Richard Clarke

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
I hear Clarke has a new book out. Before all you white hooded right wing radical freaks start screaming timing, timing timing, let me acknowledge that the release of this book at this point was probably well orchestrated.

I caught a little of his interview this evening while listening Fresh Air on Non Partisan Radio (NPR) on the way home from work. It seems as though Bush had numerous memo's about Al Quida planning a major attack against the US during the summer of 2001. Apparently he did nothing despite warnings that the threat was immenent.

Clarke stated that it was recommended to Bush that he take out the various Al Quida training camps in Afghanistan but Bush said something to the effect that such action was "... like swatting at flies." He wanted to get the "hive" and was planning his Iraq campaign. Ironically, Clinton wanted to launch an attack on the terrorist bases but the military and intelligence communities did not see Al Quida as a major threat.

Although I admit I haven't read the book and am basing my opinion upon the snipets I heard on Fresh Air, I am leaning toward changing my earlier opinion that 9-11 may have been preventable. It looks like Bush was playing a lot of golf the summer of 2001 and not reading memos.

Eddie
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
richard clarke is about as relevant right now as o.j....

isn`t everyone tired of these political hacks,swift boaters and disgruntled ex-national guard dweebs garnering the headlines...and lining their pockets....

let`s hang loose until the debates.....

maybe...just maybe......we might stumble blindly into some real issues.....
 
Last edited:

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
Weazie:

I agree on the Swift boaters and Bush bashers on his Viet Nam records, respectivly. However, don't you think Bush's actions and/or inactions as the case may be, while in office with regard to 9-11 is somewhat significant. I certainly do.

Hell, if the louse could have prevented 9-11, which apparently he could have done, then add 3000 more deaths to the already 30,000 deaths he is responsible for already. Looks like to me that he was too busy playing golf and letting corporate america have their way during the summer of 2001.

Clarke is very credible.

Eddie
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Richard Clarke had 8 years to deal with Al Quida and did nothing...but the 8 months GW's in the house and...look we already had a 911 commission go through all of this, so why does Dick need to write another book?
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
TG:

If you listen to Clarke and from what I understand the 9-11 report backs him up on this, he did do something. He presented evidence of the pending US strike but it was your boy Bush who did nothing. Frankly, this issue is very significant and could be Bush's achiles heal.

Clarke indicated that although Clinton wanted to take preemptive action against Al Quida he was precluded from doing so. Clarke also wanted the funding to go after them but was refused by the Republican controlled OMB and congress.

Eddie
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
"I caught a little of his interview this evening while listening Fresh Air on Non Partisan Radio (NPR) on the way home from work."

Non partisan????????? What minions do you expect to believe that Edward????????????????????????
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Eddie Haskell said:
TG:

Clarke indicated that although Clinton wanted to take preemptive action against Al Quida he was precluded from doing so.

Eddie

By the way, what types of circumstances make it impossible for the President of the United States to defend its people?
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
Why do the right wingers on this board say that Clinton did not do enough to prevent 9-11 then in the same breath say it was impossible for Bush to prevent this attack? Your question makes no sense.

It appears Bush ignored the information on his desk. He did nothing because he did not know what to do. He is not a bright bulb. Ironically, Clinton did more but he was hogtied by your Contract with America boys.

Before I heard Clarke last night, I thought Bush could have done nothing to prevent 9-11. Now, I'm not so sure. He has been an incompetent president in basically everything he has done to date so why should I believe he has the wherewithall to appropriately deal with information which indicates an attack on the US was in the works.

I cannot believe people are dumb enough to vote for this guy after all that has come out as to how much of an incompetent boob he was and is. All he wants to do is take care of his friends in corporate america.

Eddie
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
You said "Clarke indicated that although Clinton wanted to take preemptive action against Al Quida he was precluded from doing so."

All I wanted to know is what precluded Clintion from taking action against Al Quida if he wanted to so much.

I thought that some of the main talking points of an interview about a new book would be to give some type of illustration of evidence that was either withheld from the 911 commission or not covered by the commission.

But from what your saying it's just more "It's all Bush's fault!"
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
TG:

Clinton wanted to hit the camps. Military and intelligence advised against doing so. Bush did not want to hit the camps (flies). He wanted the "hive" (Iraq). He exposed the US to danger which came to fruition on 9-11. He was so consumed with Hussein and Iraq that he missed the warnings. Shouldn't he be held accountable.

Why are you defending Bush and attacking Clarke without having read the book. My point is that if Clarke is correct, based on the interview I heard, Bush could have prevented 9-11 but failed in his job as commander in chief. Another reason he should be removed from office.

Eddie
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
One other point, Bush supporters, why do you blindly believe Bush and disbelieve Clark? Why don't you at least inquire? What are you afraid of? I believe you are afraid that you might find the Georgie boy was looking for his Pro-V in the woods on the right side of #2 when he should have been doing his job.

Eddie
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
This is why I don't believe Dick.



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.
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
TG:

I see you've picked up some of Wayne's habits. Whenever you right wingers post an article which you purport to be an unbiased, factual criticism of anyone attacking your boy, I've learned, thanks to Wayne to always check the messenger. Seems like Mr. Lakely aint the most unbiased reporter.

I give you:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8884544.htm?1c

Please stop with the propoganda and lets look at what the bi-partisan commision has to say as well as take a critical look at what Clarke has to say. Again you can find support for anything you want on the net.

Just seems to me that the man in charge of this aspect of American intelligence for many years during both democratic and republican administrations should be given a little more credence than some right wing spin reporter. Why don't you just send a link to Rush Limbaugh.

Eddie

That link didn't work to good. Heres another article on Mr. Lakely:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh041403.shtml
 
Last edited:

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?

And all you want to do is bring up the credibility of a source?

So now I'm just supposed to believe him because he has a second book?
 
Last edited:

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
Let me get this straight.

Richard Clarke:

Head of counter terrorism for Clinton and Bush.
In August, 2002, special assistant to President Bush.

v.

James Lakely, reporter.

Yep.

You can come up with all the word counts you want and ludicrous arguments you want, but they don't mean diddle. I've got to get to work but in the interim, to borrow a page from the Book of Wayne, chomp on this while I'm away:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/

Eddie
 

Blitz

Hopeful
Forum Member
Jan 6, 2002
7,540
46
48
58
North of Titletown AKA Boston
So Eddie let me get this straight...

Anyone who would throw a wrench into your opinions is a right wing spin reporter and anyone who supports your opinions is non-partisan... oh O.K.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top