Full Version: Richard Clarke
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
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
Clarke brings to light some interesting points:
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:
From the interview in 2002:
So, he said that the Bush team did change the direction from that of the Clinton team.
On the issue of priorities:
Of course, he had already explained that in October 2002:
Clarke's Pentagon contact? Some second banana no-name:
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.
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?
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."
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Clarke's Pentagon contact? Some second banana no-name:
QUOTE
For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
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.
(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.
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?
What it sounds like to me, and this is just my preliminary analysis, is that this is more corroborating evidence that in the Bush administration, it is understood that you spin things a specific way, that is, tow the line, if you want to remain there. Both Whitman and O'Neill, once they were out, told very similar stories - stories which explain to some extent why they said certain things while "inside the circle," and different things once they were more free to speak their minds.
In Susskind's book on O'Neill, O'Neill describes an atmosphere, within the top administration, in which debate, real debate, was discouraged. O'Neill, who is certainly no liberal, sees open debate featuring all sides an essential part of decision-making. He thought that if you are to have a serious policy discussion, you listen to all sides. He goes on to describe how previous presidents he worked with welcomed this, and how the Bush administration has decidedly NOT.
I think what we are seeing here is more of the same. I think this is a bad trend. It would bother me in a Democratic administration, as well - and it should bother any Republicans who also happen to be independent thinkers.
In Susskind's book on O'Neill, O'Neill describes an atmosphere, within the top administration, in which debate, real debate, was discouraged. O'Neill, who is certainly no liberal, sees open debate featuring all sides an essential part of decision-making. He thought that if you are to have a serious policy discussion, you listen to all sides. He goes on to describe how previous presidents he worked with welcomed this, and how the Bush administration has decidedly NOT.
I think what we are seeing here is more of the same. I think this is a bad trend. It would bother me in a Democratic administration, as well - and it should bother any Republicans who also happen to be independent thinkers.
Let me quote Joe Lieberman, hardly a conservative:
The charge, if I hear it correctly, that Dick Clarke has made, that the Bush administration was more focused on Iraq in the days after September 11, than on September 11 and getting back at the terrorists, I see no basis for it," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday."
The former Democratic presidential candidate suggested that Clarke's allegations were driven by election-year politics, prompting him to warn, "There is a higher interest than our partisan interest in victory and that is the national interest in victory over terrorism. "
I got more respect for Lieberman everyday.
60 minutes failed to reveal that both Clark's and O'Neill''s books are published by a subsidiary of CBS's parent company. A lack of journalistic integrity on their part.
The charge, if I hear it correctly, that Dick Clarke has made, that the Bush administration was more focused on Iraq in the days after September 11, than on September 11 and getting back at the terrorists, I see no basis for it," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday."
The former Democratic presidential candidate suggested that Clarke's allegations were driven by election-year politics, prompting him to warn, "There is a higher interest than our partisan interest in victory and that is the national interest in victory over terrorism. "
I got more respect for Lieberman everyday.
60 minutes failed to reveal that both Clark's and O'Neill''s books are published by a subsidiary of CBS's parent company. A lack of journalistic integrity on their part.
I look forward to purchasing and reading Mr. Clarke's book. I watched the 60 Minutes interview and have also heard Clarke make his case on The Charlie Rose Show and with Terry Gross on Fresh Air.
Clarke's believability hinges very much on where you stand politically. If you believe Bush has botched the job regarding terrorism, Clarke is a godsend. If you believe Bush has responded well, then Clarke is just another disgruntled bureaucrat trying to sell a book.
I fall in the former camp. But I want to read the book and the arguments made repudiating the charges Clarke makes. Dick Cheney going on Rush Limbaugh to dis Clarke and the White House press secretary saying Clarke is trying to get a job in a Kerry Administration doesn't get it done.
One thing is for certain. The 9/11 Commission obviously considers Clarke a credible source as evidenced by his testimony before them today. It may be premature to say if Clarke is "right" or "wrong." It is a good thing that these questions are being raised and the debate being held.
But I do wonder why National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice isn't testifying before the Commission.
Clarke's believability hinges very much on where you stand politically. If you believe Bush has botched the job regarding terrorism, Clarke is a godsend. If you believe Bush has responded well, then Clarke is just another disgruntled bureaucrat trying to sell a book.
I fall in the former camp. But I want to read the book and the arguments made repudiating the charges Clarke makes. Dick Cheney going on Rush Limbaugh to dis Clarke and the White House press secretary saying Clarke is trying to get a job in a Kerry Administration doesn't get it done.
One thing is for certain. The 9/11 Commission obviously considers Clarke a credible source as evidenced by his testimony before them today. It may be premature to say if Clarke is "right" or "wrong." It is a good thing that these questions are being raised and the debate being held.
But I do wonder why National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice isn't testifying before the Commission.
In criminal investigating, you look for a pattern of the same crime over and over. Usually, when you focus in on a person, it turns out the crime you are investigating is rarely the first one they have done. As QH pointed out, we have that pattern- and the administrations behavior towards those victims. We have Whitman, we have O'Niel, we have Clarke- and like rapists and con men- they blame the victim "disgruntled, liberal, hold over from the Clinton administration" ad nauseaum.
I have no doubt, Clarke, a lifelong republican and a Reagan appointee, that Clarke is telling the truth about at least one thing I saw on his interview- GW pointing at him in the face and demanding he find a link between 9/11 and Iraq- not getting to the bottom of who did it- but rather, to find a link, no matter how tenuous, so they could justify invading Iraq. Clarke says there are at least 4 witnesses to the conversation, and that there was no ambiguity in the demand- he WILL find some link, or else.
I have no doubt, Clarke, a lifelong republican and a Reagan appointee, that Clarke is telling the truth about at least one thing I saw on his interview- GW pointing at him in the face and demanding he find a link between 9/11 and Iraq- not getting to the bottom of who did it- but rather, to find a link, no matter how tenuous, so they could justify invading Iraq. Clarke says there are at least 4 witnesses to the conversation, and that there was no ambiguity in the demand- he WILL find some link, or else.
I hardly think that comparing the Bush Administration to "rapists and con men" is useful, but it is expected I suppose. That seems to be the course things are taking in this election season......
I just finished watching Richard Clarke's testimony in front of the 9/11 commission and I found it most interesting and enlightening. I haven't read his book and I don't have any plans to do so at the moment, but I do understand I think where he is coming from. I have been there myself on a lesser scale. Mr. Clarke is a fine man, a loyal American and a true patriot. He has served this nation well over the years. With 20/20 hindsight I must say that both Presidents Clinton and Bush should have listened to him more and heeded his advice. Had they done so, either one, I have no doubt that our discussions here would be much different today, but that's a subject for another thread I think.
Richard Clarke turned out to be right about Al Qaeda and OBL and he tried in his capacity as an advisor to the President to warn us about them, but the urgency of his warnings wasn't heeded and instead decisions were made in the context of the times that existed prior to the tragedy of 9/11. Within the context of the times following that day, it is apparent that his advice was right and he's due an "I told you so". It is unfortunate that it comes at a time when partisanship is running on full. Richard Clarke is an angry man because his job was to try and prevent a 9/11 and he couldn't. He tried like to hell to prevent it, but people wouldn't listen to him. How many times has something like this happened to people here? Your boss makes a decision that you know is wrong, maybe even stupid, but will they listen to you? NOOOooooo... and it ends up biting them on the backside. It's happened to me, lots of times. Sometimes that dumb decision ended up costing someone their job, once it even happened to me.
In our experience, it probably cost some money to the company, in Mr. Clarke's experience, it cost nearly 3,000 people their lives, so darn right he's angry, we're all angry. We (our leaders) screwed up, Bush screwed up, Clinton screwed up, but stuff like that happens in a bureaucracy every day, that's the nature of the beast. The problem now facing us is to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I just finished watching Richard Clarke's testimony in front of the 9/11 commission and I found it most interesting and enlightening. I haven't read his book and I don't have any plans to do so at the moment, but I do understand I think where he is coming from. I have been there myself on a lesser scale. Mr. Clarke is a fine man, a loyal American and a true patriot. He has served this nation well over the years. With 20/20 hindsight I must say that both Presidents Clinton and Bush should have listened to him more and heeded his advice. Had they done so, either one, I have no doubt that our discussions here would be much different today, but that's a subject for another thread I think.
Richard Clarke turned out to be right about Al Qaeda and OBL and he tried in his capacity as an advisor to the President to warn us about them, but the urgency of his warnings wasn't heeded and instead decisions were made in the context of the times that existed prior to the tragedy of 9/11. Within the context of the times following that day, it is apparent that his advice was right and he's due an "I told you so". It is unfortunate that it comes at a time when partisanship is running on full. Richard Clarke is an angry man because his job was to try and prevent a 9/11 and he couldn't. He tried like to hell to prevent it, but people wouldn't listen to him. How many times has something like this happened to people here? Your boss makes a decision that you know is wrong, maybe even stupid, but will they listen to you? NOOOooooo... and it ends up biting them on the backside. It's happened to me, lots of times. Sometimes that dumb decision ended up costing someone their job, once it even happened to me.
In our experience, it probably cost some money to the company, in Mr. Clarke's experience, it cost nearly 3,000 people their lives, so darn right he's angry, we're all angry. We (our leaders) screwed up, Bush screwed up, Clinton screwed up, but stuff like that happens in a bureaucracy every day, that's the nature of the beast. The problem now facing us is to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I don't really fault the Bush 1, Reagan, Clinton or Bush 2 administrations for 9/11 personally- unless we found out in the future one of them actually had foreknowledge of the actual event and let it happen anyway for political gain- I think there is thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of intelligence signs and operations going on all the time, and no one is omniecient on this one.
What DOES anger me about this Bush though is his insistance, even bullying, of Clarke to MAKE a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Had there been ANY concrete connection between 9/11 and Saddam, instead of "well saddam is a bad man and he thinks it is cool that this happend to america"- I would be right behind the president 110% and would have volunteered myself to go to Iraq to help out- but that is not who was behind 9/11 or even connected to Al-Quaida!
What DOES anger me about this Bush though is his insistance, even bullying, of Clarke to MAKE a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Had there been ANY concrete connection between 9/11 and Saddam, instead of "well saddam is a bad man and he thinks it is cool that this happend to america"- I would be right behind the president 110% and would have volunteered myself to go to Iraq to help out- but that is not who was behind 9/11 or even connected to Al-Quaida!
What... are we all just going to wait for me to say it?!
Alright, fine I'll bite (and be bitten).
Has no one even considered the alternative to the
...theory? ( A rhetorical question since none of us are quite so foolish as to fail to do so.)
Why then did we choose to say Clark was lying then as opposed to now?
In the FOX interview Clarke says Bush vigorously pursed terrorism in the hearing (and recent interviews) he says he didn't. In this Reuters article Clarke said Bush "ignored" terrorism and did "nothing". What is the truth?
If Clarke is willing to lie for Bush and then turn on him at a politically opportune moment as part of a commercial push (a book rather than simply an interview)...
If Kerry is dodging this whole business...
If Clarke implies in his book that Condolezza Rice had never heard about Al-Qaeda pre-9/11 only to have that disproven...
Could it be that Clarke's credibility is...limited?
of course we could choose to believe Clarke for some reason...
but that's another bag of worms
I have not yet come to a decision on this matter of Bush's pre-9/11 actions, but it certainly won't be based on anything that come from the mouth of Richard Clarke.
Alright, fine I'll bite (and be bitten).
Has no one even considered the alternative to the
QUOTE(quarkhead)
What it sounds like to me, and this is just my preliminary analysis, is that this is more corroborating evidence that in the Bush administration, it is understood that you spin things a specific way, that is, tow the line, if you want to remain there.
...theory? ( A rhetorical question since none of us are quite so foolish as to fail to do so.)
Why then did we choose to say Clark was lying then as opposed to now?
In the FOX interview Clarke says Bush vigorously pursed terrorism in the hearing (and recent interviews) he says he didn't. In this Reuters article Clarke said Bush "ignored" terrorism and did "nothing". What is the truth?
If Clarke is willing to lie for Bush and then turn on him at a politically opportune moment as part of a commercial push (a book rather than simply an interview)...
If Kerry is dodging this whole business...
If Clarke implies in his book that Condolezza Rice had never heard about Al-Qaeda pre-9/11 only to have that disproven...
Could it be that Clarke's credibility is...limited?
of course we could choose to believe Clarke for some reason...
but that's another bag of worms
QUOTE
JB: Do you believe the administration believed the intelligence on Iraqi WMD?
RC[Richard Clarke]: We all believed Saddam had WMD. What I kept saying was: So what?. They said he could give it to terrorists. But I said he's not that stupid. If he gave WMD to terrorists he would lose power. The question was: Is there an imminent threat or had we contained him? And I thought we had successfully contained him. I didn't see it as a first-tier issue.
RC[Richard Clarke]: We all believed Saddam had WMD. What I kept saying was: So what?. They said he could give it to terrorists. But I said he's not that stupid. If he gave WMD to terrorists he would lose power. The question was: Is there an imminent threat or had we contained him? And I thought we had successfully contained him. I didn't see it as a first-tier issue.
I have not yet come to a decision on this matter of Bush's pre-9/11 actions, but it certainly won't be based on anything that come from the mouth of Richard Clarke.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 24 2004, 02:58 PM)
GW pointing at him in the face and demanding he find a link between 9/11 and Iraq- not getting to the bottom of who did it- but rather, to find a link, no matter how tenuous, so they could justify invading Iraq. Clarke says there are at least 4 witnesses to the conversation, and that there was no ambiguity in the demand- he WILL find some link, or else.
For someone who constantly accuses the Bush admin of being nothing but liars you'd think you would at least be truthful yourself. There is no truth at all in what you're claiming Clarke said. I wont even give you credit for an 'exageration'. It is nothing but a lie!
What exactly are you accusing me of lying about?
I watched the early morning interview with Clarke, and him talking about the GW pointing a finger in his face and saying (paraphrasing) find me a connection- and said several times "Hey I am not lying about this, I have four witnesses, this happened"- or are you claiming I never saw the interview?
It was on CNN btw- I don't know the interviewer.
I watched the early morning interview with Clarke, and him talking about the GW pointing a finger in his face and saying (paraphrasing) find me a connection- and said several times "Hey I am not lying about this, I have four witnesses, this happened"- or are you claiming I never saw the interview?
It was on CNN btw- I don't know the interviewer.
QUOTE(turnea @ Mar 24 2004, 02:25 PM)
Has no one even considered the alternative to the
...theory? ( A rhetorical question since none of us are quite so foolish as to fail to do so.)
Why then did we choose to say Clark was lying then as opposed to now?
QUOTE(quarkhead)
What it sounds like to me, and this is just my preliminary analysis, is that this is more corroborating evidence that in the Bush administration, it is understood that you spin things a specific way, that is, tow the line, if you want to remain there.
...theory? ( A rhetorical question since none of us are quite so foolish as to fail to do so.)
Why then did we choose to say Clark was lying then as opposed to now?
I've considered it, Turnea, and I'm sure there will be some come-what-may Bush supporters who will spin it exactly that way. To me, at least thus far, there is more circumstantial evidence leaning toward my take on it. Coming on the heels of Whitman and O'Neill, we are seeing what I believe to be a frightening pattern.
If the other alternative is true, then these three, at least, value commercial success greater than they do service to their party and country - and that just doesn't ring true for me.
And Aquilla, while I appreciate your analogy, I think a good boss, like a good president, doesn't stifle debate within his or her management circle. That's not to say that in order to vindicate Clarke, Bush would have had to act on his recommendations. But from what I have read, in all three of these cases there has been a similarity in describing how the inner circle of the Bush administration has made decisions.
I think that when we are presented with more than one or two "whistleblowers," we take some heed - whatever side of the aisle they or we are on. We don't act like Tobacco company managers and just try and discredit the source. It doesn't even take more than one whistleblower. These accusations should be taken seriously, and should seriously concern us as citizens of this nation.
'Most pertinent, Rand Beers, the official who succeeded Clarke after he left the White House in February 2003, resigned in protest just one month later—five days before the Iraqi war started—for precisely the same reason that Clarke quit. In June, he told the Washington Post, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terror. They're making us less secure, not more." And: "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged, and generally underfunded."
The Whitehouse attempts to discredit Clarke have been less than truthful, and contradictory. In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, Cheney makes it appear that Clarke was demoted and assigned to a kind of clerks job in cyberterrorism, he chuckles throughout the interview, as if Clarke were a nobody:
'Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading.'
Cheny: "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed.
Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."
It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
On the other hand:
"Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
Well it cant be both ways.
(While Clarke's version says he repeatedly asked but could not get an audience with Bush until one week before Sept 11.)
Then we have accusations of partisanship, which is ridiculous in Clarkes case, and he testified today that he is not taking any positions in the Kerry campaign if one were to open.
The only arguement left is , hes doing all this to sell a book. Flimsy at best.
I believe the testimonies of the 911 commission that are being published each day are also showing up what appears to be a primary focus on Iraq, and a loose agenda on Bin Laden or terrorism other than Iraq.
One thing keeps crossing my mind. When intelligence chatter spiked and remained high, and George Tenet was talking with Bush/Admin everyday about the terror threat, and Bush was asking, why do we keep swatting at flies, as the admin claims, he was doing everything he could to keep on top of the situation, How is it that Bush decided to take the longest vacation in presidential history (one month I believe), right in the middle of all this concern and chatter and intel about an iminent threat and high possibility terrorists attacking America? The month of August 2001 This proves, that at least to Bush, the intel and the threats were not important, enough for him to miss his vacation. It was certainly not 'battle stations'.
So was Bush remiss in his responsibility to the nation, well informed as he claims to have been?
Or was it exactly as Clarke says, they weren't focusing and they werent listening?
The Whitehouse attempts to discredit Clarke have been less than truthful, and contradictory. In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, Cheney makes it appear that Clarke was demoted and assigned to a kind of clerks job in cyberterrorism, he chuckles throughout the interview, as if Clarke were a nobody:
'Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading.'
Cheny: "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed.
Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."
It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
On the other hand:
"Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
Well it cant be both ways.
(While Clarke's version says he repeatedly asked but could not get an audience with Bush until one week before Sept 11.)
Then we have accusations of partisanship, which is ridiculous in Clarkes case, and he testified today that he is not taking any positions in the Kerry campaign if one were to open.
The only arguement left is , hes doing all this to sell a book. Flimsy at best.
I believe the testimonies of the 911 commission that are being published each day are also showing up what appears to be a primary focus on Iraq, and a loose agenda on Bin Laden or terrorism other than Iraq.
One thing keeps crossing my mind. When intelligence chatter spiked and remained high, and George Tenet was talking with Bush/Admin everyday about the terror threat, and Bush was asking, why do we keep swatting at flies, as the admin claims, he was doing everything he could to keep on top of the situation, How is it that Bush decided to take the longest vacation in presidential history (one month I believe), right in the middle of all this concern and chatter and intel about an iminent threat and high possibility terrorists attacking America? The month of August 2001 This proves, that at least to Bush, the intel and the threats were not important, enough for him to miss his vacation. It was certainly not 'battle stations'.
So was Bush remiss in his responsibility to the nation, well informed as he claims to have been?
Or was it exactly as Clarke says, they weren't focusing and they werent listening?
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?
Two reasons come to my mind: If you want to remain on the job, other than constructive criticism, scathing commentary is best left unsaid....no matter whether employed in the private or government arena and especially if your boss happens to be President Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43!
Another reason is if you have plans on writing a blockbuster book after your departure, it wouldn't be a wise decision from a monetary viewpoint to "spill the beans" or "tell all" prior to the publication of your book and its hitting the book stores.
I have no doubt that Mr. Clarke has given 30 years of outstanding service and that he is intelligent, capable, and was astute in his performance. One thing I thought rather odd is this:
Here is Mr. Clarke's opening remarks to the committee and he was the only one testifying that actually apologized to the 911 victims/families:
While, I commend Clarke for the above opening statement, I do question when he was asked by two committee members on the 911 panel, "In your more than 16 hours of private testimony before the panel, why did you not once raise these serious charges expressed in your book to the attention of this committee?" And, his stock answer twice was, "Because no one asked me!"
May be a logical answer under other circumstances, but I find his reply contrary to his opening statement. If there was any additional information he could have imparted to the committee behind closed doors that could remain classified and FYI only that would somehow help those on the committee in making decisions and judgements as what recommendations can be made to help prevent another 911...Clarke should have been more forthcoming with suggestions based on his problems and frustrations as revealed in his book...IMO. Hope his reasoning was not because his testimony before the 911 committee was under oath!
Two reasons come to my mind: If you want to remain on the job, other than constructive criticism, scathing commentary is best left unsaid....no matter whether employed in the private or government arena and especially if your boss happens to be President Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43!
Another reason is if you have plans on writing a blockbuster book after your departure, it wouldn't be a wise decision from a monetary viewpoint to "spill the beans" or "tell all" prior to the publication of your book and its hitting the book stores. I have no doubt that Mr. Clarke has given 30 years of outstanding service and that he is intelligent, capable, and was astute in his performance. One thing I thought rather odd is this:
Here is Mr. Clarke's opening remarks to the committee and he was the only one testifying that actually apologized to the 911 victims/families:
QUOTE
I am appreciative of the opportunity the Commission is offering for me to provide my observations about what went wrong in the struggle against al Qida, both before and after 9-11. I want the families of the victims to know that we tried to stop those attacks, that some people tried very hard. I want them to know why we failed and what I think we need to do to insure that nothing like that ever happens again.
I have testified for twenty hours before the House-Senate Joint Inquiry committee and before this Commission in closed hearings...Richard Clarke
I have testified for twenty hours before the House-Senate Joint Inquiry committee and before this Commission in closed hearings...Richard Clarke
While, I commend Clarke for the above opening statement, I do question when he was asked by two committee members on the 911 panel, "In your more than 16 hours of private testimony before the panel, why did you not once raise these serious charges expressed in your book to the attention of this committee?" And, his stock answer twice was, "Because no one asked me!"
May be a logical answer under other circumstances, but I find his reply contrary to his opening statement. If there was any additional information he could have imparted to the committee behind closed doors that could remain classified and FYI only that would somehow help those on the committee in making decisions and judgements as what recommendations can be made to help prevent another 911...Clarke should have been more forthcoming with suggestions based on his problems and frustrations as revealed in his book...IMO. Hope his reasoning was not because his testimony before the 911 committee was under oath!
We have all seen this movie before from this administration, a whistleblower exposes (their point of view) Bush's plan and agenda and they get eaten up on the news from Cheney all the way to the White House spokesperson for speaking what I believe is the truth.
I watched the 60 minutes interview with Clarke and I believe everything he said for several reasons. For one, I agree with some of the comments made in this forum about a disturbing pattern of behavoir from this administartion when someone chooses to express what they feel is really going on in the White House in terms of policy decisions. They literally go into character assasination mode. This time, it might back fire. Clarke is a very respectable man in the government and I truly believe he made these statements on behalf of the American people to show us the real important choice this country faces in November.
Secondly, the White House has this very strange (and scary) behavoir pattern where they believe long serving government employees are there to do there bidding (regardless if they are morally wrong) and if they get out of line, go out and destroy their reputation. Paint them as something they are not.
Republican or Democrat, I don't care which party holds the White House, no administration should not be acting like this. This is truly disturbing!!!
I really hope a lot of people are paying attention to what is going on.
I watched the 60 minutes interview with Clarke and I believe everything he said for several reasons. For one, I agree with some of the comments made in this forum about a disturbing pattern of behavoir from this administartion when someone chooses to express what they feel is really going on in the White House in terms of policy decisions. They literally go into character assasination mode. This time, it might back fire. Clarke is a very respectable man in the government and I truly believe he made these statements on behalf of the American people to show us the real important choice this country faces in November.
Secondly, the White House has this very strange (and scary) behavoir pattern where they believe long serving government employees are there to do there bidding (regardless if they are morally wrong) and if they get out of line, go out and destroy their reputation. Paint them as something they are not.
Republican or Democrat, I don't care which party holds the White House, no administration should not be acting like this. This is truly disturbing!!!
I really hope a lot of people are paying attention to what is going on.
Or...we can look at the fact the timing of a new book that contradicts minutes and paperwork that is VERIFIABLE to be the real truth. I find it interesting that the book company and 60 minutes are owned by Viacom. Sorry people something stinks here to high heaven..and I don't think it's the Bush administration.
My two cents:
I think this type of behavior--lack of debate--is encountered frequently in Presidential administrations. It is just an example of groupthink. The President has sorrounded himself with like-minded individuals, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfield, and those that didn't agree were slowly pushed out. This is definetly something that has happened before. The classic example is the Bay of Pigs operation.
However, it is extremely disturbing to see these defections. To my knowledge, this is somewhat unprecedented. It points to the internal failings of the administration. I don't think there is any explanation besides: there is something wrong with the Bush team.
QUOTE
Republican or Democrat, I don't care which party holds the White House, no administration should not be acting like this. This is truly disturbing!!!
I think this type of behavior--lack of debate--is encountered frequently in Presidential administrations. It is just an example of groupthink. The President has sorrounded himself with like-minded individuals, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfield, and those that didn't agree were slowly pushed out. This is definetly something that has happened before. The classic example is the Bay of Pigs operation.
However, it is extremely disturbing to see these defections. To my knowledge, this is somewhat unprecedented. It points to the internal failings of the administration. I don't think there is any explanation besides: there is something wrong with the Bush team.
I believe Clark especially in regards to Rumsfeld. By all accounts Clarke was a sonsumate professional and a brilliant mind in his field. I also think I heard that he is a registered republican. He does not strike me as a dishonest man.
That said I do not agree with what he is doing in regards to 9/11. As a human being I find it offensive and erroneous to say that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. Neither Clinton or Bush are responsible for 9/11. As a logical human I have absolute doubts that Clinton, Bush or virtually any American would have prior knowledge to 9/11 and do nothing. That is offensive to the extreme and fitting of a hollywood movie plot. I think this rhetoric from both sides blaming the others guy is disgusting and counter productive. Hindsight is 20/20. Let it go. 9/11 just is. I can only imagine the threats of attacks our government recieves and the impossibility of acting on all of them. I have zero doubts that both Clinton and Bush had tid-bits of information but that is to be expected. I would imagine the tid-bits they get are numerous. To panic at every tid-bit is illogical and counterproductive. If either Clinton or Bush had hard evidence I have the utmost confidence that it would have been thwarted.
What I care about in regards to Clark is the obsession and blame game the administration leveled at Iraq after the attacks. I am curious to that.
That said I do not agree with what he is doing in regards to 9/11. As a human being I find it offensive and erroneous to say that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. Neither Clinton or Bush are responsible for 9/11. As a logical human I have absolute doubts that Clinton, Bush or virtually any American would have prior knowledge to 9/11 and do nothing. That is offensive to the extreme and fitting of a hollywood movie plot. I think this rhetoric from both sides blaming the others guy is disgusting and counter productive. Hindsight is 20/20. Let it go. 9/11 just is. I can only imagine the threats of attacks our government recieves and the impossibility of acting on all of them. I have zero doubts that both Clinton and Bush had tid-bits of information but that is to be expected. I would imagine the tid-bits they get are numerous. To panic at every tid-bit is illogical and counterproductive. If either Clinton or Bush had hard evidence I have the utmost confidence that it would have been thwarted.
What I care about in regards to Clark is the obsession and blame game the administration leveled at Iraq after the attacks. I am curious to that.
Clarkes testimony is WAY to convenient. Timing of the Book deal, the 60 minute interview being done by CBS, which is owned by Viacom, which, OH MY owns the Company that owns the Publishing rights.
EVEN if Clarke is telling the truth, he has done so in such a way that any that his testimony is suspect and tainted.
Red
EVEN if Clarke is telling the truth, he has done so in such a way that any that his testimony is suspect and tainted.
Red
QUOTE(kalabus @ Mar 24 2004, 08:24 PM)
He does not strike me as a dishonest man.
I'm, curious about that, seeing as at least at one point in time (either his employment under Bush or presently) he has clearly intentionally mislead the American people...
...and as you've probably have guessed I find "I was his job" a thoroughly insufficient excuse..
Therefore, it is clear that Richard Clarke either was recently or is now a dishonest man, and dishonest about the gravest of circumstances.
The allegations that the Bush administration was looking for war in Iraq isn't the only part on Clarke's comments, nor even the most important issue.
The Bush team's alleged failure to take terrorism seriously is both the most important issue and the one most in question.
QUOTE
The Whitehouse attempts to discredit Clarke have been less than truthful, and contradictory. In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, Cheney makes it appear that Clarke was demoted and assigned to a kind of clerks job in cyberterrorism, he chuckles throughout the interview, as if Clarke were a nobody:
'Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading.'
Cheny: "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed.
Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."
It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
Artemise
'Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading.'
Cheny: "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed.
Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."
It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
Artemise
Let's see, Mr. Clarke a flip-flop man? Or maybe he just forgot that he was demoted as he acknowledged during the 60 Minute interview with Leslie Stahl per the quote and link to the article below:
QUOTE
When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.
Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"
Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit." (Until he retired two years later.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/...ain607356.shtml
Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"
Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit." (Until he retired two years later.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/...ain607356.shtml
When you work for a company, you are expected to express loyalty to and on behalf of that company from time to time, whether the leadership is following your advice or not.
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke were in the Bush administration and it wasn't their job to go dissing the Big Boss and his closest appointees. Seems pretty simple to me.
Both of these men are well-educated, articulate, highly experienced and accustomed to being listened to. They are also loyal Republicans. Their criticism is that the Bush administration only listened to them when they happened to be saying what Cheney, Rove, Rummy and George Jr. wanted to hear. They had sound ideas, and they were marginalized and ignored (and one of them was fired)for having the audacity and the integrity to express them. So they left.
I guess they were supposed to just be good little boys and keep their mouths shut, not letting the country know their side of the story. I base this assumption on the responses here that indicate that what they say is suspect because they published their sides of the story as we are approaching a Presidential election.
But tell me, if the truth is something you don't want to hear, is there really an ideal time to tell it? If they waited until after the election and then published these exposes, undoubtedly some would say, why couldn't you have published when we could have done something about it?
I don't think these guys are doing this purely for self-aggrandizement or because they want to embarrass this President. I think it is altogether possible that they love their country and they are sounding a warning about a leader who surrounds himself with ideologues and is well-insulated from differing thought.
As far as Richard Clarke not testifying about things until he was asked, we all saw the stinging rebuttals, but not testimony under oath in front of the commission (Would somebody please tell me how Rice testifying under oath before Congress would compromise the separation of government powers???), that Condoleezza Rice undertook as damage control, and the scathing criticism she directed his way. Why should he volunteer information at a hearing?
I remember Wesley Clark saying that the administration contacted him and wanted him to say that he believed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. He was pressured to do this. George W. Bush always wanted to get Saddam Hussein, long before 9/11. Both Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke know this, as does anyone who read the 2000 Republican Platform. And Richard Clarke criticized the President, and rightly so, for attacking Iraq, derailing the War on Terror, and creating more problems as a result.
How many former officials of the Bush administration is it going to take before the True Believers decide that there actually might be some truth to what they are saying?
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke were in the Bush administration and it wasn't their job to go dissing the Big Boss and his closest appointees. Seems pretty simple to me.
Both of these men are well-educated, articulate, highly experienced and accustomed to being listened to. They are also loyal Republicans. Their criticism is that the Bush administration only listened to them when they happened to be saying what Cheney, Rove, Rummy and George Jr. wanted to hear. They had sound ideas, and they were marginalized and ignored (and one of them was fired)for having the audacity and the integrity to express them. So they left.
I guess they were supposed to just be good little boys and keep their mouths shut, not letting the country know their side of the story. I base this assumption on the responses here that indicate that what they say is suspect because they published their sides of the story as we are approaching a Presidential election.
But tell me, if the truth is something you don't want to hear, is there really an ideal time to tell it? If they waited until after the election and then published these exposes, undoubtedly some would say, why couldn't you have published when we could have done something about it?
I don't think these guys are doing this purely for self-aggrandizement or because they want to embarrass this President. I think it is altogether possible that they love their country and they are sounding a warning about a leader who surrounds himself with ideologues and is well-insulated from differing thought.
As far as Richard Clarke not testifying about things until he was asked, we all saw the stinging rebuttals, but not testimony under oath in front of the commission (Would somebody please tell me how Rice testifying under oath before Congress would compromise the separation of government powers???), that Condoleezza Rice undertook as damage control, and the scathing criticism she directed his way. Why should he volunteer information at a hearing?
I remember Wesley Clark saying that the administration contacted him and wanted him to say that he believed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. He was pressured to do this. George W. Bush always wanted to get Saddam Hussein, long before 9/11. Both Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke know this, as does anyone who read the 2000 Republican Platform. And Richard Clarke criticized the President, and rightly so, for attacking Iraq, derailing the War on Terror, and creating more problems as a result.
How many former officials of the Bush administration is it going to take before the True Believers decide that there actually might be some truth to what they are saying?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Mar 24 2004, 10:46 PM)
When you work for a company, you are expected to express loyalty to and on behalf of that company from time to time, whether the leadership is following your advice or not.
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke were in the Bush administration and it wasn't their job to go dissing the Big Boss and his closest appointees. Seems pretty simple to me.
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke were in the Bush administration and it wasn't their job to go dissing the Big Boss and his closest appointees. Seems pretty simple to me.
For shame...
That's some highly aggressive spin. It's one thing to refrain from criticizing one's boss, but it's another thing to intentionally mislead the country about matter's of national security.
Clarke's conflicting statements make certain that he has done so at one point, putting his integrity in question.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
But tell me, if the truth is something you don't want to hear, is there really an ideal time to tell it? If they waited until after the election and then published these exposes, undoubtedly some would say, why couldn't you have published when we could have done something about it?
If said truth is something I need to know, the ideal time would be sometime between the last second and the next...
Waiting for years until right before the election and selling a book rather than simply making a statement are both further strikes against Clarke's credibility.
Love of the country would have demanded immediate revelation of Bush's shortcomings. So that's not likely to be Clarke's motivation is it?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
As far as Richard Clarke not testifying about things until he was asked, we all saw the stinging rebuttals, but not testimony under oath in front of the commission (Would somebody please tell me how Rice testifying under oath before Congress would compromise the separation of government powers???), that Condoleezza Rice undertook as damage control, and the scathing criticism she directed his way.
That might be because he falsely implied in his book that Dr. Rice had never heard of Al-Qaeda before 9/11. I'd be ticked too.
QUOTE
Waiting for years until right before the election and selling a book rather than simply making a statement are both further strikes against Clarke's credibility.
Seems like the perfect time to me. during the build up of Iraq they would have just lumped him with the anti war protesters. Called him unAmerican or a traitor.
The nation was to preoccupied with the safety of our troops to pay much heed anyways. It would have been shrugged off as a political ploy then as it is now.
Difference with now is the growing sense of unease of the Amercian public over the whole Iraq reasoning. Why martyr yourself if no one is paying attention?
But as Paladin asked
QUOTE
How many former officials of the Bush administration is it going to take before the True Believers decide that there actually might be some truth to what they are saying?
you also got Powell who has constantly run interference with their plans fighting hard for more diplomatic methods. I think only his beleif that this is the right course is responsible for his continued support.
You don't have to work for the government to be expected to spout the company line. Try Microsoft, or Wal-Mart for that matter! You'd better believe that a Wal-Mart manager had better not be caught dissing the company within the hearing of the all-important customer.
Now is the time for revelations. Now that no WMDs have been found. Now that the 9/11 commission is trying to find out what happened and who is possibly to blame.
Yes, timing undoubtedly entered in to these mens' decisions. Who wants to be the lonely "voice crying in the wilderness"?
None of us here (to my knowledge) is a Presidential appointee. If someone were, s/he would probably agree, after some cajoling, that there are times when the leadership of this country routinely doesn't tell the truth to the general public, judging that there will be an unfavorable response they will have to deal with later. I find it arrogant and dishonest assuming that we are not entitled to know the truth, but misdirection is certainly one of the tools used by government leaders all over the world from time to time.
But when they get caught, there is often hell to pay.
I reiterate that George W. Bush has been single-minded in his purpose to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. Rummy (and others) in the Office of Special Plans tried like the devil to get some kind of incriminating evidence of Iraq's complicity in the 9/11/2001 attacks--anything to pin on Iraq.
It was a dishonest, wasteful, costly (in lives and money) side trip in a "War on Terrorism" that could ill-afford a loss of allies. Iraq was ruled by a dictator who would brook no rivals. It was only after the "mission [was] accomplished" that all kinds of terrorists streamed in to get a crack at the Americans. Had Bush not attacked Iraq, there would not have been the cynical charge that the U.S. was in it for the oil. Richard Clarke maintained this. It did not win him any friends in an administration that thinks it's right, and anyone else's opinion be damned, however well-informed it might be.
Would somebody please tell me how Condoleezza Rice testifying under oath publicly before the 9/11 Commission would compromise the separation of government powers??? Does ANYBODY know the answer to this question?
(Edited to delete expletive from first paragraph)
Now is the time for revelations. Now that no WMDs have been found. Now that the 9/11 commission is trying to find out what happened and who is possibly to blame.
Yes, timing undoubtedly entered in to these mens' decisions. Who wants to be the lonely "voice crying in the wilderness"?
None of us here (to my knowledge) is a Presidential appointee. If someone were, s/he would probably agree, after some cajoling, that there are times when the leadership of this country routinely doesn't tell the truth to the general public, judging that there will be an unfavorable response they will have to deal with later. I find it arrogant and dishonest assuming that we are not entitled to know the truth, but misdirection is certainly one of the tools used by government leaders all over the world from time to time.
But when they get caught, there is often hell to pay.
I reiterate that George W. Bush has been single-minded in his purpose to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. Rummy (and others) in the Office of Special Plans tried like the devil to get some kind of incriminating evidence of Iraq's complicity in the 9/11/2001 attacks--anything to pin on Iraq.
It was a dishonest, wasteful, costly (in lives and money) side trip in a "War on Terrorism" that could ill-afford a loss of allies. Iraq was ruled by a dictator who would brook no rivals. It was only after the "mission [was] accomplished" that all kinds of terrorists streamed in to get a crack at the Americans. Had Bush not attacked Iraq, there would not have been the cynical charge that the U.S. was in it for the oil. Richard Clarke maintained this. It did not win him any friends in an administration that thinks it's right, and anyone else's opinion be damned, however well-informed it might be.
Would somebody please tell me how Condoleezza Rice testifying under oath publicly before the 9/11 Commission would compromise the separation of government powers??? Does ANYBODY know the answer to this question?
(Edited to delete expletive from first paragraph)
QUOTE(christopher @ Mar 24 2004, 11:11 PM)
QUOTE
Waiting for years until right before the election and selling a book rather than simply making a statement are both further strikes against Clarke's credibility.
Seems like the perfect time to me.
No dice.
Anytime in the year 2002 would have been just as well. Right after 9/11 would have been perfect and could have cost Bush his job.
But why martyr yourself when no one's making any money?>
QUOTE
But why martyr yourself when no one's making any money?>
Hey I can play too.
No Dice.
During an election EVERYONE is watching. best time to go public. Guarantees people start digging.
QUOTE(christopher @ Mar 24 2004, 11:19 PM)
During an election EVERYONE is watching. best time to go public. Guarantees people start digging.
...and I suppose everyone wasn't watching right after 9/11.
and why the book deal?
Again, pure concern for the country would dictate that he make a profit-free announcement right as Bush alleged failure against terrorism was coming to a head. After all Clarke thought Bush might have prevented 9/11.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
None of us here (to my knowledge) is a Presidential appointee. If someone were, s/he would probably agree, after some cajoling, that there are times when the leadership of this country routinely doesn't tell the truth to the general public
Of course Clarke step right over the flashing red line and lied to the general public. I'm not filled with trust of the guy.
Of course I'm not filled with trust of Bush either but he's hovering above the acceptability limit for now...
QUOTE
That's some highly aggressive spin. It's one thing to refrain from criticizing one's boss, but it's another thing to intentionally mislead the country about matter's of national security.
I don't see any factual errors from Mr.Clarke. It seems that when he praised the Bush administration, he was highlighting the positive aspects of the counter-terrorism plan before 9/11. He merely said what was done right; I don't see him say anywhere that national security was absolutely foolproof.
To think that politicians try to mislead the american public! Forgive me for being so cynical as to believe that the administration (you know, the guys who pay him) was nudging Clarke in this direction. It seems to coincide with what O'neill and Whitman went through. Of course, I'm sure that some people (Maybe the ones who were so sure we'd find weapons in Iraq) believe that if something was seriously wrong with our intelligence, the politicians would bite the hand that feeds them and confess to such hideous distortions. As you can tell, I never have been that optimistic.
Thus, it seems reasonable that Clarke could be so chipper about our intelligence in 2002 and so negative about it now. Confessing to an aloof administration would have been political suicide.
QUOTE
Again, pure concern for the country would dictate that he make a profit-free announcement right as Bush alleged failure against terrorism was coming to a head.
Like Halliburton's concern for the troops? If anything is gospel to a Republican, it is profit. Helps salve the wounds of being mishandled by a Presidential administration as well.
But seriously--
A book is a very good way to express your thoughts without interruption. I suspect that it was a means for Clarke to vindicate himself as much if not more than a desire to make a profit doing it; but then, I haven't seen his portfolio.
QUOTE
After all Clarke thought Bush might have prevented 9/11.
I watched the hearing, turnea. It seems to me Clarke had said that he wasn't sure that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. Which was it?
Personally I think he suffers from O'Neil syndrome. (A.K.A. ImangrycauseIgotfireditis) All this comes down the day before the 9-11 commission begins. I mean, the book wasn't due till April. Of course he's taking advantage.
I'm sure he was a smart guy. You don't keep your job in DC through three administrations with a bright personality. But between him claiming that the Bush administration was lax, the Condi Rice refuting that, then I saw somone on CNN who allegedly had in his hand, a memo from Rice or someone, requseting that he make an effort to make the meetings they had scheduled, I don't know what to believe.
Anyone have a link about this memo?
I'm sure he was a smart guy. You don't keep your job in DC through three administrations with a bright personality. But between him claiming that the Bush administration was lax, the Condi Rice refuting that, then I saw somone on CNN who allegedly had in his hand, a memo from Rice or someone, requseting that he make an effort to make the meetings they had scheduled, I don't know what to believe.
Anyone have a link about this memo?
I dont see why everyone thinks that a book deal is a big deal. Colin Powell wrote a book too. HE didnt become a millionaire and retire on his achievments, nor will the other three, though they will have fewer friends.
These people have 30+ years in government, its not as if a book deal is suddenly going to change them from paupers into millionaires. Their careers stand as their crowning achievments.
A 'statement' or 'profit free announcement ' would call for Clarke or Oneill to back up their accusations with reams of evidence, which already stand in the books they have written for all to see, hence already done beforehand, this is logical. Both knew they would come under fire from the Admin. and risk quite a bit of controversy and alienation from the party of which they have dedicated their personal politics and their political careers. They are certainely not becoming Democrats all of a sudden. Why turncoat for a book? There are so many anti-books out there. You could easily write a pro-admin book and get the same result. It seems ludicrous to suggest that these life-long Republicans are turncoating for profit.
Sourgrapes?
Yes , he was demoted, to a less than Cabinet level position, but not to the position that Cheney alludes to in his interview with Rush, until after 911, a position he requested himself. Therefore a purposeful deception on Cheneys part, need I say, again. What is Cheney doing on Rush anyway, is that priority place of talking points for the Vice President? And what is your point, about the demotion? He continued to work for the admin for 2 more years. Possibly, as a Republican, he wanted to believe? the admin might get on track eventually?
I keep reading the links and am not coming up with lies, so can you help me out?
Is it because he didnt come out and say that he felt the Admin was not proactive enough on terrorism before 911, or that their focus was on Iraq?
I think he outlined what was developing policy and did not opine one way or another. It appears to me that they touted him out to Fox to give a review of terrorism policy for the public, although he had been demoted to a cyber-terrorism cubicle, according to Cheney?. It just doesnt add up, as nothing has recently.
As far as stepping over the thin red line...Will you be as hard on the Admin as the whistleblowers? We have a slew of accusations, but, the Whitehouse official version is that Bush was informed daily of the terrorist threat and escalating 'chatter', by Tenet, and that Clarke was out of the loop.
So once again, being thoroughly informed of pending threats, and mind , these were not 'tidbits', that which has been exposed these days by the 911 Commission: the intel was severe, spiking, informing of iminent threat....How did the President feel justified in taking a one month vacation right in the middle of it?
I dont believe Whitman, Clarke or ONeill made their statements lightly, nor parted with their ideology and lifetime political party with flagrancy, just to make profit from a book.
The obvious analogy to this is that few Republicans on this board itself have been willing to part with their ideology, even as WMD have not been found, Osama has not been ccaught, speculation on the Bush admin, their agenda and competance, if they misled the American public and the world, mounts daily. Many Republicans, including (resigned) Kay, and ONeill and yourselves still believe that the Iraq invasion was justified, and as Desert Resident pointed out (twice), ONeill still believes Bush is the better man for the job in 2004. So...why risk ostracism?
To add, I find it very suspect that Condi Rice, for months has tried to weasle out of testifying under oath. I do commend her that Under oath seems to be important to her, not to fall in the same trap as Clinton and possibly ruin her career. But what is there to hide?
Much telling:
On the second of two dramatic days of open testimony, commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked Clarke about a letter he wrote to Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, one week before the Sept. 11 attacks.
"'You urge policymakers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home and abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on Sept. 4, seven days before Sept. 11," Roemer said.'
Rice said the letter from Clarke was a theoretical rather than an actual warning. "Of course we all knew that one day a catastrophic attack was possible," she said.
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/33911...ters.html\
What? They knew a catatastrophic attack was possible? An almost saddened letter was issued of regret after several failed attempts to connect with the Admin? And the President went on vacation? ( Eminent threat? WHaa? Im going to miss my plane..)
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?
I saw no opinion in Clarkes 2002 interview, just a counting of what was being done.
NOT what was NOT being done. But remember, he was demoted to a cyberterrrorism lackey, according to the official version of the Vice President. (on Rush, for crying out loud). If he was such a non-essential, why tote him out to speak on Bush's terror policy? I guess he had clout then, but NOW? He was/is just a renegade, out of the loop. ???
And shall we say subsequent FAILURE on the part of the Admin, adding to the toll of Not getting anything right either before, which we can somewhat dismiss, nor AFTER, in the WMD and subsequent Iraq invasion.
We can dismiss Bush on one or two wrongs, but EVERYTHING? Regardless of bad intel, Clarke, Oneill, WMD, Osama, ok....Where has this admin gone right? Please tell me!
As goes the saying, Something is (much too) fishy, and wrong, wrong, wrong in Denmark.
These people have 30+ years in government, its not as if a book deal is suddenly going to change them from paupers into millionaires. Their careers stand as their crowning achievments.
A 'statement' or 'profit free announcement ' would call for Clarke or Oneill to back up their accusations with reams of evidence, which already stand in the books they have written for all to see, hence already done beforehand, this is logical. Both knew they would come under fire from the Admin. and risk quite a bit of controversy and alienation from the party of which they have dedicated their personal politics and their political careers. They are certainely not becoming Democrats all of a sudden. Why turncoat for a book? There are so many anti-books out there. You could easily write a pro-admin book and get the same result. It seems ludicrous to suggest that these life-long Republicans are turncoating for profit.
QUOTE
Or maybe he just forgot that he was demoted as he acknowledged during the 60 Minute interview with Leslie Stahl per the quote and link to the article below
Sourgrapes?
Yes , he was demoted, to a less than Cabinet level position, but not to the position that Cheney alludes to in his interview with Rush, until after 911, a position he requested himself. Therefore a purposeful deception on Cheneys part, need I say, again. What is Cheney doing on Rush anyway, is that priority place of talking points for the Vice President? And what is your point, about the demotion? He continued to work for the admin for 2 more years. Possibly, as a Republican, he wanted to believe? the admin might get on track eventually?
QUOTE
Of course Clarke step right over the flashing red line and lied to the general public. I'm not filled with trust of the guy.
I keep reading the links and am not coming up with lies, so can you help me out?
Is it because he didnt come out and say that he felt the Admin was not proactive enough on terrorism before 911, or that their focus was on Iraq?
I think he outlined what was developing policy and did not opine one way or another. It appears to me that they touted him out to Fox to give a review of terrorism policy for the public, although he had been demoted to a cyber-terrorism cubicle, according to Cheney?. It just doesnt add up, as nothing has recently.
As far as stepping over the thin red line...Will you be as hard on the Admin as the whistleblowers? We have a slew of accusations, but, the Whitehouse official version is that Bush was informed daily of the terrorist threat and escalating 'chatter', by Tenet, and that Clarke was out of the loop.
So once again, being thoroughly informed of pending threats, and mind , these were not 'tidbits', that which has been exposed these days by the 911 Commission: the intel was severe, spiking, informing of iminent threat....How did the President feel justified in taking a one month vacation right in the middle of it?
I dont believe Whitman, Clarke or ONeill made their statements lightly, nor parted with their ideology and lifetime political party with flagrancy, just to make profit from a book.
The obvious analogy to this is that few Republicans on this board itself have been willing to part with their ideology, even as WMD have not been found, Osama has not been ccaught, speculation on the Bush admin, their agenda and competance, if they misled the American public and the world, mounts daily. Many Republicans, including (resigned) Kay, and ONeill and yourselves still believe that the Iraq invasion was justified, and as Desert Resident pointed out (twice), ONeill still believes Bush is the better man for the job in 2004. So...why risk ostracism?
To add, I find it very suspect that Condi Rice, for months has tried to weasle out of testifying under oath. I do commend her that Under oath seems to be important to her, not to fall in the same trap as Clinton and possibly ruin her career. But what is there to hide?
Much telling:
On the second of two dramatic days of open testimony, commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked Clarke about a letter he wrote to Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, one week before the Sept. 11 attacks.
"'You urge policymakers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home and abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on Sept. 4, seven days before Sept. 11," Roemer said.'
Rice said the letter from Clarke was a theoretical rather than an actual warning. "Of course we all knew that one day a catastrophic attack was possible," she said.
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/33911...ters.html\
What? They knew a catatastrophic attack was possible? An almost saddened letter was issued of regret after several failed attempts to connect with the Admin? And the President went on vacation? ( Eminent threat? WHaa? Im going to miss my plane..)
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?
I saw no opinion in Clarkes 2002 interview, just a counting of what was being done.
NOT what was NOT being done. But remember, he was demoted to a cyberterrrorism lackey, according to the official version of the Vice President. (on Rush, for crying out loud). If he was such a non-essential, why tote him out to speak on Bush's terror policy? I guess he had clout then, but NOW? He was/is just a renegade, out of the loop. ???
And shall we say subsequent FAILURE on the part of the Admin, adding to the toll of Not getting anything right either before, which we can somewhat dismiss, nor AFTER, in the WMD and subsequent Iraq invasion.
We can dismiss Bush on one or two wrongs, but EVERYTHING? Regardless of bad intel, Clarke, Oneill, WMD, Osama, ok....Where has this admin gone right? Please tell me!
As goes the saying, Something is (much too) fishy, and wrong, wrong, wrong in Denmark.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 24 2004, 05:38 PM)
What exactly are you accusing me of lying about?
I watched the early morning interview with Clarke, and him talking about the GW pointing a finger in his face and saying (paraphrasing) find me a connection- and said several times "Hey I am not lying about this, I have four witnesses, this happened"- or are you claiming I never saw the interview?
It was on CNN btw- I don't know the interviewer.
I watched the early morning interview with Clarke, and him talking about the GW pointing a finger in his face and saying (paraphrasing) find me a connection- and said several times "Hey I am not lying about this, I have four witnesses, this happened"- or are you claiming I never saw the interview?
It was on CNN btw- I don't know the interviewer.
He didnt demand he find a link so we could attack Iraq, which is how you're spinning it. He told him to look hard to see if there was any link to Iraq. Huge difference.
You and your ilk are so intent on discrediting Bush you cant even accurately portray the words of those on your own side.
Clarke chose to take advantage of timing in the release of his book. That says as much about his character as anything he's written or testified.
QUOTE
When you work for a company, you are expected to express loyalty to and on behalf of that company from time to time, whether the leadership is following your advice or not.
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke were in the Bush administration and it wasn't their job to go dissing the Big Boss and his closest appointees. Seems pretty simple to me.
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke were in the Bush administration and it wasn't their job to go dissing the Big Boss and his closest appointees. Seems pretty simple to me.
That may work when you are speaking in terms of Money, in this case we are speaking in terms of lifes. American Lifes!
It is also fine IF YOUR NOT TRYING TO SELL A BOOK.
Red
QUOTE(redliner1989 @ Mar 25 2004, 07:44 AM)
That may work when you are speaking in terms of Money, in this case we are speaking in terms of lifes. American Lifes!
It is also fine IF YOUR NOT TRYING TO SELL A BOOK.
It is also fine IF YOUR NOT TRYING TO SELL A BOOK.
As O'Neill said about this Administration: "They are mean and they have long memories." Do you really think that if you're working for these people that you'll highlight ANYTHING negative? Why do you think those like O'Neill and Whitman are gone? Because they were incompetent? And how does Tenet get away with saying "I kept trying to correct what they were saying"... what does he know on these people that keeps him from being fired?
As for selling a book: I saw this morning on the Today show that one of the 9/11 Committee members said that in 16 hours of private testimony before the committee, Clarke said exactly the same thing as yesterday. Was he selling his book to the committee then?
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 25 2004, 12:39 PM)
You and your ilk are so intent on discrediting Bush you cant even accurately portray the words of those on your own side.
Clarke chose to take advantage of timing in the release of his book. That says as much about his character as anything he's written or testified.
And you and your ilk are so credulous of Bush's infallability that you will happily dismiss without a second though the steadily increasing pile of evidence of his incompetence.
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but even the mid-point between these two positions leaves us with clear and serious questions about the actions of the President.
The crux of Clarke's credibility for me lies with this disconnect.
The Clinton Admin has always stated that they gave Bush and Co. warnings and plan to deal with OBL and AQ.
In the backgrounder interview, Clarke specifically stated the opposite. During the 9/11 hearing, he did not stand by that statement.
So was he lying then, or is he lying now?
The Clinton Admin has always stated that they gave Bush and Co. warnings and plan to deal with OBL and AQ.
In the backgrounder interview, Clarke specifically stated the opposite. During the 9/11 hearing, he did not stand by that statement.
So was he lying then, or is he lying now?
QUOTE
That may work when you are speaking in terms of Money, in this case we are speaking in terms of lifes. American Lifes!
When we are speaking in terms of "lifes. American Lifes," loyalty still enters in when a person serves a President. When you work for the President, you follow his leadership. Look, do you suppose that Richard Clarke would be half as hot and bothered about the mistakes of the Bush administration if they had actually taken his advice? And maybe, just maybe, using Clarke's knowledge and experience might have made a difference in what happened on September 11th.
You guys are waging a strange argument from both sides of the loyalty issue. If you are loyal, you're apparently supposed to remain that way and carry things to your grave--that's character--EXCEPT when National Security is the issue. Then you're supposed to say, right then and there, Hold everything! These guys are screwing up and something serious is going to happen if you don't listen to ME now!
And who do you think would have listened to Clarke prior to 9/11? You remember the snide comments Cheney made to that Pillar of Journalistic Punditry, Rush Limbaugh, about his being bent out of shape about being demoted by the President. And as far as him speaking up about it during Bush's rush to invade Iraq?--if Clarke had spoken up publicly THEN, you would have called him a traitor AND a liar and an opportunist! Sheesh. And would you have listened to him during the thick of the war? Highly doubtful.
You have constructed a means by which you will not, under any circumstances, believe what this man has to say. So what chance does he have to convince you?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Mar 25 2004, 09:22 AM)
And who do you think would have listened to Clarke prior to 9/11? And as far as him speaking up about it during Bush's rush to invade Iraq?--if Clarke had spoken up THEN, you would have called him a traitor AND a liar and an opportunist! Sheesh. And would you have listened to him during the thick of the war? Highly doubtful.
...and what of my suggestion of right after 9/11? Would not that have been the perfect time to release a report (rather than sell a book?)
It is not unreasonable to demand immediate action in response to our country's security concerns regardless of personal loyalties. In fact, it is one of the most basic demands of any responsible government official.
If Clarke apologizes personally for lying to the American people, then I will take him more seriously. As long as he continues to play politics and dodge personal responsibility he is an unrepentant liar, not to be trusted.
QUOTE
...and what of my suggestion of right after 9/11? Would not that have been the perfect time to release a report (rather than sell a book?)
Yeah--I can see it now: "I told you so, I told you so!" That would have gone over well.
QUOTE
And as far as him speaking up about it during Bush's rush to invade Iraq?--if Clarke had spoken up publicly THEN, you would have called him a traitor AND a liar and an opportunist!
QUOTE
It is not unreasonable to demand immediate action in response to our country's security concerns regardless of personal loyalties. In fact, it is one of the most basic demands of any responsible government official.
Yeah, and I'm sure it has gotten many an official canned and ignored. And once again the charge is made that it was sour grapes, and gee whiz, he said such glowing things just a few months earlier about our leadership--Geez, he must be a liar!
And Condoleezza Rice didn't even have the stones to address the 9/11 Commission under oath in a public hearing to refute him. Looks like she's afraid of publicly making statements under oath. WHY?
QUOTE
If Clarke apologizes personally for lying to the American people, then I will take him more seriously.
I'll be sure to tell him for you.
QUOTE
As long as he continues to play politics and dodge personal responsibility he is an unrepentant liar, not to be trusted.
And that is the very sentiment that makes me feel the same way about George W. Bush.
QUOTE
You have constructed a means by which you will not, under any circumstances, believe what this man has to say. So what chance does he have to convince you?
He doesn't. Some people will NEVER believe the truth even if it was slammed right in their face. They'd rather believe the Bush Administration then admit for one second they may be wrong.
So many have come forth to stop this destructive path our administration is leading us on, and many more will soon be on their way. To believe every single one of them who speaks out is trying to make a profit by selling their book is in my opinion irresponsibly ridiculous.
Scott Ritter marked as a traitor for his video "Shifting Sands" that judging by what was found apparently told the truth, and also put him $50,000 in debt. But he was trying to make a profit right?
Paul O'Neil marked as a profiteer for his book and of course a traitor, because he doesn't agree with the administration.
And now Richard Clarke.
This won't be the last one. As more brave souls come forth more will follow. The Bush Administration will not be able to effectively discredit all of them. Though they will try like wildfire to.
So how many Daniel Ellsbergs will it take to convince some on these boards? Simple answer: There will never be enough, and I have come to accept that. But that doesn't mean I'm giving up on America as a whole. More and more each day independent news sources are coming forth. And with it more education as to how the world REALLY is. We as Americans can't keep abusing the UN by vetoing every single resolution that doesn't fit our agenda without repercussions. We can't keep supporting coups to overthrow governments without building more American anger. We can't lie to the world to have wars to fit our political agenda without building American hostility. We can't keep ignoring the REAL problems of the world without spreading American hatred.
And some day I believe the American population will realize that. I only hope it won't be too late. Because even the biggest giant can fall, Just much harder.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Mar 25 2004, 09:37 AM)
QUOTE
...and what of my suggestion of right after 9/11? Would not that have been the perfect time to release a report (rather than sell a book?)
Yeah--I can see it now: "I told you so, I told you so!" That would have gone over well.
Better than looking like a front for Kerry, I doubt he is but that's the impression.
It would have gotten enormous play with the American people and worldwide. Not to mention alerting us of this "vital information" as soon as possible.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Yeah, and I'm sure it has gotten many an official canned and ignored. And once again the charge is made that it was sour grapes, and gee whiz, he said such glowing things just a few months earlier about our leadership--Geez, he must be a liar!
I don't care about the personal things he said of leaders in particular but there is distance between the Bush administration fighting aggressively to eliminate Al-Qaeda pre-9/11 (Richard Clarke in 2002) and the Bush administration "ignoring" terrorism and doing "nothing" (Richard Clarke in 2004) that can't be negotiated.
Two directly contradictory statements fact. At least one is a lie making Clarke a liar.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
I'll be sure to tell him for you.
If you've got contact information, I'll be sure to tell him myself as well.
QUOTE
If Clarke apologizes personally for lying to the American people, then I will take him more seriously. As long as he continues to play politics and dodge personal responsibility he is an unrepentant liar, not to be trusted
The above comment is so comical and hypocritical. Just try substituting BUSH
ADMINSTRATION in place of CLARKE'S name.
1. Wmds were lies
2. Uranium lies from Niger
3. Medicare bill costs
These were all lies to the american people
They were definitely politics
They dodged responsibility
They were unrepentant liars
They are untrustworthy
Now Clarke is a liar
Now O'Neill is a liar
I guess we are to believe that the Bush Adminstration is the only ones telling the truth. I guess you think we are gullible enough to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona,too.
It reallly concerns me when the Bush Adminstration has so many investigations going on about their HONESTY,but have the AUDACITY to question anyones honesty or character because it differs from them.
I honestly believe if half of Bush's cabinet came out negatively about him, they would all be liars.
QUOTE(popeye47)
The above comment is so comical and hypocritical. Just try substituting BUSH
ADMINSTRATION in place of CLARKE'S name.
ADMINSTRATION in place of CLARKE'S name.
I have already said there are doubts as to the administration's truthfulness. But this thread is about Clarke.
Do you deny he is a liar?
QUOTE(turnea @ Mar 25 2004, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE(popeye47)
The above comment is so comical and hypocritical. Just try substituting BUSH
ADMINSTRATION in place of CLARKE'S name.
ADMINSTRATION in place of CLARKE'S name.
I have already said there are doubts as to the administration's truthfulness. But this thread is about Clarke.
Do you deny he is a liar?
No, I don't believe he is lying.
Clarke said "Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you".
I believe that.
Yes this thread is about Clarke. But when another person or persons brings your honesty into play, then you have a right to question that persons character.
If that person or persons have a history of lying,do you believe that ACCUSER.
Popeye47 wrote:
Perhaps we should all get the chance to tell our stories, then change the story, then change it again, and not be called Liars.
Something to think about
QUOTE
Now Clarke is a liar
Perhaps we should all get the chance to tell our stories, then change the story, then change it again, and not be called Liars.
Something to think about
It's more likely to me that Clarke is trying to be truthful now than when he was working for the Bush administration. It's tough for people who have accepted high-level positions to be truthful while in those positions. Truthfulness is a career-limiting quality at high levels.
Yet Clarke is also an author trying to build an audience, and man, is he ever getting a lot of free publicity or what! To deny that book sales aren't part of his motivation is to be trusting to a fault.
But the question remains whether the Bush administration has been handling terrorists well. I don't think it has, and I agree that Iraq has taken the country's eyes off the ball. I don't need Clarke's opinions or stories to convince me of this situation. It's old news and has been obvious since before the 2002 elections.
So it doesn't matter if Clarke is lying now to me. Maybe it does to other people who have been, oh, maybe on some other planet for the past few years.
It is a little entertaining to read about black kettle complaints from the right side of things. Hey, you're lying Clarke! No fair!
Yep. Not fair at all. Gee, politics can be so unfair.
Yet Clarke is also an author trying to build an audience, and man, is he ever getting a lot of free publicity or what! To deny that book sales aren't part of his motivation is to be trusting to a fault.
But the question remains whether the Bush administration has been handling terrorists well. I don't think it has, and I agree that Iraq has taken the country's eyes off the ball. I don't need Clarke's opinions or stories to convince me of this situation. It's old news and has been obvious since before the 2002 elections.
So it doesn't matter if Clarke is lying now to me. Maybe it does to other people who have been, oh, maybe on some other planet for the past few years.
It is a little entertaining to read about black kettle complaints from the right side of things. Hey, you're lying Clarke! No fair!
Yep. Not fair at all. Gee, politics can be so unfair.
Isn't this thread supposed to be about Richard Clarke?
Just checking.
Just checking.
Here's a transcript I've been reading made from the Larry King Live interview with Richard Clarke.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/lkl.00.html
I figure you might find this interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/lkl.00.html
I figure you might find this interesting.
QUOTE
So was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Did you really expect Clarke at that time to say how he really felt? Lets be real,
with an administartion that only wants to hear good things about this ideas, they would have fired him on the spot and run the smear campaign like they are doing now just to make sure no one believes him. Look at the Medicare controversy, the Medicare chief was threatened to be fired all because he was HONEST and speaking the TRUTH.
TRUTH and HONESTY are two words that don't exist in this administration.
QUOTE(cgorham @ Mar 25 2004, 10:56 AM)
QUOTE
So was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Did you really expect Clarke at that time to say how he really felt? Lets be real,
with an administartion that only wants to hear good things about this ideas, they would have fired him on the spot and run the smear campaign like they are doing now just to make sure no one believes him.
...and that's the gaping hole in this argument. If the Bush team was going to react negatively regardless why now rather than back after 9/11?
Was he afraid of getting fired in return for greater safety for the American people?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.