Former "Terrorism Czar" speaks out against Bush

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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

Also, Da Prez is clearly making some waves for himself with this one year later event, so as he continues to do so it's more likely some of these guys come forward if only to offer rebuttal.

 

I imagine the timing of this book was more meant to coincide with the war anniversary than it was the election.

[Guest Cerebus]

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..

This post is significantly less lucid than average Jobber...did u read the article?

[Guest MikeSC]

UPDATE:

 

WASHINGTON - The White House, seeking to cool criticism from a former top anti-terror adviser, said Tuesday that Richard Clarke's resignation letter praised President Bush (news - web sites)'s "courage, determination, calm and leadership" on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."

 

The letter was stamped "the president has seen" the next day.

 

Clarke, who left the Bush administration in March 2003 after 30 years in government service and 11 years at the White House, has written a book in which he criticizes the president and his administration for ignoring repeated warnings about al-Qaida before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and acting ineffectively afterward, primarily because of a preoccupation with Iraq (news - web sites).

 

On Monday, the day Clarke's "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" hit stores and the day after he promoted it in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," the White House went to great lengths to dismiss Clarke's accusations. Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), appeared on television and radio to argue that Clarke was inaccurate, politically motivated, disgruntled over bureaucratic changes that reduced his influence, merely trying to sell books — or all four at once.

 

That White House campaign continued Tuesday with the release of Clarke's letter announcing his intention to step down.

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested Clarke's praise belies his later criticism of Bush's handling of the crisis.

 

"At this time period, when he was leaving, there was no mention of the grave concerns he claims to have had about the direction of the war on terrorism, or what we were doing to confront the threat posed by Iraq, by the former regime," McClellan said.

 

But the letter contains no praise of Bush's anti-terror actions before or after the attacks — only on the day of. Clarke does commend Bush for his "intuitive understanding" of the importance of cybersecurity.

 

Clarke's job as the White House's counterterrorism chief was split in two early in the Bush White House, with Clarke put in charge of cybersecurity and others brought in for the anti-terror role.

 

"You had prescience in creating the position of Special Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Security and I urge you to maintain that role in the White House," Clarke wrote.

 

Also, even though the White House argued that Clarke's memoir was released to do the maximum political damage to Bush in a presidential election year, McClellan would not say when the required national security review of the book was completed, allowing its publication to proceed. Publications by administration officials are routinely vetted to make sure that nothing is released that compromises classified information or national security.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid...ser_3&printer=1

Hmm, as McClellan pointed out, he didn't really mention any concerns in his resignation letter. Heck, he praised the guy.

 

Amazing what a book de---I mean time---can do to one's opinion.

-=Mike

[BX 0]

That's the best they can do: A standard asskissing paragraph from a resignation letter.

[Vern Gagne 0]

"Clarke does commend Bush for his "intuitive understanding" of the importance of cybersecurity. "

 

 

That's great. Last time I looked though cybersecurity wasn't responsible for 9-11, or any of the attacks on U.S. interests.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's the best they can do: A standard asskissing paragraph from a resignation letter.

Ass-kissing while resigning a job in which you're disgusted with the performance of your boss?

 

What was he shooting for, Bush's recommendation to a future employer or something?

 

Doesn't that sound a LITTLE odd to you?

 

Face it --- the man wants to sell a lot of books and since Sinmon & Schuster has become the HOME for the Bush hating authors (let's be honest folks, they've been on a bit of a streak in that regard), he wanted to make sure he spiced it up.

 

Somehow, I never really bought that Conoleeza Rice never HEARD of Al Qaeda before 9/11 before he mentioned it. I'm sure Marney can give a more accurate description of her than I could, but she does seem like a rather bright woman with a fairly steady grip on the reality in the world.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

"Clarke does commend Bush for his "intuitive understanding" of the importance of cybersecurity. "

 

 

That's great. Last time I looked though cybersecurity wasn't responsible for 9-11, or any of the attacks on U.S. interests.

I dunno --- Bush's tax cuts got praised by a lot of people on the 'net and you saw what happened when those passed...

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's speaking to the 9/11 commission. Probably on all the big news channels right now.

[Guest MikeSC]

He's speaking to the 9/11 commission. Probably on all the big news channels right now.

He's already been discredited pretty nicely.

 

Amazing that Clinton didn't fail to act for his, well, 8 years --- but in those EIGHT MONTHS under Bush, Bush was supposed to topple Al Qaeda and get bin Laden.

 

Oh, and there is this. I'll warn you, it's from that --- well, cerebus does it better than I:

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

 

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

 

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

 

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

 

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

 

ANGLE: OK.

 

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

 

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

 

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

 

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

 

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

 

CLARKE: In October of '98.

 

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

 

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

 

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

 

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

 

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

 

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

 

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

 

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

 

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

 

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

 

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

 

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

 

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

 

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

 

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.

 

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

 

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

 

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

 

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

 

CLARKE: That's right.

 

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

 

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

 

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

 

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

 

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

 

CLARKE: Yes it did.

 

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

 

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

 

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

 

CLARKE: No, it was March.

 

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

 

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

 

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

 

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Yup, Clarke had REAL problems with Bush's handling of things.

 

Can you finally admit that he was simply trying to sell books?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's already been discredited pretty nicely.

Nice how Fox News chose to be the Clarke hit squad, but I believe testifying under oath is more important than talking to reporters.

 

Amazing that Clinton didn't fail to act for his, well, 8 years --- but in those EIGHT MONTHS under Bush, Bush was supposed to topple Al Qaeda and get bin Laden.

 

He just said they got "substantial funding" in reaction to the USS Cole bombing.

 

Can you finally admit that he was simply trying to sell books?

              -=Mike

 

I'm so sorry. I know it must be so sad to keep hearing how Bush fumbled. Chin up, little guy!

[Ripper 0]

"Clarke does commend Bush for his "intuitive understanding" of the importance of cybersecurity. "

 

 

That's great. Last time I looked though cybersecurity wasn't responsible for 9-11, or any of the attacks on U.S. interests.

I dunno --- Bush's tax cuts got praised by a lot of people on the 'net and you saw what happened when those passed...

-=Mike

Evil?

[Guest MikeSC]

He's already been discredited pretty nicely.

Nice how Fox News chose to be the Clarke hit squad, but I believe testifying under oath is more important than talking to reporters.

Personally, I find the fact that his PRESENT comments COMPLETELY contradict his earlier comments somewhat telling.

 

There's always THIS gem:

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

 

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

And THIS:

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

 

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

 

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

 

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

 

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

 

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

 

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

 

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

And:

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

 

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

Amazing that Clinton didn't fail to act for his, well, 8 years --- but in those EIGHT MONTHS under Bush, Bush was supposed to topple Al Qaeda and get bin Laden.

He just said they got "substantial funding" in reaction to the USS Cole bombing.

After YEARS of inaction --- you know, WTC, embassy bombings, Khoballah Towers...

Can you finally admit that he was simply trying to sell books?

               -=Mike

I'm so sorry. I know it must be so sad to keep hearing how Bush fumbled. Chin up, little guy!

If your only proof is a guy who contradicts himself, then it's sad.

-=Mike

...Can YOU explain his statements in 2002 and today and why they differ SO much? I thought not.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you're talking on behalf of the President, you're saying what the President wants you to say.

 

This part is the only one of those which interests me:

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

 

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

 

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

 

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

[Guest MikeSC]

If you're talking on behalf of the President, you're saying what the President wants you to say.

 

This part is the only one of those which interests me:

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

 

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

 

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

 

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

Clinton had no plan.

 

This is shocking?

 

We've been saying that for a while now.

 

You seem to have missed that they were discussing late December 2000 there.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Clinton had no plan.

 

This is shocking?

 

We've been saying that for a while now.

Clarke had been named by a lot of places, including the best-selling Franken book, as being stuck between a rock and a hard place, wanting to continue some sort of knock-out Clinton policy in the Bush adminsitration, but not being able to because the Bush people didn't want to.

 

See also the reference to the "Operation: Ignore" stuff mentioned in that Franken book.

 

My guess is Clinton DID have a plan, but not as extensive as Franken and so on make it out to be. My guess is that Bush did resist making terror a high priority until 9/11. As for the rest of it, I don't know.

 

I do figure he's doing a lot of ass-kissing in many of these quotes though. You don't criticize the President while you're working for him, because that'll get you fired. You wait until retirement kicks in and talk then.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By the way, it turns out that FauxNews (and yes, I'm going to go back to calling them FauxNews seriously after this, so you can eat that LOL2004 jazz) shouldn't have posted that transcript. It wasn't meant for the public.

 

Bob Kerrey absolutely bitchslapped them for it on the air, saying they're "occasionally fair & balanced."

 

Go, Bob!

[Guest thebigjig]

You cant cite Franken in here... the conservatives on the board will just pass it off like so many do Molly Ivins when it's obvious they've actually never read anything from her because she bases her opinions on well detailed and investigated sources

 

However, if any of you do want to read his highly entertaining book, Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them, pay special attention to the praise Clinton got for his response to terrorism at the end of his stay in office... by terrorism experts from the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations

 

It's also interesting to read that after the Cole bombing, he had a plan drawn up to take on Al Quaida but there simply was not enough time to carry it out... in Dec of 2000, the plan was given to the up and coming Bush administration, and they did nothing with it

[Jobber of the Week 0]

pay special attention to the praise Clinton got for his response to terrorism at the end of his stay in office... by terrorism experts from the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations

I've read the book. What I'm saying is that Clarke is one of the guys named as a guy who fought terrorism under Clinton who couldn't get Bush to care. This Faux News document quotes him as saying Clinton didn't have a plan at all, to use Mike's words.

 

Republicans will cling onto the Faux document that shouldn't have been released, where Clarke himself says Clinton didn't have plan. Democrats will cling to the Time article the Franken book used as a source for all that which says Clinton's anti-terror policies were effective.

 

 

In the long run, it really shouldn't matter, since Clinton isn't President anymore. But this guy has suddently become vital new ammo to the "We told you not to go into Iraq" crowd, and the pro-war crowd right away started questioning his loyalty and integrity.

 

So, in effect, it's actually a lot more interesting than the usual "Did Clinton do (x) four years ago?" arguement that always pops up for no reason other than Clinton-Blaming being a GOP pastime.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Condi accused him of exaggerating as CNN showed video of her walking outside and into a car. And boy, she does the "bend over and step in" way of entering instead of the "sit down on the seat and swing your legs in" method.

 

All it needed was Sir Mix-A-Lot singing about big butts.

 

Anyway, they're desperate now. I like how she didn't have the cajones to appear at this event yet is a thread away from saying Clarke lied under oath.

[Guest MikeSC]

Clarke had been named by a lot of places, including the best-selling Franken book, as being stuck between a rock and a hard place, wanting to continue some sort of knock-out Clinton policy in the Bush adminsitration, but not being able to because the Bush people didn't want to.

Well, I guess Franken would know more than CLARKE HIMSELF AT THE TIME.

See also the reference to the "Operation: Ignore" stuff mentioned in that Franken book.

Referencing Franken is so darned cute. Can I reference Bill O'Reilly?

My guess is Clinton DID have a plan, but not as extensive as Franken and so on make it out to be. My guess is that Bush did resist making terror a high priority until 9/11. As for the rest of it, I don't know.

Funny, Clarke PRAISED Bush's actions at the time. All these concerns he had --- he did a bang-up job of NOT MENTIONING THEM TO A SOUL.

I do figure he's doing a lot of ass-kissing in many of these quotes though. You don't criticize the President while you're working for him, because that'll get you fired. You wait until retirement kicks in and talk then.

He didn't say it IN HIS RESIGNATION LETTER. Are you REALLY this dense?

By the way, it turns out that FauxNews (and yes, I'm going to go back to calling them FauxNews seriously after this, so you can eat that LOL2004 jazz) shouldn't have posted that transcript. It wasn't meant for the public.

 

Bob Kerrey absolutely bitchslapped them for it on the air, saying they're "occasionally fair & balanced."

 

Go, Bob!

How dare they REVEAL A QUOTE SOMEBODY SAID AND PLAY AUDIO OF IT. THEY SHOULD HAVE SUPPRESSED IT DAMMIT! FAUXNEWSLOL2004! And how does Kerrey know it wasn't supposed to be public? Because Clarke SAID so? Well, I guess it IS holy writ.

You cant cite Franken in here... the conservatives on the board will just pass it off like so many do Molly Ivins when it's obvious they've actually never read anything from her because she bases her opinions on well detailed and investigated sources

Gee, people might question people with known political leanings and well-stated disdain for people. Imagine that!

 

Of course, I am quoting RICHARD CLARKE while y'all are quoting Al Franken and Bob Kerrey and the subject, of course, is RICHARD CLARKE.

However, if any of you do want to read his highly entertaining book, Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them, pay special attention to the praise Clinton got for his response to terrorism at the end of his stay in office... by terrorism experts from the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations

And there is one "terrorism expert" from Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton who praised Bush.

 

His name...was RICHARD CLARKE!

It's also interesting to read that after the Cole bombing, he had a plan drawn up to take on Al Quaida but there simply was not enough time to carry it out... in Dec of 2000, the plan was given to the up and coming Bush administration, and they did nothing with it

Even though Clarke stated that no plan existed. Odd, huh? But, hey, Franken would know better, I suppose. *giggle*

I've read the book. What I'm saying is that Clarke is one of the guys named as a guy who fought terrorism under Clinton who couldn't get Bush to care.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

 

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

This Faux News document quotes him as saying Clinton didn't have a plan at all, to use Mike's words.

 

Republicans will cling onto the Faux document that shouldn't have been released, where Clarke himself says Clinton didn't have plan. Democrats will cling to the Time article the Franken book used as a source for all that which says Clinton's anti-terror policies were effective.

Or, in simple terms, Democrats will cling to opinion pieces while Republicans will stick TO THE SPOKEN WORDS OF RICHARD CLARKE. While both are, admittedly, quite unreliable --- I'll take Clarke's word over Time's.

 

Oh, and Fox has AUDIO of him saying all of this. They played it.

In the long run, it really shouldn't matter, since Clinton isn't President anymore. But this guy has suddently become vital new ammo to the "We told you not to go into Iraq" crowd, and the pro-war crowd right away started questioning his loyalty and integrity.

 

So, in effect, it's actually a lot more interesting than the usual "Did Clinton do (x) four years ago?" arguement that always pops up for no reason other than Clinton-Blaming being a GOP pastime.

Much like slandering Bush is a Democrat pasttime.

Condi accused him of exaggerating as CNN showed video of her walking outside and into a car. And boy, she does the "bend over and step in" way of entering instead of the "sit down on the seat and swing your legs in" method.

 

All it needed was Sir Mix-A-Lot singing about big butts.

Wow, nice insight there. Do you want to go into her sexual history now?

Anyway, they're desperate now. I like how she didn't have the cajones to appear at this event yet is a thread away from saying Clarke lied under oath.

Umm, she has Clarke's own words to back up everything she said.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

By the way, it turns out that FauxNews (and yes, I'm going to go back to calling them FauxNews seriously after this, so you can eat that LOL2004 jazz) shouldn't have posted that transcript. It wasn't meant for the public.

 

Bob Kerrey absolutely bitchslapped them for it on the air, saying they're "occasionally fair & balanced."

 

Go, Bob!

BTW, THIS has also been explained:

 

The agreement to keep Clarke's comments "on background" was not given to Clarke --- it was given to the WHITE HOUSE, and they decided to forfeit that right. Clarke was speaking as an employee of the administration and the administration had the right to demand that the material remain confidential --- not Clarke.

 

But, let me guess --- they should have suppressed it anyway, since all he's doing is attacking them and calling Bush weak on terrorism.

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

For shame Mike. The President has no right to defend himself from critics, and any criticism of Dick Clarke is slanderous and mean spirited.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think the most telling thing Clarke pointed out was that Bin Laden and his coherts used 9/11 specifically to pull the U.S. into middle east conflict which would in turn breed another brand new generation of terrorists, and Bush/Rumsfield/Cheney etc......basically went for it hook, line and sinker. I don't understand why conservatives are acting like some of the things Richard Clarke is saying, are somehow new ideas, I mean these accusations have been thrown around for a couple of years now, Clarke just happens to be the most credible one to make a lot of the accusations valid.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think the most telling thing Clarke pointed out was that Bin Laden and his coherts used 9/11 specifically to pull the U.S. into middle east conflict which would in turn breed another brand new generation of terrorists, and Bush/Rumsfield/Cheney etc......basically went for it hook, line and sinker. I don't understand why conservatives are acting like some of the things Richard Clarke is saying, are somehow new ideas, I mean these accusations have been thrown around for a couple of years now, Clarke just happens to be the most credible one to make a lot of the accusations valid.

Dang that diabolical bin Laden --- "rope-a-doping" us like that. Attacks us to get us to attack him. That man is CLEVER. I bet the Japanese did THE SAME THING in World War II --- and dang, we fell for it THEN, too!

 

You'd think we'd have wisened up by now. The ONLY response to terrorism is cowardice, bed-wetting, and giving them money to hopefully not attack us next. Geez, Bush, it's SO obvious!

 

So, Clarke says we didn't do enough --- but we shouldn't have done something like ACTUALLY fighting them, either?

 

And if Clarke is the most credible person making the accusations, then the accusations aren't terribly good.

 

Just because the French make these assumptions (BTW, anybody know who left the bomb on one of their trains? If it was a Muslim terrorist group, wouldn't that be ironic?) doesn't make them accurate.

 

Or, heck, intelligent.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

For shame Mike. The President has no right to defend himself from critics, and any criticism of Dick Clarke is slanderous and mean spirited.

Heck, I bet the response is politically motivated, too.

 

You know, NR Online had a great idea: If Clarke REALLY has no personal interest in attacking the President, then give all of HIS money from the book to the 9/11 families.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Rich Lowry just took Clarke apart. He uses Clarke's own words exclusively, so the liberals here can't whine about "lies and the lying liars who tell them" on the right. Either Clarke was lying then, or he's lying now.

 

If you believe him now, despite the fact that he's a proven liar, you only believe him because he's pandering to your prejudices.

[Guest MikeSC]

Rich Lowry just took Clarke apart. He uses Clarke's own words exclusively, so the liberals here can't whine about "lies and the lying liars who tell them" on the right. Either Clarke was lying then, or he's lying now.

 

If you believe him now, despite the fact that he's a proven liar, you only believe him because he's pandering to your prejudices.

No, no, no --- Clarke had a reason to lie IN HIS RESIGNATION LETTER.

 

He has no reason to lie now -- WHEN HE HAS A BOOK HE WANTS TO SELL.

 

It's SO obvious.

-=Mike

...Who can't begin to understand the anti-Bush logic here

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Amazing what a book de---I mean time---can do to one's opinion.

-=Mike

That doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with the war in Iraq, which is what all the OMG SHOCKING book stuff is about.

 

Compared to post-Saddam Iraq, the whole Afghanistan thing went off pretty well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Amazing what a book de---I mean time---can do to one's opinion.

                  -=Mike

That doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with the war in Iraq, which is what all the OMG SHOCKING book stuff is about.

The book, once again, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS almost everything Clarke said.

Compared to post-Saddam Iraq, the whole Afghanistan thing went off pretty well.

Yeah, God knows there are no problems with the gov't in Afghanistan right now.

-=Mike

[Guest MD2020]

Personally speaking, I think the best thing to come out of this thread is the reappearance of FauxNews (with optional LOL2004 jazz addition if the poster wants it).

 

 

That is all. Carry on.