Credibility of Richard Clarke?

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress ? 45,000 words long ? makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.

The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.

Miss Rice, who will testify publicly Thursday before the commission investigating the Bush and Clinton administrations' actions before the September 11 attacks, was criticized last week for planning a speech for September 11, 2001, that called a national missile-defense system a leading security priority.

President Bush yesterday denied the accusation that his administration had made dealing with al Qaeda a low priority.

"Let me just be very clear about this: Had we had the
information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack," Mr. Bush said, adding that after September 11, "the stakes had changed."

"This country immediately went on war footing, and we went to war against al Qaeda. It took me very little time to make up my mind," he said. "Once I determined al Qaeda [did] it, [I said], 'We're going to go get them.' And we have, and we're going to keep after them until they're brought to justice and America is secure."

Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will meet with the commission in the coming weeks behind closed doors, but a date has not been set. Meanwhile, the president said he looks forward to hearing Miss Rice defend the administration in a public forum.

"She'll be great," Mr. Bush said. "She's a very smart, capable person who knows exactly what took place and will lay out the facts."

The Clinton administration's final national-security report stated that its reaction to terrorist strikes was to "neither forget the crime, nor ever give up on bringing the perpetrators to justice."

The document boasted of "a dozen terrorist fugitives" who had been captured abroad and handed over to the United States "to answer for their crimes."

Those perpetrators included the men responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center, which the intelligence community largely thought by late 2000 to be the work of operatives with links to al Qaeda. Listed among those brought to justice was a man who killed two persons outside CIA headquarters in 1993, and "an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago."

Several high-ranking Bush administration officials, and the president himself, have faulted the Clinton administration for treating global terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not recognizing that bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998.

Mr. Bush often notes that about two-thirds of al Qaeda's thousands of members ? including many key leaders ? have been either captured or killed since the attacks, and that 44 of the 55 top Iraqi officials under Saddam Hussein in a deck of cards have been "taken care of."

The liberal Center for American Progress yesterday echoed Mr. Clarke's criticism of the Bush administration by publishing a timeline of statements that it says proves the current White House national security team did not make fighting al Qaeda a priority before the attacks.

"If they were developing some big strategy of fighting terrorism, it's not reflected in their words," said John Halpin, director of research for the center.

"We wanted to go back and document all the public statements, given some of the discrepancies of what happened before 9/11 and some of the recent news from Richard Clarke," Mr. Halpin said.

In Mr. Clarke's best-selling book "Against All Enemies," he writes that during a transitional briefing in January 2001, Miss Rice's "facial expression gave me the impression that she'd never heard the term [al Qaeda] before."

But the Clinton administration's final national security document, written while Mr. Clarke was a high-level national security adviser, never mentions al Qaeda.

"Clarke was on the job as terrorism czar at that point," said a senior Bush administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He played a significant role. His concerns should have been well-known."

High-ranking Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, have testified that Mr. Bush wanted to stop "swatting at flies" and take a more aggressive approach to terror.

The Bush administration official noted that the planning of the September 11 attacks happened while Mr. Clinton was in power, and said the commission's probe has turned into a search for blame.

"It's a shame we are not focused more on moving forward, instead of about who was concerned more," he said.

The official said he found the lack of bin Laden and al Qaeda references in the final Clinton terror assessment interesting, but downplayed such "word-counting games."

"We don't measure progress or response [to terrorism] by how many speeches, words, utterances or meetings were held on a particular issue, but by action taken," he said.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I'll take Clark over Rumms Head and Cheney any day. Bush should do like Trump does fire them.
Poor Clinton he caused everythiing. Just shows this White House has no balls for any blame at any time. It's everone elses fault.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Let's review.

You are former president Bill Clinton. Your chief anti-terrorism guy, Richard Clarke, says that Al Qaeda was an absolute top priority during the final years of your term. In fact, Richard Clarke writes a book and testifies under oath telling everyone who will listen how focused you were on Al Qaeda while you were president.

So .. it's the end of your eight years in the White House. December, 2000. You are writing a report detailing your views on the major security threats facing the United States as you leave office. The report, which Richard Clarke helped you write, is 45,000 words long. That would be 168 pages using Microsoft Word, and if published as a book it would be about 220 pages long. Now that's quite a lot of words describing what you think are the major security concerns the next president needs to be aware of. And guess what? In all of those 45,000 words you don't mention the name "Al Qaeda" even one time. The greatest security concern facing America; isn't that what Richard Clarke said? And you don't even mention it one time in your report? Richard Clarke says that Condi Rice looked confused when he mentioned Al Qaeda ... but he didn't manage to get any reference to Al Qaeda included in your final report on security threats?

What do you expect the American people to think?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
This white house has no balls to take any blame for anything. It's so dam out infront of all our eyes. It's there way of working. Like when they had to attack John Mc Cain in last election. Chit they eat there own.
 

wareagle

World Traveler
Forum Member
Feb 27, 2001
5,712
40
48
47
MEMPHIS, TN
www.dunavant.com
Djv, if on day one of Bush's term he declared war on AQ and we went into Afganistan. Do you think this would have stopped 9/11? The answer is NO. These people already had their orders and already lived in the united states. Nothing could have thwarted this attack on us. Why do you want the Bush admin to take responsibility for 9/11? Is it their fault?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
WAR not saying that at all. But they can take there share. I dont see anything coming out in the 9/11 commission hearing that tells me they did a dam thing to stop it either. It's like the 3 million jobs that have been lost. Not our fault. Gas prices, not our fault. Health cost up 28% last two years, not our fault. Wages of new jobs down 11% over last two years, not our fault. Nothing is there fault. It's us were the blame. We ask for to much. Mexicans coming into the country at a record pace, not our fault. What the chit is there fault. Bush starts a new war in Iraq. I wonder who will get credit for that mess. And it is one big ass mess. And we cant leave it because we would have built the biggest terroist camp of all time if we do. So now were stuck there doing nation building. Just what Bush said we will never do. Ah hell not his fault he got chit for intellegence.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Ted better gets his chit right to.:D all these pass the buck guys. It's got to piss you off a little two. You just cant close your eyes to all there crap.
 

Blitz

Hopeful
Forum Member
Jan 6, 2002
7,540
46
48
58
North of Titletown AKA Boston
Ted was speaking to a think tank yesterday (insert laughter here), and he said Iraq is Bush's Vietnam:rolleyes: , someone should remind him it was his brother that got us going in Vietnam...
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
So DJV, after all the uproar over National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 Commission, and all your effort to assassinate her character and discredit her and then validate Richard Clarke. Now you're saying the Bush administration was ignoring terrorism?

How about a little perspective, shall we?

The Bush administration took office following a shortened transition on January 20, 2001. The attacks on September 11, 2001 happened less than 8 months later. Are we supposed to believe that in that 8 months, the Bush administration was supposed to unravel the 8 years of Richard Clarke's terrorist-appeasing Clinton policies, invade Afghanistan and destroy Al-Qaeda? That seems to be what you're saying.

And by the way...can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot....if Republicans were attacking a Democrat's national security advisor (who happens to be a black woman?) The cries of racism would be deafening.
 

Blitz

Hopeful
Forum Member
Jan 6, 2002
7,540
46
48
58
North of Titletown AKA Boston
Turfgrass said:

And by the way...can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot....if Republicans were attacking a Democrat's national security advisor (who happens to be a black woman?) The cries of racism would be deafening.

:yup :yup :iagree:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
turf

turf

great post....why hasn`t this come to light on the news shows(nbc,cbs,abc,cnn(uggghh),msnbc???????????

why?....because they`re to busy shtupping the secretary of the interior because the statue of liberty isn`t open....

so funny.......the whole commission is a big joke...it`s political and everybody knows it...why else would rice be forced to testify again?...in public?....

because,it gives political hack lawyers like richerd ben-veniste an opportunity to catch her in a mis-statement in public...political advantage....they already interviewed her once...they have everyone else`s testimony...now they get to go over everything and and try and find some sort of contradiction...

dog and pony show...if there were an incumbent democratic president in office,this wouldn`t be happening...

why?....because,in all honesty,the democrats are way to polititically savvy.....

clarke`s book....john dean`s book.....they are coming out guns a`blazin`.....

like it or not,bush is in big,big trouble...
 
Last edited:

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
I want to know why GWB has to come to the stand and WJC did not. Does anybody else think that's strange?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
What seems strange is Chenny and Bush get to hold hands and talk to the 9/11 commison togeather at same time. Now thats a new way to just say all day long yes thats how I remember it to. Dam never heard of two folks in front of a commsion like this in same room at same time. Holy chit would have past Presidents gotten much chit for this.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
djv said:
What seems strange is Chenny and Bush get to hold hands and talk to the 9/11 commison togeather at same time. Now thats a new way to just say all day long yes thats how I remember it to. Dam never heard of two folks in front of a commsion like this in same room at same time. Holy chit would have past Presidents gotten much chit for this.

No that's where you're wrong...again. Past Presidents get the free pass.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Another amusing aspect. Rice testified in informal hearing before the commision weeks ago--and you know what ,only 5 of 10 showed up--then she stated she would pass on testifying under oath and the commision pulls an about face and is adamant that it is absolutely necessary--go figure.

---and on Slick--can't blame him for failures on his term ending papers as he was too busy counting proceeds from pardons of his felonious co-hearts while Hilliary was carring off white house furnishings.:142smilie
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
DTB im not sure why Bush agreed to this commission in first place. He said no for almost a year. Then all of a sudden it's yes. You think it had anything to do with election year. So far it looks like Clark is close to right. Theres a bunch from Clinton and Bush's Admins that fell asleep or just didn't care to ask some simple questions.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
as gw stated a few times; these hearings are "a dog & pony show". and by it happening during an election year is not fair to the american public. if anything it should have been held next year.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top