Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[GePap]

Again, if Bush supporters whish to continue to smear campaign, you guys have a great chance-he gave public testimony under oath- so why doesn't the admin. accuse him of perjury and ask for charges to be brought? They claim he lies, now they can prove it legally, no?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Perhaps because they were quotes and transcripts proven by other public sources?

Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the article discreditted itself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

:yawn:

Yep thats always the right thing to do. Prove perjury. Worked last time for the repubs when they showed Clinton perjured himself.

Worked so well they had a reversal of fortune in the mid-terms.

Perfect no win situation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the article discreditted itself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

Remind me of that next time you bring a Molly Ivins post.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap


So are you-so is everyone who has EVER told ANY lie-unless you want to claim know you never lie in any way.

NOW, knowing you have lied, knowing mr. Boortz has lied, knowing everyone over 2 has lied, why should I ever believe anything anyone has ever said, save perhaps someone's first words?

Irrelevant. We are talking about lying about something specific. It's hard to believe someone who lies about a particular topic when they speak on that topic again in the future. Just as you would have trouble believing a mechanic who had lied to you about your car in the past. It doesn't mean you would automatically disbelieve anything he tells you though does it?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the author (Clarke) discreditted himself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Irrelevant. We are talking about lying about something specific. It's hard to believe someone who lies about a particular topic when they speak on that topic again in the future. Just as you would have trouble believing a mechanic who had lied to you about your car in the past. It doesn't mean you would automatically disbelieve anything he tells you though does it?

You have ignored the issue twice- in 2002 Clarcke still worked for the WH- and if you work for a politician, you do NOT attack them in front of the press. That simple.
For example, lets take Colin-Colin said a lot of things that have not proven true-and I have doubts about all his affirmations about how him and Rummy and Wolfie all saw things pretty much the same-does that mean I will automatically disbelieve them? NO. The only people willing to automatically disbelieve are those who are biased, becuase they do not care for situational differences.

I work for a pol., and anyone working for a pol. comes to find out you stay on message as long as you work there, becuase if you are not on message, you stop working there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the author (Clarke) discreditted himself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

:yawn:

You say trying to porve perjury is a lose-lose situation-only if you can't show any evidence that he is lying that would convince people beyond a reasonable doubt-which means all you guys attacking Clarckes credibility have nothing to show but your opinions of him and his statements. And the same for those who believe him.

It boils down to other evidence to back up one side or the other. I believe the proponderance of the evidence, such as Ashcroft trying to cut the counterterrorism budget and such, point towards clarcke's contentions, not the other way around.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap


You have ignored the issue twice- in 2002 Clarcke still worked for the WH- and if you work for a politician, you do NOT attack them in front of the press. That simple.
For example, lets take Colin-Colin said a lot of things that have not proven true-and I have doubts about all his affirmations about how him and Rummy and Wolfie all saw things pretty much the same-does that mean I will automatically disbelieve them? NO. The only people willing to automatically disbelieve are those who are biased, becuase they do not care for situational differences.

I work for a pol., and anyone working for a pol. comes to find out you stay on message as long as you work there, becuase if you are not on message, you stop working there.

So lying is ok if your employer tells you to do it? That's a shame.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually my point was even if proving perjury there is fallout that makes it problematic and a lose-lose situation (case in point regarding the proven perjury of Clinton).

Martyring Clarke would be political suicide even if they prove him guilty.

And you took the wrong quote.

That was a mockery of Che's.

[MrFun]

I think the point of my last post was missed -- if Clarke is as twisted of a liar as some of you claim he is, why would he include himself as one of the people responsible for the failure to prevent 9/11?

[GePap]

The actual testimony:

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

CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading. The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office. Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern. So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did. Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing.

Advertisement


THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy?


CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect.

THOMPSON: OK. 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. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption?

CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case.

THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case?

CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make.

THOMPSON: Are you saying to be you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public, and that you went ahead and did it? MORE

CLARKE: No, sir. Not untrue. Not an untrue case. I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents.

THOMPSON: Well, OK, over the course of the summer, 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. Did they authorize the increase in funding five-fold?

and so forth. Maybe you guys care to read?

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/po...?pagewanted=56

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia


So lying is ok if your employer tells you to do it? That's a shame.

Welcome to politics..a field it seems you will never work in.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Remind me of that next time you bring a Molly Ivins post.

Don't confuse me with Sava.

[DinoDoc]

I hate sites that require registration just to poke around.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Don't confuse me with Sava

Sorry didn't mean to insult.

[gopher]

What bothers me is the fact that this administration has had a large number of former strongmen come out and critisize it over the last 3 years. Usually with an administration the people who leave are silent out of respect and tradition. Not so here.
Actually, scratch that. What bothers me the most is the administrations response to those critics. The white house has taken a very insular and siege mentality. All the critics have been really smeared and blasted right out of the gate. Blame has been shifted, and there seems to be a massive campaign to protect the president at all expense. That seems to be leading to the fragmintation of government. Many government agencies are at odds with the WH based on that siege mentality (CIA over Tenets SOTU sentance, EPA over Whittman, State over the past 3 years, Treasury over O'Neil, etc). This kind of atmosphere has not occured since Nixon.
How can government function efficently if it is focused on it's image and not it's policy?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap


Welcome to politics..a field it seems you will never work in.

Probably not.

[SpencerH]

I watched or listened to almost all of the testimony over the last 2 days. IMO, Clarke did not come off too well. He had a number of valid points about counterterrorism in general. The funniest one was the comment about the FBI incompetence with intel matters, but in terms of his view that the administration did not emphasize counterterrorism enough, I think he was shot down by both Tenet and Armitage (neither of which had the credibility problem that Clarke now does).

He came across to me as being competent but one of those people who thinks only they know 'the answer'.

The people who came off the worst over the two days were Condaleeza Rice (since she didnt testify) and that burk Ben-veniste (what a stinker).

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think he was shot down by both Tenet and Armitage (neither of which had the credibility problem that Clarke now does).

I don't know how much credibility Tenet has anymore.

[MrFun]

sigh . . . . . never mind

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


I don't know how much credibility Tenet has anymore.

Because of the intel failure wrt 9/11?

[DinoDoc]

Among many other things.

[SpencerH]

such as?

Lets just stoke the fires a little (and yes I'm serious)

I dont hold Tenet responsible for the intel failures. The CIA, as the senior intel body in the USA had some general responsibility, but they are not responsible for intel within the US borders.

[chequita guevara]

Bush's war -- against Richard Clarke
The White House's furious response to Richard Clarke only underscores the truth of his testimony.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal

March 25, 2004 | One of the first official acts of the incoming Bush administration in January 2001 was to demote the office of national coordinator for counterterrorism on the National Security Council, a position held by Richard A. Clarke. Clarke had served in the Pentagon and State Department under Presidents Reagan and elder Bush, and was the first person to hold the counterterrorism job created by President Clinton. Under Clinton, signifying the importance the president attached to the issue, Clarke was elevated to Cabinet rank, which gave him a seat at the Principals Meeting, the decision-making group of the highest figures involved in national security. By demoting the office, Bush and his team sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism -- below issues they regarded as truly serious, like Star Wars and the military threat of China. By removing Clarke from the table, the Bush administration put him in a box where he could only speak when spoken to. No longer would his memos go to the president; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

Terrorism was a Clinton issue, "soft" and obscure, having something to do with "globalization," and other "soft" issues like global warming and global diseases (openly ridiculed in the Republican Party platform). "In January 2001, the new administration really thought Clinton's recommendation that eliminating al-Qaida be one of their highest priorities, well, rather odd, like so many of the Clinton administration's actions, from their perspective," writes Clarke in his new book, "Against All Enemies." The Clinton team's repeated briefings on terrorism during the transition were like water off a duck's back. When Clarke first met with Rice and immediately raised the question of dealing with al-Qaida, she "gave me the impression she had never heard the term before."

The controversy raging around Clarke's book -- and his testimony before the 9/11 commission that Bush ignored warnings about terrorism that might have prevented the attacks -- revolves around his singularly unimpeachable credibility. In response, the Bush administration has launched a full-scale offensive against him: impugning his personal motives, claiming he is a disappointed job-hunter, that he is publicity mad, a political partisan (Clarke, in fact, voted for Republican Sen. John McCain for president in the Republican primaries in 2000) -- as well as ignorant, irrelevant and a liar.

Richard Clarke had a reputation in the Clinton White House of being brusque, driven, yet preternaturally calm, and single-minded. He was a consummate professional and expert who was a master of the bureaucracy. He didn't suffer fools gladly. He stood up to superiors and didn't care whom he alienated. His flaw was his indispensable virtue: He was always direct and candid in telling the unvarnished truth.

But his account need not stand on his reputation alone. Clarke was not the only national security professional who spanned both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Gen. Donald Kerrick served as deputy national security advisor under Clinton and remained on the NSC for several months into the new Bush administration. Kerrick wrote his replacement, Stephen Hadley, a two-page memo. "It was classified," Kerrick told me. "I said they needed to pay attention to al-Qaida and counterterrorism. I said we were going to be struck again. We didn't know where or when. They never once asked me a question nor did I see them having a serious discussion about it. They didn't feel it was an imminent threat the way the Clinton administration did. Hadley did not respond to my memo. I know he had it. I agree with Dick that they saw those problems through an Iraqi prism. But the evidence wasn't there."

At the April 2001 Deputies Committee meeting on al-Qaida forced by an insistent Clarke, the threat was "belittled" by the neoconservative Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who was "spouting" a "totally discredited" theory about Iraqi terrorism being behind the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden," said Wolfowitz. At the only Principals Meeting that took up terrorism as a result of Clarke's drumbeat, the use of the unmanned Predator drone over Afghanistan was shelved. Rice helped push terrorism off the agenda by sending it to the purgatory of re-study, a classic bureaucratic method of shunting a troublesome question aside.

Rice now claims that "we were at battle stations." But Bush is quoted by Bob Woodward in "Bush at War" saying that before 9/11, "I was not on point ... I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Cheney alleges that Clarke was "out of the loop." But if he was, then the administration was either running a rogue operation or doing nothing, as Clarke testifies. Was the Bush administration engaged in an undercover, off-the-boards operation apart from the president's designated special assistant? Cheney's charge leads to absurdity.

Bush himself plaintively protests now: "And had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on 9/11, we would have acted." But he had plenty of information. Former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, the only member of the 9/11 commission to read the President's Daily Brief, revealed in the hearings that the documents "would set your hair on fire" and that the intelligence warnings of al-Qaida attacks "plateaued at a spike level for months" before 9/11. Bush, meanwhile, is fighting public release of these PDBs, which would show whether he had marked them up and demanded action.

Bush's information was more than enough for him to have put the government on high alert, as was done around the planned al-Qaida millennium bombings, which were thwarted by the commitment of President Clinton and his team to giving terrorism the very highest priority through daily presidential meetings with the most senior national security officials. That process was dissolved by Bush and Rice and pointedly not reconstituted even during the rising level of chatter indicating an imminent attack in the weeks before 9/11.

The administration's furious response to Clarke only underscores his book. Rice is vague, forgetful and dissembling. Cheney is belligerent, certain and bluffing. In Clarke's book, as in the memoirs of other Bush administration officials, former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and former domestic policy aide John DiIulio, Bush is disengaged, incurious, manipulated by those in the closed circle around him, and he adopts ill-conceived strategies that he has played little or no part in preparing. Bush is the Oz behind the curtain, but unlike the wizard the special effects are performed by others. Especially on terrorism and 9/11, his White House is at "battle stations" to prevent the curtain from being pulled open.

[MrFun]

excellent article, Chegitz

[chequita guevara]

Blumenthal is always good.

[Agathon]

Che. If Bush does get re-elected fairly will you take it as evidence that democracy is dead and that it's time for armed revolt.

I mean, this is about the worst administration in US history and if it can't be held to account, there is no hope.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Che. If Bush does get re-elected fairly will you take it as evidence that democracy is dead and that it's time for armed revolt.

I mean, this is about the worst administration in US history and if it can't be held to account, there is no hope.

Democracy will fail if Kerry is elected too. Terrorism didn't become a threat when Bush took office. They had plenty of time to do something about it. They didn't care though. In fact they probably hoped for it.

[SpencerH]

I dont have time to read it in depth just now. Just skim reading, I've spotted enough outright lies in the text to figure which way it goes though.