Former "Terrorism Czar" speaks out against Bush

[Guest MikeSC]

How the hell does being a "disgruntled former employee" result from someone resigning because he was so disgusted with the administration? He wasn't fired, like say, Paul O'Neill. Come up with a better defense.

 

Even several prominent Democrats are coming out to defend Bush against what are becoming apparent are several telling inaccuracies in Clark's book.

 

Source? Holy Joe doesn't count.

 

Joe Lieberman is denying Donald Rumseld ever made these comments.

 

How the hell would Holy Joe know? He's not a freaking cabinet member.

 

And then there are, of course, the reports that Clark was "disgruntled" at not being given a more prominent position within the NSA....

 

Where are these reports?

BTW, Tyler, any explanation for this?

 

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

 

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

 

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

 

ETHICAL BREACH

 

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

 

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

 

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

 

[CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.]

http://drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

Maybe CBS was a little lax in investigating his claims.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So a disgruntled ex-employee is saying bad things about his ex-employer?

So, how high up does an anti-terrorist dude have to be before you'll actually believe what he says?

 

And if he wanted a sandwich on whole wheat at the CIA cafeteria, and one day someone served it on rye and he wanted his money back, does that make him disgruntled?

[NoCalMike 0]

I did see the interview during the West Coast feed of 60 minutes. 

 

Wow.

 

It would seem to be pretty damaging to the president who before this interview was already having his credibility question, however I feel that this will just present another oppurtunity for people to take sides, rather then examine the facts.

You mean like YOU did?

-=Mike

Or did you not say "It is all unraveling. Hopefully americans will fire the liar in november."

Yeah I did, but it didn't take this interview to get me started. I have been making comments like those for almost the duration of Bush's tenure, just so we're clear And I never excluded myself anyway.

[NoCalMike 0]

So a disgruntled ex-employee is saying bad things about his ex-employer?

So, how high up does an anti-terrorist dude have to be before you'll actually believe what he says?

 

And if he wanted a sandwich on whole wheat at the CIA cafeteria, and one day someone served it on rye and he wanted his money back, does that make him disgruntled?

Just give up, no one new will be convinced. It is rather pointless now. I am not saying conservatives en mass should stand up and denounce Bush, but if this Clarke interview/comments doesn't even make people do a double take and at least try to examine things closer, then what will?

[Guest MikeSC]

So a disgruntled ex-employee is saying bad things about his ex-employer?

So, how high up does an anti-terrorist dude have to be before you'll actually believe what he says?

 

And if he wanted a sandwich on whole wheat at the CIA cafeteria, and one day someone served it on rye and he wanted his money back, does that make him disgruntled?

Just give up, no one new will be convinced. It is rather pointless now. I am not saying conservatives en mass should stand up and denounce Bush, but if this Clarke interview/comments doesn't even make people do a double take and at least try to examine things closer, then what will?

Mike, if he came out and praised Bush --- would YOU have cared?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tom 0]

Let's say we had spent time and money monitoring Al'Qaeda closely. Are the liberals who have delighted in giving our intelligence community a good drubbing over the Iraq WMD issues now saying our intelligence community would have been competent enough to sniff out signs of the September 11th attacks and stop them before they happened?

 

Come on, folks, you can't have it both ways. Either our intelligence community is great, or it's a bunch of boobs in borrowed suits, but you can't pick the one that benefits you at the time because it reinforces your dislike of the president.

[NoCalMike 0]

So a disgruntled ex-employee is saying bad things about his ex-employer?

So, how high up does an anti-terrorist dude have to be before you'll actually believe what he says?

 

And if he wanted a sandwich on whole wheat at the CIA cafeteria, and one day someone served it on rye and he wanted his money back, does that make him disgruntled?

Just give up, no one new will be convinced. It is rather pointless now. I am not saying conservatives en mass should stand up and denounce Bush, but if this Clarke interview/comments doesn't even make people do a double take and at least try to examine things closer, then what will?

Mike, if he came out and praised Bush --- would YOU have cared?

-=Mike

I never said this interview alone should be enough to sway one's opinion, however in my mind, this is just one of the many things being piled on a long list of reasons not to like this president. Also this guy seems to have some sort of cred. He has worked under both sides, doesn't seem to be interested in getting any certain candidate elected and is not just "some liberal coming out of the woodwork to bash bush"

[NoCalMike 0]

Let's say we had spent time and money monitoring Al'Qaeda closely.  Are the liberals who have delighted in giving our intelligence community a good drubbing over the Iraq WMD issues now saying our intelligence community would have been competent enough to sniff out signs of the September 11th attacks and stop them before they happened?

Who said that, ever? All Clarke said is that the President and his staff were presented with evidence of something, and they gave a lukewarm response. He never said had they acted more interested, 9/11 wouldn't have taken place. Plus he made it seem pretty obvious that Bush and his team had other plans beforehand anyway.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Let's say we had spent time and money monitoring Al'Qaeda closely.  Are the liberals who have delighted in giving our intelligence community a good drubbing over the Iraq WMD issues now saying our intelligence community would have been competent enough to sniff out signs of the September 11th attacks and stop them before they happened?

Who said that, ever?

The inherent presumption, when it's said that we "ignored" Al'Qaeda prior to September 11th, is that not ignoring them would have done something to prevent the events of that day. Obviously, this requires our intelligence community to be on the ball, something your side of the spectrum doesn't think they are after the WMD issues in Iraq. Either you think they're great or you think they're nitwits, but your collective opinion on them shouldn't flip-flop because taking one side or the other allows you to get in a few more digs at the Bush administration.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Let's say we had spent time and money monitoring Al'Qaeda closely. Are the liberals who have delighted in giving our intelligence community a good drubbing over the Iraq WMD issues now saying our intelligence community would have been competent enough to sniff out signs of the September 11th attacks and stop them before they happened?

 

Come on, folks, you can't have it both ways. Either our intelligence community is great, or it's a bunch of boobs in borrowed suits, but you can't pick the one that benefits you at the time because it reinforces your dislike of the president.

I don't know how it contridicts anything.

 

Sensing the 9/11 warning signs, including papers that showed up after the attack. Intelligence agencies fail.

 

Coming up with legitimate proof of WMDs. Intelligence agencies fail.

 

I think we can take the "boobs in borrowed suits" answer on both cases, the question here is whether the second one happened because of pressure from the White House to eagerly get into Iraq no matter how thin the evidence.

 

 

More and more reports are gathering together that Dubya had his heart completely set on going into Iraq from the first minute after he took the oath. I'm not exactly sure why, as the only thing I can come up with is to extract revenge over the Daddy assassination plans, but that would be the stupidest rationale for the use of the United States military in.... Well, ever.

[NoCalMike 0]

Let's say we had spent time and money monitoring Al'Qaeda closely.  Are the liberals who have delighted in giving our intelligence community a good drubbing over the Iraq WMD issues now saying our intelligence community would have been competent enough to sniff out signs of the September 11th attacks and stop them before they happened?

 

Come on, folks, you can't have it both ways.  Either our intelligence community is great, or it's a bunch of boobs in borrowed suits, but you can't pick the one that benefits you at the time because it reinforces your dislike of the president.

I don't know how it contridicts anything.

 

Sensing the 9/11 warning signs, including papers that showed up after the attack. Intelligence agencies fail.

 

Coming up with legitimate proof of WMDs. Intelligence agencies fail.

 

I think we can take the "boobs in borrowed suits" answer on both cases, the question here is whether the second one happened because of pressure from the White House to eagerly get into Iraq no matter how thin the evidence.

 

 

More and more reports are gathering together that Dubya had his heart completely set on going into Iraq from the first minute after he took the oath. I'm not exactly sure why, as the only thing I can come up with is to extract revenge over the Daddy assassination plans, but that would be the stupidest rationale for the use of the United States military in.... Well, ever.

Well now, he is a "cowboy" right.........right?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well now, he is a "cowboy" right.........right?

Does that somehow explain a stupid motive or something?

[Dr. Tom 0]

I don't know how it contridicts anything.

Track with me here, lad.

 

Incident: Iraq might not have the WMD we thought they did.

TSM Left-Wing response: "LOL! TEH CIA IS TEH SUX0RZ~!"

 

Incident: One man's opinion about the events leading up to September 11th is published.

TSM Left Wing response: "We should have acted sooner! Bush did nothing and just wanted revenge for daddy. (implied) We might have stopped 9/11 if we'd done something. TEH CIA IS M@D 1337~!"

 

Both positions, of course, enable and foster negative views of the Bush administration. This is my point: you can't take a positive or negative opinion on our intelligence community just because one side or the other reinforces your pre-existing bias against the President. Form an opinion about them and stick to it.

 

I think we can take the "boobs in borrowed suits" answer on both cases, the question here is whether the second one happened because of pressure from the White House to eagerly get into Iraq no matter how thin the evidence.

 

Speaking of pre-existing bias against the president...

 

More and more reports are gathering together that Dubya had his heart completely set on going into Iraq from the first minute after he took the oath.

Do you have any that aren't just anti-Bush propaganda?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Incident: Iraq might not have the WMD we thought they did.

TSM Left-Wing response: "LOL!  TEH CIA IS TEH SUX0RZ~!"

I don't remember blaming the CIA. I don't remember anyone else blaming the CIA but I do remember a lot of heat being placed on Tenet. I remember thinking and probably posting that Tenet is one of the few guys left from the Clinton years, and speculating on the odds that the buck is passed to him. I remember thinking about how the U.N. didn't see this "evidence" as being strong enough to invade Iraq. In fact, I remember when that was going on thinking how sad it must have been to be Colin Powell, and try to sell all this bullshit to them.

 

The people that did believe the reports were, of course, the Bush administration. The buck stops with them.

 

Incident: One man's opinion about the events leading up to September 11th is published.

TSM Left Wing response: "We should have acted sooner! Bush did nothing and just wanted revenge for daddy.  (implied) We might have stopped 9/11 if we'd done something.  TEH CIA IS M@D 1337~!"

 

I don't remember saying Bush reacted to 9/11 for Daddy Bush. I said that was the only logical conclusion I could understand as to why he would want to go into Iraq from day one, which is, as each of these guys come forward, a common picture.

 

Do you have any that aren't just anti-Bush propaganda?

 

Well, there was the last 'OMG DISGRUNTLED FORMER STAFFER' guy who said something to this effect, and now this guy says it was what was on Bush's mind on 9/12. I don't know, how many Republican administrations does a guy have to work for before he's credible and not a Democratic puppet?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

BTW, Tyler, any explanation for this?

 

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

 

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

 

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

 

ETHICAL BREACH

 

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

 

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

 

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

 

[CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.]

http://drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

Maybe CBS was a little lax in investigating his claims.

-=Mike

Actually, if you had watched the program, they did reveal that fact, as did they in the article I posted.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And I know that I, personally, never blamed the intelligence agencies for 9/11, WMDs, etc.

 

That was more the right wing on the board, talking about how "Bush couldn't have known; he was just reading the intelligence reports! DAMN THAT INTELLIGENCE!" etc.

Edited March 22, 2004 by Tyler McClelland

[Vern Gagne 0]

I never said this interview alone should be enough to sway one's opinion, however in my mind, this is just one of the many things being piled on a long list of reasons not to like this president. Also this guy seems to have some sort of cred. He has worked under both sides, doesn't seem to be interested in getting any certain candidate elected and is not just "some liberal coming out of the woodwork to bash bush"

Does John Kerry's National Security advisor Rand Beers ring a bell. No...well Beers works with Clarke at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

[NoCalMike 0]

I never said this interview alone should be enough to sway one's opinion, however in my mind, this is just one of the many things being piled on a long list of reasons not to like this president. Also this guy seems to have some sort of cred.  He has worked under both sides, doesn't seem to be interested in getting any certain candidate elected and is not just "some liberal coming out of the woodwork to bash bush"

Does John Kerry's National Security advisor Rand Beers ring a bell. No...well Beers works with Clarke at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

you have got to be kidding me, right?

[Vern Gagne 0]

You said Clarke had no politicial motives behind his book. He's friends with Rand Beers, Kerry's national security advisor.

[Guest hunger4unger]

The fact is, this is a man who NO political ties, who worked in the office of Democrat AND Republican offices, who left his recent position on his OWN FREE WILL, speaking out and telling it like it is. During his interview on BBC2 tonight in the UK, he said that Clinton ordered DAILY updates for intelligence agencies regarding Al Queda. When Bush came in he couldn't care less and his administration were hell bent on getting a war on Iraq out of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. How anyone can defend the Bush admistration anymore is beyond me. This goes beyond wacky conspiracy theories, it goes beyond left wingers with an agenda.

 

The Bush administration wanted an excuse to go into Iraq, tried in vain to tie Saddam into 9/11 (and failed), bullied intelligence agencies into finding WMD (there are no WMD) and went ahead regardless, now having sown a hotbed of terrorism and disruption in Iraq.

 

Saddam was an evil, evil man but at least Iraqi's could wake up, get out of bed, go to work and live a regular life under his rule (I REFUSE to state it was a "regime".)

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You said Clarke had no politicial motives behind his book. He's friends with Rand Beers, Kerry's national security advisor.

And Bush was friends with Ken Lay, but you have no problem claiming that this didn't influence his policy.

 

Let's meet in the middle.

[NoCalMike 0]

You said Clarke had no politicial motives behind his book. He's friends with Rand Beers, Kerry's national security advisor.

Like I said though before, this would be different if Clarke was a one and done advisor, but the fact that he has worked under a wide variety of presidents and was retained each time, must speak somewhat of him being credible and trustworthy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's say we had spent time and money monitoring Al'Qaeda closely. Are the liberals who have delighted in giving our intelligence community a good drubbing over the Iraq WMD issues now saying our intelligence community would have been competent enough to sniff out signs of the September 11th attacks and stop them before they happened?

 

Come on, folks, you can't have it both ways. Either our intelligence community is great, or it's a bunch of boobs in borrowed suits, but you can't pick the one that benefits you at the time because it reinforces your dislike of the president.

Wouldn't that have been "racial profiling", which they hate?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, Tyler, any explanation for this?

 

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

 

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

 

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

 

ETHICAL BREACH

 

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

 

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

 

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

 

[CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.]

http://drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

Maybe CBS was a little lax in investigating his claims.

-=Mike

Actually, if you had watched the program, they did reveal that fact, as did they in the article I posted.

Actually, they mentioned it on the radio and on the internet.

 

They did NOT mention it on TV.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

You said Clarke had no politicial motives behind his book. He's friends with Rand Beers, Kerry's national security advisor.

And Bush was friends with Ken Lay, but you have no problem claiming that this didn't influence his policy.

 

Let's meet in the middle.

If you can point to ANYTHING Bush did to benefit Lay in any way, you might have a point.

 

But you can't.

 

So you don't.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You said Clarke had no politicial motives behind his book. He's friends with Rand Beers, Kerry's national security advisor.

He also used to work for Bush II, and also resigned.

 

Could it be that... GASP! They met working there instead of after they left, hatching a giant liberal conspiracy?

[Guest Cerebus]

A rebuttal from another Bush II advisor and security expert. It should be noted, however, that the author is now a commenator for that cable news network that makes us all laugh out loud in the year 2004.

[Guest thebigjig]

I find it funny that whenever an ex-employee comes out against the Bush administration, he is by default "disgruntled" in the eyes of Dubyah lovers. It doesnt matter that he could be "disgruntled" by say, becoming disgusted by the actions of the administration he served with. It's an automatic label... without even hearing what he had to say, I'm sure some of you, automatically thought "so... he's criticizing my president... hmm, must be disgruntled and his argument has no merit simply because he's bashing my guy"

 

Now, before some of you start accusing me of jumping on anything and everything that is anti-Bush, I want to restate that I consider myself very fair... I even called in to NPR about 5 months ago to defend Bush against several unfair attacks on a show I was listening to... when an author being interviewed criticized Bush for ordering any flights still in the air in the hours following the attacks, to be shot down... so it's not like I automatically believe everything I hear, but I do believe that this shouldn't be dismissed

 

The accussations of a man that served with four presidents, both democratic and republican, deserves to be looked at carefully and not just passed off as "election year tactics." Keep in mind please that the Iraqi was was just one year ago, and since the aftermath is so close to an election year, you cant just dismiss everything

 

It's OBVIOUS he doesnt like Dubyah... ok? your point? There's a reason he doesn't, and it needs to be looked in to. OF COURSE the administration is backing the president up! OF COURSE Condi wrote a defense! Would you expect anything less?

[Guest MikeSC]

I find it funny that whenever an ex-employee comes out against the Bush administration, he is by default "disgruntled" in the eyes of Dubyah lovers. It doesnt matter that he could be "disgruntled" by say, becoming disgusted by the actions of the administration he served with. It's an automatic label... without even hearing what he had to say, I'm sure some of you, automatically thought "so... he's criticizing my president... hmm, must be disgruntled and his argument has no merit simply because he's bashing my guy"

 

Now, before some of you start accusing me of jumping on anything and everything that is anti-Bush, I want to restate that I consider myself very fair... I even called in to NPR about 5 months ago to defend Bush against several unfair attacks on a show I was listening to... when an author being interviewed criticized Bush for ordering any flights still in the air in the hours following the attacks, to be shot down... so it's not like I automatically believe everything I hear, but I do believe that this shouldn't be dismissed

 

The accussations of a man that served with four presidents, both democratic and republican, deserves to be looked at carefully and not just passed off as "election year tactics." Keep in mind please that the Iraqi was was just one year ago, and since the aftermath is so close to an election year, you cant just dismiss everything

 

It's OBVIOUS he doesnt like Dubyah... ok? your point? There's a reason he doesn't, and it needs to be looked in to. OF COURSE the administration is backing the president up! OF COURSE Condi wrote a defense! Would you expect anything less?

As pointed out, he was LOW-LEVEL under Reagan and Bush Sr. He wasn't a top level guy under anybody but Clinton. Bush kept him on to maintain consistency, but the man was clearly not on the same page.

 

It SHOULD be noted that the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, AND 9/11 ALL occurred with him as "chief" of counter-terrorism.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

another Bush II advisor and security expert. It should be noted, however, that the author is now a commenator for that cable news network that makes us all laugh out loud in the year 2004.

Ahahaha.. The guy who stepped forward and claimed to have bin-Laden and represent a government yet didn't have enough proof to convince the government, and now a LOL2004 commentator, is a Bush advisor?

 

ahahahahahha...

 

"I don't read the news, I listen to my advisors."

 

 

 

 

ahahaha..