Full Version: Richard Clarke
Couple of things about Rice testifying before Congress:
The hard and fast rule is that Presidential appointees that are not confirmed by Congress are not required to testify before Congress on matters of policy. The reason is the classic "Separation of Powers" which is a rule in which no branch of the federal government can compel action from another branch.
Now, what's interesting here, as Richard Clarke himself calls upon Condi Rice to testify, is that Clarke himself did not (at the direction of the National Security Council under Bill Clinton) give testimony before the Senate Special Committee investigating the Y2K problem.
Congress Was Denied Public Testimony by Richard Clarke in 1999!
The hard and fast rule is that Presidential appointees that are not confirmed by Congress are not required to testify before Congress on matters of policy. The reason is the classic "Separation of Powers" which is a rule in which no branch of the federal government can compel action from another branch.
Now, what's interesting here, as Richard Clarke himself calls upon Condi Rice to testify, is that Clarke himself did not (at the direction of the National Security Council under Bill Clinton) give testimony before the Senate Special Committee investigating the Y2K problem.
Congress Was Denied Public Testimony by Richard Clarke in 1999!
QUOTE
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee due to a directive by the National Security Council. Since Clarke was not a confirmed member of the White House staff, the directive was made that Clarke was not allowed to testify before Congress.
<snip>
[Senator Bennett] "Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
<snip>
"He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.
<snip>
[Senator Bennett] "Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
<snip>
"He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.
QUOTE
asRichard Clarke himself calls upon Condi Rice to testify,
I havent seen this and cannot find it in a google search. Got any reference?
Clarke has asked Rice to declassify their secret emails, since they are going about cherry picking only what suports their case.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Mar 29 2004, 10:50 PM)
QUOTE
asRichard Clarke himself calls upon Condi Rice to testify,
I havent seen this and cannot find it in a google search. Got any reference?
Clarke has asked Rice to declassify their secret emails, since they are going about cherry picking only what suports their case.
My apologies. I thought I heard that on Meet the Press this weekend (Richard Clarke sat down with Tim Russert)
What he really said was:
QUOTE
MR. RUSSERT: You would request this morning that it all be declassified?
MR. CLARKE: And I want more declassified. I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified
MR. CLARKE: And I want more declassified. I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified
So he did not call for further testimony by Rice, only that her previous testimony be made public.
But Clarke AGAIN rebuts his own assertion that the Bush team did nothing.
From the Meet the Press interview:
QUOTE
MR. RUSSERT: We'll get to that particular debate, but let me go back to September 11 and what led up to it. The Washington Post captured this way: "On July 5 of 2001, the White House summoned officials of a dozen federal agencies to the Situation Room. `Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,' the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, told the assembled group, including the Federal Aviation Administration, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Clarke directed every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer non-vital travel, put off scheduled exercises, place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert. For six weeks in the summer of 2001, at home and overseas, the U.S. government was at its highest possible state of readiness--and anxiety--against imminent terrorist attack."
QUOTE
MR. RUSSERT: But you kept your guard up for six weeks, through the end of August. Why didn't you stay on high alert through September 11th? And you regret this day that you didn't because you may have stopped that attack.
MR. CLARKE: We kept up the high alert for some facilities that could keep up the high alert. The Defense Department, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others, said that they were physically not capable of keeping the troops overseas, for example, on high alert any further, that they were exhausting the troops. And, therefore, they unilaterally came down off of alert. We kept all of our counterterrorism forces in the United States on alert. We continued to send out threat advisories to the airports and the airlines. We continued to send out information to 18,000 state and local police departments and to Immigration and Customs and Secret Service and Coast Guard.
MR. CLARKE: We kept up the high alert for some facilities that could keep up the high alert. The Defense Department, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others, said that they were physically not capable of keeping the troops overseas, for example, on high alert any further, that they were exhausting the troops. And, therefore, they unilaterally came down off of alert. We kept all of our counterterrorism forces in the United States on alert. We continued to send out threat advisories to the airports and the airlines. We continued to send out information to 18,000 state and local police departments and to Immigration and Customs and Secret Service and Coast Guard.
So counter-terrorism forces in the US were on alert on the morning of September 11th. Airports were receiving threat advisories and alerts. None of this stopped the attacks.
I guess when Clarke refers to the "Bush administration" he isn't part of it. Counter-terrorism forces were on high alert for 6 WEEKS during the summer of 2001. Unfortunately, no organization can stay on high alert indefinitely. Unfortunately, a let down is natural after such a heightened state of alert.
Clarke's 20-20 examination of history is filled with "maybes" and "possiblys" and "perhap"es. Things were done, Clarke has said so himself.
It remains incredulous to me that he again, this weekend, said that the Bush administration "ignored" terrorism.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 29 2004, 06:27 PM)
Clarke was in a position to actually do something for years.
And, despite your rather desperate revisionism, he did - at least during the Clinton years. You see, when Bill Clinton was president, he collaborated with Clarke. Working together, they prevented more than twenty terrorist attacks - at least eight on US soil. They helped break up al-Qaeda cells in twenty countries. This may be a "reach" for you, but for the lives of all the people they saved (which, for all we know, may include you own), it was not. When Clarke recommended that Clinton go to high alert in the White House in December, 1999, he did. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations. They held Cabinet-level meetings on terrorism nearly every day until the threat had passed. When the USS Cole was attacked, they worked together to devise a strategy for quashing al-Qaeda and eliminating bin Laden - a strategy which would have been implemented had Bush not ascended to the throne by decree.
When Clarke recommended that the Bush White House go to high alert prior to the September 11 attack - in June, July, and August - he was ignored. Clarke, the president's chief adviser on terrorism, did not even get to brief Bush on the subject until after September 11. The Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism which he requested immediately after the Bush Inauguration was put off until the first week of September. In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al-Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden - as he would have done in January. He was ignored. That plan may seem like "one of the greatest reaches of all time" to you in terms of having some impact on the September 11 attack, but it sounds like it might have caused a bit of a ripple to me.
In fact, Clarke's entire strategy for combatting al-Qaeda was ignored - until immediately after the September 11 attack. Then it was fully implemented - too late to capture or kill bin Laden, too late to cripple al-Qaeda, and too late for three thousand American citizens.
It's difficult to be a "real man", Passion, when one is taking orders from a spoiled boy. What would a "real man" do when confronted with a smug, privileged, clueless dilettante who refused to listen to his warnings month after month after month? Punch the smirking cheerleader in the face? What would you have done? Pistol-whipped the president? It strikes me that Clarke was doing everything he could to try to get the president's urgent attention. And when he was still being ignored even after the September 11 attack, he did what I would have done: resign and go public.
If I felt that the people charged with protecting my country were failing - miserably - at their job and that I could make no impact from within, I would do my damnedest to draw attention to my concerns by whatever means available and work to replace those toying with all of our lives with someone (which would be just about anyone) who could do a better job. And that is what a concerned, dedicated, patriotic human being like Richard Clarke did. I don't know what a "real man" would have done - fly a plane into a building?
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 29 2004, 06:27 PM)
OBL and company must be laughing themselves silly as they watch these idiots do their bidding for them.
You are quite right. Against the advice of Richard Clarke, the Bush administration is playing right into their hands. The invasion of Iraq is the best thing Bush could have done to foster anti-American sentiment around the globe, damage US credibility, alienate us from our allies, incite further hatred and violence from our enemies, increase the threat to our homeland, and boost the recruiting strategies of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups around the world. George W Bush and his advisors are the best friends - and greatest comic relief - Osama bin Laden could possibly have.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 29 2004, 06:27 PM)
This whole thing is shameful.
I could not agree with you more, Passion. I could not agree with you more.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Mar 29 2004, 09:55 PM)
And, despite your rather desperate revisionism, he did - at least during the Clinton years. You see, when Bill Clinton was president, he collaborated with Clarke. Working together, they prevented more than twenty terrorist attacks - at least eight on US soil. They helped break up al-Qaeda cells in twenty countries. This may be a "reach" for you, but for the lives of all the people they saved (which, for all we know, may include you own), it was not. When Clarke recommended that Clinton go to high alert in the White House in December, 1999, he did. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations. They held Cabinet-level meetings on terrorism nearly every day until the threat had passed. When the USS Cole was attacked, they worked together to devise a strategy for quashing al-Qaeda and eliminating bin Laden - a strategy which would have been implemented had Bush not ascended to the throne by decree.
Well, since we appear to have entered the realm of complete partisanship and "revisionist history", let's see just how good a job Clinton and his trusty right hand sidekick Richard Clarke did. They apparently had quite a few meetings about the problem of bin Laden, and to a bureaucrat, that's the solution. Have a meeting. To Clinton it was probably a distraction from what was really important, but then again, Monica was out buying cigars. So, they had a bunch of meetings and declared victories, stopped some attacks maybe, missed other ones (oh shucks), blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan and destroyed a ten dollar tent with a ten MILLION dollar missile. Yep, they were really effective alright. Except......
For this
The above link is to a saved article from the LA Times about how the Clinton administration turned down the opportunity to have bin Laden handed to them. From that article.....
QUOTE
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Deafening..... How could we have let him go? Mr. Clarke? Would you like to address that question?
QUOTE
Desert Resident, I also believe you are incorrect in your assertion that White House staffers are already under "oath" to tell the truth, and so do not have to be placed under oath again, for any hearings. Even if your assertion was true (which I do not believe), why would that preclude her from testifying in public then?
If you can point me to the relevant affirmation they are required to take upon assuming their office, I will be happy to re-evaluate my position. Until then....NiteGuy
If you can point me to the relevant affirmation they are required to take upon assuming their office, I will be happy to re-evaluate my position. Until then....NiteGuy
Sorry for the confusion about Rumsfeld, Powell, and others...but I read (per link below) that high level officials of the White House do not have to testify under oath in non-criminal cases. Thus, I assumed Rumsfeld, Powell, Armitage, etc. were considered high level officials. Could be their cabinet positions make them answerable to Congress or could be they didn't object to being sworn in.
Condi Rice's Explanation per link below:
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region...=81878®ion=4
QUOTE
She said it is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers don't testify before the Congress.
"This commission, it takes its authority, derives its authority from the Congress, and it is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress," said Ms Rice.
She said the only exceptions have been in matters related to either criminal intent or criminal allegations, or impropriety — not on matters of policy.
As her role of national security adviser is not confirmed by Congress, she answers only to the president.
"This commission, it takes its authority, derives its authority from the Congress, and it is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress," said Ms Rice.
She said the only exceptions have been in matters related to either criminal intent or criminal allegations, or impropriety — not on matters of policy.
As her role of national security adviser is not confirmed by Congress, she answers only to the president.
Monday, March 29, 2004 9:06 a.m. EST
Clinton, Gore Not Slated to Give 9/11 Testimony Under Oath
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/90941.shtml
QUOTE
Ex-President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have not agreed to give sworn testimony to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks (the 9/11 Commission), or even to answer questions in public, about their role in events leading up to America's worst disaster - making them the only non-office-holders granted that privilege by the Commission.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney are also slated for private, non-sworn interviews with the 9/11 Commission, but sitting presidents and vice presidents typically do not testify under oath in non-criminal investigations.
It's not clear why the 9/11 Commission has insisted that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice break with precedent for someone in her position and give sworn public testimony, while no such precedent protects former office-holders like Clinton and Gore.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney are also slated for private, non-sworn interviews with the 9/11 Commission, but sitting presidents and vice presidents typically do not testify under oath in non-criminal investigations.
It's not clear why the 9/11 Commission has insisted that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice break with precedent for someone in her position and give sworn public testimony, while no such precedent protects former office-holders like Clinton and Gore.
QUOTE
During an interview with NBC television, Mr. Gonzales also noted that legally it is not necessary for Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath. He said White House officials are already required to tell the truth.
In the letter to the commission, the White House counsel noted that top presidential advisors never, as a rule, testify before commissions created by Congress. He said that is especially true in the national security area, where much of the advice provided is, and should remain, confidential.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105302/posts
In the letter to the commission, the White House counsel noted that top presidential advisors never, as a rule, testify before commissions created by Congress. He said that is especially true in the national security area, where much of the advice provided is, and should remain, confidential.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105302/posts
For many reasons, this thread is indeed an education! Have an idea that before this Richard Clarke and 911 Commission Investigation is over, this just may end up being one of the longest threads on AD
(Other than Bush's Dinner Jokes!) 
Edited to add: What I believe their quandary is that if President Bush should issue an executive order for Condi Rice to testify in public, it would set a precedent that could possibly create serious problems for future Presidents and their National Security Advisors. Remember, in 1999 Richard Clarke, when National Security Advisor, would not break rules to testify before a committee. So, he knows the frustration of Condi Rice's position as he has been there and done what she is doing...not testifying in public and under oath.
There is more than enough blame to go around regarding 9/11. The biggest failure was that we were too slow to recognize the new battlefields. We were still focused on finding and fighting that 'country' which was our enemy. Or we looked at terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Neither was correct.
When GWB took office it was not surprising that his admin shied away from Clarke's strategies. After all, they believed those policies were a failure and that a new direction had to be taken. Their focus however was also flawed. They were still preparing to fight an 'enemy country'. That mindset led directly to the belief that Iraq had to be involved. I'll leave it there for this thread.
The problem with Clarke today is that he is all about personal vindication for his own mistakes. And Kerry and Kompany are using him to the extreme. At least I hope they are, for if not, they will return us to Clinton's failed policies on the off-chance they get elected.
When GWB took office it was not surprising that his admin shied away from Clarke's strategies. After all, they believed those policies were a failure and that a new direction had to be taken. Their focus however was also flawed. They were still preparing to fight an 'enemy country'. That mindset led directly to the belief that Iraq had to be involved. I'll leave it there for this thread.
The problem with Clarke today is that he is all about personal vindication for his own mistakes. And Kerry and Kompany are using him to the extreme. At least I hope they are, for if not, they will return us to Clinton's failed policies on the off-chance they get elected.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Mar 30 2004, 06:46 AM)
For this
The above link is to a saved article from the LA Times about how the Clinton administration turned down the opportunity to have bin Laden handed to them. From that article.....
The above link is to a saved article from the LA Times about how the Clinton administration turned down the opportunity to have bin Laden handed to them. From that article.....
QUOTE
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
I seem to remember that source being refuted quite soundly in another thread here on AD in the recent past. If memory serves me it was determined that the source wasn't really credible nor did he have the power to offer such a trade.
If I get time I'll go back through the archives and see if I can find it and either edit this post or re-post if necessary.
This is one of the archive threads dealing with this. Not quite as extensive as I remembered, maybe it was also discussed somewhere else /shrug
Edited: to add link to archive thread.
Refuted,
I don't think so, You can follow this link to Newsmax tape of Clinton
The page has a link to actual audio tape.
I don't think so, You can follow this link to Newsmax tape of Clinton
QUOTE
The most troublesome evidence, he says, is Clinton's February 2002 statement to a New York business group where he said that Sudan released bin Laden in 1996 as a goodwill gesture to the U.S.
In the next breath Clinton explained, "I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
NewsMax.com covered Clinton's address and was the only news outlet to release a recording of his bombshell statement.
In the next breath Clinton explained, "I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
NewsMax.com covered Clinton's address and was the only news outlet to release a recording of his bombshell statement.
The page has a link to actual audio tape.
Just a quick note halfway through "Hardball with Chris Mathews" tonight. If you have a chance to see this or read the transcripts ask yourself one question. How many times does Dick Clarke say I, me, my, or mine?
No evaluation! Just a question!
No evaluation! Just a question!
QUOTE(offwind @ Mar 31 2004, 08:29 PM)
Just a quick note halfway through "Hardball with Chris Mathews" tonight. If you have a chance to see this or read the transcripts ask yourself one question. How many times does Dick Clarke say I, me, my, or mine?
No evaluation! Just a question!
No evaluation! Just a question!
I'm glad you brought up the Chris Matthews Show, Offwind. I was going to comment on some of the things that Clarke said on that. The two most significant things I think from the standpoint of 9/11 were that Clarke himself had not heard of Moussaui (sp?), nor of the Phoneix memo about middle eastern guys wanting to learn how to fly airplanes, but not to land them or take off. Clarke said that if he didn't know about it he was sure that President Bush hadn't heard about it either. I'm surprised that the 9/11 commission didn't focus more on that aspect because that tells me there was something very wrong with the system at that point. I wonder what the 9/11 commission thinks they are really supposed to be doing.....
Ok, two news items to debunk a lot of what's been said here about Condi and Clarke.
First, was Bush, Condi, and the rest of the gang really focused on terrorism before 9/11?
Main U.S. Focus Before 9/11 Not on Terrorism - Report
And for those who think Clarke is just pushing the Democrat's agenda or is looking to stay in the spotlight:
Clarke objects to being 'used' in ads
First, was Bush, Condi, and the rest of the gang really focused on terrorism before 9/11?
Main U.S. Focus Before 9/11 Not on Terrorism - Report
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to deliver a major policy speech on Sept. 11, 2001, that focused on missile defense, not terrorism, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
Citing former U.S. officials who have seen the text, the newspaper said the speech was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of the Bush administration's national security and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups.
The Washington Post reported that the text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, mentioned terrorism as one of the dangers from rouge nations such as Iraq rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.
The newspaper said the text broadly reflected the administration's foreign policy statements during the eight months leading up to the attacks.
According to a review of public statements, the administration did address terrorism, but devoted far more attention to pushing missile defense, the newspaper said.
Citing former U.S. officials who have seen the text, the newspaper said the speech was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of the Bush administration's national security and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups.
The Washington Post reported that the text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, mentioned terrorism as one of the dangers from rouge nations such as Iraq rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.
The newspaper said the text broadly reflected the administration's foreign policy statements during the eight months leading up to the attacks.
According to a review of public statements, the administration did address terrorism, but devoted far more attention to pushing missile defense, the newspaper said.
And for those who think Clarke is just pushing the Democrat's agenda or is looking to stay in the spotlight:
Clarke objects to being 'used' in ads
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s former counterterrorism adviser objected Wednesday to the use of his name and critical comments about Bush in a new broadcast advertisement from a political group supporting Democratic candidate John Kerry.
Richard Clarke said he instructed his lawyer to ask the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to stop broadcasting the ad, which Clarke said was created without his knowledge or permission. The group said it wouldn’t pull the ad, and one outside legal expert said the ad was clearly permissible under U.S. copyright laws.
“I just don’t want to be used,” Clarke told The Associated Press. “I don’t want to be part of what looks like a political TV ad. I’m trying hard to make this not a partisan thing but a discussion of how we stop terrorism from happening in the future, keep this on a policy issue. I don’t want this to become any more emotional or personal than it has already.”
Richard Clarke said he instructed his lawyer to ask the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to stop broadcasting the ad, which Clarke said was created without his knowledge or permission. The group said it wouldn’t pull the ad, and one outside legal expert said the ad was clearly permissible under U.S. copyright laws.
“I just don’t want to be used,” Clarke told The Associated Press. “I don’t want to be part of what looks like a political TV ad. I’m trying hard to make this not a partisan thing but a discussion of how we stop terrorism from happening in the future, keep this on a policy issue. I don’t want this to become any more emotional or personal than it has already.”
Here is a snapshot of what the American people are thinking:
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
War On Terrorism
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. March 25-26, 2004. Nationwide.
"We're interested in your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security?"
3/25-26/04 -- Approve 57%.....Disapprove 38%
---------------------------------------
Do you think that President Bush and his Administration have taken the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or have they not taken the threat seriously enough? N=1,002 adults, MoE ± 3
3/25-26/04 -- Have 61%.....Have Not 34% Don't Know 5%
----------------------------
"Do you think that former President Clinton and his Administration took the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or did they not take the threat seriously enough?" N=1,002 adults, MoE ± 3
3/25-26/04 -- Did 26%.....Did not65%.....Don't Know 9%
----------------------------
"As you may know, Clarke told the commission that the Bush Administration did not do all it could to fight terrorism. What do you think -- has the Bush Administration done all it could to fight terrorism or has it not done all it could?"
Has 46%.....Has Not 43%.....Don't Know 11%
-----------------------------
"From what you have heard and read, do you think Clarke is a dedicated public servant speaking out about government mistakes or do you think he is motivated by personal and political reasons?"
Dedicated Public Servant -- 25%
Personal/Political Reasons -- 50%
Don't Know 25%
-----------------------------
"Has what Clarke said about Bush made you more favorable toward Bush or less favorable toward Bush, or hasn't it made much difference either way?"
More 10%...Less 17%...No Diff 65%...don't Know 8%
1SG
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
War On Terrorism
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. March 25-26, 2004. Nationwide.
"We're interested in your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security?"
3/25-26/04 -- Approve 57%.....Disapprove 38%
---------------------------------------
Do you think that President Bush and his Administration have taken the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or have they not taken the threat seriously enough? N=1,002 adults, MoE ± 3
3/25-26/04 -- Have 61%.....Have Not 34% Don't Know 5%
----------------------------
"Do you think that former President Clinton and his Administration took the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or did they not take the threat seriously enough?" N=1,002 adults, MoE ± 3
3/25-26/04 -- Did 26%.....Did not65%.....Don't Know 9%
----------------------------
"As you may know, Clarke told the commission that the Bush Administration did not do all it could to fight terrorism. What do you think -- has the Bush Administration done all it could to fight terrorism or has it not done all it could?"
Has 46%.....Has Not 43%.....Don't Know 11%
-----------------------------
"From what you have heard and read, do you think Clarke is a dedicated public servant speaking out about government mistakes or do you think he is motivated by personal and political reasons?"
Dedicated Public Servant -- 25%
Personal/Political Reasons -- 50%
Don't Know 25%
-----------------------------
"Has what Clarke said about Bush made you more favorable toward Bush or less favorable toward Bush, or hasn't it made much difference either way?"
More 10%...Less 17%...No Diff 65%...don't Know 8%
1SG
These are polling results from the same poll as GDan204 quoted in the above thread.
Based on the information available to the Bush Administration before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, do you think the Bush Administration did or did not do all that could be expected to prevent the terrorist attacks?"
Did Did Not No
Opinion
% % %
3/26-28/04 42 54 4
Richard Clarke -- the Bush Administration's former counter-terrorism chief -- recently wrote a book which is critical of how the Bush Administration has handled the threat of terrorism. Here are some statements that have been made by both Clarke and the Bush Administration. Do you agree or disagree with the next four statements? . . .
.
Agree Disagree Don't
Know
% % %
"President Bush failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously enough before the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon."
3/04 52 40 8
.
"President Bush was more focused on attacking Iraq than dealing with terrorism as his top priority."
3/04 57 37 6
The last two questions were from a Los Angeles Times poll taken during the dates of Mar 27-30.
I felt as though it was appropriate to show some figures(cherry picking like GDan204)from the other side.
QUOTE
Based on the information available to the Bush Administration before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, do you think the Bush Administration did or did not do all that could be expected to prevent the terrorist attacks?"
Did Did Not No
Opinion
% % %
3/26-28/04 42 54 4
Richard Clarke -- the Bush Administration's former counter-terrorism chief -- recently wrote a book which is critical of how the Bush Administration has handled the threat of terrorism. Here are some statements that have been made by both Clarke and the Bush Administration. Do you agree or disagree with the next four statements? . . .
.
Agree Disagree Don't
Know
% % %
"President Bush failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously enough before the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon."
3/04 52 40 8
.
"President Bush was more focused on attacking Iraq than dealing with terrorism as his top priority."
3/04 57 37 6
The last two questions were from a Los Angeles Times poll taken during the dates of Mar 27-30.
I felt as though it was appropriate to show some figures(cherry picking like GDan204)from the other side.
Clarke did not state that Bush did "NOTHING". He stated that Bush's top priority was NOT Islamic terrorists. The Bush team continues, as they always have, to call everything black OR white. There is no middle ground or grey area. I think that the President did have higher priorities then Islamic terrorists prior to 9-11 as Clarke stated, and the dramatic shift in policy is proof of that. The Patriot act was a reactionary move, not a proactive one. Camp Rhino in Cuba. That was a reaction to 9-11. The policy of the Bush team changed overnight in September 01. Why? Because they realized that their priorities were misplaced and wrong. If not, why the dramatic change "post event"?
Peace
"I'll bet you vote this time Hippy"
Peace
"I'll bet you vote this time Hippy"
Well, it appears that other cabinet members and other government workers have vetted his claims. If ideas and viewpoints were airplanes and other vehicles that take to the air, then the chief argument against him appears to be performing an intellectual Hindenburg
Washington Post Article by Walter Pincus and Dana Milibank)
QUOTE
the broad outline of Clarke's criticism has been corroborated by a number of other former officials, congressional and commission investigators, and by Bush's admission in the 2003 Bob Woodward book "Bush at War" that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden before the attacks occurred.
and....
In addition, a review of dozens of declassified citations from Clarke's 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. Indeed, the declassified 838-page report of the 2002 congressional inquiry includes many passages that appear to bolster the arguments Clarke has made.
and....
In addition, a review of dozens of declassified citations from Clarke's 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. Indeed, the declassified 838-page report of the 2002 congressional inquiry includes many passages that appear to bolster the arguments Clarke has made.
Washington Post Article by Walter Pincus and Dana Milibank)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Apr 2 2004, 06:42 PM)
I felt as though it was appropriate to show some figures(cherry picking like GDan204)from the other side.
I don't call it cherry picking mny friend. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't bother to post the link. I posted what I thought was pertinent to the discussion. You checked the link and posted what you thought. "Cherry Picking" was uncalled for.
As to your LA Times links, one must always keep in mind that LA Times polls have a record of not being in line with other polls. When this hapens, rearly if ever is the LA times proven to have the correct numbers.
I felt it wass appropriate to bring out the facts about LA Time polling. As to Richard Clark, It has been over a week since his testimony and there have no serious drops in GW Bushes polling numbers. In fact it has been kerry whose numbers have dropped.
1SG
[QUOTE=GDan204,Apr 5 2004, 12:57 AM] [QUOTE=popeye47,Apr 2 2004, 06:42 PM]
I felt it wass appropriate to bring out the facts about LA Time polling. As to Richard Clark, It has been over a week since his testimony and there have no serious drops in GW Bushes polling numbers. In fact it has been kerry whose numbers have dropped.
1SG [/QUOTE]
Yep Condi and the major media corporations did another bang up job of confusing the general population of America. But now the claims about the "Mobile Biological Weapons Labs" are now being stated as "probably did not exist."
Just throw another one of top of the huge mound of lies by this administration. But I'll give some here this. They sure have proven their blind loyalty to the current administration.
And I find it totally shamefull that we can take a man who's given 30 good years of his life protecting our country and now label him as a traitor and a liar because of political spin he gave back when it was his job to do exactly that. What do you think Rice, Powell, and all the others are doing now?
And have you ever thought for one second that maybe the administration planned on releasing his book right around the time of the commision? I mean they've had the book for around 6 months combing through it making sure there was no classified material in it before release. So don't blame Clarke because the administration realized this was the best time to release the book. To make it look exactly like they wanted it to: Political manuevering instead of whistle-blowing. And with Condi and others on damage control they've come close to crushing all that this man has tried to do: Bring out the truth.
But don't fret... soon another will come forth and some of you can quickly discredit him too. Meanwhile America's reputation world-wide keeps dropping like a boat anchor cut loose sinking deep down into the Abyss.
I felt it wass appropriate to bring out the facts about LA Time polling. As to Richard Clark, It has been over a week since his testimony and there have no serious drops in GW Bushes polling numbers. In fact it has been kerry whose numbers have dropped.
1SG [/QUOTE]
Yep Condi and the major media corporations did another bang up job of confusing the general population of America. But now the claims about the "Mobile Biological Weapons Labs" are now being stated as "probably did not exist."
Just throw another one of top of the huge mound of lies by this administration. But I'll give some here this. They sure have proven their blind loyalty to the current administration.
And I find it totally shamefull that we can take a man who's given 30 good years of his life protecting our country and now label him as a traitor and a liar because of political spin he gave back when it was his job to do exactly that. What do you think Rice, Powell, and all the others are doing now?
And have you ever thought for one second that maybe the administration planned on releasing his book right around the time of the commision? I mean they've had the book for around 6 months combing through it making sure there was no classified material in it before release. So don't blame Clarke because the administration realized this was the best time to release the book. To make it look exactly like they wanted it to: Political manuevering instead of whistle-blowing. And with Condi and others on damage control they've come close to crushing all that this man has tried to do: Bring out the truth.
But don't fret... soon another will come forth and some of you can quickly discredit him too. Meanwhile America's reputation world-wide keeps dropping like a boat anchor cut loose sinking deep down into the Abyss.
QUOTE(Rickmanx @ Apr 5 2004, 02:46 PM)
Just throw another one of top of the huge mound of lies by this administration. But I'll give some here this. They sure have proven their blind loyalty to the current administration.
You still seem to be stuck saying that using the intelligence available at the time is the same as telling lies. When actually you have no proof the administration lied at all. It's as if the continuous saying the word lie over and over will somehow make a truth.
QUOTE
And I find it totally shamefull that we can take a man who's given 30 good years of his life protecting our country and now label him as a traitor and a liar because of political spin he gave back when it was his job to do exactly that.
I find it totally inconceivable that you can believe the words of a man trying to sell a book. A man passed over for the job he sought definately may have a reason to lie. A man who knows if he does not back up the claims he has written in his book, he may well be paupered.
QUOTE
And have you ever thought for one second that maybe the administration planned on releasing his book right around the time of the commision? I mean they've had the book for around 6 months combing through it making sure there was no classified material in it before release. So don't blame Clarke because the administration realized this was the best time to release the book.
Have you ever thought about the fact that the government released the book to the author and it was the author that told the publisher to release the book? It was not up to the government to decide when this book should be published. It was up to the author and the publishing company.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Apr 5 2004, 01:01 PM)
QUOTE(Rickmanx @ Apr 5 2004, 02:46 PM)
Just throw another one of top of the huge mound of lies by this administration. But I'll give some here this. They sure have proven their blind loyalty to the current administration.
You still seem to be stuck saying that using the intelligence available at the time is the same as telling lies. When actually you have no proof the administration lied at all. It's as if the continuous saying the word lie over and over will somehow make a truth.
So when Bush repeated the lie in the SOTU about Iraq trying to acquire nuclear weapons... he attributed the lie to the UK's intelligence sources when his own intelligence said the documents were fraudulent? That makes it not a "lie", huh?
QUOTE(GDan204)
QUOTE
And I find it totally shamefull that we can take a man who's given 30 good years of his life protecting our country and now label him as a traitor and a liar because of political spin he gave back when it was his job to do exactly that.
I find it totally inconceivable that you can believe the words of a man trying to sell a book. A man passed over for the job he sought definately may have a reason to lie. A man who knows if he does not back up the claims he has written in his book, he may well be paupered.
I find it totally inconceivable that you can discount his words as well. Just because he's selling a book. And you also discount his 30 years of service to Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton as though it didn't happen. And you have shown no evidence of his financial status, so you got that information from... where? I'll bet you also discounted O'Neill's assertions in Suskind's book as well, even though he's a rich guy who didn't need the hassle of working for the Administration.
QUOTE(GDan204)
QUOTE
And have you ever thought for one second that maybe the administration planned on releasing his book right around the time of the commision? I mean they've had the book for around 6 months combing through it making sure there was no classified material in it before release. So don't blame Clarke because the administration realized this was the best time to release the book.
Have you ever thought about the fact that the government released the book to the author and it was the author that told the publisher to release the book? It was not up to the government to decide when this book should be published. It was up to the author and the publishing company.
Everything I've seen says that the gov't released it back to his publisher who was originally going to publish it in April, but moved it back a few weeks when Clarke got called to testify. Which is a smart move on the part of the publisher to ensure that more money gets made (or do you think that smart capitalists are always suspect as well?
).But you're trying to slam him with no evidence that he didn't tell the truth. Just throwing slime and hoping it sticks. But it won't stick.
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 5 2004, 12:17 PM)
But you're trying to slam him with no evidence that he didn't tell the truth. Just throwing slime and hoping it sticks. But it won't stick.
The evidence is in Clarke's own words. At one point he said Bush was doing more than Clinton, because Clinton had "no plan, none, whatsoever". Now, he says Clinton did more and that it was a higher priority for Clinton. That Bush "ignored" the problem and "did nothing".
His statements don't add up, we are just trying to figure out why.
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 5 2004, 05:17 PM)
So when Bush repeated the lie in the SOTU about Iraq trying to acquire nuclear weapons... he attributed the lie to the UK's intelligence sources when his own intelligence said the documents were fraudulent? That makes it not a "lie", huh?
Did Bush lie about the possibility of Saddam trying to obtain nukes or did he follow what he felt was the best intelligentce?
QUOTE
I find it totally inconceivable that you can discount his words as well. Just because he's selling a book. And you also discount his 30 years of service to Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton as though it didn't happen. And you have shown no evidence of his financial status, so you got that information from... where? I'll bet you also discounted O'Neill's assertions in Suskind's book as well, even though he's a rich guy who didn't need the hassle of working for the Administration.
What do you actually know about Clark that you would back him against the administration? It appears what you know, is that you don't like the current administration and will back anyone who may be able to help defeat it in the coming election. One of the things I learned in 21 years in the Army is that - It's not what you've done it is what you are doing. - If you have to live on past accomplishments then you aren't doing your job. Is this what happened to Clark? Is this why he was passed over as the number two man in the Dept of Homeland Security? Neither of us know the true story. That being the case I am more then willing to trust those that have a less personal stake in this matter then Richard Clark.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Apr 5 2004, 12:57 AM)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Apr 2 2004, 06:42 PM)
I felt as though it was appropriate to show some figures(cherry picking like GDan204)from the other side.
I don't call it cherry picking mny friend. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't bother to post the link. I posted what I thought was pertinent to the discussion. You checked the link and posted what you thought. "Cherry Picking" was uncalled for.
As to your LA Times links, one must always keep in mind that LA Times polls have a record of not being in line with other polls. When this hapens, rearly if ever is the LA times proven to have the correct numbers.
I felt it wass appropriate to bring out the facts about LA Time polling. As to Richard Clark, It has been over a week since his testimony and there have no serious drops in GW Bushes polling numbers. In fact it has been kerry whose numbers have dropped.
1SG
Well my friend,on that site with the polls there were negative and positive news concerning Bush and his adminstration. It is hard to believe that you would quote only the POSITIVE ones by mistake.
And if that isn't "cherry picking" then I am voting for George W. Bush for president.And maybe I must have missed the information that "LA Times polls are not in line with other polls". If some factual info can be presented to prove this I will apologize but if not then LA Times polls are the same as CNN or USA TODAY polls as pertaining to believing in.
Also the 1st poll number I quoted was from CNN/USA TODAY poll.
Anyway below is poll numbers from same site but from the dates of 3/30- 4/01/04.
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
QUOTE
Do you think the policies of the Bush Administration have made the United States safer from terrorism, less safe from terrorism, or have the policies of the Bush Administration not affected the U.S.'s safety from terrorism?"
Safer Less
Safe Not
Affected Don't
Know
% % % %
3/30 - 4/1/04 53 20 22 5
3/10-14/04 62 17 17 4
.
"Was the Bush Administration paying enough or not enough attention to terrorism before September 11, 2001?"
Enough Not
Enough Don't
Know
% % %
3/30 - 4/1/04 17 72 11
.
"Was the Clinton Administration paying enough or not enough attention to terrorism before they left office?"
Enough Not
Enough Don't
Know
% % %
3/30 - 4/1/04 16 71 13
.
"Do you think the Bush Administration did all it could to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or could they have done more?"
Did All
It Could Could Have
Done More Don't
Know
% % %
3/30 - 4/1/04 23 67 10
.
"Do you think the Clinton Administration did all it could before they left office to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or could they have done more?"
Did All
It Could Could Have
Done More Don't
Know
% % %
3/30 - 4/1/04 17 71 12
And I did include one positive for Bush. I only quoted some of the poll because of rules on AD,but read for yourself.
This was a CBS poll. I hope you don't have anything against CBS,too.
QUOTE
One of the things I learned in 21 years in the Army is that - It's not what you've done it is what you are doing. - If you have to live on past accomplishments then you aren't doing your job. Is this what happened to Clark? Is this why he was passed over as the number two man in the Dept of Homeland Security? Neither of us know the true story. That being the case I am more then willing to trust those that have a less personal stake in this matter then Richard Clark.
It is important to remember that Clarke was a functionary in the Clinton administration while there was a threat of terrorist attacks all over the world, but especially in the United States, for Y2K.
It has not been brought up in this forum, I believe, that Clarke and others in the Clinton administration were able to make sure that there were no domestic attacks in the United States for the beginning of the year 2000. Does anybody on this board honestly think that there were no terrorist attacks then because the Clinton administration wasn't doing anything? If so, I would suggest that they rethink it. But then, maybe there was no plan, but just work like hell to ensure that nothing happened.
I do not subscribe to the idea that the 9/11 attacks were somehow because of William Jefferson Clinton and his administration. Blaming it on your predecessor is altogether too convenient for the Bush administration to attempt, and it is dishonest.
It happened on Bush's watch. He had not just been sworn in. Now either his administration was actively working against al Qaeda's threat or it wasn't. From what I have read of the 2000 Republican platform, Saddam Hussein and Iraq had center stage from the get-go, and Bush planned to get him all along.
Let's have a listen to what Condoleezza Rice has to say under oath to the Commission and the country. Let's have the Commission examine and make public ALL of the documents concerning Richard Clarke and his activities within the Bush administration. The time for subterfuge is over.
Does everyone here realize that it was the "Jersey Girls," the widows of the victims of 9/11 who DEMANDED that an investigation of the attacks of 9/11 be undertaken (See http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/april/m041403p.htm for information on the Jersey Girls of whom I speak), and not the Bush Administration? The Bush administration didn't want it, but public opinion was brought to bear on Congress to pressure Bush because these women would not let it die a quiet death (like the WMD issue that some posters claim is a "dead issue"). Shame on the Bush administration. They should have called for the investigation immediately. What was there to hide?
As for continuing to withhold the identities of the parties who attended Cheney's Energy Task Force, that case is still to be heard by Cheney's buddy Justice Antonin Scalia who refuses to recuse himself. Why does the Bush administration have to fight this? Is there something to be ashamed of? Was there malfeasance? What's wrong with the public knowing who attended the meeting? It was an ENERGY meeting, for Pete's sake, not the CIA.
As a consequence, I am far more skeptical of ANYTHING the Bush administration says than of what Richard Clarke says. If you think that the Bush administration's motives for being so secretive are so much purer than Clarke's because they're not hawking a book right now, THINK AGAIN. There's an election to be lost.
I really wonder about the motivations from so many of the ABB crowd in praising Clarke. Is it a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" .ie. pure politics? Or is it something else? I lean towards the former because what Clarke advocated prior to 9/11 is pretty much the policy that the Bush administration followed post 9/11. From the Newport News Daily Press (Requires registration), we have the following......
and later on.....
I'm sure y'all remember that asprin factory we blew up in Sudan? Guess who's idea that was? You're right, Richard Clarke. From Bill Gertz's book Breakdown ( (pg. 19)
And now, from The Washington Times, we get the following......
So, while I have praised the service of Mr Clarke in this thread, and I stand by that praise, I can understand why he might not have been taken as seriously as he thought he should based on his record. I would have chacterized him myself as something of a "loose cannon" prior to 9/11 when pre-emption would not have been an acceptable policy to Congress, to the world, nor to the American people. Richard Clarke preached pre-emption.
I find it incredible that so many of those here who condem the pre-emptory actions in Iraq, and in some cases even in Afghanistan would heap praises on Richard Clarke, a man who wanted to slaughter 15,000 innocent Afghans on the chance that OBL might have been there. I think there's something else going on with that to be quite honest.
QUOTE
NEWPORT NEWS - Richard Clarke's testimony last week before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks represents a perspective that at times was "overly simplistic," according to former Gen. Anthony Zinni, who worked with Clarke in the Clinton administration.
and later on.....
QUOTE
In speaking to about 70 people Wednesday at Christopher Newport University, Zinni said Clarke called him "a criminal" for not firing missiles at an Afghanistan city where U.S. intelligence suggested Osama bin Laden was staying.
"I said, 'I'm not shooting innocent people,' " Zinni said, referring to military information showing that missiles fired at Kandahar could kill at least 15,000 civilians. Eventually it was confirmed that bin Laden was not in the city, Zinni said.
"I said, 'I'm not shooting innocent people,' " Zinni said, referring to military information showing that missiles fired at Kandahar could kill at least 15,000 civilians. Eventually it was confirmed that bin Laden was not in the city, Zinni said.
I'm sure y'all remember that asprin factory we blew up in Sudan? Guess who's idea that was? You're right, Richard Clarke. From Bill Gertz's book Breakdown ( (pg. 19)
QUOTE
The CIA later claimed that the factory was targeted by demand of White House National Security Council staff, specifically Richard Clarke, its specialist on terrorism. This rash action embarrassed the State Department, which ended up paying damages to the Sudanese owner of the factory.
And now, from The Washington Times, we get the following......
QUOTE
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
So, while I have praised the service of Mr Clarke in this thread, and I stand by that praise, I can understand why he might not have been taken as seriously as he thought he should based on his record. I would have chacterized him myself as something of a "loose cannon" prior to 9/11 when pre-emption would not have been an acceptable policy to Congress, to the world, nor to the American people. Richard Clarke preached pre-emption.
I find it incredible that so many of those here who condem the pre-emptory actions in Iraq, and in some cases even in Afghanistan would heap praises on Richard Clarke, a man who wanted to slaughter 15,000 innocent Afghans on the chance that OBL might have been there. I think there's something else going on with that to be quite honest.
QUOTE
I find it incredible that so many of those here who condem the pre-emptory actions in Iraq, and in some cases even in Afghanistan would heap praises on Richard Clarke, a man who wanted to slaughter 15,000 innocent Afghans on the chance that OBL might have been there. I think there's something else going on with that to be quite honest.
I hope you weren't referring to me.
Rather than a desire to heap praise on Richard Clarke, my comments come from a desire to stop having opprobrium heaped on him before all of the facts are out. With Condoleezza Rice's sworn testimony and, hopefully, the release of all of the communications of Richard Clarke with this administration, the truth will be revealed.
If Clarke was all for preemptory invasion of Iraq, I am not on his side. But if he had suggestions for security measures against al-Qaeda that the Bush administration ignored, I'm certainly not going to be pleased to find this out, either, and I believe that the country has the right to know.
Richard Clarke may not be a hero, but neither the Bush administration's attempts to discredit him without allowing the 9/11 Commission to question Rice publically and under oath nor their reluctance to release to the Commission all of their communications (in context) with Clarke make them look like the guys in the white hats, either.
Are we still debating Clarke's credibility? Unbelievable.
There have been 5-6 former administration officials come out and say pretty much the same thing, and Bush has yet to see even ONE of his Iraq claims turn out to actually be true.
Furthermore, Condaleeza Rice claimed that "there was no way anybody could have determined terrorists would use airplanes as missles against us".
That is/was a pure, bold faced lie.
And you're slamming CLARKE?
Clarke did the same thing every administration official in every administration has done - protect your boss. The premise that he should have said/done something earlier would suggest that anytime an administration official disagrees with the administration, they should speak out and get fired.
That is too absurd for words and a CLEAR double-standard for Clarke.
I really don't beleive that any person slamming Clarke would have the intellectual honesty to admit they would love for Lanny Davis to come out and tell the truth about Clinton. With the "Clarke" logic, Davis should be disbelieved because he was a good soldier for Clinton. My money is on the Clarke bashers turning into Davis lovers.
We've heard all the "Clarke is scum" rhetoric. No show us where he is/was wrong.
There have been 5-6 former administration officials come out and say pretty much the same thing, and Bush has yet to see even ONE of his Iraq claims turn out to actually be true.
Furthermore, Condaleeza Rice claimed that "there was no way anybody could have determined terrorists would use airplanes as missles against us".
That is/was a pure, bold faced lie.
And you're slamming CLARKE?
Clarke did the same thing every administration official in every administration has done - protect your boss. The premise that he should have said/done something earlier would suggest that anytime an administration official disagrees with the administration, they should speak out and get fired.
That is too absurd for words and a CLEAR double-standard for Clarke.
I really don't beleive that any person slamming Clarke would have the intellectual honesty to admit they would love for Lanny Davis to come out and tell the truth about Clinton. With the "Clarke" logic, Davis should be disbelieved because he was a good soldier for Clinton. My money is on the Clarke bashers turning into Davis lovers.
We've heard all the "Clarke is scum" rhetoric. No show us where he is/was wrong.
[quote=Amlord,Mar 24 2004, 02:41 PM]Richard Clark, in his new book, and in an interview on 60 Minutes last Sunday said that the Bush team "dropped the ball" on terrorism prior to September 11th..
Clarke's Take On Terror
[quote]Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know." [/quote]
In October of 2002, Clarke did not seem overly critical that the Bush team failed to implement the Clinton plan.
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Clarke brings to light some interesting points:
[quote]"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it. [/quote]
My take on that is :"the military guy wants to bomb someone--duh" Of course, that plan of action was not acted upon by the President. What is credible is that the National Security team wanted to investigate whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. To me, this is not only understandable, but responsible.
From the CBS interview:
[quote]Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.
"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months. [/quote]
From the interview in 2002:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
So, he said that the Bush team did change the direction from that of the Clinton team.
On the issue of priorities:
[quote]"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.
"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department. [/quote]
Of course, he had already explained that in October 2002:
[quote]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. [/quote]
Clarke's Pentagon contact? Some second banana no-name:
[quote]For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz. [/quote]
Of course, the Pentagon is concerned with military opponents, not covert intelligence opponents. Their focus was on the threat Iraq represented towards the US. Clarke seems to characterize the fact that the military was concerned with Iraq to equate with the entire administration was focused on Iraq.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
So he has already said that the Bush administration had begun to act against Al Qaeda (not Iraq, Al Qaeda). A five fold increase in the intelligence budget to do so.
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?[/quote]
Sorry to re-post my entire initial post in this thread, DR, but the questions have yet to be answered, which is why we are still debating...
Clarke has changed his tune, both on how Clinton "fought" Al Qaeda as well as on how Bush has.
Let's keep in mind that Clarke was the primary source used in Richard Minter's book: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on bin Laden
[quote]But just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.
Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.
Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:
"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."
[/quote]
Clarke obviously disagrees with the action in Iraq, but that should not change how he characterizes how things were handled before September 11, 2001, which is the focus of the 9/11 Commission.
The question still stands: What is going on with Clarke's testimony and public statements?
Clarke's Take On Terror
[quote]Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know." [/quote]
In October of 2002, Clarke did not seem overly critical that the Bush team failed to implement the Clinton plan.
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Clarke brings to light some interesting points:
[quote]"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it. [/quote]
My take on that is :"the military guy wants to bomb someone--duh" Of course, that plan of action was not acted upon by the President. What is credible is that the National Security team wanted to investigate whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. To me, this is not only understandable, but responsible.
From the CBS interview:
[quote]Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.
"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months. [/quote]
From the interview in 2002:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
So, he said that the Bush team did change the direction from that of the Clinton team.
On the issue of priorities:
[quote]"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.
"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department. [/quote]
Of course, he had already explained that in October 2002:
[quote]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. [/quote]
Clarke's Pentagon contact? Some second banana no-name:
[quote]For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz. [/quote]
Of course, the Pentagon is concerned with military opponents, not covert intelligence opponents. Their focus was on the threat Iraq represented towards the US. Clarke seems to characterize the fact that the military was concerned with Iraq to equate with the entire administration was focused on Iraq.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
So he has already said that the Bush administration had begun to act against Al Qaeda (not Iraq, Al Qaeda). A five fold increase in the intelligence budget to do so.
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?[/quote]
Sorry to re-post my entire initial post in this thread, DR, but the questions have yet to be answered, which is why we are still debating...
Clarke has changed his tune, both on how Clinton "fought" Al Qaeda as well as on how Bush has.
Let's keep in mind that Clarke was the primary source used in Richard Minter's book: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on bin Laden
[quote]But just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.
Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.
Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:
"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."
[/quote]
Clarke obviously disagrees with the action in Iraq, but that should not change how he characterizes how things were handled before September 11, 2001, which is the focus of the 9/11 Commission.
The question still stands: What is going on with Clarke's testimony and public statements?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 6 2004, 01:13 PM)
Clarke has changed his tune, both on how Clinton "fought" Al Qaeda as well as on how Bush has.
Let's keep in mind that Clarke was the primary source used in Richard Minter's book: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on bin Laden
Clarke obviously disagrees with the action in Iraq, but that should not change how he characterizes how things were handled before September 11, 2001, which is the focus of the 9/11 Commission.
The question still stands: What is going on with Clarke's testimony and public statements?
Let's keep in mind that Clarke was the primary source used in Richard Minter's book: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on bin Laden
QUOTE
But just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.
Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.
Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:
"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."
Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.
Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:
"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."
Clarke obviously disagrees with the action in Iraq, but that should not change how he characterizes how things were handled before September 11, 2001, which is the focus of the 9/11 Commission.
The question still stands: What is going on with Clarke's testimony and public statements?
What do you mean "what's going on" with his statements? Why in your mind are they contradictory?
Clinton -- according to Minter's book (which is not entirely based in reality, but that's another story) -- didn't pursue bin Laden as hard as he should have. No one disputes that. Does the book address Bush's pursuit of or handling of bin Laden? Or is it just a right-wing indictment of Clinton's failures with no balance to discuss how Bush I and Reagan also failed? (my logic on this: since the first WTC bombing happened in 1993 and bin Laden didn't just appear out of nowhere, he must have been out there during Bush I, right? And Beirut bombing was on Reagan's watch.) So, I don't consider his testimony on Clinton to be anything but complementary to the book's assertions. In other words, where Clarke says Clinton Administration focused on protecting the USA without going after bin Laden except to lob a few missles, Minter sees a missed opportunity to pursue bin Laden. Fair enough. Also not contradictory.
And when Clarke testified privately before the commission, he gave substantially the same information as he did publicly. The commission chair and vice-chair have both said that in the press, although they said his objections were more strongly voiced this time. Fair enough.
As for his congressional testimony... much of it is classified, so how do we know it differs? Even Frist had to back off his assertion that there was perjury, since he's never seen it either.
His public statements while he was working in the Bush White House? You expect those statements NOT to follow the party line? Hello? What kind of partisan double standard is that? He's supposed to tell the truth and get himself fired?
So... "what's going on" with your understanding of the situation?
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 6 2004, 01:59 PM)
His public statements while he was working in the Bush White House? You expect those statements NOT to follow the party line? Hello? What kind of partisan double standard is that? He's supposed to tell the truth and get himself fired?
Indeed!
Heaven forbid he enlighten the nation on pressing national security concerns and possibly save lives in his view. After all, as such a poor man he simply could not afford to lose his job!
Even now his need for money forces him into the writing business.
That particular argument is worthless, all it says is that Clarke cared more about his job that the lives of his countrymen.
Even I am not quite ready to admit that!
QUOTE(turnea @ Apr 6 2004, 03:29 PM)
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 6 2004, 01:59 PM)
His public statements while he was working in the Bush White House? You expect those statements NOT to follow the party line? Hello? What kind of partisan double standard is that? He's supposed to tell the truth and get himself fired?
Indeed!
Heaven forbid he enlighten the nation on pressing national security concerns and possibly save lives in his view. After all, as such a poor man he simply could not afford to lose his job!
Even now his need for money forces him into the writing business.
That particular argument is worthless, all it says is that Clarke cared more about his job that the lives of his countrymen.
Even I am not quite ready to admit that!
Your either-or argument is also worthless. And just saying something is "worthless" doesn't really make it so, does it?
Try working high-up in any large corporation. If your co-workers at your level and those above you aren't doing what you want, do you go public with it? If you got high-up in the first place, you'd know that that would be the STUPIDEST thing you could do, not only alienating your bosses and co-workers, but guaranteeing that you'd be quickly out on the street where you would have NO EFFECT and no chance to make happen what you want to have happen.
And before 9/11, I doubt few people on this board or in the general population thought that terrorism was a "pressing national security concern". We were more worried about the economy starting to tank, layoffs, etc.
Give Clarke credit: he was talking about it and trying to get people to act. But he wasn't going to trash his boss to make a point while he could still work from within to change things. If you had his experience, I'd bet you'd do the same.
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 6 2004, 02:45 PM)
Try working high-up in any large corporation. If your co-workers at your level and those above you aren't doing what you want, do you go public with it? If you got high-up in the first place, you'd know that that would be the STUPIDEST thing you could do, not only alienating your bosses and co-workers, but guaranteeing that you'd be quickly out on the street where you would have NO EFFECT and no chance to make happen what you want to have happen.
..and you continue to completely ignore the context of this particular incident. This is not some silly argument over the price of widgets, it is the national security to the United States.
Is it so hard to believe that public servants in the area of the nation's safety be held to a higher standard than Bob the assistant-manager at the local hardware store?
Have the lessons of the FBI whistleblowers on the subject been forgotten so quickly?
Clarke would have gotten media attention at any time after 9/11 assuredly, as a high-level official most likely any time before that. Why, then, did he choose to wait all these years?
QUOTE(amf)
Give Clarke credit: he was talking about it and trying to get people to act. But he wasn't going to trash his boss to make a point while he could still work from within to change things.
Well clearly he couldn't change things. If he had my insight maybe it wouldn't have taken him a decade to figure it out.
QUOTE(turnea @ Apr 6 2004, 08:10 PM)
Is it so hard to believe that public servants in the area of the nation's safety be held to a higher standard than Bob the assistant-manager at the local hardware store?
I think they should be held to a higher standard, but the reality is that they aren't. They are even held to a lower standard at times. Politics is a world where anything you say (or don't say by omission) can and will be used against you to cut you down. Does anyone honestly think that is going to breed honesty and integrity? If you do, I have a bridge I can sell you, cheap.
QUOTE(turnea)
Clarke would have gotten media attention at any time after 9/11 assuredly, as a high-level official most likely any time before that. Why, then, did he choose to wait all these years?
Clarke is a career politician and public servant. The quickest way you get shutdown in politics and public service is to be the sqeaky wheel. Based on everything he has said and I have inferred, he made an attempt to change things from the inside. At some point that clearly wasn't going to work anymore and he decided he was going to say something -- a last resort if you will.
If you hold Clarke at fault for toeing the party line then you also have to hold virtually every politician in Washington at fault as well.
In a previous post in this thread I referenced an article in the Washington Times that referred to the Clinton Administration's final report on National Security. I finally was able to locate that report online. I haven't read through it yet, but for those interested, here it is.
Very interesting report. And I beleive very, very damning of our current policies.
A couple of major points.
Clinton saw Iran as what the CIA has said and everybody else knew:
And the Taliban:
As far as Iraq? Containment. No links to international terrorism.
This report squares with what we know now.
A couple of major points.
Clinton saw Iran as what the CIA has said and everybody else knew:
QUOTE
Our policy toward Iran is aimed at changing the practices of the Iranian government in several key areas, including its efforts to obtain WMD and long-range missiles, its support for terrorism and groups that violently oppose the Middle East peace process, and its human rights practices. We view signs of change in Iranian policies with great interest, both with regard to the possibility of Iran assuming its rightful place in the world community and the chance for better bilateral ties. We welcome statements by some Iranian officials that advocate improved relations with the United States.
These positive signs must be balanced against the reality that Iran's support for terrorism has not yet ceased and serious violations of human rights persist. Iran is continuing its efforts to acquire WMD and develop long range missiles (including the 1,300 kilometer-range Shahab-3 it flight-tested in July 1998, July 2000, and again in September 2000). The United States will continue to oppose Iranian efforts to sponsor terrorism and to oppose transfers from any country to Iran of materials and technologies that could be used to develop long-range missiles or WMD. Additionally, the United States will continue to work with Arab allies threatened by WMD to develop a defense through efforts such as the Cooperative Defense Initiative.
These positive signs must be balanced against the reality that Iran's support for terrorism has not yet ceased and serious violations of human rights persist. Iran is continuing its efforts to acquire WMD and develop long range missiles (including the 1,300 kilometer-range Shahab-3 it flight-tested in July 1998, July 2000, and again in September 2000). The United States will continue to oppose Iranian efforts to sponsor terrorism and to oppose transfers from any country to Iran of materials and technologies that could be used to develop long-range missiles or WMD. Additionally, the United States will continue to work with Arab allies threatened by WMD to develop a defense through efforts such as the Cooperative Defense Initiative.
And the Taliban:
QUOTE
Afghanistan remains a serious threat to U.S. worldwide interests because of the Taliban's continued sheltering of international terrorists and its increasing export of illicit drugs. Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice. The United States remains concerned about those countries, including Pakistan, that support the Taliban and allow it to continue to harbor such radical elements. We are engaged in energetic diplomatic efforts, including through the United Nations and with Russia and other concerned countries, to address these concerns on an urgent basis
As far as Iraq? Containment. No links to international terrorism.
This report squares with what we know now.
Let's not forget, the Bush administration decided for continuity purposes in government transition to keep Mr. Richard Clarke and others on board from the Clinton administration. While Richard Clarke's experience and background on terrorism serving under previous administrations deserved consideration and was respected, he was not considered by the Bush administration as their "last word" or top expert on terrorism according to Karen Hughes in last night's interview on The Larry King show.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/06/lkl.00.html
Additional quotes from Karen Huges who attended more meetings than Richard Clarke:
About Clarke's apology:
About the quote from Bob Woodward's book regarding President Bush's statement ...."not urgent.":
Oh, and according to 60 Minutes, Andy Rooney who has written and published more than fourteen books...Mr. Clarke will probably end up making about 4 bucks on every book sold...I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder of "how much is rich" and whether Mr. Clarke will become richer from his first attempt in publishing a book.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/06/lkl.00.html
QUOTE
HUGHES: I think it's interesting, that the person that the Bush administration and Condi hired to brief us during the transition on terrorism was Mr. Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the commission and the chairman of the commission, the governor said the other day that the reason they hired him was the same reason we did, because he's the foremost expert on al Qaeda so if we weren't concerned about al Qaeda, why were we hiring the foremost expert in the country on them during our transition?
Additional quotes from Karen Huges who attended more meetings than Richard Clarke:
About Clarke's apology:
QUOTE
HUGHES: But what I am -- I think what I think is most distressing, Larry, is that I think what he said has led to a misplaced sense of responsibility. Based on everything I know, I don't -- you know, as you know, I'm an advocate for the Bush administration and I am not an advocate...
KING: No kidding.
HUGHES: ... for the Clinton administration. But I'm willing to stand up for the Clinton administration on this, too. Based on everything I know, I think that had anyone in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration been able to put together the pieces before the horror of September 11 in a way that would have prevented it, I know they would have. I know President Bush would have done everything in is power. And so I just disagree with him that...
KING: So what you're saying is it absolutely was not preventable?
HUGHES: Well, his apology made it appear that someone in our government was responsible. That's why I say there is a misplaced sense of responsibility.
KING: Well, somebody had to make a mistake somewhere?
HUGHES: No, al Qaeda is responsible. What happened is al Qaeda declared war on our country. Just as Japan declared war on our country when they attacked Pearl Harbor. And I think it's very important that we be very clear about just who is responsible. It's not our government. It's al Qaeda.
KING: No kidding.
HUGHES: ... for the Clinton administration. But I'm willing to stand up for the Clinton administration on this, too. Based on everything I know, I think that had anyone in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration been able to put together the pieces before the horror of September 11 in a way that would have prevented it, I know they would have. I know President Bush would have done everything in is power. And so I just disagree with him that...
KING: So what you're saying is it absolutely was not preventable?
HUGHES: Well, his apology made it appear that someone in our government was responsible. That's why I say there is a misplaced sense of responsibility.
KING: Well, somebody had to make a mistake somewhere?
HUGHES: No, al Qaeda is responsible. What happened is al Qaeda declared war on our country. Just as Japan declared war on our country when they attacked Pearl Harbor. And I think it's very important that we be very clear about just who is responsible. It's not our government. It's al Qaeda.
About the quote from Bob Woodward's book regarding President Bush's statement ...."not urgent.":
QUOTE
KING: Annapolis, Maryland for Karen Hughes, the author of "Ten Minutes from Normal." Hello.
CALLER: First thing I want to say. You're very good, Karen Hughes. No wonder they called you up. I just want to let you know that I'm a Republican and I voted for President Bush. I believe that the president is at the helm. It's his watch, as he's been saying, at many of his fund-raisers. And I believe taking responsibility is a sign of leadership. Therefore, I'm very concerned. Can you please explain to me what President Bush's own words meant that he said to Bob Woodward which were, paraphrased, I'm sorry, if al Qaeda was not urgent, I was not on point, I was not thinking about Osama bin Laden. To me, it begins and ends there.
HUGHES: That's slightly somewhat of a misquote. I was in the office when the president did that interview with Bob Woodward. What he was actually asked about was killing Osama bin Laden, assassinating Osama bin Laden. You understand, that is always a very difficult decision for any American president. That's something that our country is rightly very concerned about, the idea of assassination of a foreign national. Particularly before September 11.
And what Bob Woodward asked him was, did you think about killing Osama bin Laden, assassinating him? And President Bush was comparing the way he felt before September 11 to the way he felt after September 11. And he said, my blood was not nearly -- I was not as on point. The end of the quote was, my blood was not nearly as boiling as it was in the aftermath. Of course that's understandable. None of our blood was nearly as boiling as it was in the aftermath of September 11 once he had masterminded that horrific attack on our country.
CALLER: First thing I want to say. You're very good, Karen Hughes. No wonder they called you up. I just want to let you know that I'm a Republican and I voted for President Bush. I believe that the president is at the helm. It's his watch, as he's been saying, at many of his fund-raisers. And I believe taking responsibility is a sign of leadership. Therefore, I'm very concerned. Can you please explain to me what President Bush's own words meant that he said to Bob Woodward which were, paraphrased, I'm sorry, if al Qaeda was not urgent, I was not on point, I was not thinking about Osama bin Laden. To me, it begins and ends there.
HUGHES: That's slightly somewhat of a misquote. I was in the office when the president did that interview with Bob Woodward. What he was actually asked about was killing Osama bin Laden, assassinating Osama bin Laden. You understand, that is always a very difficult decision for any American president. That's something that our country is rightly very concerned about, the idea of assassination of a foreign national. Particularly before September 11.
And what Bob Woodward asked him was, did you think about killing Osama bin Laden, assassinating him? And President Bush was comparing the way he felt before September 11 to the way he felt after September 11. And he said, my blood was not nearly -- I was not as on point. The end of the quote was, my blood was not nearly as boiling as it was in the aftermath. Of course that's understandable. None of our blood was nearly as boiling as it was in the aftermath of September 11 once he had masterminded that horrific attack on our country.
Oh, and according to 60 Minutes, Andy Rooney who has written and published more than fourteen books...Mr. Clarke will probably end up making about 4 bucks on every book sold...I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder of "how much is rich" and whether Mr. Clarke will become richer from his first attempt in publishing a book.
Just wanted to add this to the debate for discussion purposes - link to transcript of Condi Rice's testimony 4/8/04. The aforementioned link is a transcript of the full testimony of Condi Rice before the 9/11 Commission.
I have been reading this for probably the last hour on and off (it is pretty lengthy) and my general impression is that Richard Clarke is largely correct, although some of his wording may have been slanted a bit due to frustration.
Rice repeatedly states that there were structural problems and systematic problems with communication between the FBI and CIA. She also repeatedly says that they were only in office for 233 days when this happened. Ok we get it, but that still isn't an excuse.
The fact of the matter is, there were some alarming memos written (some of which are still classified and only referred to) which state exactly what we knew before 9/11. It is also apparent that the administration said they were doing exactly the same things the Clinton administration did (which was a lot if you read through this whole transcript), but the fact is they never made any of their own plans or acted upon anything -- it was not a priority regardless of what Rice says -- the administration's inaction speaks pretty loudly there.
I'll try to compose something more concrete later, but I wanted to post this for everyone's benefit. It is very illuminating to say the least. Maybe we even need a separate topic on it because so many issues are raised here that really bug me and Rice has no good answers for or she simply danced around them.
Edited to add: I will say that I agree with Rice's sentiment that many of the changes to harden us against terrorism are going to take years and several administrations. Where I disagree with her is the relative priority this administration had to start those steps (even as plans) given the consistent and nascent threats against the US.
I have been reading this for probably the last hour on and off (it is pretty lengthy) and my general impression is that Richard Clarke is largely correct, although some of his wording may have been slanted a bit due to frustration.
Rice repeatedly states that there were structural problems and systematic problems with communication between the FBI and CIA. She also repeatedly says that they were only in office for 233 days when this happened. Ok we get it, but that still isn't an excuse.
The fact of the matter is, there were some alarming memos written (some of which are still classified and only referred to) which state exactly what we knew before 9/11. It is also apparent that the administration said they were doing exactly the same things the Clinton administration did (which was a lot if you read through this whole transcript), but the fact is they never made any of their own plans or acted upon anything -- it was not a priority regardless of what Rice says -- the administration's inaction speaks pretty loudly there.
I'll try to compose something more concrete later, but I wanted to post this for everyone's benefit. It is very illuminating to say the least. Maybe we even need a separate topic on it because so many issues are raised here that really bug me and Rice has no good answers for or she simply danced around them.
Edited to add: I will say that I agree with Rice's sentiment that many of the changes to harden us against terrorism are going to take years and several administrations. Where I disagree with her is the relative priority this administration had to start those steps (even as plans) given the consistent and nascent threats against the US.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/clar...t_040408-1.html
Clarke's response to the Rice testimony.
Clarke's response to the Rice testimony.
Nightline tonight will have Rice's testimony, with commentary from Clarke
I hope to keep my eyeballs propped open long enough to see it.
It seems to me that one key element of the issue is how seriously the administration focused on the matter. Yes, there were meetings and conversations, but at what level? Clarke makes an important real world point - when the boss thinks the issue is important enough to call and attend meetings then everyone on down the line turns the burner up a little higher. If the boss's boss shows up then the troops really begin to boil.
Another question that keeps popping its head up is "was the current administration too focused on Iraq". They most likely were. The Project for the New American Century began its efforts in 1997; involving (among others) Jeb Bush, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Their report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" isssued in September of 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf
spells out their dominant areas of concern. Iraq, maybe Iran, Korea. Missile defense. A space based force. Six months later many of these are at the top of the decision and advising pyramid for this administration and I can't envision a sudden change of viewpoint redirecting their focus to Afghanistan, Osama, homeland security, and so forth.
QUOTE
TONIGHT'S FOCUS: At long last, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice testified this morning before the 9/11 Commission about what the White House knew and when they knew it. Time and time again the questions and answers returned to the testimony and public statements of former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke. Tonight we'll let you hear the highlights of Rice's testimony - and Ted Koppel's guest will be the man in question: Richard Clarke.
I hope to keep my eyeballs propped open long enough to see it.
It seems to me that one key element of the issue is how seriously the administration focused on the matter. Yes, there were meetings and conversations, but at what level? Clarke makes an important real world point - when the boss thinks the issue is important enough to call and attend meetings then everyone on down the line turns the burner up a little higher. If the boss's boss shows up then the troops really begin to boil.
Another question that keeps popping its head up is "was the current administration too focused on Iraq". They most likely were. The Project for the New American Century began its efforts in 1997; involving (among others) Jeb Bush, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Their report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" isssued in September of 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf
spells out their dominant areas of concern. Iraq, maybe Iran, Korea. Missile defense. A space based force. Six months later many of these are at the top of the decision and advising pyramid for this administration and I can't envision a sudden change of viewpoint redirecting their focus to Afghanistan, Osama, homeland security, and so forth.
Watched Condi's testimony. No hits, no runs and no errors. Towed the party line and stuck to the script and the official story.
Those who doubted Clarke before still will. Those that believe the Bushies were asleep at the wheel and refuse to take responsibility for anything still will feel the same as well.
Pretty much what was expected.
Those who doubted Clarke before still will. Those that believe the Bushies were asleep at the wheel and refuse to take responsibility for anything still will feel the same as well.
Pretty much what was expected.
Rice's testimony was littered with outright lies and inconsistancies.
To save my personal time, this page has highlighted them for you. And this tackles her opening statement.
Richard Clarke definitely seems to have read it right. He is understandably emotional and angry that these failings cost 3000 lives in America and 15,000 and more lives in Afghanistan and Iraq based on an administration deafened by neo-con ideology.
Schooly
To save my personal time, this page has highlighted them for you. And this tackles her opening statement.
Richard Clarke definitely seems to have read it right. He is understandably emotional and angry that these failings cost 3000 lives in America and 15,000 and more lives in Afghanistan and Iraq based on an administration deafened by neo-con ideology.
Schooly
I agree with nighttimer that Rice's testimony doesn't shed a terrible amount of light on the situation.
I did find the almost accusatory stance of Ben-Veniste and Bob Kerrey to be interesting. Rice acquitted herself well, I thought. I was a little confused whether this was a trial or not, and what purpose Kerrey's "praise" of Rice's life story served...
I have no idea what relevance it had, or why Kerrey felt it necessary to launch into a monologue regarding the military situation in Iraq...
At times, I questioned what the goal of the questioning was, but I guess that is to be expected.
Clarke agreed with most of the substance of Rice's testimony, although their interpretations may have differed. He disagreed with some factual content (whether or not Clarke requested certain meetings, for example).
Honestly, there were several things which contributed to our failing to detect the 9/11 plot. One was the exceptionally slow transition period between the Clinton and Bush administrations.
I think it is a bit of a reach to expect the incoming Bush administration to approve a plan by Richard Clarke within the first week of their arrival in Washington:
I guess allowing the new team to examine the plan before giving it the green light is too much to ask...
As someone commented, it is impossible to go back and look at the pre-9/11 situation through a pre-9/11 lens. Why was there a lessor sense of urgency pre-9/11? The answer is so obvious that it is easy to miss: it WAS pre-9/11.
What's important, and what we should focus on, is what changes has the administration made to ensure that the US is safer today than it was on 9/11. Those changes are numerous and easy to document. They certainly will never make us immune to attack, just as no police department can ever make the citizenry safe from crime. But these measures are in place, and they should be the focus of our efforts going forward.
I did find the almost accusatory stance of Ben-Veniste and Bob Kerrey to be interesting. Rice acquitted herself well, I thought. I was a little confused whether this was a trial or not, and what purpose Kerrey's "praise" of Rice's life story served...
I have no idea what relevance it had, or why Kerrey felt it necessary to launch into a monologue regarding the military situation in Iraq...At times, I questioned what the goal of the questioning was, but I guess that is to be expected.
Clarke agreed with most of the substance of Rice's testimony, although their interpretations may have differed. He disagreed with some factual content (whether or not Clarke requested certain meetings, for example).
QUOTE(Richard Clark on ABC News)
Now, on the issue of whether or not I asked for a meeting with the president, I did. I asked for a meeting with the president several times beginning, in fact, before Dr. Rice even took office in the transition briefing.
Honestly, there were several things which contributed to our failing to detect the 9/11 plot. One was the exceptionally slow transition period between the Clinton and Bush administrations.
I think it is a bit of a reach to expect the incoming Bush administration to approve a plan by Richard Clarke within the first week of their arrival in Washington:
QUOTE(ABC interview with Clarke)
Clarke: First of all, the document I sent to her on Jan. 25, days after the administration started, the documents ought to be declassified and people can decide for themselves. That memorandum on Jan. 25 said I urgently need a meeting with the Cabinet to approve these plans, these strategies. we can get into semantical distinctions as to whether it was a plan or strategy or a series of decisions that had to be made, but on Jan. 25, I was saying we have a strategy, it needs these additional elements, the president has to make decisions about that so we can go forward.
And I think what you'll see if it's declassified and you compare it to where they came out on Sept. 4 is basically on Sept. 4, they adopted what I proposed on Jan. 25. And so the time in between was wasted.
And I think what you'll see if it's declassified and you compare it to where they came out on Sept. 4 is basically on Sept. 4, they adopted what I proposed on Jan. 25. And so the time in between was wasted.
I guess allowing the new team to examine the plan before giving it the green light is too much to ask...
As someone commented, it is impossible to go back and look at the pre-9/11 situation through a pre-9/11 lens. Why was there a lessor sense of urgency pre-9/11? The answer is so obvious that it is easy to miss: it WAS pre-9/11.
What's important, and what we should focus on, is what changes has the administration made to ensure that the US is safer today than it was on 9/11. Those changes are numerous and easy to document. They certainly will never make us immune to attack, just as no police department can ever make the citizenry safe from crime. But these measures are in place, and they should be the focus of our efforts going forward.
But is it not rather incredible for Rice to state that there were no errors made by anyone? That any weakness was essentially down to the fact that there was not a Dept of Homeland Security then?
Is it not rather bizaare to claim that planes used as weapons was an unpredicted idea when there were defenses set up against this very thing in Bush's Geneva visit? And when 4 planes had been hijacked simultaneously in 1970?
Is it not incredible to suggest that making internal flights more secure was just considered a stupid and pointless idea prior to 9/11 yet hijacking planes is a classic Middle Eastern terrorist ploy - and Bin Laden had already bombed the WTC? Seriously, internal flights in the US were like buses. We in Europe have always had equal security for all flights, internal or not. If not a "silver bullet" would it not have been a pretty decent piece of ammunition to make people go through security checks?
And then, check out the glaring inaccuracies pointed out in my links and see how even under oath, she can't help (at the very least) distorting the truth.
Schooly
Is it not rather bizaare to claim that planes used as weapons was an unpredicted idea when there were defenses set up against this very thing in Bush's Geneva visit? And when 4 planes had been hijacked simultaneously in 1970?
Is it not incredible to suggest that making internal flights more secure was just considered a stupid and pointless idea prior to 9/11 yet hijacking planes is a classic Middle Eastern terrorist ploy - and Bin Laden had already bombed the WTC? Seriously, internal flights in the US were like buses. We in Europe have always had equal security for all flights, internal or not. If not a "silver bullet" would it not have been a pretty decent piece of ammunition to make people go through security checks?
And then, check out the glaring inaccuracies pointed out in my links and see how even under oath, she can't help (at the very least) distorting the truth.
Schooly
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 9 2004, 02:44 PM)
I agree with nighttimer that Rice's testimony doesn't shed a terrible amount of light on the situation.
I disagree, while she didn't really point to specific pieces of information i think that overall her testimony was very illuminating.
Most importantly, she confirmed Clarke's (and others) testimony. The points I found most interesting were as follows:
During this testimony several facts came to light (which I wasn't aware of but that doesn't mean others didn't mention them) which seem to be very bad for the Bush administration.
i)
QUOTE
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
Rice repeatedly stated that this memo contained "historical" information only and not "actionable" items. Of course this memo is still classified so we can't exactly determine that for ourselves. BUT, given the title of this briefing and the nature of its contents one would assume that the president would have given something like this more attention, especially since Bin Laden was the only person able to successfully attack the United States on our own soil since the Japanese in WWII.
ii)
QUOTE
RICE: The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity.
QUOTE
And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al-Qaida cells. I believe in the August 6th memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it.
Rice repeatedly states that the FBI was investigating this or they were handling that. I guess she assumed that, because Gorelick later confronts her with this evidence:
QUOTE
Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea. Yes, the attorney general was briefed, but there was no evidence of any activity by him about this.
You indicate in your statement that the FBI tasked its field offices to find out what was going on out there. We have no record of that.
The Washington field office international terrorism people say they never heard about the threat, they never heard about the warnings, they were not asked to come to the table and shake those trees.
SACs, special agents in charge, around the country _ Miami in particular _ no knowledge of this.
And so, I really come back to you _ and let me add one other thing. Have you actually looked at the _ analyzed the messages that the FBI put out?
RICE: Yes.
GORELICK: To me, and you're free to comment on them, they are feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations.
You indicate in your statement that the FBI tasked its field offices to find out what was going on out there. We have no record of that.
The Washington field office international terrorism people say they never heard about the threat, they never heard about the warnings, they were not asked to come to the table and shake those trees.
SACs, special agents in charge, around the country _ Miami in particular _ no knowledge of this.
And so, I really come back to you _ and let me add one other thing. Have you actually looked at the _ analyzed the messages that the FBI put out?
RICE: Yes.
GORELICK: To me, and you're free to comment on them, they are feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations.
This points to a serious dereliction of duty to me on Rice and the Bush Administration as a whole. As you can plainly read in other parts of the testimony and in the quotes above Rice and others were aware of this threat. She told the commission the FBI was investigating those threats, but I would think that in her position it is her duty to follow up on that investigation and ensure those threats were being investigated. If not Rice then certainly Bush. This is the largest problem I found here and it is completely inexcusable.
iii)
QUOTE
At the outset of the administration, a commission that was chartered by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two very different people covering pretty much the political spectrum, put together a terrific panel to study the issue of terrorism and report to the new administration as it began. And you took that briefing, I know.
That commission said we are going to get hit in the domestic, the United States, and we are going to get hit big; that's number one. And number two, we have big systemic problems. The FBI doesn't work the way it should, and it doesn't communicate with the intelligence community.
GORELICK: Now, you have said to us that your policy review was meant to be comprehensive. You took your time because you wanted to get at the hard issues and have a hard-hitting, comprehensive policy. And yet there is nothing in it about the vast domestic landscape that we were all warned needed so much attention.
Can you give me the answer to the question why?
RICE: I would ask the following. We were there for 233 days. There had been recognition for a number of years before _ after the '93 bombing, and certainly after the millennium _ that there were challenges, if I could say it that way, inside the United States, and that there were challenges concerning our domestic agencies and the challenges concerning the FBI and the CIA.
We were in office 233 days. It's absolutely the case that we did not begin structural reform of the FBI.
That commission said we are going to get hit in the domestic, the United States, and we are going to get hit big; that's number one. And number two, we have big systemic problems. The FBI doesn't work the way it should, and it doesn't communicate with the intelligence community.
GORELICK: Now, you have said to us that your policy review was meant to be comprehensive. You took your time because you wanted to get at the hard issues and have a hard-hitting, comprehensive policy. And yet there is nothing in it about the vast domestic landscape that we were all warned needed so much attention.
Can you give me the answer to the question why?
RICE: I would ask the following. We were there for 233 days. There had been recognition for a number of years before _ after the '93 bombing, and certainly after the millennium _ that there were challenges, if I could say it that way, inside the United States, and that there were challenges concerning our domestic agencies and the challenges concerning the FBI and the CIA.
We were in office 233 days. It's absolutely the case that we did not begin structural reform of the FBI.
Repeatedly throughout this testimony Rice states that they couldn't have possibly done anything about the problem because 1) They were only in office 233 days 2) there were systemic problems with the FBI and CIA and 3) this wasn't predictable.
However, numerous warnings were issued from various sources. You have the study above which was created by a bi-partisan group and provided recommendations to the new administration. You also had a memo from Richard Clarke on Jan 25th stating some of the same things.
I don't really believe that 9/11 could have been prevented, but it is quite clear that the Bush Administration did not take these warnings seriously. I don't know how they occupied their time for the first 200 days of office, but it certainly wasn't as important as anything they were being cautioned about. I wouldn't think that any president should take threats of attack on the country as anything but #1 priority.
The administration did absolutely nothing to plan for or execute these recommendations until after the attack. I would say that equates to what Richard Clarke said about the administration doing "nothing" about terror. I don't know how much easier it gets than having it all laid out for you like that.
Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but Clarke is correct -- they knew about the threat and did nothing, other things were priority.
If I tell you that someone is going to be murdered tonight, but I fail to specify where, when, or by whom, am I responsible for the murder? The police know that crimes will be committed tonight, but without specific, actionable intelligence, nothing can be done.
People are already complaining that security at airports does nothing to increase our safety. People are already complaining that "profiling" should be illegal.
There were, as Rice stated, institutional breakdowns. The FBI didn't talk to the CIA (although their directors spoke). Information from many FBI investigations remained subject to the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.
As Rice correctly stated, the 233 days that Bush was in office was hardly time to correct a system that had been in place for decades.
The PDB, which IS being de-classified I heard on the radio today, was not specific. It did not mention a time or place. It was a historical review which concluded that bin Laden was determined to attack the US here on our soil. It was not "actionable": that is, nothing specific could be done in the month between that briefing and 9/11, since the brief mentioned nothing specific, only conclusions.
There WAS chatter in the months before 9/11, chatter which apparently indicated a possible overseas attack.
George Tenet 9/11 written statement
People are already complaining that security at airports does nothing to increase our safety. People are already complaining that "profiling" should be illegal.
There were, as Rice stated, institutional breakdowns. The FBI didn't talk to the CIA (although their directors spoke). Information from many FBI investigations remained subject to the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.
As Rice correctly stated, the 233 days that Bush was in office was hardly time to correct a system that had been in place for decades.
The PDB, which IS being de-classified I heard on the radio today, was not specific. It did not mention a time or place. It was a historical review which concluded that bin Laden was determined to attack the US here on our soil. It was not "actionable": that is, nothing specific could be done in the month between that briefing and 9/11, since the brief mentioned nothing specific, only conclusions.
There WAS chatter in the months before 9/11, chatter which apparently indicated a possible overseas attack.
George Tenet 9/11 written statement
QUOTE