WAR: Richard Clarke Fights Back Against White House Attacks

Former White House counter-terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, has been making the media rounds today to defend his accusations. He classified the White House response as an attempt to "divert attention from the truth" that the Bush administration did "virtually nothing about al-Qaida prior to September 11th, 2001." And indeed, one comment from National Security advisor Rice yesterday that Clarke was "out of the look" is highly distressing. If the White House really was concerned about terrorism as is claimed, why was their top advisor out of the loop? www.CNN.com "The White House is papering over facts, such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, even though they knew at the time -- from me, from the FBI, from the CIA -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," Clarke said. (transcript) Related News Stories Clarke book cites management, info-sharing problems at DHS Clarke Denies Playing Election-Year Politics Bush in the firing line Related ATSNN.com News President Bush Ignored Terrorism Warnings The Clinton Administration Attempted to Kill Bin Laden Bush wanted to bomb Iraq right after 9/11 [Edited on 23-3-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Prominent people in key posititons within this administration have come out against just about every policy....and the debunk slam had been automatic. I saw Condi Rice on NBC Monday morning....she answered no question with any content.....just a slam at Clarke

So I am to believe that Richard Clarke sat on this supposedly critical information on the war on terror for almost three years. amongst investigations and recriminations galore for the last three years from the left.............and its just a coincidence that CBS who broke the story on sixty minutes has a financial interest in the books success, that Richard is not upset he was demoted prior to 9/11, That Richards best buddy is Kerrys Foreign Affairs Advisor, That Richard is really just interested in selling his book. Come on guys, his credibility stinks. He also was Clintons advisor on counter-terrorism for 8 long years when all we did was molly-coddle these terrorists.

Ahh, Mr. Clark again.
His culpability is also of interest?

Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked his efforts to have Osama bin Laden extradited from the Sudan to the United States five years before the 9/11 attacks.

"In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again."

Ijaz said that if Clarke hadn't put up roadblocks to obtaining Sudanese intelligence, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 might have been prevented.

He called Clarke's account of the Sudanese episode "absolutely disingenuous; it comes very close to flat-out lying."

Ijaz: Clarke Blocked bin Laden Extradition

Seems a "slam" deserves a "slam"?


seekerof

Time's report 2002
I read about this almost 2 years ago. They have pushed it under the rug!

In mostly republican Administrations starting with Reagan then Bush then Clinton then a Bush again ( an extremely rare feat to be viewed as an honest subject matter expert FIRST - partisan last regardless of party in power), is now viewed as a politcal 'hack' and desperately trying to sell a book!?!
What do you believe the profits are going to be off a political tome? Being an avid reader, I can't for the life of me recall ANY political book that made the author independently wealthy. CBS having a financial stake in one book does not even equate to 1 quarters worth of TV ads from a single college hoops broadcast- so this holds no water either.
An axe to grind for not getting a "promotion"? That might have legs except for the fact that he had regular meetings with Bush and his input was consistently ignored because it was opposite to the PNAC initiative of taking Iraq under any guise necessary - resigning was his only possible option. That Cheney readily admits to keeping the terror point man out of the loop in order to facilitate the political machinations, covered in a rightous front of "Fighting Terror", should be your laser focus.
So now the revisionist history is that Fox News Analyst Mansoor Ijaz was a Clinton administration appointment!?!
He was in no position to have any intiative "blocked", as any waterboy is not calling signals in the huddle.
As for knowing which side of his bread is buttered on:

"Ijaz is founder and chairman of The Crescent Partnerships, a series of New York-based private equity partnerships focused exclusively on the development of national security technologies. The firm�s partners include retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, former director of President Reagan�s Strategic Defense Initiative and Turkey�s Global Group. Former CIA Director James Woolsey serves as vice chairman of Crescent�s Board of Governors. "

www.foxnews.com...

I wonder where a Chairman of the Board, whose investments deal with the machines & technology of war, comes down on this type of administration that we have with Bush & Co.? Very very good for business, no?

Now doing a simple search on Mr.Ijaz finds him to be the darling of Fox news, NewsMax ( where some have sourced Ijaz's anti-Clarke spiel) the National review and basically all the Right Wing warping-of-reality-portals that were established to undermine non-GOP initiatives.

As a man who rose in the ranks, regardless of part in power based on his talent, his book and charges should be given a full vetting. He's been universally described as obssessed with American security....so of course he would favor a Kerry WhiteHouse, even though he's not stated as such.....the alternative scares the crap out of him & most of us......only diffrence is that the "Mayberry Machivellis he knows from the inside out.

There are a few good articles on this site...

www.theguyjamesshow.com...

Regardless of what you think of Clark, Bush, Fox News or anything else...
Fox News just pulled tapes from their archives that catch Clark in huge lies in his book.

His credibility just went to a big fat zero....

again, an administration insider comes to table with the goods, attack dogs are loosed, and we have the question of cred popping up again....how convenient.

On TV right now BT.


seekerof

Originally posted by intelgurl
Regardless of what you think of Clark, Bush, Fox News or anything else...
Fox News just pulled tapes from their archives that catch Clark in huge lies in his book.

His credibility just went to a big fat zero....

Well, first time for everything. I must disagree with you on this one.
I have had the opportunity these last two day's to stay glued to the TV watching every minute of the hearings. As regards the Fox release of a "background information" release in 2002 prepared by Clark at the Presidents request to put a rosey spin on a political situation. It was pointed out by Senator Kerry that Fox pulled the transcript and spun it against Clark. Saying it was his opinion and quote. When it was a requested political release by the administration and not Clark's quote. The entire hall erupted into applause and laughter when Sen. Kerry pointed out how Fox was "Fair and Balanced" sometimes!

www.foxnews.com...

Another critical time was when Clark ended a response by saying that the Presidents War in Iraq has greatly undermined the War against terror. This time the entire hall was speechless, you could have heard a pin drop! And it seemed to last an awfully long time.

I felt he was very credible and believable and calm and collected unlike some of the administrations represent-
atives. Rumsfeld and Powell were antsy yesterday when questioned why all the fail safes that are in place to protect against such an attack failed? There responses were very inadequate. And Armitage, Rice's stand in said something different. He said the administration asked him to appear and that Sec. Rice wanted to appear but was told, no. And all on the Commision were very disappointed at her not attending.

Needles to say I am probably heavily in the minority here, however, since I was not on acid I must trust my perceptions

TUT TUT

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

--Voltaire

Tut's right, in his testimony, Clarke went point for point in greater detail. The background information he gave to Fox news was vauge. The only differences are the tone and the conclusions. But, he says in both that they put policy in action. He just doesn't tell Fox that the policy was caught up in bureaucracy for eight months even though the threats were escalating.

The most madden part are the memos he sent Condie Rice especially the last one on Sept 4th that predicted 911. He asked her how would she handle the fall out because they weren't doing everything that could've been done. Its so sad I could scream. The Bushies look incompetent and slue-footed. No wonder they are on the defensive.

It should be noted they discussed this on foxnews tonight with Jim Angle the reporter who released that informaiton.

Apparently he got the permission of the white house to release it. Funny how every president before has protected these "whitehouse sources" as have the journalist. That is until Bush realized he could destroy someone credibility by releasing it. This is just another case of character assisination by the current administration. And who was the trigger man? Foxnews.

Wonder what that network will do if Kerry wins? Will they change sides? Will Hannity go away (god I hope so)

Well the character assasination was a failure. In the last two day's of testimony, he was one of the only ones to display any character or knowledge. As his testimony came too a close he received a standing ovation from those in attendance. The only individual to be given this recognition.
And all the commentary by the talking heads after the Commision was over for the day, proved that none of them had watched or even listened to the hearings.
I loved them and was impressed by the lack of a whitewash.

Tututkamen


"At any given moment, there is a sort of all pervading orthodoxy, a
general tacit agreement not to discuss large and uncomfortable facts."

- George Orwell, author of "1984"

If you didn't see Clarke's testimony in real-time here's the link to the cspan video. I think it's obvious proof that the Bushies didn't plan 911. All of the cover-ups and conspiracy theories are explained away in a few simple hours that boil down to they didn't know what the hell they were doing. Plain and simple they under-estimated the threat. But, the problems come with all the lies that Condie told. I believe she has to go. That's unacceptable. You can't just get on T.V. and lie to the American public to cover your ass.

If you have time watch Richard Armitage's testimony. He didn't even try to back up some of her statements. Condie is caught up. She's gotta go.

Originally posted by Saphronia
If you didn't see Clarke's testimony in real-time here's the link to the cspan video. I think it's obvious proof that the Bushies didn't plan 911. All of the cover-ups and conspiracy theories are explained away in a few simple hours that boil down to they didn't know what the hell they were doing.

.

Well My Dear,

I am forced to disagree, there is no proof to to show it was planned by the administration, on this point I will agree. However ample testimony was given to imply that it was allowed to happen that fail safes were deactivated, that immeadiately following the incident goals were laid out to link Saddam with bin Laden so as to formulate a reason to intervene in Iraq.
There is one blaring problem here. bin Laden long regarded Saddam as a secular bad Arab, whose roots and desires were entrenched in wesrern culture, Where as bin Laden was and is a radical fundimentalist Muslim to the extreme, seeking nothing less than total annhilation of western society and world domination by Islam. There is no way they were allies let alone friends.. There was deep seated anger and hatred between the two.
Those airplanes should have been destroyed within 30 minutes of flight deviation, instead they were given an hour and a half to accomplish their mission without interference by NORAD WHY
I am sorry, but the thought that the administration of the current war machine is inept and ignorant is just not feasable to my logic thought process, I believe they are totally involved in the inactment of a WWII catalysmic event in order to achieve ultimate goals. Furtur more, not all may be aware of their participation in such an aborhent attainment of desire,

May God Have Mercy on Their Souls,

TUTUTKAMEN

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- Joseph Joubert

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Banshee]

First of all why did you put all those damn returns in your message. It is a HUGE pain the ass.

Second, why didn't they shoot down the planes? Are you freakin serious? Do you know what you are saying? Before that day hijackings meant ransom or a bomb on a plane, not flying them into a building. So imagine if you will that out of the 4,000 planes in the air that day they did know they were hijacked, can you seriously think anyone would order an attack on planes full of innocent americans? No, times were different. You would assume they would blow the plane up or land it somewhere and demand prisoner releases.

Remember we are looking at the situation knowing the outcome. You have to be willing to step back and look at it without that knowledge.

I remember hearing people in the military talking about it around the attacks and they stated it would have been devestating to get an order to shoot down a commercial airliner, it has never been ordered and the pilot would have maybe had a hard time following that order. Now we know, now we don't take a chance, god forbid anyone is ever wrong about the intentions though.

iWell let's see,

First of all, it was not my intention to have that huge amount of space below my post. And try as I may I was unable to rectify the situation. Why do you not edit it and fix it

Second, NORAD has a specific agenda and guidelines to follow in order to protect American airspace and the population below it.

Thirdly I hope your friends in the military are comfortable knowing that they failed in their assigned mission, thereby allowing the execution of 3000+ innocent civilians and allowing the largest attack on our Nation by sworn known enemies.

Fourth and finally nativeokie, certainly not everyone in your state are so crass and rude and arrogant, or are they
I am aware of another worm, that calls himself okiejack in another Forum, must be a inbred cousin of yours:barf
You know on second thought, I truly can not assume that simply because of your rude and uncivilized thoughts the entire populatiom of Oklahoma is as you are. You are a major disappointment and a black scare against your Great State , Good luck in your attempts to attain some air of civility.

Take care Okie,

TUTUTKAMEN

Dave,this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Let's see, I complained about spaces you called me an inbred and slammed my great state.

Shooting down a plane of Americans before 9/11 was a huge deal, talk to someone in the military about it. They take an oath to protect Americans and it is never going to be easy to kill them (especially since they could never have known the outcome on that day).

No name calling here from me, you have shown your intelligence in this post, best of luck.

[Edited on 3/25/2004 by nativeokie]

Originally posted by nativeokie
First of all why did you put all those damn returns in your message. It is a HUGE pain the ass.

Second, why didn't they shoot down the planes? Are you freakin serious? Do you know what you are saying? Before that day hijackings meant ransom or a bomb on a plane, not flying them into a building. So imagine if you will that out of the 4,000 planes in the air that day they did know they were hijacked, can you seriously think anyone would order an attack on planes full of innocent americans? No, times were different. You would assume they would blow the plane up or land it somewhere and demand prisoner releases.

R

Yes Sir,

I am freak'in serious. That is the function of NORAD. And yes, terrorist analasists have been warning of the probabability of using airplanes as missels for years, my first knowledge was @ the Olympics in Atlanta. And I was merely returning a insult to you, not the State of Oklahoma.
And trust me, I regret stooping to your level. It will not happen again. Sir, please enjoy and have a good day, I mean you no ill will.

Sincerely,

Tututkamen