WAR: President Bush Ignored Terrorism Warnings

Long-time counter-terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, expressed his rage over the Bush's administration's lack of interest in Al-Qaida warnings throughout all of 2001. During an extended interview on CBS's 60 Minutes, Clarke painted a familiar picture of an administration preoccupied with Iraq and unwilling to listen to contrary reports from the CIA, FBI, and Clarke's counter-terrorism staff. Developing: CBS NEWS pushed Clarke's book without revealing its parent company, Viacom, owns the publishing house (Free Press) that is releasing the Clarke book. CBSNews.com Clarke says what the president did do to fight terrorism has made the country less safe, and feels it's outrageous for the president to campaign on the success of his anti-terrorism efforts. "He ignored it!� says Clarke. "He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know." Clarke, a well-regarded terrorism expert served Presidents Reagan, The first Bush administration, both Clinton terms, and part of the current administration's term. He compared, in stark contrast, the Clinton administration's reaction to "chatter" leading up to the capture of an Al-Qaida operative entering the country with a car-load of explosives in 1999. "Every morning, myself, the head of the CIA, the head of the FBI, and the national security advisor met with the president", Clarke said. Despite informing the current administration of similar increased "chatter" in June and July of 2001, the administration failed to react. While some are attributing Clarke's comments as sour-grapes from someone displeased with his demotion (his position as "Terrorism Czar" was a cabinet-level position serving the previous administration), we're hearing familiar stories from different former "insider" sources. This thread will stay updated with new developments following Clarke's interview. [Edited on 22-3-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

old news, man. this was the media's way of saying "nany nany boo boo, we know more than you do" (in reference to the general public)

of course he knew about it. he was in the meeting where the plan was being finalized. his dad was in a carlyle meeting with some of osama's relatives on the day the attacks occurred, for crying out loud, laughing about the whole ordeal. I also think that this staged attack was a good way to prevent what would have been mass protests and anger at how such a dolt stole the presidency (flordia was declared BLUE during the election night. since when does a state change their mind like that?)

I find it quite interesting on just "how" the mainstream is playing this, don't you?
Indicates just how influencial media knows it has become?
There is no more objectiveness in media...its nothing more than a political motivator and sings the same tune that politicians do...say and print what ever serves our purpose....no conspiracy in that one.

That article is no more than a rehash of Mr. Clark articles, saying nothing that hasn't been said and accused already!

I like the way that everyone, including the previous poster dances all around the delicate non-mention of the previous Clinton administration and their 'fault' in this. Mr.Clark is playing with a loaded violin and often, when the crap is thrown, there is a fan that blows the crap back.

Bush and Clinton's Storm Warnings

Here's a question:
Why is that all this earth-shattering news comes out just a mere week or so prior to book signings and/or a book being published or hitting the street?
Mr. Clark has been working for the government how long? WTF has he done to combat terrorism? Wasn't he an advisor to Clinton when the USS Cole incident happened? How about when Clinton turned down the multiple opportunities to have Bin Laden waxed or captured? Where was he when they knew or had heads up that something like 9/11 could happen: you know Operation Bojinka? Oh yeah, thats right, they were busy hampering and severely cutting our intelligence apparatus! Where was Mr. Clark when the embassy bombings took place? Oh yeah, they were calculating Operation DESERT FOX (you know, after those still elusive Saddam/Iraqi WMD), and taking out a real deal pharmaceutical plant!

Seems that Bob Woodard, in his book Bush at War thinks that Mr. Clark is full of crap, along with his well-known phrasings of "electronic Pearl Harbor".....

Explain this away Mr. Clark:
Israeli intelligence: Iraq financed bombings

Again, Mr. Clark's failed mentioning of this:
Al-Qaeda "Game Plan" on Bush's Desk Sept. 9

WASHINGTON, May 16th---President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

Seems Mr. Clark had no problems blaming or claiming that "Clinton dropped the ball" when needs served appropriate, eh? Neither did Mr. Clark have any problems assisting Mr. Miniter in developing his Appendix A section either, entitled: The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection......doh!...:
Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on bin Laden

And in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday night, Clarke blasts Bush for doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

But just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.

Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.

Agenda's, can't live with them, can't live without them..?


seekerof

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Seekerof]

We all know that Clinton is just as much to blame Seekerof, but how does this let Bush off the hook?

Are you saying that we can't point out the faults of the "current" leader without pointing out the past leaders either? I guess we could go all the way back to the Roman days and point the mistakes their leaders made as well, so that we can show no agenda eh?

I don't care either way as Democrats or Republicans, politicians are always politicians and they are always scumbags, if you trust a single word that comes out of their mouths no matter what side it is then I feel sorry for that person.

However, as far as I can see there was no major terrorist attack on the US whilst Clinton was in charge unlike Dubya, so that's 1-0 to Clinton so far and this deserves to be pointed out, agenda or not.

I could be wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out.

Are you saying that we can't point out the faults of the "current" leader without pointing out the past leaders either? I guess we could go all the way back to the Roman days and point the mistakes their leaders made as well, so that we can show no agenda eh?

Certainly not John, you and others can point your fingers as well as I can, correct? The agenda with those who oppose Bush and the Iraq war is the "here and now", correct? Is not the "here and now" not also effected by the past? Would not the past also show that the prior administration lacked sufficiently against terrorism?
No?
Maybe?
IMHO, its a matter of how one wishes to view this. I mean, if the "danger signs" and "blinking neon signs" were being placed or going off prior to this current administration, then wouldn't the past have a bearing on the "here and now"?
As to no major terrorist attacks...I guess it depends on how we again view terrorist attacks, correct?
Anyone asked the parents of those that lost sons on the USS Cole if that was a major terrorist attack? How about those that lost loved ones in the number of embassy bombings in in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania? Nairobi alone, 290+ dead and 5,000+/- wounded.

No, I have no problem at all with those who wish to stick to the "here and now"....thats cool, of sorts. In such, the jest of Mr. Clark's criticism of Mr. Bush boils down to the fact that before 9/11, like everyone else in the United States, Mr. Bush did not make Al-Qaeda, and terrorism associted with this, his absolute number one priority. Besides that, what is he saying that hasn't already been accused or claimed against Mr. Bush?

As linked above, seems to me that the "world-wide" plans to combat Al-Qaeda was sitting on Mr. Bush's desk. In such, after 9/11 occured, despite the questions and allegations of "who might have done this or was behind this" (9/11), the Bush administration went after whom? Iraq? Nope. The Taliban in Afghanistan. Why? Because they were harboring Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.
So Mr. Clark's point was again?

Again, as linked above, Mr. Clark, the same one that is criticizing this administration, also sayed likewise of the previous? "Flip-flopping"?

IMHO, if terrorism was being ignored, it was being ignored by a number of administrations. Btw, I hear and read that Mr. Clark is saying that the previous administration could have prevented 9/11. As shown in links above, he is "flip-flopping", but then again, since he is or did work/working for the the Kerry for President campaign, starting back in May of last year, its not surprising that he is doing such now....I mean Kerry is doing likewise.



seekerof

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Seekerof]

I agree Seekerof to a point, but your earlier post comes across as though if you criticise the Bush Admins weak attempt at countering terrorism without mentioning Clinton then you must have an agenda, especially the media.
That is what I was referring to, not that we shouldn't look into past mistakes, history does indeed repeat itself.

Yes it depends on the definition of terrorism, and I stated the definition of a terrorist attack on US soil before the Bush admin, as I'm sure you'll concede there wasn't one.
If we want to widen the net then your point does indeed come into play so I can see where you're coming from.

I'm not going to argue the righteousness of either Clarke or Bush, because I think they're both full of crap and each have their own shortcomings in their respective approaches to terror... meaning in some sense, they are both right!

Clarke could have done more as Terror Czar in the past decade and Bush DEFINITELY could have done more in the months leading up to 9/11 than vacation in Crawford and muse at the thought of getting Saddam.

But what's interesting to me is how the Bush administration is responding to Clarke allegations MUCH MORE SERIOUSLY than when the ex treasury secretary (O'Neil?) said much the same things.

Condi Rice was just given about 10 minutes on CNN to respond to Clarke and seemed the most unnerved in her career IMO. Shaking mad, voice cracking and slamming Clarke over and over...to the point Bush himself was a lost issue. Whether or not Bush supporters take Clarke seriously, it should be noted that the Bush administration is taking him VERY SERIOUSLY... and are scared.

I haven't even seen the Kerry camp pick this up and run with it yet...maybe they won't. It's pleasurable enough just watching more and more Rebublican in-fighting.

Can't wait for Colon Powell to retire and start talking. (though sadly that will be after the election)

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by RANT]

That's a good point RANT, Clarke is indeed being taken very seriously. Normally these type of accusations are very rearly reported in the newspapers and mainstream media here, but for the first time they are going full force with this story which I very odd.

They seem to think the story has alot of weight indeed.

www.washingtonpost.com Op-Ed Response from Condoleezza Rice "9/11: For The Record" The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat. During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration. Interesting read. The tone is very defensive, wanders a bit on several subjects, and attempts to move in different directions than those begun by Clarke.

Well said.

Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies" is suspicious in its timing...the content is a subjective commentary &
analysis...facts were viewed from a perspective of an
insider living in a 'feathered nest'.

being demoted from 'Terrorist Czar' to 'coordinator'
may be a factor.

common now, Clark asserts/implies that his direction,
analysis, leadership at head of counterterrorism was
right-on-the-mark....if so....why did Agent John P O'Neil
[who very much cited OBL & AQ as immenent 'tall buildings/airliners' threats] get the cold shoulder & the bum's rush all the time???

I submit, Clarke was part of the 'culture' that put self
above service. Doing just enough to retain position and 'tenure' and going with the prevailing thought & mood & policy 'gestalt'.
Much like the early SE Asia Domino Theory, which led
to Vietnam tragedy! So to the decades long myopia
towards mid-east zealots in favor of the threat of USSR,
even after the Munich Massacre/ Anwar Sadat Assassination et at.
mr Clarke, being 30 years in govt, had all these things
in his learning experience...
the title of his book, leaves open the possibility that
a new book 'II' would be printed- pointing the finger at
another 'Enemy'....(when expedient !)

Ignored or deliberately stood down to let it unfold? Remember, very complicated coordination to pull off the 911 attacks, NORAD assistance, Airforce assistance,,why the delays?

My pet goat ate Bush's 9-11 story
By Michael Arvey
Online Journal Contributing Writer
www.onlinejournal.com...

perplexing tar-like anomalies abound regarding 9-11 that won't wash off. While George W. Bush runs campaign ads with 9-11 images in the background and has flip-flopped on his assertion he wouldn't answer the 9-11 commission's questions for more than an hour, even though he devoted two to three hours to filming an ad, and while talk radio demagogue Rush Limbaugh falsely accuses some 9-11 family members as receiving political funding from Teresa Heinz-Kerry, it would be profitable to note some of the oddities of 9-11 that scream out and wave for attention like shipwreck survivors on an island.

Until we get out of this, "there are no conspiracies" mentality, there will still continue to be Oklahoma Citys, WTC, Madrid Spain type events. Problem Reaction Solution...they use the model over and over and over again and we still scoff and snicker "conspiracy people are paranoid whack jobs that need medication"

How much evidence does one really need?
www.geocities.com...

Keeping the people terrorized serves all their goals. I thought everybody knew that by know.

Developing: CBS NEWS pushed Clarke's book without revealing its parent company's financial stake in the book! As reported on Drudge Home page. News as infomercial. In a breach of ethics, CBS News did not reveal on it's extended 60 Minutes coverage that viewers were watching "news" coverage of a publication property owned by Free Press, which is a label under Simon & Schuster who is owned by Viacom, parent of CBS. [Edited on 22-3-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

The Big Media concerns are completely entrenched with the political players, the lines between reporter and spinmeister blurred a long time ago.

The American public, IMHO, has been led down the primrose path and unfortunately sees a difference between the two parties when in fact there is none.

The media giants spin the news to their favorite player's advantage or the least favorite's DISadvantage.

The bottom line is ALWAYS about profitability. It is illogical to assume otherwise, these are huge businesses with boards and investors who demand R.O.I. the same as any other investor would.

The insidious part is the way they go about gathering these profits.

m...