What Clarke had to say in 2002

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Do points #1 - #3 contradict each other?

Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

This whole thing is confusing. First Clarke says there was no plan on AQ that was passed from Clinton's admin to Bush's admin. Then he talks about the specific strategies in place under Clinton. Then he says in point 3 that after being briefed, the Bush administration adopted all of the existing strategies while reviewing the undecided issues on the table. Sounds like he's contradicting himself right there.

ALSO, WHERE IS POINT #4? I don't see it anywhere. The transcript goes right from #3 to #5. Was it edited out shinerburke? Where did you copy/paste this from? I'd like to go thru these point-by-point if possible.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
This is pretty confusing...

Is this the report that Bush et al supposedly ignored until 9/10?


yes., acccording to clark actions had begun as early as march, but would not go inot the budget until october

CLARKE: One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed ? began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

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




 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Do points #1 - #3 contradict each other?

Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

This whole thing is confusing. First Clarke says there was no plan on AQ that was passed from Clinton's admin to Bush's admin. Then he talks about the specific strategies in place under Clinton. Then he says in point 3 that after being briefed, the Bush administration adopted all of the existing strategies while reviewing the undecided issues on the table. Sounds like he's contradicting himself right there.

ALSO, WHERE IS POINT #4? I don't see it anywhere. The transcript goes right from #3 to #5. Was it edited out shinerburke? Where did you copy/paste this from? I'd like to go thru these point-by-point if possible.
It is a bit confusing, but I think what he is saying is that the Clinton Administration had an overall strategy of containing Al Qaeda but not a plan for how to go about doing it. From other reports I have read that would seem to be true. I have read, don't have links because it's been too long, that the Clinton Administration while wanting to deal with Al Qaeda never had a specific plan and reacted from time to time by launching limited military and covert operations. Very small scale kind of stuff, no coherent strategy at all. I think that is the strategy Clarke is referring to. I also think the points about what the Bush Administration decided to adopt from the strategy are its overall goal and ideas for working with Pakistan, etc....only instead of just talking about it the Bush Administration started making moves to actually do it. The also decided to change the strategy from one of containing Al Qaeda to one of eliminating them.

As for the link...Fox News broke the story and I got the link from their website...not sure if anyone else has it posted.

 

FrodoB

Senior member
Apr 5, 2001
299
0
0
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This Clarke is proving to be a fraud. All the hate filled liberals jumped on his bandwagon and now they're looking like fools. The left is DESPERATE to get back into power. They're sinking fast. His fake emotional apology was absolutely pathetic. But that's not as pathetic as his attempt to make a profit off his own failures and lies.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
So Bush sent Clarke to lie to the press, just like he sent Powell to lie at the UN except anonymously, and now he is bashing Clarke for lying.
The world we live in. The question is, what did Bush do to prevent 9/11, prior to 9/11 as far as actions, and the answer is jack sh!t.
The same can be said about Clinton. Only he had longer to do something....Bush had only been in office since Jan 20 of 2001 so he had less than 9 months to do something. Clinton had 8 years. By all accounts the Bush Administration was doing something....they had increased funding to go after Al Qaeda and had decided to eliminate rahter than contain the terrorist organization. Sounds to me like they were doing something....something more than what was done during Clinton's 8 years in office.

As for your assumption that Clarke was sent out to lie....hmmmm...why is it that what he said in 2002 is automatically a lie yet what he is saying now is now. He had a much longer track record of making statements like those he made in 2002 than he does of what he is saying now.

Oh, I don't know. One is a anonymous news briefing, the other is under oath testimony. One was speaking for the administration, which is already on record lying about WMD's, cost of medicare bill, etc, the other is speaking for himself. Which one to believe ;) So what if Bush changed the policy from containing AQ to eliminating it. Prior to 9/11nothing substantial was done to accomplish either. I want to see an accounting of that supposedly five fold increase of funding to fight AQ, and why it was so ineffective prior to 9/11. If the money was spent, where did it go, since the taxpayer paid 5 fold to see nothing done.
Your name fits.

If you had bothered to read any of this you would have seen that the funding was increased BUT it would not been coming until the next budget cycle started in October of 01. The fiscal year for the govt starts in October...many companies are the same way...so even though funding was going to be increased there wasn't anything the administration could do to increase it before their first budget took effect in October. Anyway...how is it you can give Clinton an 8 year free pass but damn Bush for a 9 month period?

As for Clarke....I've said it before and I will say it again. He was passed over for a better job, became bitter, left the administration, and started saying things that contradicted what he had been saying until he was passed over for promotion.


I am not giving Clinton a free pass. I don't think Bush or Clinton should be elected prez in 04 :D
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Anyway, then we mysteriously are missing point #4 - hmmmm, that's strange, but OK let's continue:

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

So point 5 again points to an adoption of a Clinton strategy. One that he claims didn't exist.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies ? and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

More delays ...

Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

The summer passes by as they develop their "comprehensive strategy."

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

More about the evolving from "rollback" to "elimination" strategies.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

So basically, it took 8 months for the new Bush policy regarding al Qaeda and terrorism to be developed and delivered to the president. The final strategy report was probably sitting on Bush's desk on 9/11 waiting for his review ...
 

DashRiprock

Member
Aug 31, 2001
166
0
76
Originally posted by: FrodoB
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This Clarke is proving to be a fraud. All the hate filled liberals jumped on his bandwagon and now they're looking like fools. The left is DESPERATE to get back into power. They're sinking fast. His fake emotional apology was absolutely pathetic. But that's not as pathetic as his attempt to make a profit off his own failures and lies.
:beer:
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The OP didn't link this transcript, so I thought I would do so: Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02. What I can't figure out is where in the transcript does Clarke 'praise' the Bush Team? It seems to me, if anything, Clarke is on the defensive, just barely coming up with reasonable responses to what was going on in the first 8-9 months of the Bush administration.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The OP didn't link this transcript, so I thought I would do so: Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02. What I can't figure out is where in the transcript does Clarke 'praise' the Bush Team? It seems to me, if anything, Clarke is on the defensive, just barely coming up with reasonable responses to what was going on in the first 8-9 months of the Bush administration.

It's just the Bush fanboys looking to find some way to discredit Clarke.

Doesn't matter that Paul O'Neill, Greg Thielmann, and Daniel Benjamin corroborate Clarke's claims.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
So Bush sent Clarke to lie to the press, just like he sent Powell to lie at the UN except anonymously, and now he is bashing Clarke for lying.
The world we live in. The question is, what did Bush do to prevent 9/11, prior to 9/11 as far as actions, and the answer is jack sh!t.
The same can be said about Clinton. Only he had longer to do something....Bush had only been in office since Jan 20 of 2001 so he had less than 9 months to do something. Clinton had 8 years. By all accounts the Bush Administration was doing something....they had increased funding to go after Al Qaeda and had decided to eliminate rahter than contain the terrorist organization. Sounds to me like they were doing something....something more than what was done during Clinton's 8 years in office.

As for your assumption that Clarke was sent out to lie....hmmmm...why is it that what he said in 2002 is automatically a lie yet what he is saying now is now. He had a much longer track record of making statements like those he made in 2002 than he does of what he is saying now.

Oh, I don't know. One is a anonymous news briefing, the other is under oath testimony. One was speaking for the administration, which is already on record lying about WMD's, cost of medicare bill, etc, the other is speaking for himself. Which one to believe ;) So what if Bush changed the policy from containing AQ to eliminating it. Prior to 9/11nothing substantial was done to accomplish either. I want to see an accounting of that supposedly five fold increase of funding to fight AQ, and why it was so ineffective prior to 9/11. If the money was spent, where did it go, since the taxpayer paid 5 fold to see nothing done.
Your name fits.

If you had bothered to read any of this you would have seen that the funding was increased BUT it would not been coming until the next budget cycle started in October of 01. The fiscal year for the govt starts in October...many companies are the same way...so even though funding was going to be increased there wasn't anything the administration could do to increase it before their first budget took effect in October. Anyway...how is it you can give Clinton an 8 year free pass but damn Bush for a 9 month period?

As for Clarke....I've said it before and I will say it again. He was passed over for a better job, became bitter, left the administration, and started saying things that contradicted what he had been saying until he was passed over for promotion.


I am not giving Clinton a free pass. I don't think Bush or Clinton should be elected prez in 04 :D
My...aren't you clever.

rolleye.gif
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
dont'y you know it is perectly acceptable for clark to say good things about the administration while bucking for a high level job then directly contradict himself when he does not get it?

what is funny the libs are doing thier best to camoflouge the fact that bush actually did more in 10 MONTHS than clinton did in 8 YEARS

actually he wasn't bucking for a high level job. he put in a transfer for the information/internet security side, and this was after 9/11. what bothered him was the fact that terrorism was not a priority for them. even as ever more warnings popped up.

Clarke's distinction, of course, is that he was the ultimate insider?as highly and deeply inside, on this issue, as anyone could imagine. And so his charges are more credible, potent, and dangerous. So, how has Team Bush gone after Clarke? Badly.

To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop.

Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."

It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)

In a further effort to minimize Clarke's importance, a talking-points paper put out by the White House press office states that, contrary to his claims, "Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank." At the same time, the paper denies?again, contrary to the book?that he was demoted: He "continued to be the National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism."

Both arguments are deceptive. Clarke wasn't a Cabinet secretary, but as Clinton's NCC, he ran the "Principals Committee" meetings on counterterrorism, which were attended by Cabinet secretaries. Two NSC senior directors reported to Clarke directly, and he had reviewing power over relevant sections of the federal budget.

Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.

Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. (One less-noted aspect of Clarke's book is its detailed description of the major steps that Clinton took to combat terrorism.)

The White House talking-points paper is filled with these sorts of distortions. For instance, it notes that Bush didn't need to meet with Clarke because, unlike Clinton, he met every day with CIA Director George Tenet, who talked frequently about al-Qaida.

But here's how Clarke describes those meetings:

[Tenet] and I regularly commiserated that al Qaeda was not being addressed more seriously by the new administration. ... We agreed that Tenet would ensure that the president's daily briefings would continue to be replete with threat information on al Qaeda.

The problem is: Nothing happened. (It is significant, by the way, that Tenet has not been recruited?not successfully, anyway?to rebut Clarke's charges. Clarke told Charlie Rose that he was "very close" to Tenet. The two come off as frustrated allies in Clarke's book.)

The White House document insists Bush did take the threat seriously, telling Rice at one point "that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaeda."

Here's how Clarke describes that exchange:

President Bush, reading the intelligence every day and noticing that there was a lot about al Qaeda, asked Condi Rice why it was that we couldn't stop "swatting flies" and eliminate al Qaeda. Rice told me about the conversation and asked how the plan to get al Qaeda was coming in the Deputies' Committee. "It can be presented to the Principals in two days, whenever we can get a meeting," I pressed. Rice promised to get to it soon. Time passed.

The Principals meeting, which Clarke urgently requested during Bush's first week in office, did not take place until one week before 9/11. In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke spelled out the significance of this delay. He contrasted July 2001 with December 1999, when the Clinton White House got word of an impending al-Qaida attack on Los Angeles International Airport and Principals meetings were called instantly and repeatedly:

In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew [but] never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI. ... We could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance.

That's what Clarke says is the tragedy of Bush's inaction, and nobody in the White House has dealt with the charge at all.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
**Breaking News**

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said Clarke's new book, "Against All Enemies," contradicts his testimony at the Intelligence Committee in 2002, according to Roll Call.

"He's either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. . . . If he was lying to a congressional committee, he's got a big problem on his hands here," Goss said.
New York Daily News via Biloxi Sun Herald

**Film at Eleven**
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
"Goss did not specify the substance of the alleged contradictions."

You forgot that part. Perhaps it's because there are NO contradictions.

Guess Cheney and Rice have potential trouble, too:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040324/nyw161_1.html

"DR. RICE: I would not use the word out of the loop. He was in every meeting about terrorism. He was not in the President's daily briefing with George Tenet. What the President did was to reestablish his principal conduit for intelligence information on everything, including terrorism, to be his DCI. But he was not -- he was in every meeting that was held on terrorism, all the deputies' meetings, the principals' meeting that was held, and so forth -- the early meetings after September 11th."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/24/opinion/main608370.shtml

"The other problem with the White House's dismissal of Clarke's alleged meeting fetish is that it contradicts one of the Bushies' other attacks on him. Maybe those cabinet-level meetings on al Qaeda weren't important, but McClellan suggests that Rice's staff meetings were essential. "Dr. Rice, early on in the administration," McClellan said yesterday, "started holding daily briefings with the senior directors of the National Security Council, of which he was one. But he refused to attend those meetings, and he was later asked to attend those meetings and he continued to refuse to attend those meetings."


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032304/content/cheney_to_rush__clarke__not_in_the_loop_.guest.html

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn't -- he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn't "
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
RICHARD CLARKE'S SHIFTING STORIES

'You've got a real credibility problem," former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the federal 9/11 commission, told one-time White House official - now full-time fabulist - Richard Clarke yesterday.
...
As several commissioners noted, the book's accusations - which he repeated under oath yesterday - are totally at odds with the 15 hours of closed-door testimony Clarke delivered earlier to the 9/11 commission
...
And they are dramatically contradicted by a press backgrounder Clarke himself conducted in August 2002. Fox News made an audiotape of that briefing public yesterday; in it, Clarke confirms much of what Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified to on Tuesday.

"I've seen your book, and I've seen the text of your press briefing," said former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson. "Which one is true?"
...
Continuing, Clarke said that key security matters had been left unresolved since 1998, "because they were tough issues" and the Clinton White House was unprepared to make hard decisions.





And he confirmed that the first, more forceful, changes in counter-terrorism strategy since October 1998 weren't made until the spring of 2001 - after the Bush administration took office.

Clarke's 2002 account tellingly coincides precisely with the recollections of Powell and Rumsfeld: that the final comprehensive strategic plan, approved in principle months earlier, had been signed off on by all the principals and presented to the president by Sept. 10, 2001.

That is, exactly one day before the destruction of the World Trade Center.

This helps explains why Lehman was befuddled by Clarke's latest testimony - to say nothing of the book.

Lehman, remember, had heard Clarke's in camera testimony to the commission.

"This can't be the same Dick Clarke I heard behind closed doors," the former secretary said. "There is a tremendous difference, not just in nuance but in what you choose [now] to tell. It is so different from the thrust of your [earlier] testimony."

So, what changed?

"

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News**

Remember that planeload of Saudis that left shortly after 9/11? Who let it go? Richard Clarke

**Film at Eleven**
Yeah and many of them were the Dub's Close friends, the Bin Laden Family.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Charles Krauthammer writes that Clarke is a "partisan perjurer":

It is only March, but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11 -- after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.

First, if the Clarke of 2002 was telling the truth, then the Clarke of this week -- the one who told the Sept. 11 commission under oath that "fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly [there was] no higher priority" -- is a liar.

Second, he becomes not just a perjurer but a partisan perjurer. He savages Bush for not having made al Qaeda his top national security priority, but he refuses even to call a "mistake" Clinton's staggering dereliction in putting Yasser Arafat and Yugoslavia(!) above fighting al Qaeda.

Clarke gives Clinton a pass and instead concentrates his ire on Bush. For what? For not having preemptively attacked Afghanistan? On what grounds -- increased terrorist chatter in June and July 2001?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Ah...I love the spin:

"blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11"

Where does Clarke specifically blame Bush for the attacks? The crux of Clarke's statements is that the President focused too much on Iraq and not on Al Qaeda.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Hmm...this appears to be pretty damning of the Bush Administration:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020114fa_FACT1

Clarke immediately spotted in O'Neill an obsessiveness about the dangers of terrorism which mirrored his own. "John had the same problems with the bureaucracy that I had," Clarke told me. "Prior to September 11th, a lot of people who were working full time on terrorism thought it was no more than a nuisance. They didn't understand that Al Qaeda was enormously powerful and insidious and that it was not going to stop until it really hurt us. John and some other senior officials knew that. The impatience really grew in us as we dealt with the dolts who didn't understand."

In March, 2001, Richard Clarke asked the national-security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, for a job change; he wanted to concentrate on computer security. "I was told, 'You've got to recommend somebody similar to be your replacement,' " Clarke recalled. "I said, 'Well, there's only one person who would fit that bill.' " For months, Clarke tried to persuade O'Neill to become a candidate as his successor.
Ah...he was demoted, eh? Another Bush Admin lie!

O'Neill had always harbored two aspirations?to become a deputy director of the bureau in Washington or to take over the New York office. Freeh was retiring in June, so there were likely to be some vacancies at the top, but the investigation into the briefcase incident would likely block any promotion in the bureau. O'Neill viewed Clarke's job as, in many ways, a perfect fit for him. But he was financially pressed, and Clarke's job paid no more than he was making at the F.B.I. Throughout the summer, O'Neill refused to commit himself to Clarke's offer. He talked about it with a number of friends but became alarmed when he thought that headquarters might hear of it. "He called me in a worked-up state," Clarke recalled. "He said that people in the C.I.A. and elsewhere know you are considering recommending me for your job. You have to tell them it's not true." Clarke dutifully called a friend in the agency, even though O'Neill still wanted to be a candidate for the position.

In July, O'Neill heard of a job opening in the private sector which would pay more than twice his government salary?that of chief of security for the World Trade Center. Although the Justice Department dropped its inquiry into the briefcase incident, the bureau was conducting an internal investigation of its own. O'Neill was aware that the Times was preparing a story about the affair, and he learned that the reporters also knew about the incident in New Jersey involving James and had classified information that probably came from the bureau's investigative files.The leak seemed to be timed to destroy O'Neill's chance of being confirmed for the N.S.C. job. He decided to retire.

O'Neill suspected that the source of the information was either Tom Pickard or Dale Watson. The antagonism between him and Pickard was well known. "I've got a pretty good Irish temper and so did John," Pickard, who retired last November, told me. But he insisted that their differences were professional, not personal. The leak was "somebody being pretty vicious to John," but Pickard maintained that he did not do it. "I'd take a polygraph to it," he said. Watson told me, "If you're asking me who leaks F.B.I. information, I have no idea. I know I don't, and I know that Tom Pickard doesn't, and I know that the director doesn't." For all the talk about polygraphs, the bureau ruled out an investigation into the source of the leak, despite an official request by Barry Mawn, in New York.

Meanwhile, intelligence had been streaming in concerning a likely Al Qaeda attack. "It all came together in the third week in June," Clarke said. "The C.I.A.'s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks." On July 5th, Clarke summoned all the domestic security agencies?the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the F.B.I.?and told them to increase their security in light of an impending attack.On August 19th, the Times ran an article about the briefcase incident and O'Neill's forthcoming retirement, which was to take place three days later. There was a little gathering for coffee as he packed up his office.

When O'Neill told ABC's Isham of his decision to work at the Trade Center, Isham had said jokingly, "At least they're not going to bomb it again." O'Neill had replied, "They'll probably try to finish the job." On the day he started at the Trade Center?August 23rd?the C.I.A. sent a cable to the F.B.I. saying that two suspected Al Qaeda terrorists were already in the country. The bureau tried to track them down, but the addresses they had given when they entered the country proved to be false, and the men were never located.



At 8:46 A.M., when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower, John P. O'Neill, Jr., was on a train to New York, to install some computer equipment and visit his father's new office. From the window of the train he saw smoke coming from the Trade Center. He called his father on his cell phone. "He said he was O.K. He was on his way out to assess the damage," John, Jr., recalled.

Valerie James was arranging flowers in her office when "the phones started ringing off the hook." A second airliner had just hit the south tower. "At nine-seventeen, John calls," James remembered. He said, "Honey, I want you to know I'm O.K. My God, Val, it's terrible. There are body parts everywhere. Are you crying?" he asked. She was. Then he said, "Val, I think my employers are dead. I can't lose this job."

"They're going to need you more than ever," she told him.

At nine-twenty-five, Anna DiBattista, who was driving to Philadelphia on business, received a call from O'Neill. "The connection was good at the beginning," she recalled. "He was safe and outside. He said he was O.K. I said, 'Are you sure you're out of the building?' He told me he loved me. I knew he was going to go back in."

Wesley Wong, an F.B.I. agent who had known O'Neill for more than twenty years, raced over to the north tower to help set up a command center. "John arrived on the scene," Wong recalled. "He asked me if there was any information I could divulge. I knew he was now basically an outsider. One of the questions he asked was 'Is it true the Pentagon has been hit?' I said, 'Gee, John, I don't know. Let me try to find out.' At one point, he was on his cell phone and he was having trouble with the reception and started walking away. I said, 'I'll catch up with you later.' "

Wong last saw O'Neill walking toward the tunnel leading to the second tower.