-11 flights for bin Laden family
By Alexander Bolton = The Hill, May 26, 2004

Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, "I take responsibility for it. I don?t think it was a mistake, and I?d do it again.?

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke?s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Several Democrats say that at a closed-door meeting May 6, they pressed members of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11 to find out who approved the flights.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who attended the meeting, said she asked former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a Republican, ?Who authorized the flight[s] and why??

?They said it?s been a part of their inquiry and they haven?t received satisfactory answers yet and they were pushing,? Boxer added.

Another Democrat who attended the meeting confirmed Boxer?s account and reported that Hamilton said: ?We don?t know who authorized it. We?ve asked that question 50 times.?

Referring to questions about who authorized the flights, former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), one of the 10 members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said in an interview Monday: ?In my mind, this isn?t resolved right now. We need more clarity and information from the relevant political sources and FBI sources.?

But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.

?It didn?t get any higher than me,? he said. ?On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn?t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.?

Clarke?s explanation fit with a new stance Hamilton has taken on the issue of the Saudi flights.

Hamilton said in an interview Friday that when he told Democratic senators that the commission did not know who authorized the Saudi flights, he was not fully informed.

?They asked the question ?Who authorized the flight?? and I said I did not know and I?d try to find out,? Hamilton said. ?I learned subsequently from talking to the staff that we thought Clarke authorized the flight and it did not go higher.?

?I did not at any point say the White House was stalling,? Hamilton added. ?They asked me who authorized it, and I said we didn?t know.?

Hamilton said, however, that ?we asked the question of who authorized the flight many times to many people.?

?The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke?s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,? Hamilton said.

He cautioned that this is ?a story that could shift, and we still have this under review.?

This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke?s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.

?The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,? Clarke testified. ?I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the ? at the time ? No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved ? the flight.?

?That?s a little different than saying, ?I claim sole responsibility for it now,?? Roemer said yesterday.

However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.

FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, ?We haven?t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.?

?We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,? she said. ?We didn?t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn?t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.?

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission?s March hearing, ?Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ?Yes, you?re clear to go, it?s all right with the United States government,?? Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

?I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,? Clarke testified. ?I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don?t know. The two ? since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff?s office.?

Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke?s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.

?It couldn?t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,? said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke?s testimony.
Clarke?s testimony did not settle the issue for Roemer, either.

?It doesn?t seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it,? Roemer said Monday.

?I just don?t think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper,? Roemer added. ?Clarke sure didn?t seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers.?

Roemer said there are important policy issues to address, such as the need to develop a flight-departure control system.

Several Democrats on and off the Hill say that bin Laden?s family should have been detained as material witnesses to the attacks. They note that after the attacks, the Bush administration lowered the threshold for detaining potential witnesses. The Department of Justice is estimated to have detained more than 50 material witnesses since Sept. 11.

Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.

?This is a tempest in a teapot,? he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn?t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.

He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.

?It?s very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation.?

The Sept. 11 commission released a statement last month declaring that six chartered flights that evacuated close to 140 Saudi citizens were handled properly by the Bush administration.

It clears things up? The article talks about inconsistencies and a waffling on who was doing the approval. Then Clarke changes his story and takes full responsibility?

How come he didn’t know he was responsible the first time through questioning? Sounds pretty fishy if you ask me. I don’t know if you have ever held a position of responsibility, but if you make an important decision, you damned well know you did so.

It sounds like a case of housecleaning. We get Tenet to take some heat, we get Clarke to take some heat. What other big items are brewing? I bet we get more last minute volunteers to jump in a claim responsibility just in time for the election.

Yep, its all cleared up now. Sigh.

Vroom…dont be dumb.

If you seriously think that there is some big conspiracy between the bush admin and Clarke over this then you need to end yourself because you arent capable of thinking for yourself. Did you miss that whole little book Clarke put out, and maybe how the president and Clarke might not be on the best of terms.

Well, excuse me for being concerned about discrepencies. I’m not worried about a big conspiracy at all, but if you think governments (conservative or liberal) don’t cover things up, then you are very very naive.

To claim that Clarke and the Bush Admin are currently incahoots to cover this up has to be one of the most ridiclious things I have heard short of a Michael Moore movie. Seriously you need to pay closer attention or just learn how to think if you believe there is on iota of chance that Clarke and Bush are working together on ANYTHING. Conspiracy theories rarely hold up…go read the Da Vinci Code if you want good conspiracy fiction.

Things change… things aren’t always what they seem… consider me cautiously suspicious. Perhaps there is leverage involved. I don’t know.

The only thing that bugs me is the waffling and changing on who is responsible for what.

It could also mean that Clarke was trying to shift blame elsewhere during the earlier questioning, which is where I’d have expected you to go with your argument.

Sue me, I don’t always take things at face value.

Clarke changed his tune because that committing suicide with the amazing disappearing bullet (even though they found bullets from the fucking Civil War in the area in the search) in a DC park has already been done.

It was aliens in funny looking ships in cahoots with the FBI that allowed the family of bin Laden (who were as guilty as the family of McVeigh, Kaczynski, and Ted Kennedy…oops, forget that last one) to flee the country, where guilty or not they sure as hell would have been targets of “reprisals”.

They were interviewed by the FBI before being transported by the FBI. It’s a non issue. Do you really think OBL is dumb enough to tell his family, which really distances themselves from him, anything that would allow him to be caught? After all they were living in the land of the Great Satan and subject to the FBI and CIA dragging them in for torturing, I meant questioning, at any time.

Steely, have I claimed any of that nonsense? I don’t think so. However, in the world arena, things deserve a skeptical look.

For example, what would be the implications of publicly making an enemy of Chalibi? If this wasn’t on the up and up, it would mean that he has been “exposed” and “vilified” in order to make him more valuable as an intelligence asset.

Am I claiming this is the case? No. I have no evidence to say that it is. However, in warfare (or politics) things are not always what they seem. Reagan sunk the USSR by making a credible threat with something that hasn’t even been developed to this day.

So, with the Clarke deal, I just want to know what changed. How come the testimony flopped around. Does anybody have some good answers? I don’t give a shit whether the family of OBL was exported or not. I’m not claiming it is an important issue.

So, sometimes, when you hear something, you just have to ask, what if this isn’t the truth? What agenda could this be used to promote? When did the rift occur? Oh well, I guess nobody has ever fallen on their sword at the behest of their leaders before.

If it is nothing, then it is nothing. Relax already.