Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Richard Clark
Aired March 23, 2004 - 07:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Could the 9/11 attacks have been prevented? The Commission asking top officials the tough questions in public hearings today.
One key witness, Richard Clarke, with us live today. The former White House official triggering a wave of criticisms saying the president ignored terrorism.
Protests in Iraq against the killing of Hamas' leader turn violent. Hamas says the U.S. now must be punished.
And some of the most prescribed medications in the U.S., antidepressants. Can they trigger suicides? That question this hour on AMERICAN MORNING.
ANNOUNCER: From the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Bill Hemmer and Soledad O'Brien.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, welcome everybody.
Other stories that we're following this morning: the agonizing process of finding an impartial jury in the Scott Peterson murder trial.
Some people say it actually just can't be done. This morning we talk with the criminal defense attorney.
HEMMER: They've gone through hundreds already in that case.
O'BRIEN: More, yes.
HEMMER: Also, before John Kerry ever became a concern for the White House, he was a concern for President Richard Nixon. So much so that President Nixon had his every move tracked by the FBI.
Why? And what did they find out? We'll get a report on that this morning as well.
O'BRIEN: Jack Cafferty with us this morning. Hello.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Strain (ph) for the United States is going to undertake whether or not to change the wording to the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll tell you what that's all about in a few minutes.
HEMMER: Thank you Jack. O'BRIEN: All right, Jack, thanks.
Top stories first. This morning, the commission that's investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks begins two days of hearings today.
The independent council will hear from top officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his predecessor William Cohen are among those who are scheduled to testify today.
We've got much more on this throughout the show.
Fierce fighting along the Afghan border enters its second week. Tribal elders may try again today to persuade suspected al Qaeda fighters to surrender. Military sources say that Pakistani troops are searching house to house for the militants.
Meanwhile, scores of people, including at least a dozen Pakistani troops, have been reportedly killed in an ambush in that region.
A prosecutor in Ohio says police officers who repeatedly struck a 350-pound man to try to subdue him will not be held criminally responsible in his death. Nathaniel Jones died at a Cincinnati hospital last year shortly after being hit with metal nightsticks.
The prosecutor says the case is now closed and will not go before a grand jury. A coroner had found high levels of PCP and cocaine in Jones' blood.
The Queen of Soul back on -- is on the sick list -- rather, this morning. Aretha Franklin in the hospital.
Her publicist is keeping mum on the details, though. Franklin, who is best known for her hits like "Respect" and "Chain of Fools," was said to be in stable condition. She turns 62 this Thursday.
More news of trouble with the space shuttle fleet. NASA says a mistake made more than 20 years ago could have doomed the space shuttle Discovery.
According to the agency, gears were installed backward on the speed brakes that could have failed during an emergency landing.
NASA says it will now replace key parts on all three shuttles.
(WEATHER REPORT)
HEMMER: They say the best defense is a good offense and the White House hitting back at its former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke from every angle yesterday.
In his new book "Against All Enemies" slamming the White House for its actions, or lack of them, before and after 9/11, Clarke will testify tomorrow before a public hearing at the 9/11 Commission. That panel also hearing from senior members of the Bush and the Clinton administrations.
Richard Clarke our guest here live this morning on AMERICAN MORNING.
Nice to see you. Good morning to you.
RICHARD CLARKE, AUTHOR, "AGAINST ALL ENEMIES": Thanks Bill.
HEMMER: You paint a picture of a White House obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Why do you believe that was the case?
CLARKE: Well because I was there and I saw it. You know, the White House is papering over facts such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.
Even though they knew at the time from me, from the FBI, from the CIA, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
HEMMER: The White House says before they even arrived at the White House the previous administration was obsessed with nothing -- and I want you to look at a picture here that we saw last week from NBC News.
An al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar. They allege at the time why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out?
This was August of 2000.
CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States.
And around the world at the millennium period and 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 on Afghanistan from the United Nations.
There was a great deal that 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 bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?
HEMMER: It seems that this could go for pit for pat and almost a ping-pong match. Show you a couple more images. Two you mentioned a few back to the 1980s, show you the U.S.S. Cole bombing, October 2000 and a few short weeks before the election I saw -- eventually George Bush take the White House helm.
Prior to that, August 1998 Tanzania, Kenya, the U.S. Embassy bombings there.
If you want to go back to Beirut, Lebanon, the early 1980s the White House now was saying go back to 1998, go back to the fall of 2000.
CLARKE: Right, and what happened after 1998? There was a military retaliation against al Qaeda and the covert action program was launched, the U.N. sanctions were obtained.
The administration did an all-out effort compared to what the Bush administration did. And the Bush administration did virtually nothing during the first months of the administration prior to 9/11.
President Bush himself said in a book, when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus; it was not the focus of my team.
He's saying that. President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say it.
HEMMER: In part, but the White House would come back and say but the reason why they suggest that statement is because of what was stated yesterday in "The Washington Post."
Condoleezza Rice wrote, in part, Dr. Rice's words on the screen now -- "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." Is she wrong?
CLARKE: Yes, she's -- that's counter-factual. We presented the plan to her, call it a plan, call it a strategy. We presented it to her before she was even sworn in to office.
There are lots of witnesses and it's just -- you know -- they're trying to divert attention from the truth here and they're trying to get me involved in personal vendettas and all sorts of attacks on my personality, and they've got all sorts of people on the taxpayers rolls going around attacking me and attacking the book and writing talking points and distributing them to radio talk shows and whatnot around the country.
Now, let's just look at the facts. The administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director was telling them virtually every day that there was a major threat.
HEMMER: I am hearing from some families of the victims from 9/11 -- they're saying if it was such an urgent matter, if you truly believed the White House botched the war on terror, beginning on September 12 why now?
On such a critical national/international issue do you write the book in March of 2004?
CLARKE: I wrote the book as soon as I retired from government. It was finished last fall, and it sat in the White House for months because as a former White House official my book has to be reviewed by the White House for security purposes.
This book could have come out a long time ago, months and months ago, if the White House hadn't sat on it.
HEMMER: The White House is saying you only check the facts when it comes to the book itself on whether or not they are sacrificing national security.
CLARKE: They took months and months and months to do it. They're saying why is the book coming out in the beginning of the election?
I didn't want it to come out at the beginning of the election; I wanted it to come out last year. They're the reason -- because they took so long to clear it.
HEMMER: Let me stop you one second here. I want to go back to the issue of Iraq. Condoleezza Rice with Soledad yesterday on AMERICAN MORNING.
This is how she phrased this alleged conversation that happened on the 12 of September 2001.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I can't recollect such a conversation, but its not surprising that the president wanted to know if we were going to retaliate who -- against whom were we going to retaliate.
And of course Iraq, given our history, given the fact that they tried to kill a former president, was a likely suspect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: There are now questions about this conversation, what happened, what did not happen.
On "Sixty Minutes" Sunday night you said this: "Well, there's a lot of blame to go around. I probably deserve some blame, too."
How do you blame yourself?
CLARKE: Well I don't blame myself for making up the conversation. I didn't hallucinate.
There are four eyewitnesses to the conversation which the president had with me, so it's very convenient that Dr. Rice and the president are now having a memory lapse, a senior moment.
But there are four eyewitnesses who recall vividly what happened, and agree with my interpretation. This is not the president saying do everything, look at everybody, look at Iran, look at Hezbollah.
This is the president in a very intimidating way finger in my face saying I want a paper on Iraq and this attack.
Now, everyone in the room got the same impression and everyone in the room recalls it vividly. So, I'm not making it up. I don't have to make it up.
It's part of a pattern with this administration even before they came into office. He was out to get Iraq even though Iraq was not threatening the United States.
HEMMER: One final question if I could. Tomorrow you'll be publicly testifying on Capitol Hill before that 9/11 Commission. What is your message to them that we will hear tomorrow?
CLARKE: I think the message is that the United States mechanisms, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the White House -- failed during both the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration.
HEMMER: Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies," thank you. Nice to talk to you.
CLARKE: Thanks Bill.
HEMMER: Soledad?
O'BRIEN: Our coverage of the 9/11 Commission hearings begins at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is first. Then, current Secretary of State Colin Powell.
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense back in the Clinton administration, and current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In just a few minutes we're going to talk to the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.
Also this morning the U.S. paying close attention to threats from Palestinian groups in the wake of Israel's assassination of the founder of Hamas.
The al-Aqsa Northern Brigade, which is linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, is threatening retaliation against Israel for yesterday's missile attack that killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
And for the first time Hamas is threatening the United States because it believes Israel acted with U.S. compliance. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is heeding the Hamas threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: They've demonstrated the capability of bringing death and destruction to other parts of the world, and if they are threatening the United States -- our interests either abroad or domestically we have to take the threat seriously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: A demonstration in support of Hamas and its fallen founder in the Iraqi town of Ramadi turned violent today.
The crowd was protesting against Israel and the United States. Protesters destroyed vehicles, threw stones and other objects at U.S. soldiers.
Israel's security forces are on high alert today fearing reprisals after the killing of Sheikh Yassin. Meanwhile, an official says Israel will not hesitate to strike against other militant leaders if the opportunity presents itself.
For more from the region, let's turn now to Chris Burns standing by in Gaza City for the very latest on all of this for us this morning.
Chris, good morning.
CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Soledad.
Well, tension on both sides. A lot of anticipation of what is going to happen next.
There is a state of mourning here in Gaza City. In fact, Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, the Palestinian prime minister, came over from the West Bank to pay his condolences at a large green condolence tent for Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
This was after yesterday's protest by tens of thousands, as many as 200,000 people, taking to the streets here in angry protest of that targeted assassination by the Israelis of the elderly cleric who leads -- who led Hamas.
The -- there haven't been any rockets or mortars fired since late last night, but the Israelis maintain forces, a number of tanks and armored vehicles, in one village near the Israeli border, to try to prevent any further firings by Hamas.
The Israelis, yes, are very much on high alert. In fact, more check points in the -- throughout the country.
They will be on high alert for at least one more month anticipating yet another series of suicide bombings as has happened in previous targeted killings or assassinations.
So this three-day mourning here continues, but a lot of anticipation as to what could happen next -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Chris Burns in Gaza City for us this morning. Chris thanks.
Still to come this morning, tough questioning is expected today for senior members of President Bush's national security team and the Clinton White House as well.
We're going to hear from 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean and vice-chairman Lee Hamilton.
HEMMER: Also the judge in the Scott Peterson case makes a ruling that could hurt the defense. What it means for that case in a moment, as well.
O'BRIEN: And how long can the housing boom last? And what should home buyers be doing right now? A look at that is ahead as AMERICAN MORNING continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: Medical note now, the FDA wants new warning labels on some widely used antidepressants.
It's asking drug companies to include warnings that patients should be monitored for suicidal behavior and anxiety, especially when they start taking the medications.
The drugs mentioned include Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, and Celexa as well as Remeron, Lexapro, Luvox, Serzone and Wellbutrin.
This is what one Food and Drug Administration official had to say about the move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DIANNE MURPHY, FDA, DIR. OFFICE OF COUNTERTERRORISM: The FDA is trying to make sure that the public knows to be aware of the things to look for when you begin these therapies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: That warning comes after a panel of experts called on the FDA to issue stronger warnings about the possible risks of suicidal behavior among children and teenagers taking the drugs, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta much more in our next hour on this critical decision from yesterday and the FDA -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Jury selection resumes today in the Scott Peterson case.
So far, one potential juror has been chosen for the double murder trial. Meanwhile, the judge says that Peterson's interviews in the days and weeks after his wife's disappearance will be admissible.
Joining us this morning from Miami to talk about some developments in that case is criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.
Hey, Jayne, nice to see you, good morning to you.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning, Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Let's get right to it. What exactly do you think is the impact of this judge now saying that those comments -- and there are many of them -- that Scott Peterson made to local media and national media in the wake of his wife's disappearance.
What's the impact of that now being allowed?
WEINTRAUB: Well, for the prosecution, Soledad, it's going to allow them to begin to tie this string of circumstantial evidence that they'll weave through their case.
They're going to say that it demonstrates the consciousness of guilt. All of the different inconsistent statements that Scott Peterson made; all of the lies with the straight face, convincingly, you know, with tears on his face as he looked at Diane Sawyer and said three different things that we know were not true.
However, for the defense -- the defense is going to say this is all irrelevant. They're going to have to concede from the beginning that Scott Peterson was having an affair.
That, in fact, he had more than one affair and he did not want to admit that on public television.
However, that does not mean that he's a murderer. In fact, they will say there were no eyewitnesses. There is no physical evidence; there is no cause of death. That will be the mantra of the defense.
So his TV interviews as far as Mark Geragos will -- is concerned will be deflected and downplayed.
O'BRIEN: So you think the biggest issue is going to be, or everything will focus on the comments that were made about adultery, and if the defense goes ahead and sort of concedes that point, it's not necessarily a big deal?
WEINTRAUB: Well, it is a big deal in the sense that they're going to see his demeanor. And for the prosecution that's a big point.
They're going to see -- the jurors will see him -- lying without flinching. He will -- they will see him with tears in his eyes about where he was and what he was doing.
For example, the prosecutor will make a big deal about the fact he said he could barely open the door to what they thought was going to be the nursery for the baby. And then a few weeks later, the police searched his home and they find that it's being used as a storage bin, basically.
And the defense will have to answer that and basically explain things change, emotions change, and again that doesn't make him a murderer. That this was unexpected, these flood of emotions.
O'BRIEN: Do you think that all of this is only relevant or mostly relevant if he takes the stand? I mean, because, again they're going to be comparing demeanor.
Look, someone can lie about certain things that are known to be facts now and obviously the point will be made. Now he's on the stand we're saying -- this is the prosecution saying -- he's lying again look at his demeanor. So if he doesn't take the stand is all of this kind of a moot point?
WEINTRAUB: Well, it's not that it's moot because he still will have all these inconsistent statements but it will be less damaging to the defense.
And of course that is a very big consideration in whether or not your client will testify. What will the cross examination be, what evidence will come in if he testifies that otherwise would not come in.
O'BRIEN: Do you think he's going to testify? Do you think he should?
WEINTRAUB: That's a decision that's really made at the last minute.
O'BRIEN: Oh, Jayne, come on -- I recognize that it's a decision made by somebody else, but it's not what I asked you.
WEINTRAUB: Well from what I -- from what I can see, I don't think he'll testify.
O'BRIEN: Interesting, all right. Jayne Weintraub.
WEINTRAUB: And the reason, though, Soledad is that there really is -- there isn't any cause of death.
There is so much reasonable doubt, I think that Mark will have plenty to argue. And remember: that's going to be a big hurdle to overcome, that he doesn't have to testify.
O'BRIEN: You don't think jurors are going to want to hear from the grieving husband if his point is I didn't kill my wife?
WEINTRAUB: I think jurors always -- I think they always want to hear the other side, but remember, our constitution protects against that.
And our constitution guarantees that you do not have to be a witness against yourself, and that's one of the courts instructions that they will hear.
O'BRIEN: We will see. Jayne Weintraub, as always, nice to see you. Thanks a lot.
WEINTRAUB: Thank you, Soledad. O'BRIEN: Bill.
HEMMER: Still to come here today, he is the Democratic presidential candidate for the White House, but once John Kerry was under the watchful eye of the FBI. We'll explain that in a moment on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: All right welcome back. "Question of The Day" and Jack.
CAFFERTY: Thank you Bill. The world will stop turning on its axis tomorrow while the highest court in the land tries to decide what the phrase "under God" means.
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case brought by this guy Michael Newdow, a California atheist who doesn't want his 9-year-old daughter exposed to the phrase "under God" while saying the Pledge of Allegiance in her school.
The words were added in 1954 during the Cold War. In June of 2002 a San Francisco appellate court -- read that most liberal appellate court in the entire world -- ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it in schools is unconstitutional, saying that those words constitute an endorsement of religion.
The case is a tricky one, though. It's also wrapped around a custody dispute. Seems that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter at the time he brought the case.
Meaning technically at the time it wasn't any of his business whether she said "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance, or not.
Nevertheless, here's the question: Do the words "under God" belong in the Pledge of Allegiance? You can e-mail us at am@cnn.com.
HEMMER: About a year and a half ago, this was the talk day after day here.
CAFFERTY: Well it's the talk again today.
O'BRIEN: Tell us how you think. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Supreme Court without people realizing that he actually sort of doesn't have a legal leg to stand on; doesn't have custody.
CAFFERTY: He's got nothing -- just some nutcase stirring up trouble.
O'BRIEN: That's not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say...
(LAUGHTER)
O'BRIEN: Thanks for trying to clarify for me. Well does he have custody of the girl now? CAFFERTY: I don't know.
O'BRIEN: All right; well.
CAFFERTY: Doesn't really matter. At the time that he filed this case he didn't have custody. I don't think he does; I think the mother has custody.
O'BRIEN: So may not matter in the end anyway.
CAFFERTY: Well the Supreme Court can take one look at this and say you're out of here.
O'BRIEN: Interesting.
CAFFERTY: Which would be an interesting legal brief from the Supreme Court. You're out of here.
O'BRIEN: How do you spell that?
O'BRIEN: That's E-W-F-F-F.
CAFFERTY: Yes, something like that. As in you're out of here.
Circling the drain this morning. And yet so early; only 27 minutes in.
Still to come this morning, who knew what? The question now before 9/11 this morning top officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations are going before investigators who are demanding some answers.
We're going to hear from the men who will be asking the questions up next on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired March 23, 2004 - 07:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Could the 9/11 attacks have been prevented? The Commission asking top officials the tough questions in public hearings today.
One key witness, Richard Clarke, with us live today. The former White House official triggering a wave of criticisms saying the president ignored terrorism.
Protests in Iraq against the killing of Hamas' leader turn violent. Hamas says the U.S. now must be punished.
And some of the most prescribed medications in the U.S., antidepressants. Can they trigger suicides? That question this hour on AMERICAN MORNING.
ANNOUNCER: From the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Bill Hemmer and Soledad O'Brien.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, welcome everybody.
Other stories that we're following this morning: the agonizing process of finding an impartial jury in the Scott Peterson murder trial.
Some people say it actually just can't be done. This morning we talk with the criminal defense attorney.
HEMMER: They've gone through hundreds already in that case.
O'BRIEN: More, yes.
HEMMER: Also, before John Kerry ever became a concern for the White House, he was a concern for President Richard Nixon. So much so that President Nixon had his every move tracked by the FBI.
Why? And what did they find out? We'll get a report on that this morning as well.
O'BRIEN: Jack Cafferty with us this morning. Hello.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Strain (ph) for the United States is going to undertake whether or not to change the wording to the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll tell you what that's all about in a few minutes.
HEMMER: Thank you Jack. O'BRIEN: All right, Jack, thanks.
Top stories first. This morning, the commission that's investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks begins two days of hearings today.
The independent council will hear from top officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his predecessor William Cohen are among those who are scheduled to testify today.
We've got much more on this throughout the show.
Fierce fighting along the Afghan border enters its second week. Tribal elders may try again today to persuade suspected al Qaeda fighters to surrender. Military sources say that Pakistani troops are searching house to house for the militants.
Meanwhile, scores of people, including at least a dozen Pakistani troops, have been reportedly killed in an ambush in that region.
A prosecutor in Ohio says police officers who repeatedly struck a 350-pound man to try to subdue him will not be held criminally responsible in his death. Nathaniel Jones died at a Cincinnati hospital last year shortly after being hit with metal nightsticks.
The prosecutor says the case is now closed and will not go before a grand jury. A coroner had found high levels of PCP and cocaine in Jones' blood.
The Queen of Soul back on -- is on the sick list -- rather, this morning. Aretha Franklin in the hospital.
Her publicist is keeping mum on the details, though. Franklin, who is best known for her hits like "Respect" and "Chain of Fools," was said to be in stable condition. She turns 62 this Thursday.
More news of trouble with the space shuttle fleet. NASA says a mistake made more than 20 years ago could have doomed the space shuttle Discovery.
According to the agency, gears were installed backward on the speed brakes that could have failed during an emergency landing.
NASA says it will now replace key parts on all three shuttles.
(WEATHER REPORT)
HEMMER: They say the best defense is a good offense and the White House hitting back at its former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke from every angle yesterday.
In his new book "Against All Enemies" slamming the White House for its actions, or lack of them, before and after 9/11, Clarke will testify tomorrow before a public hearing at the 9/11 Commission. That panel also hearing from senior members of the Bush and the Clinton administrations.
Richard Clarke our guest here live this morning on AMERICAN MORNING.
Nice to see you. Good morning to you.
RICHARD CLARKE, AUTHOR, "AGAINST ALL ENEMIES": Thanks Bill.
HEMMER: You paint a picture of a White House obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Why do you believe that was the case?
CLARKE: Well because I was there and I saw it. You know, the White House is papering over facts such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.
Even though they knew at the time from me, from the FBI, from the CIA, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
HEMMER: The White House says before they even arrived at the White House the previous administration was obsessed with nothing -- and I want you to look at a picture here that we saw last week from NBC News.
An al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar. They allege at the time why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out?
This was August of 2000.
CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States.
And around the world at the millennium period and 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 on Afghanistan from the United Nations.
There was a great deal that 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 bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?
HEMMER: It seems that this could go for pit for pat and almost a ping-pong match. Show you a couple more images. Two you mentioned a few back to the 1980s, show you the U.S.S. Cole bombing, October 2000 and a few short weeks before the election I saw -- eventually George Bush take the White House helm.
Prior to that, August 1998 Tanzania, Kenya, the U.S. Embassy bombings there.
If you want to go back to Beirut, Lebanon, the early 1980s the White House now was saying go back to 1998, go back to the fall of 2000.
CLARKE: Right, and what happened after 1998? There was a military retaliation against al Qaeda and the covert action program was launched, the U.N. sanctions were obtained.
The administration did an all-out effort compared to what the Bush administration did. And the Bush administration did virtually nothing during the first months of the administration prior to 9/11.
President Bush himself said in a book, when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus; it was not the focus of my team.
He's saying that. President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say it.
HEMMER: In part, but the White House would come back and say but the reason why they suggest that statement is because of what was stated yesterday in "The Washington Post."
Condoleezza Rice wrote, in part, Dr. Rice's words on the screen now -- "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." Is she wrong?
CLARKE: Yes, she's -- that's counter-factual. We presented the plan to her, call it a plan, call it a strategy. We presented it to her before she was even sworn in to office.
There are lots of witnesses and it's just -- you know -- they're trying to divert attention from the truth here and they're trying to get me involved in personal vendettas and all sorts of attacks on my personality, and they've got all sorts of people on the taxpayers rolls going around attacking me and attacking the book and writing talking points and distributing them to radio talk shows and whatnot around the country.
Now, let's just look at the facts. The administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director was telling them virtually every day that there was a major threat.
HEMMER: I am hearing from some families of the victims from 9/11 -- they're saying if it was such an urgent matter, if you truly believed the White House botched the war on terror, beginning on September 12 why now?
On such a critical national/international issue do you write the book in March of 2004?
CLARKE: I wrote the book as soon as I retired from government. It was finished last fall, and it sat in the White House for months because as a former White House official my book has to be reviewed by the White House for security purposes.
This book could have come out a long time ago, months and months ago, if the White House hadn't sat on it.
HEMMER: The White House is saying you only check the facts when it comes to the book itself on whether or not they are sacrificing national security.
CLARKE: They took months and months and months to do it. They're saying why is the book coming out in the beginning of the election?
I didn't want it to come out at the beginning of the election; I wanted it to come out last year. They're the reason -- because they took so long to clear it.
HEMMER: Let me stop you one second here. I want to go back to the issue of Iraq. Condoleezza Rice with Soledad yesterday on AMERICAN MORNING.
This is how she phrased this alleged conversation that happened on the 12 of September 2001.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I can't recollect such a conversation, but its not surprising that the president wanted to know if we were going to retaliate who -- against whom were we going to retaliate.
And of course Iraq, given our history, given the fact that they tried to kill a former president, was a likely suspect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: There are now questions about this conversation, what happened, what did not happen.
On "Sixty Minutes" Sunday night you said this: "Well, there's a lot of blame to go around. I probably deserve some blame, too."
How do you blame yourself?
CLARKE: Well I don't blame myself for making up the conversation. I didn't hallucinate.
There are four eyewitnesses to the conversation which the president had with me, so it's very convenient that Dr. Rice and the president are now having a memory lapse, a senior moment.
But there are four eyewitnesses who recall vividly what happened, and agree with my interpretation. This is not the president saying do everything, look at everybody, look at Iran, look at Hezbollah.
This is the president in a very intimidating way finger in my face saying I want a paper on Iraq and this attack.
Now, everyone in the room got the same impression and everyone in the room recalls it vividly. So, I'm not making it up. I don't have to make it up.
It's part of a pattern with this administration even before they came into office. He was out to get Iraq even though Iraq was not threatening the United States.
HEMMER: One final question if I could. Tomorrow you'll be publicly testifying on Capitol Hill before that 9/11 Commission. What is your message to them that we will hear tomorrow?
CLARKE: I think the message is that the United States mechanisms, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the White House -- failed during both the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration.
HEMMER: Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies," thank you. Nice to talk to you.
CLARKE: Thanks Bill.
HEMMER: Soledad?
O'BRIEN: Our coverage of the 9/11 Commission hearings begins at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is first. Then, current Secretary of State Colin Powell.
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense back in the Clinton administration, and current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In just a few minutes we're going to talk to the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.
Also this morning the U.S. paying close attention to threats from Palestinian groups in the wake of Israel's assassination of the founder of Hamas.
The al-Aqsa Northern Brigade, which is linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, is threatening retaliation against Israel for yesterday's missile attack that killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
And for the first time Hamas is threatening the United States because it believes Israel acted with U.S. compliance. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is heeding the Hamas threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: They've demonstrated the capability of bringing death and destruction to other parts of the world, and if they are threatening the United States -- our interests either abroad or domestically we have to take the threat seriously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: A demonstration in support of Hamas and its fallen founder in the Iraqi town of Ramadi turned violent today.
The crowd was protesting against Israel and the United States. Protesters destroyed vehicles, threw stones and other objects at U.S. soldiers.
Israel's security forces are on high alert today fearing reprisals after the killing of Sheikh Yassin. Meanwhile, an official says Israel will not hesitate to strike against other militant leaders if the opportunity presents itself.
For more from the region, let's turn now to Chris Burns standing by in Gaza City for the very latest on all of this for us this morning.
Chris, good morning.
CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Soledad.
Well, tension on both sides. A lot of anticipation of what is going to happen next.
There is a state of mourning here in Gaza City. In fact, Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, the Palestinian prime minister, came over from the West Bank to pay his condolences at a large green condolence tent for Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
This was after yesterday's protest by tens of thousands, as many as 200,000 people, taking to the streets here in angry protest of that targeted assassination by the Israelis of the elderly cleric who leads -- who led Hamas.
The -- there haven't been any rockets or mortars fired since late last night, but the Israelis maintain forces, a number of tanks and armored vehicles, in one village near the Israeli border, to try to prevent any further firings by Hamas.
The Israelis, yes, are very much on high alert. In fact, more check points in the -- throughout the country.
They will be on high alert for at least one more month anticipating yet another series of suicide bombings as has happened in previous targeted killings or assassinations.
So this three-day mourning here continues, but a lot of anticipation as to what could happen next -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Chris Burns in Gaza City for us this morning. Chris thanks.
Still to come this morning, tough questioning is expected today for senior members of President Bush's national security team and the Clinton White House as well.
We're going to hear from 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean and vice-chairman Lee Hamilton.
HEMMER: Also the judge in the Scott Peterson case makes a ruling that could hurt the defense. What it means for that case in a moment, as well.
O'BRIEN: And how long can the housing boom last? And what should home buyers be doing right now? A look at that is ahead as AMERICAN MORNING continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: Medical note now, the FDA wants new warning labels on some widely used antidepressants.
It's asking drug companies to include warnings that patients should be monitored for suicidal behavior and anxiety, especially when they start taking the medications.
The drugs mentioned include Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, and Celexa as well as Remeron, Lexapro, Luvox, Serzone and Wellbutrin.
This is what one Food and Drug Administration official had to say about the move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DIANNE MURPHY, FDA, DIR. OFFICE OF COUNTERTERRORISM: The FDA is trying to make sure that the public knows to be aware of the things to look for when you begin these therapies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: That warning comes after a panel of experts called on the FDA to issue stronger warnings about the possible risks of suicidal behavior among children and teenagers taking the drugs, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta much more in our next hour on this critical decision from yesterday and the FDA -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Jury selection resumes today in the Scott Peterson case.
So far, one potential juror has been chosen for the double murder trial. Meanwhile, the judge says that Peterson's interviews in the days and weeks after his wife's disappearance will be admissible.
Joining us this morning from Miami to talk about some developments in that case is criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.
Hey, Jayne, nice to see you, good morning to you.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning, Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Let's get right to it. What exactly do you think is the impact of this judge now saying that those comments -- and there are many of them -- that Scott Peterson made to local media and national media in the wake of his wife's disappearance.
What's the impact of that now being allowed?
WEINTRAUB: Well, for the prosecution, Soledad, it's going to allow them to begin to tie this string of circumstantial evidence that they'll weave through their case.
They're going to say that it demonstrates the consciousness of guilt. All of the different inconsistent statements that Scott Peterson made; all of the lies with the straight face, convincingly, you know, with tears on his face as he looked at Diane Sawyer and said three different things that we know were not true.
However, for the defense -- the defense is going to say this is all irrelevant. They're going to have to concede from the beginning that Scott Peterson was having an affair.
That, in fact, he had more than one affair and he did not want to admit that on public television.
However, that does not mean that he's a murderer. In fact, they will say there were no eyewitnesses. There is no physical evidence; there is no cause of death. That will be the mantra of the defense.
So his TV interviews as far as Mark Geragos will -- is concerned will be deflected and downplayed.
O'BRIEN: So you think the biggest issue is going to be, or everything will focus on the comments that were made about adultery, and if the defense goes ahead and sort of concedes that point, it's not necessarily a big deal?
WEINTRAUB: Well, it is a big deal in the sense that they're going to see his demeanor. And for the prosecution that's a big point.
They're going to see -- the jurors will see him -- lying without flinching. He will -- they will see him with tears in his eyes about where he was and what he was doing.
For example, the prosecutor will make a big deal about the fact he said he could barely open the door to what they thought was going to be the nursery for the baby. And then a few weeks later, the police searched his home and they find that it's being used as a storage bin, basically.
And the defense will have to answer that and basically explain things change, emotions change, and again that doesn't make him a murderer. That this was unexpected, these flood of emotions.
O'BRIEN: Do you think that all of this is only relevant or mostly relevant if he takes the stand? I mean, because, again they're going to be comparing demeanor.
Look, someone can lie about certain things that are known to be facts now and obviously the point will be made. Now he's on the stand we're saying -- this is the prosecution saying -- he's lying again look at his demeanor. So if he doesn't take the stand is all of this kind of a moot point?
WEINTRAUB: Well, it's not that it's moot because he still will have all these inconsistent statements but it will be less damaging to the defense.
And of course that is a very big consideration in whether or not your client will testify. What will the cross examination be, what evidence will come in if he testifies that otherwise would not come in.
O'BRIEN: Do you think he's going to testify? Do you think he should?
WEINTRAUB: That's a decision that's really made at the last minute.
O'BRIEN: Oh, Jayne, come on -- I recognize that it's a decision made by somebody else, but it's not what I asked you.
WEINTRAUB: Well from what I -- from what I can see, I don't think he'll testify.
O'BRIEN: Interesting, all right. Jayne Weintraub.
WEINTRAUB: And the reason, though, Soledad is that there really is -- there isn't any cause of death.
There is so much reasonable doubt, I think that Mark will have plenty to argue. And remember: that's going to be a big hurdle to overcome, that he doesn't have to testify.
O'BRIEN: You don't think jurors are going to want to hear from the grieving husband if his point is I didn't kill my wife?
WEINTRAUB: I think jurors always -- I think they always want to hear the other side, but remember, our constitution protects against that.
And our constitution guarantees that you do not have to be a witness against yourself, and that's one of the courts instructions that they will hear.
O'BRIEN: We will see. Jayne Weintraub, as always, nice to see you. Thanks a lot.
WEINTRAUB: Thank you, Soledad. O'BRIEN: Bill.
HEMMER: Still to come here today, he is the Democratic presidential candidate for the White House, but once John Kerry was under the watchful eye of the FBI. We'll explain that in a moment on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: All right welcome back. "Question of The Day" and Jack.
CAFFERTY: Thank you Bill. The world will stop turning on its axis tomorrow while the highest court in the land tries to decide what the phrase "under God" means.
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case brought by this guy Michael Newdow, a California atheist who doesn't want his 9-year-old daughter exposed to the phrase "under God" while saying the Pledge of Allegiance in her school.
The words were added in 1954 during the Cold War. In June of 2002 a San Francisco appellate court -- read that most liberal appellate court in the entire world -- ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it in schools is unconstitutional, saying that those words constitute an endorsement of religion.
The case is a tricky one, though. It's also wrapped around a custody dispute. Seems that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter at the time he brought the case.
Meaning technically at the time it wasn't any of his business whether she said "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance, or not.
Nevertheless, here's the question: Do the words "under God" belong in the Pledge of Allegiance? You can e-mail us at am@cnn.com.
HEMMER: About a year and a half ago, this was the talk day after day here.
CAFFERTY: Well it's the talk again today.
O'BRIEN: Tell us how you think. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Supreme Court without people realizing that he actually sort of doesn't have a legal leg to stand on; doesn't have custody.
CAFFERTY: He's got nothing -- just some nutcase stirring up trouble.
O'BRIEN: That's not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say...
(LAUGHTER)
O'BRIEN: Thanks for trying to clarify for me. Well does he have custody of the girl now? CAFFERTY: I don't know.
O'BRIEN: All right; well.
CAFFERTY: Doesn't really matter. At the time that he filed this case he didn't have custody. I don't think he does; I think the mother has custody.
O'BRIEN: So may not matter in the end anyway.
CAFFERTY: Well the Supreme Court can take one look at this and say you're out of here.
O'BRIEN: Interesting.
CAFFERTY: Which would be an interesting legal brief from the Supreme Court. You're out of here.
O'BRIEN: How do you spell that?
O'BRIEN: That's E-W-F-F-F.
CAFFERTY: Yes, something like that. As in you're out of here.
Circling the drain this morning. And yet so early; only 27 minutes in.
Still to come this morning, who knew what? The question now before 9/11 this morning top officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations are going before investigators who are demanding some answers.
We're going to hear from the men who will be asking the questions up next on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
