Go Blitzer. Should he have taken Clarke's spew at gospel? Or, should he present all sides to what Clarke said.

He moved into a cyberterrorism position, if I am not mistaken, then went on to write a book. Aren't his motives to be looked at?

Let's look at it for a moment. Look at it from what we know before we even read this excerpt.
We know that Mr. Clarke is a disgruntled government employee that did not get the position he felt he should have been given. We know that his assertion that Dr. Rice didn't even know who Al-Qaida in the early part of 2001was is ridiculous as we know she had in depth knowledge as early as October, 2000. We also know that Mr. Clarke was in position to do and say much more long before then, yet he seemed unconcerned even though that was his job.
Blitzer isn't putting the proper anti-Republican spin on the truth? Yes, we should all email CNN and let them know that they are slipping in their propaganda efforts.

And, he was a terrorism expert through the 90s?? Yeah - I'd say that apology he made at the hearing was just and overdue.

Then, there was the post 9/11 email his sent to Rice, where Clarke wanted to remind her of all the efforts they all took that they could speak of when the "national unity" died down and people started asking questions.

The guy has zero credibility.

Perhaps Wolf is just pissed that Clarke didnt sign with a Time W. publisher, and Clarke took his snake oil to Viacom

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Let's look at it for a moment. Look at it from what we know before we even read this excerpt.
We know that Mr. Clarke is a disgruntled government employee that did not get the position he felt he should have been given. We know that his assertion that Dr. Rice didn't even know who Al-Qaida in the early part of 2001was is ridiculous as we know she had in depth knowledge as early as October, 2000. We also know that Mr. Clarke was in position to do and say much more long before then, yet he seemed unconcerned even though that was his job.
Blitzer isn't putting the proper anti-Republican spin on the truth? Yes, we should all email CNN and let them know that they are slipping in their propaganda efforts.

Disgruntled? That is a typical way to try to discredit someone who holds valuable information against whomever. If one would look at Blitzer's statement above he was just repeating what Rice had said. He was making no statement himself.

Why was Ms. Rice so afraid to testify before the committee herself and sent a lacky to do such. Afraid to answer questions?

Face the facts gang. The Bush Administration had plenty of info on Al Quaida and dismissed because of their preoccupation with Iraq and the rest of the middle east. They learned that many in Iraq would not hail them as true liberators, and their quest for Syria, Iran, etc was stopped dead in their tracks. Iraq has done nothing but take away from the true war against terrorism. It has done nothing but produce more terrorists fired up that the US would invade a soverign nation with no real justification on its part.

The mass graves found in Iraq? Most were over a decade old when the US promised the Kurds and Sunni Muslims help in the overthrow of Saddam after the first Gulf War. We ended up turning our backs on them and the mass graves are the end result.

History: Clarke's testimony in front of the panel.

rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/archive/ter/ter032404_cmsnpm.rm

If not that link, go to www.cspan.org

Look at what this man has said & how he's said it. He moved to the Cyberterroism role because of frustration in screaming about a pending threat and no one in the Bush inner sanctum not stepping up. There is zero credability to the character assassination against Clarke.
Blitzer is marketed as a reporter....this was reporting to you? I've brought it up many times: Being Republican first - American second is not the path to solid citizenry.
Being under the Clinton team was the first, and last, time that he saw any action by the administration he worked for.
You know that we had terroist attacks against Americans under Reagan & Bush I.......during Clinton was the first time we struck back against the terrorists....Reagan & Bush did nothing.

Rice: are you of the mindset that she shouldn't testify?

didnt he also say Saddam and UBL teamed up to making chemical weapons?

No, you guys face the facts. Clarke should close his forked-tongued mouth, knowing as he is grinding his axe against the current president with lies, he worked for another president for 8 YEARS that destroyed our intelligence and seriously weakened our military.
He and Clinton did what against terrorism? They did SQUAT against terrorism, that's what! Lobbing a few million dollars' worth of cruise missiles at camels, tents and aspirin factories doesn't count much toward fighting a war on terror. The first attack on the Trade Center, Kobe, a brazen attack on a navy ship, and Clinton did what? Clarke did what?
Clarke has already been caught in lies written in that toilet paper in a hard cover called a book and now you guys want to back him knowing the truth? BT? You know better than that crap you just said, but you say it anyway? I know this is the Pit and politics are a sport free for all, but come on, this stuff does have a bit of a serious side!

Clarke is believable on pre-911 because nothing he's said has be rebutted by the administration. They haven't come out and shown what they were doing about the intel that Tenet was giving them. Clarke has memos that he sent to Dr. Rice about the escalation in intel and the talk of an attack. She wasn't listening. They had their own goals which left us open for 911.

They refused to respond to the Cole bombing because they didn't want to focus on Alqaida. They wanted a plan for the whole middle east. They even admit to this. Where is the big lie? And, like Kerry said, if the Bushies claim Clarke is lying charge him with perjury. He was under oath.

Dr. Rice has lied consistantly. If you watched the Armitage testimony you would have no doubt that she's lied to the american people about what they were planning. Don't let pundits and news anchors tell you what to think. Watch it for yourself, that's why it was done in public and that's why Dr. Rice doesn't want to do it in public.

Hi, Saphie! Long time no see. I hope you have been doing very well.
Clarke is no more believable in his thoughts about pre-911 than he is post, and here is the reason:
Clarke was part of the failed administration of Clinton's, the one that promised to bring the Cole attackers to justice, along with every other attacker to justice. They never did. Clarke was part of the administration that destroyed the very intelligence network that was faulty throughout this whole terror 9/11 and beyond thing. What was undone will take years to repair, and that is something most do not seem to understand.
AS far ass charging him with perjury, you know as well as I that is rarely if ever done. What's the use? WEre we to start doing that with every government guy to testify, they'd all be locked up and we'd all have to take turns doing their jobs!

AS far as Dr. Rice, I'm warning you right now, back off of her! Talk about the rest of them if you like, but don't bad-mouth the future president of the U.S. and the future mother of my love child! Could you imagine? With her intelligence and my keen understand of the world, politics and how things ought to be, she and I could take over the....erm, I mean, she and I could set things straight in this country!

TC: Regardless of the tingles Dr. Rice gives you...she lied to the american people. She used her position to hide her incompetence. We can't allow such a blantant abuse of power.

They were getting threats from all over the place even inside the US. All of them were ignored because they were in the planning stages of their "strategic" goals. The most damning evidence are the memos Clarke sent to Dr. Rice warning her of the threats. She never answered them. It wasn't until late July when Dubya asked for a briefing on the terrorist threat because Tenet was constantly nagging him. The report led to the Aug. 6th daily briefing that the Bushies have classified. If they were looking they would've seen that the FBI, the CIA, the Mossad, the Russians, the French, the British, and the Germans had all got reports of cells within the US planning attacks. They didn't take any of it serious enough.

And it shows. Their own actions prove what Clarke has said. The so called plan that passed on Sept. 4th didn't call for military action against Alqaeda as Dr. Rice claimed on TV. No one is even willing to back that lie. The plan was changed after 9-11 to include using military action against Alqaeda. Too late. The plan they eventually used after 3,000 people died was the same plan Clarke brought to them in January.

If he is lying charge him with perjury and prove it. Instead, they are trying to discredit him in the media. If he is truly lying it can be proven by all the records. Instead of attacking Clarke they should take repsonsibility. The administration needs to come out and say that they were caught up in bureaucratic non-sense and they didn't take the terrorist threats seriously. And, Dr. Rice should be fired.

Quoting Saphpronia,
They refused to respond to the Cole bombing because they didn't want to focus on Alqaida. They wanted a plan for the whole middle east. They even admit to this. Where is the big lie? And, like Kerry said, if the Bushies claim Clarke is lying charge him with perjury. He was under oath.

In your diatribe against Condi Rice and the Bush administration did you stop to ask, who "they" are in relation to the "Cole" incident?

Am I mistaken - did not the "Cole" bombing happen under the Clinton - Clarke watch?

Condi could'nt have done much from university.

So in your judgement if 911 happened on "Clinton's watch" there would've been no reason for the Bushies to respond. That's a piss-poor excuse for not doing anything when all the evidence was there. The Bushies were so caught in their shiny, new bureaucracy. Added, no one thought their could be an attack on US soil even though there were warnings. They ignored them for their strategic policy planning. Clean out ya ears that's what they are telling you. They haven't refuted one thing that Clarke has said.

If you cut through all the bullcrap name calling all the Bushies are saying is that Clarke was preoccupied with Alqaida--the question is why weren't they? Cheney says Clarke wasn't in the loop...he should have been--he was the only one focused on Alqaida and terrorism before 911. His plan was caught up in bureaucracy for eight months because they didn't take terrorism seriously by their own admission. And they used their failure on 911 to get what they wanted from day one, Iraq.

But what is the point? This is horrible! I can't believe there are people still defending them. This is so weak. Oh the Cole happened on Clinton's watch no need for america to respond to dead americans....weak.

Saph, a disgruntled government worker who was part of a previously mentioned failed administration that did NOTHING but to insure attacks against us could be carried out due to our crippled defenses and intel claims that he warned the "Bushies"? How easy is it to make such allegations and create supporting evidence after the fact, write a book and trash the guys who you feel did you wrong by not giving you the promotion you feel you deserved?
You say the brand new president was caught up in his own bureacracy for eight months and allowed the attack to happen, yet why aren't you screaming for the blood of the administration that had eight years and all they did was to waste a few million dollars' worth of cruise missiles, make the claim that he'll bring them to justice (Come to think about it, some of them have been brought to justice, but by the Bush admin.), hand over to the incoming aministration a recession and a blind intelligence. What he did not hand over was Osama, even though his head on a platter had been offered.

No, what I would blame Bush for is not firing Clarke beforehand. He and Clinton were obviously incompetent (Not Dr. Rice) and he needed to go.

It is a fact that the Clintonites stopped the millennium attacks from taking place. It is a fact that Clinton ordered the assasination of Bin Laden. It is a fact that they treated every terrorist threat against american targets as urgent.

This isn't about Clarke and attacking doesn't makes up for what Rice's treatment of the incoming threats, or maybe it does for you, but I would rather see her out of job for ignoring repeated attempts by Clarke and Tenet to get her involved the way NSA Berger was during the threats of 1999. Maybe she could've found out about Zacarias Moussoui, the so called 20th hijacker. And maybe that would of lead them to Muhammad Atta. At the very least they would've know the plot and maybe even the day. They could've alerted the airlines they could've used the media...all it took was focus. The threat wasn't taken seriously. Either she's incompetent or compilict. I say, incompetent but either way she should be out of a job.

They got the Millennium attacks, fact. The rest? Your assertions, already proven to not be fact. Clinton treated one thing as being urgent, and then he used cruise missiles to avert attention from it!
Remember who turned down having Osama handed to him. If assasination was his goal, how much easier could it be than to kill someone you are given? Come on, girl, you know better than that!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Saph, a disgruntled government worker who was part of a previously mentioned failed administration that did NOTHING but to insure attacks against us could be carried out due to our crippled defenses and intel claims that he warned the "Bushies"?

OFF TOPIC: I just want to ask one question TC, do you read veteran groups opinions of the current administration? You keep slamming the Clinton admin as "weakening the defense and intel communities" like you are touting the fantastic job the Kellogg brown and root...erm I mean the Bushies are strengthing it. Well let's see, the office of the VP has undercut the already weak intel gathering capabilites of the DHS by creating YET ANOTHER group of intel operatives that recieve intel BEFORE DHS. So... intel is much stronger now? No. Indepent Budget Review (an umbrella groups of veterans groups that has said for the last 2 years that the Bush admin budgetary concern over veteran's affairs is miserable. So... veteran's affiairs stronger? umm no. Top thatoff that the military is overstretched and not not getting basic combat equipment like body armour I just don't see how the Bushies are doing better.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
AS far as Dr. Rice, I'm warning you right now, back off of her! Talk about the rest of them if you like, but don't bad-mouth the future president of the U.S. and the future mother of my love child!

What exactly do the women in Alabama look like!?! I mean Thomas, for Bejeebus's sake, you list Ann 'the man' Coulter & Condi 'Long Grain' Rice as epitomes of the femme form!?!?!
EWWWWWEEEE GROSS!!

On topic:

Terrorism vis a vis against America, is about 20 years old. In that time, Republican presidents have presided over the security failures that have cost America lives, predominately. The interdiction success all come from the 8 year respite of sanity during a Democrats tenure.
The GOP talking points you offer up bear no semblance to the reality of history. There was no weakened Intel during Clinton's term resulting in 9/11; there was no respect for intel, that's the difference. If you ignore your intelligence community AND install levels of beuracracy between your analysts and you... you are a negligent president and that's why 9/11 happened.
That & the fact that the PNAC paper called for a "Pearl Harbor like event" to speed up the implementation of American Hegemony in the Middle East, namely Iraq.

Come on, BT, there is more to women than their looks, man!

Observer, yeah, I see vets groups all over everything. I also talk to vets, as I am one myself, and have things in common with them. I remember that Kerry is, or at least was, a member of a Vet's group as well. I also remember in the news a while back reporting that the equipment shortage report was way over-blown. You also realize that shortages aren't procurred over night. That is to say, depending on availability, both from the standpoint of already manufactured items and RAWMA to manufacture new items, it might take a while to get supplies to the field. In other words, Bush wasn't in charge of the Oval Office very long before crap broke loose, was he.
Sorldiers are buying their own vests? Nothing new there. When I was in (No, we didn't use horse and carriages, thank you!) we were prone to buying our own stuff as well. Some guys bought their own vests from places like Gall's, assuming what you can purchase would be better than what the Army issues you. I don't know about vests, but I was very fond of a civilian-made boot. I think the name was Mater Horn, spelling is probably incorrect. Named after a mountain. Anyway, buying your own stuff is nothing new, making an issue of a Republican president at war is nothing new, either.

BT, you know as well as I that in the last twnety years, the reps have been mainly in control of the Oval Office, and you know as well as I that the most ineffectual time was during the Clinton administration. I've already outlined why, and those are not talking points. I'm not issued talking points. I observe. Were Clinton the man you claim he was, Bush would be nothing more than a mediocre president, playing the democrats like a fiddle while selling the farm in order to beat the dems to their own punch.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Sorldiers are buying their own vests? Nothing new there. When I was in (No, we didn't use horse and carriages, thank you!)

You mean you were in the Modern Army!?
I pictured you firing cannons pulled by horses and rifles loaded with minne balls while wearing a felt/wool blend, freshly pressed, uniform!!