Why is this only coming up now? Why not go public right away? Answer: To sell books, aided by CBS btw, whose parent company stands to profit.
Anyone need a shovel?
From the interview in Salon with Clarke:
Quote:
You said on "60 Minutes" that you expected "their dogs" to be set on you when your book was published, but did you think that the attacks would be so personal?
ClarkeOh yeah, absolutely, for two reasons. For one, the Bush White House assumes that everyone who works for them is part of a personal loyalty network, rather than part of the government. And that their first loyalty is to Bush rather than to the people. When you cross that line or violate that trust, they get very upset. That's the first reason. But the second reason is that I think they're trying to bait me -- and people who agree with me -- into talking about all the trivial little things that they are raising, rather than talking about the big issues in the book.
Why did you write the book now? That's a question they raise. Did it occur to you that this would be an election year and it would be especially controversial because of that, and that these commission hearings were coming up?
Clarke I wanted the book to come out much earlier, but the White House has a policy of reviewing the text of all books written by former White House personnel -- to review them for security reasons. And they actually took a very long time to do that. This book could have come out much earlier. It's the White House that decided when it would be published, not me. I turned it in toward the end of last year, and even though there was nothing in it that was not already obviously unclassified, they took a very, very long time.
Don't bother reading the reasons . . . in fact don't bother thinking . . oh wait! that's never bothered you before . . .
Don't bother reading the reasons . . . in fact don't bother thinking . . oh wait! that's never bothered you before . . .
Give it up this guy is another kerry:
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.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION:_But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the_?_general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION:_Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues_?_like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy_?_that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION:_In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION:_Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these_two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION:_No new strategy_?_I mean, I don't want to_get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy_?_there was no, nothing new.
QUESTION:_'Til late December, developing ...
CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.
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.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
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.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
CLARKE: No, it was March.
QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops ? now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?
CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.
QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?
CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.
I love these little stories they tell themselves to explain away the obvious.
So tell me, guys, if all of these senior officials don't know what they are talking about, WTF is wrong with the Bush admin that it appoints them to the highest positions?
And how do you reconcile your belief that Bush has a super-duper counter-terrorism strategy with your belief that the Bush admin officials in charge of counter-terrorism don't know what they are talking about?
What's the story this time? And try not to talk about the freemasons or Cydonia.
Vice President Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that you were not "in the loop," and that you're angry because you were passed over by Condi Rice for greater authority. And in fact you were dropped from Cabinet-level position to something less than that. How do you respond to what the Vice President said?
Clarke The vice president is becoming an attack dog, on a personal level, which should be beneath him but evidently is not.
I was in the same meetings that Dick Cheney was in, during the days after 9/11. Condi Rice and Dick Cheney appointed me as co-chairman of the interagency committee called the "Campaign Committee" -- the "campaign" being the war on terrorism. So I was co-chairing the interagency process to fight the war on terrorism after 9/11. I don't think I was "out of the loop."
The vice president commented that there was "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s, when you were serving under President Clinton. He asked, "What were they doing?"
ClarkeIt's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn't notice.
Do I detect a lack of 'professional respect' for Cheney?!
And as far as his alliegences:
Quote:
Is it true that you're a registered Republican, as someone told me yesterday?
ClarkeWell, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance.
He voted for McCain . . . too bad McCain didn't win hunh?!
and this following is just a note to the people who hold on to the anus of Bush with their tongues . . . maybe there should be a higher loyalty:
Quote:
Clarke: As regards my loyalty to President Bush, I was a career civil servant. I wasn't loyal to any particular political machine. When the president makes a big mistake -- like he has in the way that he has fought the war on terrorism by going into Iraq -- I think personal loyalty or party loyalty has got to be put aside.
And this about his being a friend of a freind of:
Quote:
Were you concerned about your friendship with Rand Beers being used, as it is now, to suggest that you did this in order to help John Kerry in his presidential campaign?
Clarke This is the most interesting charge against me -- that I am a friend of Rand Beers, as if that's some terrible thing. Who is Rand Beers? Until a year ago, he was someone who was working for George Bush in the White House. He worked for George Bush's father in the White House. He worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House. But now it's a terrible thing to be a friend of Rand Beers? He and I have been friends for 25 years. I'm not going to disown him because he's working for John Kerry. He's my friend, he's going to stay my friend, we teach a course together [at Harvard]. He works for John Kerry. I don't.
He also talks about the daily meetings where the 'I don't want to swat flies' statement was made by Bush, namely, that they were daily meetings where Tenet had been bringing up Al Quida over and over and over with little to no response, until, one day, that statement and question about strategy . .
then, guess what? then nothing, no follow through!!! by the President, or Condi Rice . . . an apparent 'fleeting interest' only . . .
HAHA and this is great, Clarke on Cheney: Do I detect a lack of 'professional respect' for Cheney?!
And as far as his alliegences: He voted for McCain . . . too bad McCain didn't win hunh?!
and this following is just a note to the people who hold on to the anus of Bush with their tongues . . . maybe there should be a higher loyalty:
And this about his being a friend of a freind of: He also talks about the daily meetings where the 'I don't want to swat flies' statement was made by Bush, namely, that they were daily meetings where Tenet had been bringing up Al Quida over and over and over with little to no response, until, one day, that statement and question about strategy . .
then, guess what? then nothing, no follow through!!! by the President, or Condi Rice . . . an apparent 'fleeting interest' only . . .
I guess you don't believe his own words that I posted before.
Selective comprehension.
Bottom line he is a liar ether then or now, because both "truths" cannot coexist.
7 points in Clarke's strategy that he reads out to the interviewer . . . Clarke put forth his strategy and yet it was not adopted till after 911 . . . it was Clarke's strategy.
and then, what? what are you pointin to?
The fact that Clarke discusses how the Bush administration's vision was clouded by 'animus' so that they did not adopt the Clinton strategies?
And then he talks about the BushCo keeping the same team . . . the NSC in place . . .
as far as Clinton waiting till December . . . perhaps that has to do with the Cole Bombing?
No?
Perhaps you are the one who is selectively comprehending?
and just look at the sickening little tricks that your source uses to subtly discredit Clarke . . . keeping all the 'um's in the interview!!
That is absolutely absurd . . . it is the lowest form of manipulation
when their actual interview turns up virtually nothing slanderous then they will make sure to add little idiotic verbal dreck to try and make Clarke sound dumb . . .
well . . . obviously, if you have heard the man speak, he is very elloquent and talks without dreck filled hesitations . . .
7 points in Clarke's strategy that he reads out to the interviewer . . . Clarke put forth his strategy and yet it was not adopted till after 911 . . . it was Clarke's strategy.
and then, what? what are you pointin to?
The fact that Clarke discusses how the Bush administration's vision was clouded by 'animus' so that they did not adopt the Clinton strategies?
And then he talks about the BushCo keeping the same team . . . the NSC in place . . .
as far as Clinton waiting till December . . . perhaps that has to do with the Cole Bombing?
No?
Perhaps you are the one who is selectively comprehending?
and just look at the sickening little tricks that your source uses to subtly discredit Clarke . . . keeping all the 'um's in the interview!!
That is absolutely absurd . . . it is the lowest form of manipulation
when their actual interview turns up virtually nothing slanderous then they will make sure to add little idiotic verbal dreck to try and make Clarke sound dumb . . .
well . . . obviously, if you have heard the man speak, he is very elloquent and talks without dreck filled hesitations . . .
Cheap trick from a desperate PR machine
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the_?_general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
Animus? Clark did not think so.
That was a direct transcript from a background press briefing in 2002 august I think it was. With Jim Engle of Fox news recording it on tape. Here is how fox discribes it.
WASHINGTON_?_The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former_counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003
Does it say anything about Bush taking on anything proactively?
NO
It talks about him taking the same staff
yes the animus thing I misread . . other than that it is notable for a lack of meaningful information . . . and certainly does not, in any way, disprove or negate Clarke's current testimony . . . it does not make him a liar at all.
and the cheap little tricks are the interviewer's keeping the 'um's . . . that is a stupid little propaganda technique . . . But what else do you expect from FOX?!?!?!
Just that little cheap-ass trick should be enough to discredit anyting from that propaganda machine.
Does it say anything about Bush taking on anything proactively?
NO
It talks about him taking the same staff
yes the animus thing I misread . . other than that it is notable for a lack of meaningful information . . . and certainly does not, in any way, disprove or negate Clarke's current testimony . . . it does not make him a liar at all.
and the cheap little tricks are the interviewer's keeping the 'um's . . . that is a stupid little propaganda technique . . . But what else do you expect from FOX?!?!?!
Just that little cheap-ass trick should be enough to discredit anyting from that propaganda machine.
Um I guess you misread this part too, huh?
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.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
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?
Does it say anything about Bush taking on anything proactively?
NO
It talks about him taking the same staff
yes the animus thing I misread . . other than that it is notable for a lack of meaningful information . . . and certainly does not, in any way, disprove or negate Clarke's current testimony . . . it does not make him a liar at all.
and the cheap little tricks are the interviewer's keeping the 'um's . . . that is a stupid little propaganda technique . . . But what else do you expect from FOX?!?!?!
Just that little cheap-ass trick should be enough to discredit anyting from that propaganda machine.
or this part:
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.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
Naples, why don't you put it into your words what exactly is supposed to be such a big negation here . . .
Just interpret what is written and make it an arguement that comes out of your brain . . . Perhaps I am just too pre-occupied to make it into something "devestating" . . . but it just doesn't seem meaningful . . .
still . . . as far as I can tell, nothing is discredited, except, from what I was able to see of Clarke's testimony: the Bush administration's terror strategies, through an obsession with an idiotic invasion of Iraq and just plain lack of follow through . . . . no proactive follow through with any aggressive plans, no sustained discourse . . . simply lack of leadership
just look around and see what has ensued . . . "case closed"
Naples, why don't you put it into your words what exactly is supposed to be such a big negation here . . .
Just interpret what is written and make it an arguement that comes out of your brain . . . Perhaps I am just too pre-occupied to make it into something "devestating" . . . but it just doesn't seem meaningful . . .
still . . . as far as I can tell, nothing is discredited, except, from what I was able to see of Clarke's testimony: the Bush administration's terror strategies, through an obsession with an idiotic invasion of Iraq and just plain lack of follow through . . . . no proactive follow through with any aggressive plans, no sustained discourse . . . simply lack of leadership
just look around and see what has ensued . . . "case closed"
Why do I have to interpret what he says himself. These are his own words, what more do you need?
I'm still waiting for a response to my post at the top of page 3. Pro Bush Zealots can throw conjectures and what not, but very few of them seem to actually want to ask hard questions and fewer still will actually answer the tough ones like "Was war the ONLY solution, and if so why?"
This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"
This whole terror discussion is clouding the issue of general mismanagement because no matter who was in the WH at the time, the immediate reaction to the events would have been the same.
The actions after the attack are what counts, and I find it quite odd that we have a two-bit dictator in custody while a mass murderer runs free. "Why is that people?"
You guys can attack Clarke all you want but as has been pointed out, Clarke is not the first to come forward and say "These guys are AFU!"
Also, I like the masked quote of Colin Powell the in point one Naples (I know I said I'd never read another word from you but your long post intrigued me nontheless). Clinton may or may not have handed a plan over to Bush, that still remains to be seen because the Clintonians say they did. The fact of the matter is though Clinton handed over the man who formulated the plan!!! Hmmm, the man with the plan was in the Bush Wh, but was ignored. The Immediate respons to 911 from Rummy (Two people have said that similar statements came from his mouth) "Lets get Iraq!" (paraphrase).
My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers. I know what it would take for me to shift in the other direction_ Fire Rummy, and Cheney and show some honesty. ADMIT Iraq wasn't the ball of wax it was initially cracked up to be. Then I might change my views.
I find it odd that I dislike the administration but I'm willing to admit what they could do to sway me. I have NEVER seen a similar statement come from the mouth (or fingers) of a true beleaver.
I'm still waiting for a response to my post at the top of page 3. Pro Bush Zealots can throw conjectures and what not, but very few of them seem to actually want to ask hard questions and fewer still will actually answer the tough ones like "Was war the ONLY solution, and if so why?"
This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"
This whole terror discussion is clouding the issue of general mismanagement because no matter who was in the WH at the time, the immediate reaction to the events would have been the same.
The actions after the attack are what counts, and I find it quite odd that we have a two-bit dictator in custody while a mass murderer runs free. "Why is that people?"
You guys can attack Clarke all you want but as has been pointed out, Clarke is not the first to come forward and say "These guys are AFU!"
Also, I like the masked quote of Colin Powell the in point one Naples (I know I said I'd never read another word from you but your long post intrigued me nontheless). Clinton may or may not have handed a plan over to Bush, that still remains to be seen because the Clintonians say they did. The fact of the matter is though Clinton handed over the man who formulated the plan!!! Hmmm, the man with the plan was in the Bush Wh, but was ignored. The Immediate respons to 911 from Rummy (Two people have said that similar statements came from his mouth) "Lets get Iraq!" (paraphrase).
My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers. I know what it would take for me to shift in the other direction_ Fire Rummy, and Cheney and show some honesty. ADMIT Iraq wasn't the ball of wax it was initially cracked up to be. Then I might change my views.
I find it odd that I dislike the administration but I'm willing to admit what they could do to sway me. I have NEVER seen a similar statement come from the mouth (or fingers) of a true beleaver.
I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Whoops. It seems Clarke praised Bush on his departure. He's full of shit, folks.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...er_3&printer=1
Why is this only coming up now? Why not go public right away? Answer: To sell books, aided by CBS btw, whose parent company stands to profit.
Anyone need a shovel?
From the interview in Salon with Clarke:
You said on "60 Minutes" that you expected "their dogs" to be set on you when your book was published, but did you think that the attacks would be so personal?
ClarkeOh yeah, absolutely, for two reasons. For one, the Bush White House assumes that everyone who works for them is part of a personal loyalty network, rather than part of the government. And that their first loyalty is to Bush rather than to the people. When you cross that line or violate that trust, they get very upset. That's the first reason. But the second reason is that I think they're trying to bait me -- and people who agree with me -- into talking about all the trivial little things that they are raising, rather than talking about the big issues in the book.
Why did you write the book now? That's a question they raise. Did it occur to you that this would be an election year and it would be especially controversial because of that, and that these commission hearings were coming up?
Clarke I wanted the book to come out much earlier, but the White House has a policy of reviewing the text of all books written by former White House personnel -- to review them for security reasons. And they actually took a very long time to do that. This book could have come out much earlier. It's the White House that decided when it would be published, not me. I turned it in toward the end of last year, and even though there was nothing in it that was not already obviously unclassified, they took a very, very long time.
Don't bother reading the reasons . . . in fact don't bother thinking . . oh wait! that's never bothered you before . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
From the interview in Salon with Clarke:
Don't bother reading the reasons . . . in fact don't bother thinking . . oh wait! that's never bothered you before . . .
Give it up this guy is another kerry:
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.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION:_But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the_?_general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION:_Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues_?_like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy_?_that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION:_In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION:_Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these_two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION:_No new strategy_?_I mean, I don't want to_get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy_?_there was no, nothing new.
QUESTION:_'Til late December, developing ...
CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.
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.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
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.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
CLARKE: No, it was March.
QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops ? now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?
CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.
QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?
CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.
Originally posted by giant
I love these little stories they tell themselves to explain away the obvious.
So tell me, guys, if all of these senior officials don't know what they are talking about, WTF is wrong with the Bush admin that it appoints them to the highest positions?
And how do you reconcile your belief that Bush has a super-duper counter-terrorism strategy with your belief that the Bush admin officials in charge of counter-terrorism don't know what they are talking about?
What's the story this time? And try not to talk about the freemasons or Cydonia.
Anybody?
Vice President Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that you were not "in the loop," and that you're angry because you were passed over by Condi Rice for greater authority. And in fact you were dropped from Cabinet-level position to something less than that. How do you respond to what the Vice President said?
Clarke The vice president is becoming an attack dog, on a personal level, which should be beneath him but evidently is not.
I was in the same meetings that Dick Cheney was in, during the days after 9/11. Condi Rice and Dick Cheney appointed me as co-chairman of the interagency committee called the "Campaign Committee" -- the "campaign" being the war on terrorism. So I was co-chairing the interagency process to fight the war on terrorism after 9/11. I don't think I was "out of the loop."
The vice president commented that there was "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s, when you were serving under President Clinton. He asked, "What were they doing?"
ClarkeIt's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn't notice.
Do I detect a lack of 'professional respect' for Cheney?!
And as far as his alliegences:
Is it true that you're a registered Republican, as someone told me yesterday?
ClarkeWell, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance.
He voted for McCain . . . too bad McCain didn't win hunh?!
and this following is just a note to the people who hold on to the anus of Bush with their tongues . . . maybe there should be a higher loyalty:
Clarke: As regards my loyalty to President Bush, I was a career civil servant. I wasn't loyal to any particular political machine. When the president makes a big mistake -- like he has in the way that he has fought the war on terrorism by going into Iraq -- I think personal loyalty or party loyalty has got to be put aside.
And this about his being a friend of a freind of:
Were you concerned about your friendship with Rand Beers being used, as it is now, to suggest that you did this in order to help John Kerry in his presidential campaign?
Clarke This is the most interesting charge against me -- that I am a friend of Rand Beers, as if that's some terrible thing. Who is Rand Beers? Until a year ago, he was someone who was working for George Bush in the White House. He worked for George Bush's father in the White House. He worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House. But now it's a terrible thing to be a friend of Rand Beers? He and I have been friends for 25 years. I'm not going to disown him because he's working for John Kerry. He's my friend, he's going to stay my friend, we teach a course together [at Harvard]. He works for John Kerry. I don't.
He also talks about the daily meetings where the 'I don't want to swat flies' statement was made by Bush, namely, that they were daily meetings where Tenet had been bringing up Al Quida over and over and over with little to no response, until, one day, that statement and question about strategy . .
then, guess what? then nothing, no follow through!!! by the President, or Condi Rice . . . an apparent 'fleeting interest' only . . .
These are our leaders folks . . . . .
read it HERE
Originally posted by pfflam
HAHA and this is great, Clarke on Cheney: Do I detect a lack of 'professional respect' for Cheney?!
And as far as his alliegences: He voted for McCain . . . too bad McCain didn't win hunh?!
and this following is just a note to the people who hold on to the anus of Bush with their tongues . . . maybe there should be a higher loyalty:
And this about his being a friend of a freind of: He also talks about the daily meetings where the 'I don't want to swat flies' statement was made by Bush, namely, that they were daily meetings where Tenet had been bringing up Al Quida over and over and over with little to no response, until, one day, that statement and question about strategy . .
then, guess what? then nothing, no follow through!!! by the President, or Condi Rice . . . an apparent 'fleeting interest' only . . .
These are our leaders folks . . . . .
read it HERE
I guess you don't believe his own words that I posted before.
Selective comprehension.
Bottom line he is a liar ether then or now, because both "truths" cannot coexist.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I guess you don't believe his own words that I posted before.
Selective comprehension.
Bottom line he is a liar ether then or now, because both "truths" cannot coexist.
7 points in Clarke's strategy that he reads out to the interviewer . . . Clarke put forth his strategy and yet it was not adopted till after 911 . . . it was Clarke's strategy.
and then, what? what are you pointin to?
The fact that Clarke discusses how the Bush administration's vision was clouded by 'animus' so that they did not adopt the Clinton strategies?
And then he talks about the BushCo keeping the same team . . . the NSC in place . . .
as far as Clinton waiting till December . . . perhaps that has to do with the Cole Bombing?
No?
Perhaps you are the one who is selectively comprehending?
and just look at the sickening little tricks that your source uses to subtly discredit Clarke . . . keeping all the 'um's in the interview!!
That is absolutely absurd . . . it is the lowest form of manipulation
when their actual interview turns up virtually nothing slanderous then they will make sure to add little idiotic verbal dreck to try and make Clarke sound dumb . . .
well . . . obviously, if you have heard the man speak, he is very elloquent and talks without dreck filled hesitations . . .
Cheap trick from a desperate PR machine
Originally posted by Harald
Clarke is testifying right now. You can catch a live video feed on the BBC.
LINKY?!?!?!?!
Originally posted by pfflam
LINKY?!?!?!?!
Linky.
saying
"HEY when all the dead American bodies are on the ground will you ask yourself what you could have done" (paraphrase)
let me say that again: a letter from Clarke BEFORE 911!!!
warning of American deaths and complaining about the lack of effort!!!
ON SEPT 4TH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- read it and weep . . . all of us weep!!!
Originally posted by pfflam
7 points in Clarke's strategy that he reads out to the interviewer . . . Clarke put forth his strategy and yet it was not adopted till after 911 . . . it was Clarke's strategy.
and then, what? what are you pointin to?
The fact that Clarke discusses how the Bush administration's vision was clouded by 'animus' so that they did not adopt the Clinton strategies?
And then he talks about the BushCo keeping the same team . . . the NSC in place . . .
as far as Clinton waiting till December . . . perhaps that has to do with the Cole Bombing?
No?
Perhaps you are the one who is selectively comprehending?
and just look at the sickening little tricks that your source uses to subtly discredit Clarke . . . keeping all the 'um's in the interview!!
That is absolutely absurd . . . it is the lowest form of manipulation
when their actual interview turns up virtually nothing slanderous then they will make sure to add little idiotic verbal dreck to try and make Clarke sound dumb . . .
well . . . obviously, if you have heard the man speak, he is very elloquent and talks without dreck filled hesitations . . .
Cheap trick from a desperate PR machine
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the_?_general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
Animus? Clark did not think so.
That was a direct transcript from a background press briefing in 2002 august I think it was. With Jim Engle of Fox news recording it on tape. Here is how fox discribes it.
WASHINGTON_?_The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former_counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003
So how is that a dirty trick?
Does it say anything about Bush taking on anything proactively?
NO
It talks about him taking the same staff
yes the animus thing I misread . . other than that it is notable for a lack of meaningful information . . . and certainly does not, in any way, disprove or negate Clarke's current testimony . . . it does not make him a liar at all.
and the cheap little tricks are the interviewer's keeping the 'um's . . . that is a stupid little propaganda technique . . . But what else do you expect from FOX?!?!?!
Just that little cheap-ass trick should be enough to discredit anyting from that propaganda machine.
Originally posted by pfflam
What does that tell you?
Does it say anything about Bush taking on anything proactively?
NO
It talks about him taking the same staff
yes the animus thing I misread . . other than that it is notable for a lack of meaningful information . . . and certainly does not, in any way, disprove or negate Clarke's current testimony . . . it does not make him a liar at all.
and the cheap little tricks are the interviewer's keeping the 'um's . . . that is a stupid little propaganda technique . . . But what else do you expect from FOX?!?!?!
Just that little cheap-ass trick should be enough to discredit anyting from that propaganda machine.
Um I guess you misread this part too, huh?
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.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
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.
Originally posted by pfflam
What does that tell you?
Does it say anything about Bush taking on anything proactively?
NO
It talks about him taking the same staff
yes the animus thing I misread . . other than that it is notable for a lack of meaningful information . . . and certainly does not, in any way, disprove or negate Clarke's current testimony . . . it does not make him a liar at all.
and the cheap little tricks are the interviewer's keeping the 'um's . . . that is a stupid little propaganda technique . . . But what else do you expect from FOX?!?!?!
Just that little cheap-ass trick should be enough to discredit anyting from that propaganda machine.
or this part:
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.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
CLARKE: No, it was March.
edit:
"vigorously persued existing Clinton policies"? wow
end edit
Groupthink. Case closed.
Just interpret what is written and make it an arguement that comes out of your brain . . . Perhaps I am just too pre-occupied to make it into something "devestating" . . . but it just doesn't seem meaningful . . .
still . . . as far as I can tell, nothing is discredited, except, from what I was able to see of Clarke's testimony: the Bush administration's terror strategies, through an obsession with an idiotic invasion of Iraq and just plain lack of follow through . . . . no proactive follow through with any aggressive plans, no sustained discourse . . . simply lack of leadership
just look around and see what has ensued . . . "case closed"
Originally posted by pfflam
Naples, why don't you put it into your words what exactly is supposed to be such a big negation here . . .
Just interpret what is written and make it an arguement that comes out of your brain . . . Perhaps I am just too pre-occupied to make it into something "devestating" . . . but it just doesn't seem meaningful . . .
still . . . as far as I can tell, nothing is discredited, except, from what I was able to see of Clarke's testimony: the Bush administration's terror strategies, through an obsession with an idiotic invasion of Iraq and just plain lack of follow through . . . . no proactive follow through with any aggressive plans, no sustained discourse . . . simply lack of leadership
just look around and see what has ensued . . . "case closed"
Why do I have to interpret what he says himself. These are his own words, what more do you need?
Originally posted by giant
Anybody?
I'm still waiting for a response to my post at the top of page 3. Pro Bush Zealots can throw conjectures and what not, but very few of them seem to actually want to ask hard questions and fewer still will actually answer the tough ones like "Was war the ONLY solution, and if so why?"
This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"
This whole terror discussion is clouding the issue of general mismanagement because no matter who was in the WH at the time, the immediate reaction to the events would have been the same.
The actions after the attack are what counts, and I find it quite odd that we have a two-bit dictator in custody while a mass murderer runs free. "Why is that people?"
You guys can attack Clarke all you want but as has been pointed out, Clarke is not the first to come forward and say "These guys are AFU!"
Also, I like the masked quote of Colin Powell the in point one Naples (I know I said I'd never read another word from you but your long post intrigued me nontheless). Clinton may or may not have handed a plan over to Bush, that still remains to be seen because the Clintonians say they did. The fact of the matter is though Clinton handed over the man who formulated the plan!!! Hmmm, the man with the plan was in the Bush Wh, but was ignored. The Immediate respons to 911 from Rummy (Two people have said that similar statements came from his mouth) "Lets get Iraq!" (paraphrase).
My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers. I know what it would take for me to shift in the other direction_ Fire Rummy, and Cheney and show some honesty. ADMIT Iraq wasn't the ball of wax it was initially cracked up to be. Then I might change my views.
I find it odd that I dislike the administration but I'm willing to admit what they could do to sway me. I have NEVER seen a similar statement come from the mouth (or fingers) of a true beleaver.
Originally posted by faust9
I'm still waiting for a response to my post at the top of page 3. Pro Bush Zealots can throw conjectures and what not, but very few of them seem to actually want to ask hard questions and fewer still will actually answer the tough ones like "Was war the ONLY solution, and if so why?"
This discussion has gone way off track in my opinion because Clark's contention is that BushCo immediatly honed on Irag following 911. They knew OBL was a threat, and had a good idea OBL perpetrated 911, but still SH was the target. "Why are we in Iraq if OBL is the guy that attacked us people?"
This whole terror discussion is clouding the issue of general mismanagement because no matter who was in the WH at the time, the immediate reaction to the events would have been the same.
The actions after the attack are what counts, and I find it quite odd that we have a two-bit dictator in custody while a mass murderer runs free. "Why is that people?"
You guys can attack Clarke all you want but as has been pointed out, Clarke is not the first to come forward and say "These guys are AFU!"
Also, I like the masked quote of Colin Powell the in point one Naples (I know I said I'd never read another word from you but your long post intrigued me nontheless). Clinton may or may not have handed a plan over to Bush, that still remains to be seen because the Clintonians say they did. The fact of the matter is though Clinton handed over the man who formulated the plan!!! Hmmm, the man with the plan was in the Bush Wh, but was ignored. The Immediate respons to 911 from Rummy (Two people have said that similar statements came from his mouth) "Lets get Iraq!" (paraphrase).
My final question is what will it take to turn Bush zealots into anti-bush beleavers. I know what it would take for me to shift in the other direction_ Fire Rummy, and Cheney and show some honesty. ADMIT Iraq wasn't the ball of wax it was initially cracked up to be. Then I might change my views.
I find it odd that I dislike the administration but I'm willing to admit what they could do to sway me. I have NEVER seen a similar statement come from the mouth (or fingers) of a true beleaver.
I don't consider myself a bush zealot, so according to you I amy not be qualified to answer your question.