Former "Terrorism Czar" speaks out against Bush

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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

Are you retarded or something? I was explaining why I found this stuff interesting. I wasn't trying to create an arguement from the Franken book.

 

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

 

Again, I wasn't building an arguement off Franken, I was explaining WHY I FOUND THAT COMMENT TO THE PRESS INTERESTING.

 

I suggest you grow a brain. As for the rest of your drivel, I just lightly passed over it, as you want to sit and argue with me that I find Condi Rice sticking her BUTT in the air amusing, which is an obvious sign that you're not worth my time.

[Guest MikeSC]

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

Are you retarded or something?

No, but you CLEARLY are.

I was explaining why I found this stuff interesting. I wasn't trying to create an arguement from the Franken book.

I find it interesting, again, because Franken's account CONTRADICTS Clarke's OWN account --- so you assume FRANKEN is correct.

 

Do you have any clue how ass backwards that is?

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

 

Again, I wasn't building an arguement off Franken, I was explaining WHY I FOUND THAT COMMENT TO THE PRESS INTERESTING.

 

I suggest you grow a brain.

But wouldn't that make you stick out all the more?

 

YOU are the one who is attempting to argue that the WORDS OF CLARKE HIMSELF are wrong from 2002, but Franken's words ARE CORRECT. YOU are the one trying to defend a guy who COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS himself in a way that even JOHN KERRY would be hesitant to try and pull off.

 

That is the most moronic argument I've seen since --- well, any argument out of you recently.

 

Take off the Bush-hating blinders and apply a little logic here. Clarke said NOTHING negative in his resignation letter (including, oh, WHY HE SAID HE RESIGNED RECENTLY), made comments to the press that COMPLETELY contradict almost anything he has said recently, and has basically called Condi Rice, a significantly more intelligent person than he, an idiot.

As for the rest of your drivel, I just lightly passed over it, as you want to sit and argue with me that I find Condi Rice sticking her BUTT in the air amusing, which is an obvious sign that you're not worth my time.

Nice that you hold a such a high opinion of women --- or do only LIBERAL women warrant your respect?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I find it interesting, again, because Franken's account CONTRADICTS Clarke's OWN account --- so you assume FRANKEN is correct.

No, stop being so ignorant. I wasn't supporting Franken's story, nor anybody's story. I WAS MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT THEY CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER.

 

"Franken's story" is actually a Time magazine cover story, as he simply summarizes the article and throws in his own opinion and jokes with it.

 

YOU are the one who is attempting to argue that the WORDS OF CLARKE HIMSELF are wrong from 2002, but Franken's words ARE CORRECT.

 

NO I DID NOT.

 

 

I EFFECTIVELY SAID "WOW, THESE ARE DIFFERENT." SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT ONE WAS RIGHT AND ONE WAS WRONG.

[Guest MikeSC]

I find it interesting, again, because Franken's account CONTRADICTS Clarke's OWN account --- so you assume FRANKEN is correct.

No, stop being so ignorant. I wasn't supporting Franken's story, nor anybody's story. I WAS MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT THEY CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER.

NO, they do NOT.

 

If an AUTHOR says something that HIS SUBJECT says is NOT TRUE --- they don't "contradict". The author is good, old-fashioned WRONG. He MADE A MISTAKE.

"Franken's story" is actually a Time magazine cover story, as he simply summarizes the article and throws in his own opinion and jokes with it.

Using erroneous articles to attempt to bolster your argument is the epitome of weak debate.

YOU are the one who is attempting to argue that the WORDS OF CLARKE HIMSELF are wrong from 2002, but Franken's words ARE CORRECT.

NO I DID NOT.

 

I EFFECTIVELY SAID "WOW, THESE ARE DIFFERENT." SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT ONE WAS RIGHT AND ONE WAS WRONG.

No, you did NOT say that --- and you certainly didn't say anything "effectively".

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

NO, they do NOT.

 

If an AUTHOR says something that HIS SUBJECT says is NOT TRUE --- they don't "contradict". The author is good, old-fashioned WRONG. He MADE A MISTAKE.

Or, he's a liar. Which is kind of ironic as the book is about attacking liars.

 

I do believe we can safely assume he's a liar, since he has told both sides of the same story now.

[Guest MikeSC]

NO, they do NOT.

 

If an AUTHOR says something that HIS SUBJECT says is NOT TRUE --- they don't "contradict". The author is good, old-fashioned WRONG. He MADE A MISTAKE.

Or, he's a liar. Which is kind of ironic as the book is about attacking liars.

 

I do believe we can safely assume he's a liar, since he has told both sides of the same story now.

Then why is anybody taking anything that lying suckbag says seriously? Heck, he got Condi Rice pissed --- and she does NOT get pissed about much.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Does the fact that Clarke was under the payroll and maybe he was not supposed to be "rocking the boat" come into play at all about past comments? Not to say Clarke is some honorable person for coming out and making these statements now, but I am sure 99% of people would never tell off their boss, but once they were fired/quit their job, they would be about 100x more truthful about their former job/boss.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Sure that can be taken into affect. However, why the need for a book? and why if he was so concerned did he wait nearly a year to come out with the allegations.

 

The biggest problem is Clarke's almost ignorance of Clinton's failure's when dealing with terrorism. I think President Bush should of done more, not necessarily to stop 9-11 but to fight terrorism in general. However, Clinton had 8 years and let 4 terror attacks, and Somalia happen during his Presidency.

[NoCalMike 0]

Sure that can be taken into affect. However, why the need for a book? and why if he was so concerned did he wait nearly a year to come out with the allegations.

 

The biggest problem is Clarke's almost ignorance of Clinton's failure's when dealing with terrorism. I think President Bush should of done more, not necessarily to stop 9-11 but to fight terrorism in general. However, Clinton had 8 years and let 4 terror attacks, and Somalia happen during his Presidency.

he seemed like he had plenty to criticize clinton about as well, and plus he said a lot of his motivation to go public was based on the fact that Bush was running as the "terrorism president" or whatever he calls it.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Had plenty meaning he did criticize, or there was plenty to criticize about Clinton and he didn't do so?

 

Bush is saying he's the best canidate to fight terror, going by what happened after 9-11. So far no attacks on U.S. soil. Attribute that to a bit of everything. But still no attacks on U.S. soil. That's the President's number one job. Protecting it's citizens.

[Guest MikeSC]

Sure that can be taken into affect. However, why the need for a book? and why if he was so concerned did he wait nearly a year to come out with the allegations.

 

The biggest problem is Clarke's almost ignorance of Clinton's failure's when dealing with terrorism. I think President Bush should of done more, not necessarily to stop 9-11 but to fight terrorism in general. However, Clinton had 8 years and let 4 terror attacks, and Somalia happen during his Presidency.

he seemed like he had plenty to criticize clinton about as well, and plus he said a lot of his motivation to go public was based on the fact that Bush was running as the "terrorism president" or whatever he calls it.

So it's politically motivated.

 

As we've said from the get-go.

 

Yeah, another shocking revelation.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Does the fact that Clarke was under the payroll and maybe he was not supposed to be "rocking the boat" come into play at all about past comments? Not to say Clarke is some honorable person for coming out and making these statements now, but I am sure 99% of people would never tell off their boss, but once they were fired/quit their job, they would be about 100x more truthful about their former job/boss.

Then why didn't he mention ANYTHING in, you know, his RESIGNATION LETTER.

 

Seems like a perfect place to mention concerns with Bushls handling of things.

 

But, he didn't.

 

And if he's willing to COMPLETELY lie to make some money in 2002 --- why is it so impossible to fathom he'd do that NOW?

 

God knows Paula Jones and Linda Tripp got painted with THAT brush during the Clinton days --- and they didn't even HAVE book deals.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Then why is anybody taking anything that lying suckbag says seriously? Heck, he got Condi Rice pissed --- and she does NOT get pissed about much.

-=Mike

Because this administration lies, too. And so it's basically his word against theirs.

 

As for which of his stories are the most credible, I take his most recent one, since it's the one he stuck to under oath.

[Guest MikeSC]

Then why is anybody taking anything that lying suckbag says seriously? Heck, he got Condi Rice pissed --- and she does NOT get pissed about much.

    -=Mike

Because this administration lies, too. And so it's basically his word against theirs.

 

As for which of his stories are the most credible, I take his most recent one, since it's the one he stuck to under oath.

Wow. As long as they attack Bush, you'll take whatever they say, huh?

 

Yeah, screw everything he said before, THIS is true.

 

Were you a Vince Russo fan, too?

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

"Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"

-Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

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.

Only I can officially bring back the "LOL2004" to the "FAUX NEWS" (Don't forget the "OMG").

 

I offically bring back everybody's favorite phrase.

 

Good grief, that's the only thing I care about regarding this thread.

 

Oh, and OMG FAUX NEWS LOL2004 is part of the Bush Brigade but there's no conspiracy regarding Clarke's and O'Neil's appearance on 60 Minutes, which is owned by the same company that owns the book publisher? Boy I'm glad I'm a blind partisan and don't pay attention to any of this crap...

[Guest MD2020]

Since I love seeing a nice flame war, and since I don't feel like reading this entire thread, I apologize if this was posted:

 

We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.

 

OMGBOSTONHERALDLOL2004!

 

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=440

 

Now, I don't blame Clarke for 9/11, but I've seen some on the left (not here though) bash Bush for shipping out Bin Laden members out of the country. Does this information that Clarke authorized the evacuation mean anything in the long run? Discuss.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Wow. As long as they attack Bush, you'll take whatever they say, huh?

 

Yeah, screw everything he said before, THIS is true.

 

Were you a Vince Russo fan, too?

-=Mike

If we cannot assume that someone is telling the truth under oath, how can we have any faith in our system of justice? How can any ruling in any case be considered accurate unless we put faith in what they say under law?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Could We Have Prevented 9/11?

Slate tells you what Richard Clarke's book reveals about the Bush and Clinton administrations' war on terror.

By Julia Turner

Posted Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 5:19 PM PT

 

On March 24, Richard Clarke delivered a persuasive performance in front of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. Clarke—who has worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, serving as counterterrorism chief for the last two—apologized for his failures in fighting al-Qaida. Then he slammed the Bush administration for paying insufficient attention to the terrorist threat in the summer of 2001. His new book, Against All Enemies, makes similar points at greater length.

 

Although the book amounts to a chronicle of what many in the present Bush administration did wrong (and what Clarke and Clinton did right), it is neither shrill nor overly self-congratulatory. Unlike some of the books Slate has diced and julienned in this space, this one's worth reading, mostly for Clarke's informed account of al-Qaida's rise and the U.S. government's awareness of the threat. But since you may not have time to read the whole thing, Slate presents Clarke's most salient pieces of criticism and praise.

 

What the Bushies Did Right

Pages 1-29: Put Clarke in charge on the morning of Sept. 11. Clarke describes how he led the Counterterrorism Security Group meeting in which State, Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and others worked together to ground jets, rouse rescue workers, and protect the president that morning. (Meanwhile, Clarke reports, in the bunker where Dick Cheney and others were located, Lynne Cheney kept turning up CNN, drowning out the CSG teleconference.)

 

Pages 23-24: Resolved to attack al-Qaida on the evening of Sept. 11. That night, Bush spoke to his staff: "I want you to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters." When Donald Rumsfeld pointed out the legal problems posed by some proposed attacks, Bush said, "I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass."

 

What the Bushies Did Wrong

Page 30-32: Considered attacking Iraq on the evening of Sept. 12. At one point, Bush pulled a few of his advisors into a conference room:

 

    "Look," he told us. "I know you have a lot to do and all … but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

 

    I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed.

 

    "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

 

    "I know, I know, but … see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

 

    "Absolutely, we will look … again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

 

    "Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us.

 

Pages 229-30, 234: Demoted Clarke. When the administration took office, Condoleezza Rice kept Clarke on staff. But she downgraded his position so that as national counterterrorism coordinator he no longer reported directly to Cabinet-level officials. Clarke reports that Rice's National Security Council staff meetings focused too much on the antiballistic missile treaty and other "vestigial Cold War concerns." (He also says that when he first briefed Rice on al-Qaida, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." Rice, however, discussed the threat of Bin Laden striking U.S. territory in an Oct. 2000 radio interview.)

 

Pages 230-31: Delayed meetings on counterterrorism. When, in January 2001, Clarke "urgently" requested a meeting with the Cabinet to plan the prevention of future al-Qaida attacks, he got his meeting not in January but in April. And not with the Cabinet but with a group of deputy secretaries. At the meeting, Paul Wolfowitz objected to his agenda—"I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden"—and argued that Iraqi terrorism was an equally serious threat. The Cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaida did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001.

 

Pages 220-222, 238: Discontinued Predator flights over Afghanistan. Clarke thought armed Predator drones could be used to kill al-Qaida members in Afghanistan without risking American lives. Clinton had authorized several unarmed flights in September and October of 2000, and "from the camera images on three flights," Clarke was convinced the drones had found Bin Laden. The Air Force agreed to prepare armed Predators for use in the spring of 2001. But the Bush administration didn't use them until after the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Page 246: Attacked Iraq. Clarke argues that the war diverted resources from the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and riled up potential al-Qaida recruits. "It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.' "

 

Page 248-50: Created the Department of Homeland Security. Clarke argues that the launch of the new department led to molasses-slow bureaucratic reshuffling, not efficient counterterrorism. He believes a White House office on homeland security would have been more effective and says that Bush thought so, too—after all, that's what he initially created. The department's authorization was politically motivated, Clarke says: When Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared to be about to outflank the administration on counterterrorism with his popular bill founding the department, Bush shifted positions, supported and signed the bill, and claimed the idea as his own.

 

Page 234: Allowed Clarke to quit. When, in the summer of 2001, Clarke asked Rice if he could be reassigned to cybersecurity, he explained his rationale: "Perhaps … I have become too close to the terrorism issue. I have worked it for ten years and to me it seems like a very important issue, but maybe I'm becoming like Captain Ahab with bin Laden as the White Whale. Maybe you need someone less obsessive about it." Or—Clarke's implication is obvious—maybe not.

 

What Clinton Did Right

Page 129: Declared "a war on terror before the term became fashionable." This was back in 1996, after the first World Trade Center attack, the Bush assassination attempt, the Khobar Towers attack, and the Oklahoma City bombing. (On Page 127, Clarke notes that it's possible that al-Qaida operatives in the Philippines "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned.")

 

Page 225: Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist state in Bosnia. Clinton's efforts to quell the war in the Balkans "defeated Al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defense of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks."

 

Pages 79-84: Responded to Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush with force. He ordered the bombing of Iraq's intelligence headquarters, which, Clarke says, paired with a "stark warning" to the Iraqis, "successfully deterred Saddam from ever again using terror against us."

 

Pages 112-21, 129: Responded to Iran's role in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack with an unspecified "intelligence operation" intended to deter further Iranian terrorism.

 

Page 186: Responded to the African embassy bombings with strikes on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan, even though he anticipated criticism for the timing. (The strikes took place on Aug. 20, 1998, at the height of the Lewinsky scandal.) According to Clarke, Clinton said: "Do you all recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice about the timing. That's my problem. Let me worry about that."

 

Pages 211-12: Worked to prevent al-Qaida attacks planned for the millennium. In December 1999, Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger "convened the Principals [Cabinet-level officials] in crisis mode. 'We have stopped two sets of attacks planned for the Millennium. You can bet your measly federal paycheck that there are more out there and we have to stop them too. I spoke with the President and he wants you all to know.' " Clarke adds: "It was the sort of attention we needed in the summer of 2001."

 

Page 225: Recognized early on that terrorism was a primary post-Cold War threat, and "greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs."

 

What Clinton Did Wrong

Page 225: Went too easy on the CIA. "He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and Al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing." (Clarke, however, goes pretty easy on Clinton for this failing: "Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations.")

 

Page 131: Didn't always push hard enough for homeland protection measures. In 1996, Clarke championed a plan for "a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington." Despite Clarke's efforts, Clinton's Treasury Department refused to OK it. "Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts."

[Guest Cerebus]

Re: What Clinton did wrong

 

THAT'S IT???

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow. As long as they attack Bush, you'll take whatever they say, huh?

 

Yeah, screw everything he said before, THIS is true.

 

Were you a Vince Russo fan, too?

                  -=Mike

If we cannot assume that someone is telling the truth under oath, how can we have any faith in our system of justice? How can any ruling in any case be considered accurate unless we put faith in what they say under law?

UPDATE time:

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

15 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

 

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON - Key Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terror.

 

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.

 

The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

 

The development marked the latest turn in a Republican counterattack against Clarke, who has leveled his criticism against Bush in a new book as well as in interviews and his sworn testimony before the bipartisan commission.

 

In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) had undermined the war on terror.

 

In a sharply worded speech, Frist said that Clarke himself was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center.

 

He also accused him of making a "theatrical apology" to the families of the terrorist victims at the outset of his appearance on Wednesday, saying it was not "his right, his privilege or his responsibility" to do so.

 

"Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct — but that is all," he said.

 

One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the initial request for declassification was made by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

 

Frist, without elaborating, said Clarke's testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration."

 

Frist also noted that Clarke, appearing as an anonymous official, had praised the administration's actions in an appearance before White House reporters in 2002.

 

Clarke on Wednesday dismissed that appearance as the fulfillment of the type of request that presidential appointees frequently receive.

 

But, Frist said, "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress."

 

No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA (news - web sites) and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.

 

Without mentioning the congressional Republicans' effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan continued the administration's criticism of Clarke on Friday.

 

"With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters.

 

Asked about Bush's personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history it's disappointing."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...gress&printer=1

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Could We Have Prevented 9/11?

Slate tells you what Richard Clarke's book reveals about the Bush and Clinton administrations' war on terror.

By Julia Turner

Posted Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 5:19 PM PT

 

On March 24, Richard Clarke delivered a persuasive performance in front of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. Clarke—who has worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, serving as counterterrorism chief for the last two—apologized for his failures in fighting al-Qaida. Then he slammed the Bush administration for paying insufficient attention to the terrorist threat in the summer of 2001. His new book, Against All Enemies, makes similar points at greater length.

 

Although the book amounts to a chronicle of what many in the present Bush administration did wrong (and what Clarke and Clinton did right), it is neither shrill nor overly self-congratulatory. Unlike some of the books Slate has diced and julienned in this space, this one's worth reading, mostly for Clarke's informed account of al-Qaida's rise and the U.S. government's awareness of the threat. But since you may not have time to read the whole thing, Slate presents Clarke's most salient pieces of criticism and praise.

 

What the Bushies Did Right

Pages 1-29: Put Clarke in charge on the morning of Sept. 11. Clarke describes how he led the Counterterrorism Security Group meeting in which State, Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and others worked together to ground jets, rouse rescue workers, and protect the president that morning. (Meanwhile, Clarke reports, in the bunker where Dick Cheney and others were located, Lynne Cheney kept turning up CNN, drowning out the CSG teleconference.)

 

Pages 23-24: Resolved to attack al-Qaida on the evening of Sept. 11. That night, Bush spoke to his staff: "I want you to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters." When Donald Rumsfeld pointed out the legal problems posed by some proposed attacks, Bush said, "I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass."

 

What the Bushies Did Wrong

Page 30-32: Considered attacking Iraq on the evening of Sept. 12. At one point, Bush pulled a few of his advisors into a conference room:

 

    "Look," he told us. "I know you have a lot to do and all … but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

 

    I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed.

 

    "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

 

    "I know, I know, but … see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

 

    "Absolutely, we will look … again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

 

    "Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us.

 

Pages 229-30, 234: Demoted Clarke. When the administration took office, Condoleezza Rice kept Clarke on staff. But she downgraded his position so that as national counterterrorism coordinator he no longer reported directly to Cabinet-level officials. Clarke reports that Rice's National Security Council staff meetings focused too much on the antiballistic missile treaty and other "vestigial Cold War concerns." (He also says that when he first briefed Rice on al-Qaida, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." Rice, however, discussed the threat of Bin Laden striking U.S. territory in an Oct. 2000 radio interview.)

 

Pages 230-31: Delayed meetings on counterterrorism. When, in January 2001, Clarke "urgently" requested a meeting with the Cabinet to plan the prevention of future al-Qaida attacks, he got his meeting not in January but in April. And not with the Cabinet but with a group of deputy secretaries. At the meeting, Paul Wolfowitz objected to his agenda—"I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden"—and argued that Iraqi terrorism was an equally serious threat. The Cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaida did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001.

 

Pages 220-222, 238: Discontinued Predator flights over Afghanistan. Clarke thought armed Predator drones could be used to kill al-Qaida members in Afghanistan without risking American lives. Clinton had authorized several unarmed flights in September and October of 2000, and "from the camera images on three flights," Clarke was convinced the drones had found Bin Laden. The Air Force agreed to prepare armed Predators for use in the spring of 2001. But the Bush administration didn't use them until after the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Page 246: Attacked Iraq. Clarke argues that the war diverted resources from the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and riled up potential al-Qaida recruits. "It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.' "

 

Page 248-50: Created the Department of Homeland Security. Clarke argues that the launch of the new department led to molasses-slow bureaucratic reshuffling, not efficient counterterrorism. He believes a White House office on homeland security would have been more effective and says that Bush thought so, too—after all, that's what he initially created. The department's authorization was politically motivated, Clarke says: When Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared to be about to outflank the administration on counterterrorism with his popular bill founding the department, Bush shifted positions, supported and signed the bill, and claimed the idea as his own.

 

Page 234: Allowed Clarke to quit. When, in the summer of 2001, Clarke asked Rice if he could be reassigned to cybersecurity, he explained his rationale: "Perhaps … I have become too close to the terrorism issue. I have worked it for ten years and to me it seems like a very important issue, but maybe I'm becoming like Captain Ahab with bin Laden as the White Whale. Maybe you need someone less obsessive about it." Or—Clarke's implication is obvious—maybe not.

 

What Clinton Did Right

Page 129: Declared "a war on terror before the term became fashionable." This was back in 1996, after the first World Trade Center attack, the Bush assassination attempt, the Khobar Towers attack, and the Oklahoma City bombing. (On Page 127, Clarke notes that it's possible that al-Qaida operatives in the Philippines "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned.")

 

Page 225: Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist state in Bosnia. Clinton's efforts to quell the war in the Balkans "defeated Al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defense of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks."

 

Pages 79-84: Responded to Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush with force. He ordered the bombing of Iraq's intelligence headquarters, which, Clarke says, paired with a "stark warning" to the Iraqis, "successfully deterred Saddam from ever again using terror against us."

 

Pages 112-21, 129: Responded to Iran's role in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack with an unspecified "intelligence operation" intended to deter further Iranian terrorism.

 

Page 186: Responded to the African embassy bombings with strikes on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan, even though he anticipated criticism for the timing. (The strikes took place on Aug. 20, 1998, at the height of the Lewinsky scandal.) According to Clarke, Clinton said: "Do you all recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice about the timing. That's my problem. Let me worry about that."

 

Pages 211-12: Worked to prevent al-Qaida attacks planned for the millennium. In December 1999, Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger "convened the Principals [Cabinet-level officials] in crisis mode. 'We have stopped two sets of attacks planned for the Millennium. You can bet your measly federal paycheck that there are more out there and we have to stop them too. I spoke with the President and he wants you all to know.' " Clarke adds: "It was the sort of attention we needed in the summer of 2001."

 

Page 225: Recognized early on that terrorism was a primary post-Cold War threat, and "greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs."

 

What Clinton Did Wrong

Page 225: Went too easy on the CIA. "He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and Al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing." (Clarke, however, goes pretty easy on Clinton for this failing: "Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations.")

 

Page 131: Didn't always push hard enough for homeland protection measures. In 1996, Clarke championed a plan for "a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington." Despite Clarke's efforts, Clinton's Treasury Department refused to OK it. "Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts."

And people think he has a political axe to grind.

 

Man, he doesn't give anybody a reason to think that, does he?

-=Mike

[Guest MD2020]

I love how one of the two things Bush did right was put Clarke in charge, but two of the things he did wrong was demote him and let him quit.

 

Maybe he's right, but seems a little like Clarke is putting himself over. I don't know.

[Guest MikeSC]

I love how one of the two things Bush did right was put Clarke in charge, but two of the things he did wrong was demote him and let him quit.

 

Maybe he's right, but seems a little like Clarke is putting himself over. I don't know.

I didn't even NOTICE that --- but it is F'N HILARIOUS.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Honestly, I have no doubt that he has some points in his book (I'm giving in and buying it this week so I'll report fully after I read it) but it's hard to take Clarke seriously when he's glued his face firmly to Clinton's ass.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

UPDATE time:

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

15 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

-=Mike

Interesting. But is that somehow less partisan than what Clarke's done?

 

I don't mind the image that Clarke is out to get the Bush Admin for sour grapes, but nobody sees the politics in realeasing an interview transcript with reporters while he's doing his testimony, or in this.

 

But hey, I'll give them a chance, because maybe he did say something different then. We'll see.

[Guest MikeSC]

UPDATE time:

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

15 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

-=Mike

Interesting. But is that somehow less partisan than what Clarke's done?

 

I don't mind the image that Clarke is out to get the Bush Admin for sour grapes, but nobody sees the politics in realeasing an interview transcript with reporters while he's doing his testimony, or in this.

 

But hey, I'll give them a chance, because maybe he did say something different then. We'll see.

 

And is there a political motive to releasing the transcript? Absolutely. If the lie is allowed to fester without a response, it becomes TRUTH to Americans (see "Worst economy in 50 years" from 1992). The GOP has him saying completely differently and would be quite remiss in NOT pointing it out.

-=Mike

People say that Bush and company have all but called him a liar.

 

Well, the Congress is ABOUT to call him a liar.

 

They're going to likely push for a perjury charge --- yet I doubt that won't quite get the same play that his allegations received.

 

Call it a safe hunch.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

"Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"

-Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson

Did you catch his response to this question?....

[NoCalMike 0]

UPDATE time:

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

15 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

-=Mike

Interesting. But is that somehow less partisan than what Clarke's done?

 

I don't mind the image that Clarke is out to get the Bush Admin for sour grapes, but nobody sees the politics in realeasing an interview transcript with reporters while he's doing his testimony, or in this.

 

But hey, I'll give them a chance, because maybe he did say something different then. We'll see.

 

And is there a political motive to releasing the transcript? Absolutely. If the lie is allowed to fester without a response, it becomes TRUTH to Americans (see "Worst economy in 50 years" from 1992). The GOP has him saying completely differently and would be quite remiss in NOT pointing it out.

-=Mike

People say that Bush and company have all but called him a liar.

 

Well, the Congress is ABOUT to call him a liar.

 

They're going to likely push for a perjury charge --- yet I doubt that won't quite get the same play that his allegations received.

 

Call it a safe hunch.

-=Mike

Bush's Admin has already built a rep of tearing people to shreds from his own cabinet that come out with criticism against any of his policies. Richard Clarke wasn't the first. It seems that anyone who leaves his little club of goons, is somehow branded "crazy" or "loony" or "a liar" which begs the question of why they were chosen in the first place to be in their position.

[Guest Cerebus]

"Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"

-Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson

Did you catch his response to this question?....

Yes. It was lame and half-assed. Assuming you havn't, you can read it yourself.