»Clinton failed in protecting the US«

Much of the discussion dealt with the policies of former President Bill Clinton, for whom Mylroie served as an advisor on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign. Mylroie reported that her former boss had taken a tough stance toward Iraq on the campaign trail; once he took office, however, Clinton suddenly developed an aversion to dealing with what Mylroie called "the unfinished business of the Gulf War."

The response to the bombing of the World Trade Center in February of 1993 demonstrated the weakness of the Clinton administration's policies on terrorism, Mylroie said. The New York FBI suspected that Iraq had played a major role in the bombing, citing the sophistication of the attack plan and the suspicious ease with which the alleged perpetrators had been captured. Most intelligence officials, however, promoted the theory that state-sponsored terrorism had given way to attacks by "loose networks" of terrorists such as al Qaeda, with the WTC bombing being a case in point.

Mylroie disagreed and wrote a book making the case that Iraq had planned the WTC bombing and used Islamic militants to cover its tracks. Although she had assembled a great deal of evidence, including information from the New York FBI's investigation, she was informed that there was no market for the book-one publisher even told her that the subject didn't merit a book of its own because only six people died in the attack.

Former President Clinton was aware of the evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attack, Mylroie reported, but brushed it aside because of his reluctance to confront Iraq. The administration "spun the media away" from evidence of Iraqi coordination, Mylroie said, and clung to the theory that the bombing was performed by terrorists unaffiliated with any state. The CIA went so far as to ignore and even suppress evidence of Iraq's possible role in terrorism, she charged.

Mylroie recalled other errors of judgment from the Clinton years. In June 1993, after Iraq's failed attempt to assassinate former President George Bush, Clinton ordered cruise missiles launched at Iraqi intelligence headquarters, thinking that this would be sufficient to deter Saddam Hussein from any future attacks. In 1998, Clinton called off a bombing 30 minutes beforehand when Iraq faxed the U.N. a promise to comply with weapons inspections.

One of the main problems with 1990s counterterrorism efforts, Mylroie argued, was that the U.S. too often treated terrorism as an issue of law enforcement rather than one of national security. As such, the issue was left to prosecutors, who were concerned only with convicting individual terrorists, neglecting the question of whether their actions might have been coordinated by a foreign government.

Well, a great deal was done. The [Clinton] administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States and around the world at the millennium period, they stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia, they stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world, they authorized covert lethal action by the CIA against al Qaeda, they retaliated with cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan, they got sanctions against Afghanistan from the United Nations. There was a great deal the administration did, even though at the time, prior to 9/11, al Qaeda had arguably not done a great deal to the United States.

If you look at the eight years of the Clinton administration, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of fewer than 50 Americans over those eight years. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 Americans were killed in Lebanon and there was no retaliation. Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed on Pan-Am 103 and there was no retaliation.

I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal. In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this "little terrorist" [Osama] bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

Clarke: Because on June 21st, I believe it was, George Tenet ♣ called me and said, "I don't think we're getting the message through. These people [Bush administration] aren't acting the way the Clinton people did under similar circumstances."

And I suggested to Tenet that he come down and personally brief Condi Rice, that he bring his terrorism team with him. And we sat in the national security adviser's office. And I've used the phrase in the book to describe George Tenet's warnings as "he had his hair on fire." He was about as excited as I had ever seen him. And he said, "Something is going to happen."

Now, when he said that in December 1999 to the national security adviser, at the time Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger then held daily meetings throughout December 1999, in the White House situation room, with the FBI director, the attorney general, the head of the CIA, the head of the Defense Department. And they shook out of their bureaucracies every last piece of information to prevent the attacks. And we did prevent the attacks in December 1999. Dr. Rice chose not to do that.

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."