Mission failure

[ThaSaltCracka]

Now the truth is coming out about the admins failures to prevent 9/11, this should be a real wake up call for most Americans. This admin let Americans down before 9/11, and wanted to misled them even more in the months following 9/11. They always wanted to go to Iraq, and 9/11 and the war on terrorism gave them the excuse to. Richard Clarke is not the second member from the Bush admin to say this. Those of you who want write this off as lies or slander really need to open your eyes and start thinking for yourself and not what the Admin and republicans want you to think. They are trying to divert attention to Kerry's past so no one hears about this. However its funny that they point out Kerry's decisions and they seem to be the correct ones in hindsight. Read and weap my fellow Americans, do you really want 4 more years of this deception? I would rather have a president who lies about a blow job then a president who lies about national security.


White House
at war with
ex-terrorism chief

Bush accused of ignoring al-Qaida before Sept. 11
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 6:59 p.m. ET March 22, 2004

WASHINGTON - The White House launched a bitter attack Monday on President Bush’s former counterterrorism adviser, denouncing the ex-aide’s accusation that the administration gave scant attention to al-Qaida while being obsessed over Saddam Hussein.


White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the accusations by the former adviser, Richard Clarke, were “more about politics and book promotions than it is about policies.”

“When you compare Dick Clarke’s current rhetoric with his past comments and actions, the bedrock of his assertions comes crumbling down,” McClellan said in the first of two briefings he held for reporters. “This is Dick Clarke’s ‘American Grandstand.’ He just keeps changing the tune.”

On the eve of two days of public hearings by the federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, several administration figures, from Vice President Dick Cheney on down, answered Clarke’s allegations in detail. Clarke is scheduled to testify before the panel, probably on Wednesday.

The White House also issued a long, point-by-point written rebuttal of the claims made in the new book, “Against All Enemies,” in which Clarke is scathingly critical of how Bush handled terrorism both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the book before its publication Monday.


In a telephone interview with radio host Rush Limbaugh, Cheney suggested that Clarke had left the White House after being passed over for a promotion and “may have had a grudge to bear.”

Clarke “clearly missed a lot of what was going on” during the two years he worked at the Bush White House, Cheney said, adding, “I fundamentally disagree with his assessment both of recent history, but also in terms of how to deal with the problem” of global terrorism.

Criticism about Iraq
A senior White House aide told NBC News on condition of anonymity Monday that Bush personally ordered his aides to launch the counterattack against Clarke’s book, which the aide said Bush saw as a political assault.

Clarke’s criticisms are personal, too, portraying a president obsessed with Iraq and Saddam, its leader. In his book, Clarke recounts that Bush asked him directly almost immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks to find out whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.


Clarke added details in an appearance Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” recounting:

“The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now, he never said, ‘Make it up,’ but the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.”

Clarke said he responded that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network was responsible, although he said he agreed to look into Bush’s request and found no cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Roger Cressey, Clark’s deputy at the time, said Monday that he remembered being in the room when Bush pulled Clark aside to put the pressure on.

“The impression was pretty straightforward: that the president — his first thought was to take a look at Iraqi culpability,” said Cressey, who is now a consultant for NBC News.

White House rebuttal
The White House countered that national security deputies worked diligently from March to September 2001 to develop a strategy to attack al-Qaida, one that was completed and ready for Bush’s approval a week before the suicide airliner hijackings.


It said the president told national security adviser Rice early in his administration he was “tired of swatting flies” and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaida, rather than simply waiting to respond.

Rice effectively demoted Clarke within the National Security Council staff, moving him to a post overseeing cyber-security. He retired last year after 30 years working for the Reagan, Clinton and both Bush administrations.



Clarke wrote that Rice appeared never to have heard of al-Qaida until she was warned early in 2001 about the terrorist organization and that she “looked skeptical” about his warnings.

In fact, Rice said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Clarke was kept as a holdover from the Clinton era specifically because of the Bush administration’s concerns over al-Qaida.

She criticized Clarke’s effectiveness, noting that his tenure as counterterrorism director under Clinton saw the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed 219 people in 1998, in addition to the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors off Yemen in 2000.

“He was the counterterrorism czar for the entire period in which the al-Qaida plot was hatched and led to the Sept. 11 attacks,” said Rice, who said that while Clarke did put forth general proposals to fight terrorism, most of them “had already been tried and rejected in the Clinton administration.”

Rice added in a column in Monday’s Washington Post that none of those ideas addressed the threat from al-Qaida.

“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,” she writes on the Post article, which does not mention Clarke by name. “No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration.”

Harsh words for Rice
Clarke made it clear in the CBS interview Sunday night that he thought the Bush administration had done “a terrible job” in combating the threat from terrorism.

“I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11,” Clarke said.

Clarke recounted in particular an early meeting with Rice as evidence that the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by al-Qaida.

FREE VIDEO


He said that within a week of Bush’s inauguration, he “urgently” sought a meeting of senior Cabinet leaders to discuss “the imminent al-Qaida threat.”

Three months later, in April 2001, Clarke met with deputy secretaries. During that meeting, he wrote, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, “You give bin Laden too much credit.” He said Wolfowitz sought to steer the discussion to Iraq.

A spokesman for Wolfowitz said in a statement that the allegation was false.

“He regarded al-Qaida as a major threat to U.S. security, the more so because of the state support it received from the Taliban and because of its possible links to Iraq, including Iraq’s harboring of one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin, for nearly a decade,” the statement said.

The White House responded that Clarke’s memo to Rice in January 2001 discussed recommendations to improve security at U.S. sites overseas, not inside the United States. “Each one of these, while important, wouldn’t have impacted 9/11,” it said.

Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told reporters that while Clarke “was focused overseas, he was ignoring what was going on in his own back yard.”

McClellan turned up the pressure later in his second press briefing of the day, accusing Clarke of seeking to promote his book and boost the campaign of the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

McClellan noted that Clarke was widely known to be close friends with Rand Beers, another former counterterrorism adviser to Bush who quit the administration and now advises Kerry.

“Why did he not raise these [complaints] sooner?” McClellan said of Clarke. “It's 1½ years after he left the administration [and] he is bringing this up in the heat of the presidential campaign. Second, he has written a book.

“Let’s look at the politics of it,” McClellan said.

Kerry, who is vacationing at his home through Wednesday, said Sunday that he asked for chapters from Clarke’s book and would not comment until he could read them.

CLARKE’S CHARACTERIZATIONS
Following is a look at some of Clarke’s descriptions of the president and other top officials:

President Bush: “The critique of him as a dumb, lazy rich kid was somewhat off the mark,” Clarke says, but he looked for “the simple solution, the bumper-sticker description of the problem.”
Clarke was “beyond mad” over President Clinton’s lack of discretion, which led to his impeachment, but he generally praises Clinton as a charismatic, sharp thinker who could not get the CIA, the Defense Department and the FBI to deal with terrorism issues.
He says Clinton’s approval of missile attacks against Iraq over the attempt to assassinate Bush’s father deterred Saddam from future terrorism against America.

Vice President Dick Cheney is described as quiet and calm but radically conservative. He says that Cheney believes the United States could handle Iraq alone and that “everyone else is just more trouble than they are worth.”
Clarke also blames Cheney for failing to speak out about the threat of al-Qaida during senior White House meetings.

CIA Director George Tenet “was as much concerned with the threat of al-Qaida as anyone in the government prior to Sept. 11” but was struggling with internal rebuilding at the CIA, Clarke says, quoting him as saying in June 2001: “It’s my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one.”
Clarke says Tenet and Clarke jointly scrapped a doomed plan to capture bin Laden in 1996 at the heavily guarded Tarnak farm in Afghanistan. Clarke complains regularly about failures by CIA to insert spies effectively into Afghanistan and Somalia.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice has “a closer relationship with the second President Bush than any of her predecessors had with the presidents they reported to,” Clarke says. She effectively demoted Clarke in October 2001, when he became head of cyber-security instead of counterterrorism.
Clarke accuses Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of plotting to bomb Iraq one day after the Sept. 11 attacks, despite the lack of any evidence of Iraqi involvement. He says Rumsfeld noted that there were no good bombing targets in Afghanistan but plenty of targets in Iraq.
“At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious, and the president did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq,” Clarke writes.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as saying during an April 2001 meeting, “I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden” and telling Clarke, “You give bin Laden too much credit.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell is praised for urging focus on al-Qaida, not Iraq, immediately after Sept. 11. Clarke credits him for recognizing the al-Qaida threat early in 2001.
Attorney General John Ashcroft is criticized over his response to Sept. 11, especially over his handling of alleged “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. “The attorney general, rather than bringing us together, managed to persuade much of the country that the needed reforms of the Patriot Act were actually the beginning of fascism.”
Clarke says an unidentified staffer asked him after meeting with Ashcroft early in 2001, “He can’t really be that slow, can he?” Clarke’s response: “He did lose a Senate re-election to a dead man.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was hired days before Sept. 11, “cannot be blamed for the failure of the bureau to find al-Qaida or even to have a computer network prior to then.” But he complains that the FBI, under Mueller, has not managed to keep its top counterterrorism experts from retiring.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh is blamed for failing to coordinate largely independent FBI field offices or upgrade their computer networks.

[GWB]

Is it really surprising that a Clinton holdover is bashing my administration? He got demoted and now he is paying us back - a very "reliable" source.

Lets talk about some serious issues, not conspiracy theories.

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it really surprising that a Clinton holdover...

[/ QUOTE ]

A Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush holdever. Clinton kept him on.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]

A Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush holdever. Clinton kept him on.



[/ QUOTE ]
you probably knew this though right GWB?
you truely are an idiot.
The repbulicans are tryin to switch everyones focus to Kerry, but this is incredibly dangerous, someone needs to be held accountable for 500 troops dyin in Iraq, in a war we didn't need to fight.

[bdypdx]

"I know daddy bush is no idiot and has extensive experience in world affairs, and surely he's advising junior. not that I'm pro repub or anything but in these times I prefer a real pair of balls in the whitehouse and I am not convinced kerry has a pair."

Well...during the Vietnam War...GWB was an AWOL Air National Guardsman (not) defending Florida, and boozing it up. John Kerry was in harm's way. Who has balls?

[ThaSaltCracka]

someone needs to be held accountable for 9/11, and a lot of evidence is starting to show Bush's admin dropped the ball

[bdypdx]

Actually, many people/departments in several administrations need to be held accountable.

9/11's roots are in the semi-final battle of the "cold war". Think Afghanistan...

Soviet Union vs US/stingers/Pakistan/opium/oil pipelines/CIA/Extremist Muslims/landmines/Taliban/warlords/Osama/etc...and, meanwhile, back in the US, we're happily driving our SUV's around the Internet bubble...

After all that, who knew that a dastardly mastermind would or even could engineer planes crashing into NY buildings?

[Utah]

Let me ask a simple question to start:

Who did Bush attack immediately after 9/11?

Of course, we know it was Al Qaeda. So Clarke's entire argument is completely undermined by GW's actions. Maybe GW thought it was Iraq at first. So? What was wrong with that? The entire country thought it might be Iraq. Bottom line, he didnt attack Iraq after 9/11 - now did he? Or, since you are a liberal, did you not like being confused with the facts?

And of course we can see the kind of bulls#$% Clark is throwing. He states that BW never said make it up. So there, Clarks own words defend GW.

[HDPM]

Good point to remember. And that does not mean we were wrong to utilize radical muslims against the soviets. The soviet threat was real and much more dangerous than the Islamic terrorists running around. I don't think we are to blame at all for arming bin laden et.al. They should be thanking us. There are few things worse than living under the soviets. Yeah, the equation was different in the cold war. We should recognize that, but not apologize for it. We did the world a great service by fighting and winning the cold war and deserve a lot of credit. Other countries would have caved in and subjected their citizens to brutal oppression. What if france had been in charge of the cold war?

[jcx]

It's obvious Clarke is pissed off about something that happened while he worked at the White House and now is trying to sell books. Think about it logically - Why would GWB go into Iraq on trumped up charges against that regime (Such as the WMD issue) when he knew this would have to be explained later? I think the intelligence was bad, which you can thank Clinton for. If he hadn't been so busy getting blow jobs and blowing up aspirin factories in the Sudan he could have killed UBL well before 9/11, as recent news articles suggest the CIA knew where he was. Before you dismiss this as a pro-Bush rant, rest assured I will not be voting for GWB or Kerry this Nov. Both are Socialists - Kerry will just get us to Socialism slightly faster than Bush.

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point to remember. I don't think we are to blame at all for arming bin laden et.al. They should be thanking us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh????

[andyfox]

"Why would GWB go into Iraq on trumped up charges against that regime (Such as the WMD issue) when he knew this would have to be explained later?"

Presidents do this all the time. They manage the news and use the big lie technique. JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton. SOP.

[HDPM]

As I said in my post, there is no shame in arming people to fight the soviets. The fact is bin laden and all are a bunch of ingrates, in addition to being vile. So I don't know why you said "Huh" Now we simply have to have a war against all the islamic terrorists. And arming bin laden is not the root cause of it anyway. They have an agenda that was not caused by us giving them weapons. They will be easier to kill off than the soviets.

So yeah, bin laden should thank us for helping in afghanistan and winning the cold war. Soviets didn't exactly treat Muslims with kid gloves. And he of course should be grateful that the west will eventually destroy his vile little culture. But he doesn't like that, so he bombs us. And we will kill him off, kill a bunch more of his ilk, and then finally crush his culture under the weight of free thought and prosperity.

[HDPM]

Let's not forget how far our country slipped when Jimmy was in office. He was a totally limp president who let Iran push us around. I bet there is no way the soviets would have gone into afghanistan had a reasonable president been in office. The soviets would have understood had we gone in and destroyed Iran I think. Instead we kowtowed and boo-hooed until we got a good president in office. Those were awful and embarrassing years. People forget that our disgusting weakness under carter was one of the things that made the '80 olympic hockey win so sweet.

There. How is that for two moderate posts on the middle east. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[andyfox]

I don't understand how people can deny that this administration had a hard-on for Iraq before 9/11. Most of the policy-makers in the administration had been calling for regime change in Iraq for many years.

Bush did indeed attack Afghanistan after 9/11 but then quickly turned his attention to Iraq. There is no occupation in Afghanistan as there is in Iraq. There was no question of the Taliban's links to Al Qaeda; there was no credible evidence of Iraq's links to Al Qaeda.

Clarke's argument is the same as Paul O'Neill's.

I've just read Clarke's words again. I don't see where he is defending Bush. He's saying Bush never said to make it up, but he's implying that he didn't have to.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Who did Bush attack immediately after 9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]
by immediately you must mean several months later right? Listen Clarke is not some liberal puppet, he was appointed by Reagan, okay, he is not trying to help democrats, he is trying to help the nation.
I find it simply astonishing that someone from the Bush Admin comes out and says that the Admin had its sights set on Iraq as soon as they came into office. That is a fact. Then on 9/11 the first people the admin wants to point the finger at is Saddam. They had no facts pointing to this, they simply wanted it to be them.

Now I am no consiparacy theorists, but there are too many connections here for it be coincidence. You guys really need to open your eyes.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, we know it was Al Qaeda. So Clarke's entire argument is completely undermined by GW's actions. Maybe GW thought it was Iraq at first. So? What was wrong with that? The entire country thought it might be Iraq. Bottom line, he didnt attack Iraq after 9/11 - now did he? Or, since you are a liberal, did you not like being confused with the facts?


[/ QUOTE ]
the only idiots that thought it was Iraq at first are morons like yourself and the Bush Admin. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S> targets overseas in the past couple years. The bombings Africa, USS Cole, these were caused by Al Qaeda, they claimned responsiblity for the attacks. Iraq had not ever attacked us, because they were so isolated they did not have the means to attack us. When I first saw the video of the towers falling I thought Al Qaeda, not Iraq, and 99% of Americans did as well. People only started to think Iraq may have been involved when the Admin started to make "connections" between the Terrorists and Iraq, "connections" which we have now discovered were never there.

I am not a liberal and I am not a conservative, I think for myself and see both sides. I do not belong to any political party simply because I can think for myself and I don't need some special interest beaurocracy telling me what to do or think. You should try it some time, the truth will set you free.

[jokerswild]

Please explain why the FBI supervisors that squashed the tips from honest agents about potential terrorists at flight schools were promoted instead of fired after 9-11?

How about your insider trading scam with Harken energy? How about lying about your dui's (plural)? How about your community service for cocaine possesion? How did you get Texas to buy Barry Seal's drug plane? How about that abortion you funded for your girlfriend? Best yet, is how much money did your dad have to pay to bribe your way into Harvard grad school ( no C- student gets in otherwise) ?

Please, the public would like to know.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Who did Bush attack immediately after 9/11?
Of course, we know it was Al Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush's first target was Afghanistan, not al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Bush made it clear that US policy was to eradicate not just al Qaeda but to install a pro-US government in AFghanistan, which necessitated a country-wide war and hitting targets, including civilian centers, that had nothing to do with al Qaeda. The Project for Defense Alternatives points out that <ul type="square">The fronts of the ethnic war in Afghanistan have tended to form in proximity to heavily populated areas. And these areas were also the sites of most of the US bombing activity through mid-December. Almost all of the US bombing activity occurred in only nine of Afghanistan's 32 provinces. These nine provinces comprise less than 25 percent of the country's territory but host more than 50 percent of its population. [/list] Bush's initial response to 9/11 was therefore to kill about as many civilians as were killed in 9/11. In the first couple of months alone, estimates of civilian deaths range from 90 (British estimate) to 500 (Taliban estimate) per week.

The war against Afghanistan allowed the US to both target the Taliban and establish a permanent military presence in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, which, like Iraq, are the source of "strategic power" and considerable mineral wealth. The governments we'll end up supporting, of course, are all pretty rotten, mostly unpopular, corrupt former communist strongmen, much hated by their increasingly radicalized populations. This is an old pattern, the results of which are fairly predictable.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
okay, he is not trying to help democrats, he is trying to help the nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of Clarke's best friends is Kerry's national security advisor /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
the only idiots that thought it was Iraq at first are morons like yourself and the Bush Admin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're stooping to insults when someone doesn't see things your way. Hmmmm..... out.

[elwoodblues]

My impression from the beginning has been that Bush was pre-disposed to get Saddam. Clarke isn't saying that Bush requested fabricated information...that isn't the point. The point is that after 9/11 Bush had a choice --- he could have said to his advisors "Find out who is responsible" or he could have said "Find out if Iraq is responsible." He chose to ask the second and, surprize, his advisors found "connections" to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations that formed part of the pre-text to our war with Iraq.

Does anyone honestly believe that had the charge been to "Find out who is responsible" without reference to a particular country that the "links" between Iraq and Al Queda that were found would have been strong enough (in part) to support going to war?

The same folks who dismiss Clarke's claims outright because he is a disgruntled employee don't look to Bush's biases with regard to Saddam/Iraq. One of Bush's first public comments about Iraq and Saddam that Saddam was the man that "tried to kill my dad." This colored his decisionmaking (as it would for almost anyone in his position). Because both Clarke and Bush have a bias (Clarke against Bush and Bush against Saddam), we need to look at what they are saying and see which rings of truth more.

Bush: Clarke is making all of this up because he is a disgruntled employee. I was not predisposed to finding links between 9/11 and Iraq. The evidence that's out there now suggests that the "links" found between Iraq and 9/11 are fairly tenuous. Had the same links been found between Australia and 9/11 and I doubt we'd have bombed Sydney. The evidence is still out on the WMD claims though, again, initial reports don't look too good for this one. The essential charge to war against Iraq were three fold:
1) WMDs and the desire to use them soon (we can argue about whether it was imminent or not) --- the jury is still out on this one
2) Iraqs links to Al Queda --- tenuous at best
3) Saddam was an evil dictator and the world is better without him --- this, it turns out, is the strongest claim although I doubt the country would have supported a war against Iraq had the other 2 not been made (and believed)

Clarke: Bush was pre-disposed to finding links with Al Queda. Links were found and used as a charge for war. Those links now appear to be not very strong. Bush's history with Saddam suggests ill will.

To me Clarke's claim rings true much more so than the "disgruntled employee" defense that is coming out of the administration (especially since we also have O'Neil's story corroborating Clarke's --- probably just another disgruntled employee.)

~elwoodblues

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
One of Clarke's best friends is Kerry's national security advisor .

[/ QUOTE ]
Clarke was held posistions in the Reagan admin, Bush I admin, Clinton Admin, and Bush II admin. Your right he must be a supporter or Democrats.

[ QUOTE ]
Now we're stooping to insults when someone doesn't see things your way. Hmmmm..... out.

[/ QUOTE ]
you seem to be doing the same.

[ThaSaltCracka]

When you combine both the claims of Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke along with the Admins desire to stonewall and delay the 9/11 investigation, a troubling picture starts to develop. Some of you out there may not ever want to believe it, because you all seem to believe what ever the Admin tells you, I for one have lost whatever confidence I had in them following 9/11. We as a country were misled, we were let down, and it will take a lot for me to trust this Admin ever again.

[Cyrus]

"Who did Bush attack immediately after 9/11? Of course, we know it was Al Qaeda."

Come again?

The terrorists are not nations. Dubya sent after the terrorists the American Armed Forces. He invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq. In other words, Dubya treated the war against terror as just another conventional war against a sovereign nation : Defeat the other side's army, occupy his land, put up a government of your liking.

This is not how you defeat terror. (I'd advise you to take a leaf from another President's book on how to conduct anti-terrorist strategy, a strategy that got results as opposed to promises or smoke, a strategy that netted a number of terrorists in jail! But you are too anti-Clinton to take notice, so I won't.)

PS : Don't please start the tired bullcrap about the two wars being a "deterrent" for terrorirst-helping regimes or something like that. The reason for invading Iraq was NOT 9/11 it was "the Weapons of Mass Destruction". Those are the President's words, not mine, understand.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Here is another article from cnn.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former White House counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of going on the offensive against him to "divert attention from the truth" that the administration did "virtually nothing about al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001."

Clarke, author of the newly released book, "Against All Enemies," also said the administration focused on alleged Iraqi ties to the terrorist attacks while there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was involved.

Clarke, a 30-year White House veteran who served under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton before the current president, But the facts, Clarke said, are that "the administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director [George Tenet] was telling them virtually every day that there was a major threat."

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made various news media appearances defending the administration, while other administration officials did the same in news conferences.

Rice -- whom Clarke says ignored his memo requesting an "urgent" meeting on the al Qaeda threat in January 2001 -- accused Clarke of "retrospective rewriting of history."

"To somehow suggest that the attack on 9/11 could have been prevented by a series of meetings -- I have to tell you that during that period of time, we were at battle stations," she said.

Cheney told conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh: "The only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993 and the first attack on the World Trade Center, in [1998] when the [U.S.] embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit.

"The question that has to be asked is, 'What were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counter-terrorism efforts?'"

Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action and by supporting United Nations sanctions.

"They stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia," Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world." (Clarke transcript)

"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S. soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,] Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said. "Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of] Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."

"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," Clarke said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office, they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"

On Limbaugh's program Cheney said Clarke "wasn't in the loop" on major decisions and may hold a personal grudge against Rice. He said Clarke may have wanted a more "prominent position." Clarke has denied any such motive for his book.

Clarke called Rice's contention that he never offered a plan against al Qaeda "counterfactual." "We presented the plan to her ... before she was even sworn into office," Clarke said.

Rice has characterized as "ridiculous" Clarke's statement in his book that she seemed unaware of al Qaeda until he told her about it.

"I wasn't born yesterday when Clarke briefed me," she said Monday. "This wasn't an issue of who knew about al Qaeda, but what we were going to do about al Qaeda."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
My impression from the beginning has been that Bush was pre-disposed to get Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true.

[ QUOTE ]
Clarke isn't saying that Bush requested fabricated information...that isn't the point. The point is that after 9/11 Bush had a choice --- he could have said to his advisors "Find out who is responsible" or he could have said "Find out if Iraq is responsible."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're leaving out Afghanistan. Where does that fit in?

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone honestly believe that had the charge been to "Find out who is responsible" without reference to a particular country that the "links" between Iraq and Al Queda that were found would have been strong enough (in part) to support going to war?

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are so fixated on one reason there were actually many reasons. The idea to sell it to the UN was Colin Powell's idea. Condi Rice basically outlined the reasons yesterday, there are many. Whether or not people feel those reasons are justified is another story but there was no doubt more than a single reason.

[ QUOTE ]
The same folks who dismiss Clarke's claims outright because he is a disgruntled employee don't look to Bush's biases with regard to Saddam/Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you be specific about which Clarke claims you're referring to?

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence that's out there now suggests that the "links" found between Iraq and 9/11 are fairly tenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
Had the same links been found between Australia and 9/11 and I doubt we'd have bombed Sydney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is still out on the WMD claims though, again, initial reports don't look too good for this one. The essential charge to war against Iraq were three fold:
1) WMDs and the desire to use them soon (we can argue about whether it was imminent or not) --- the jury is still out on this one
2) Iraqs links to Al Queda --- tenuous at best
3) Saddam was an evil dictator and the world is better without him --- this, it turns out, is the strongest claim although I doubt the country would have supported a war against Iraq had the other 2 not been made (and believed)

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly true but there are more reasons that ones you specify but still the country may not have supported those reasons. However, where was Congress? Bush was authorized by Congress. We've been over this ground before, even Democrats like Gephardt and Lieberman support Bush actions to this day. Sorry Congress has to share the responsibility.

[ QUOTE ]
Clarke: Bush was pre-disposed to finding links with Al Queda. Links were found and used as a charge for war. Those links now appear to be not very strong. Bush's history with Saddam suggests ill will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
To me Clarke's claim rings true much more so than the "disgruntled employee" defense that is coming out of the administration (especially since we also have O'Neil's story corroborating Clarke's --- probably just another disgruntled employee.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Should Bush be impeached and convicted?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly true but there are more reasons that ones you specify but still the country may not have supported those reasons. However, where was Congress? Bush was authorized by Congress. We've been over this ground before, even Democrats like Gephardt and Lieberman support Bush actions to this day. Sorry Congress has to share the responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that members of Congress had to authorize the use of force. They problem I have here is that it is starting to look like the Bush admin was pushing a war torwards Iraq from the onset. They IMO, manipulated evidence and spun it to there liking. If they had a predisposed desire to go to Iraq, that makes me even more skeptical of the evidence. If the American people were misled (IMO they were), then its definitely possible members of Congress were misled as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Should Bush be impeached and convicted?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is not enough proof IMO for either of these to happen, and I am not saying that there might ever be enough proof, but something has got to happen. I don't know a whole lot about presidential punishments, but maybe censure? I don't know.

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are so fixated on one reason there were actually many reasons. The idea to sell it to the UN was Colin Powell's idea. Condi Rice basically outlined the reasons yesterday, there are many. Whether or not people feel those reasons are justified is another story but there was no doubt more than a single reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are these many reasons? ( and they need to be valid reasons, not that they had WMD's or that he posed a threat, because neither of these have been proven.)

[Utah]

Cyrus my Friend!! I missed you.

I was so tickled that you responded to my post that I wasnt going to respond and instead simply enjoy it. But alas, your response leaves me no choice.

The terrorists are not nations.
Very true, but they do reside in nations that support them and that support is critical to their goals of destruction. Do you disagree?

Dubya sent after the terrorists the American Armed Forces. He invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq. In other words, Dubya treated the war against terror as just another conventional war against a sovereign nation : Defeat the other side's army, occupy his land, put up a government of your liking.
Yes and no. Similar tactics but to net a different set of objectives. One can never kill enough terrorists. The only way to take them out is to destroy their infrastructure - i.e., the countries giving them safe harbor.

This is not how you defeat terror. (I'd advise you to take a leaf from another President's book on how to conduct anti-terrorist strategy, a strategy that got results as opposed to promises or smoke, a strategy that netted a number of terrorists in jail! But you are too anti-Clinton to take notice, so I won't.)
This is what I have always found so brilliant about your writing. You suck the audience in with some normal comments - make them feel comfortable. Then - bam!! You hit them with lunacy. I must admit you do get great shock value that way.

Clinton....really?......hmmm? Did I skip a president in there somewhere? Because clearly you couldn't have meant bill clinton!! Even you are not that crazy. But in case you are, I have a question for you - how can one say he did a great job fighting terrorism when: 1)he allowed Al Qaeda to flourish 2)Allowed Al Qaeda to attack US interests with no fear of reprisal 3) allowed 9/11 to happen?

Oh, maybe you are talking about the Somalia strategy. I bet that scared the bejesus out of the terrorists - I mean, with the speed we ran with our tails between or legs. That would scare anyone.

Don't please start the tired bullcrap about the two wars being a "deterrent"
I shall fling all the bullcrap I want. That is the essence of a message board. however, the point of my original post is that GWs actions completely undermine Clarkes assertions. I do not wish to argue the merits of the wars themselves.

[Utah]

Hi Chris,

Thank you for responding. Even if everything you say is true, it still completely undercuts Clarkes assertion.

We will never agree on the basic principle that innocent people will need to die in order to remove corrupt regimes. You always seem to focus on the loss but never the gain. I am not talking about us interests - I am only referring to the local population. Because, that is where a big part of the moral dilemma lies.

Of course, I will agree that the loss can far outweigh the gain. Heck, I will even leave open the possibility that that is the case here. However, one must discuss both sides.

[Cyrus]

"And that does not mean we were wrong to utilize radical muslims against the soviets. The soviet threat was real and much more dangerous than the Islamic terrorists running around."

OK, let's roll the tape back.

Iran is under the Shah Reza Pahlevi. He got his throne when the CIA orchestrated a military coup that ousted democratically-elected leader Mossadegh (full account of coup given in Fortune magazine by actual spook who masterminded it). So much for democracy needed in that area! But I digress.

The Shah is assisted by the Americans in violently persecuting everything that is of the Left in Iran. They say even left-handed guys got shot.. Most of the secular opposition to the Shah is exterminated. In comes, slowly but surely, the religious opposition, to fill the vacuum and from then on to represent the only viable alternative to the Shah. Score one for American prescience!

The Shah is upended and Ayatollah comes onstage. Fast forward and next door to Afghanistan, in which the putzes that call themselves State Department officials and the cranks that call themselves National Security Councilmen start playing The Big Game. They go for an anti-Soviet regime in a country that has frontiers with the Soviet Union! Afghanistan was conveniently Finnlandized until then but the Americans wanted more. Hence, the Moscow-encouraged coup that brought that attempt down and brought up a communist-led administration. Note that strategic interests WERE NOT at stake in Afghanistan. The Soviets had absolutely no benefit in getting involved in Afghani politics and the Iranian oil was not needed (plus, they didn't want to mess with the mullahs). So, Afghanistan was pure American folly, the kind that pushes foolishly a huge bet in the middle, then pushes more money and then some more, on tilt, till the whole bankroll is busted (read: binLanded).

The equivalent of tilt-o was America's arming of dangerous religious fanatics "to fight the Soviets", who, faced with the first direct threat ever in their soft underbelly , attempted the unthinkable and invaded a country! (The purpose of the invasion was to re-install a pro-Moscow government you think, or to occupy Afghanistan? Think.)

So, the American involvement in Iran and Afghanistan : Helped the religious fanatics to get the upper hand once and for all; provided arms and materiel to the armies of said fanatics; alienated the Soviets, endagering peace; sent out all the wrong signals about terrorism (encouraged when waged against Russkies) and about Islam.

Now? Why now, it's harvest time!..

[Cyrus]

"I shall fling all the bullcrap I want!"

(sigh) Don't I know it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"[Terrorists] reside in countries that support them and that support is critical to their goals. Do you disagree?"

No, I agree. But I hope you are not gonna say that we have to destroy those countries!

"The only way to take [the terrorists] out is to destroy ... the countries giving them safe harbor."

There you go again, predictable as ever. Not only is this the wrong way to go about it (and if you are a numbers man, check the numbers), but the fact that you feel this is "the only way" to take them out is indicative of your mindset. Scary stuff.

"How can one say that [Clinton] did a great job fighting terrorism when: 1) he allowed Al Qaeda to flourish 2)Allowed Al Qaeda to attack US interests with no fear of reprisal 3) allowed 9/11 to happen?"

And here are the devastating answers (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/clarke/index.html)! Are you man enough to take them all in?

1. Clinton actually undermined al Qaeda. Clinton, among other things, worked with foreign governments and the UN in order to put in place an anti-terror alliance and understanding, without the need to get American soldiers in harm's way. Not necesarily. Not as a way to fight terrorists!..

2. Those folks that attacked US interests "without fear of reprisal"? You can visit them in jail, if you feel like it. Bring some girlie magazines, the boys are feeling kinda low nowdays. You see, Clinton put them in jail, in case you didn't know, the folks that bombed the World Trade Center. The bombing took place thirthy-eight days after Clinton took office, but the perps were caught, tried, convicted and doing time. Lotsa time.

3. Clinton did not "allow 9/11 to happen" as you say! Your boy Dubya and his gang did. Richard Clarke warned them about al Qaeda. CIA's Tenet warned them about bin Laden. The outgoing Clinton administration handed over a strategy already being implemented and succeeeding, plus a budget for anti-terrrosism that was excellent (despite the GOP's opposition to all Clinton anti-terrorist measures -check the record!). But Dubya &amp; The Gang pooh-poohed the Dems' input and started obsessing about ...Saddam Hussein! If Bush and his gangsters had actually heeded Clinton's advice and followed through with his precedent (especially on the peace mediation in the Middle East), 9/11 would probably had been averted. Who knows, maybe even Mohammed Atta would now be sharing a cell with the WTC bombers.

"Maybe you are talking about the Somalia strategy."

Absolutely correct. Somalia was a grave error which Slick Bill was smart enough to recognize and learn from it. Of course, you do know that the Somalia outcome had nothing to do with the anti-terrorist effort, right? No, I know you know but I'm just saying.

"GWs actions completely undermine Clarke's assertions."

Let's stop arguing and watch those hearings on TV, shall we? It promises to be tons of fun.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's stop arguing and watch those hearings on TV, shall we? It promises to be tons of fun.

[/ QUOTE ]
The hearings will only be fun for the terrorists and the foreign countries that hate us. These hearings will be very very hard to watch in my opinion. But will probably be torture for all the Bush believers. Then again most probably will refuse to believe the hearings because the Admin will probably say they are all lies.

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely correct. Somalia was a grave error which Slick Bill was smart enough to recognize and learn from it. Of course, you do know that the Somalia outcome had nothing to do with the anti-terrorist effort, right? No, I know you know but I'm just saying.


[/ QUOTE ]

There were very few people in America who wanted to send troops anywhere after Somalia, including many politicians. IMO, the failure of Somalia was a direct reflection of the military at that time. The military Clinton inherited was molded for open field battle, not the tough grimy street fighting in Somalia. It sure is a good thing Clinton's military appointees decided to change the way the military worked.

[Utah]

(sigh) Don't I know it.
LMAO

"The only way to take [the terrorists] out is to destroy ... the countries giving them safe harbor."

There you go again, predictable as ever. Not only is this the wrong way to go about it (and if you are a numbers man, check the numbers), but the fact that you feel this is "the only way" to take them out is indicative of your mindset. Scary stuff.

okay, I am game. Lets here the alternative. However, if you start throwing around bullcrap like getting the UN involved its going to get mighty high in here.

And here are the devastating answers! Are you man enough to take them all in?
Read it - didnt see any devastating numbers. Please point them our. Hemmer just threw softball questions.

Clinton actually undermined al Qaeda. Clinton, among other things, worked with foreign governments and the UN in order to put in place an anti-terror alliance and understanding, without the need to get American soldiers in harm's way. Not necesarily. Not as a way to fight terrorists!..
Okay, I guess you already started flinging the bullcrap yourself. The UN to fight terrorists? Yeah. They couldnt even enforce an oil-for-food program. The UN runs with its tail between its leg whenever it gets the chance. It they were only the French they could surrender. Foreign governemnts - Pleeeaaaase. You mean the same ones that were supplying Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Lets look at the numbers during the Clinton Years shall we:
1) North Korea developed Nukes
2) Iran developed Nukes
3) Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets to anyone with money
4) Libya had developed an advance Nuclear program.
5) US Embassies were destroyed
6) The USS Cole was attacked
7) Terrorists attacked the world trade center - 1st
8) The attack for the second WTC attack well under way
9) Al Qaeda went from nothing to a thriving international terrorist organization
10) The Mid East Situation exploded
11) The US was hugely embarrassed in Somalia
12) Mass numbers died in the Balkans before Clinton would lift a finger - (wait. Tell me again. Wasnt that a unilateral action??)

Tell me here what is not true.


Those folks that attacked US interests "without fear of reprisal"? You can visit them in jail, if you feel like it. Bring some girlie magazines, the boys are feeling kinda low nowdays. You see, Clinton put them in jail, in case you didn't know, the folks that bombed the World Trade Center. The bombing took place thirthy-eight days after Clinton took office, but the perps were caught, tried, convicted and doing time. Lotsa time.
Kill them. Put them in jail. Whatever. Its all worthless. There are a million more raidcals waiting to take there place. This is simple reactive strategy. Anf its dumb. You need a comprehensive proactive strategy.

Clinton did not "allow 9/11 to happen" as you say! Your boy Dubya and his gang did. Richard Clarke warned them about al Qaeda. CIA's Tenet warned them about bin Laden. The outgoing Clinton administration handed over a strategy already being implemented and succeeeding, plus a budget for anti-terrrosism that was excellent (despite the GOP's opposition to all Clinton anti-terrorist measures -check the record!). But Dubya &amp; The Gang pooh-poohed the Dems' input and started obsessing about ...Saddam Hussein! If Bush and his gangsters had actually heeded Clinton's advice and followed through with his precedent (especially on the peace mediation in the Middle East), 9/11 would probably had been averted. Who knows, maybe even Mohammed Atta would now be sharing a cell with the WTC bombers.
A classic Cyrus leap of the deep end!! I give it a 10.

Implemented and succeeding!!! Saaaay whaaa???? Werent there terrorists already in the US training on planes to crash into the pentagon, white house, and world trade center? Wow, I guess we have different definitions of succeeding.

followed through with his precedent (especially on the peace mediation in the Middle East)
Help me again. Was that the peace mediation that caused the mideast to erupt into uncontrollable violence. Or, are you thinking of a different one?

Bottom line - Clinton had 8 years to stop or take down Al Qaeda. They didnt. Its that simple. When Clinton left office, Al Qaeda was thriving, it had an international network, and its leaders were untouched. I'll say it again - their leaders were untouched. Hell, they had them own damn country to operate from. This is the definition of a successful campaign against Al Qaeda?

Now, I dont think GW was any better prior to 9/11. He was following right in the same footsteps of daddy and Billy. No one had the fortitude or smarts to do what was right. But to say Clinton did a good job lacks any credibility.

Absolutely correct. Somalia was a grave error which Slick Bill was smart enough to recognize and learn from it. Of course, you do know that the Somalia outcome had nothing to do with the anti-terrorist effort, right? No, I know you know but I'm just saying.
The Somalia fiasco is still being felt today in Iraq. The lesson learned by terrorists - spill enough American blood and they will run home (And that it really didnt take that much blood to do it).

Let's stop arguing and watch those hearings on TV, shall we? It promises to be tons of fun.
The hearings are crap. No one is admitting to anything on either side. Even the best run organizations make mistakes. However, have you heard anyone say, "yeah, we really made a mistake there".

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I dont think GW was any better prior to 9/11. He was following right in the same footsteps of daddy and Billy.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is absolutely right, but you still point fingers at Clinton. Listen, I think both Admins made mistakes, its pretty sad that they both have/had to clean up the mess left behind by Reagan and his battle against communism. Which IMO, is probably the main cause of terrorism today.

Now what bothers me most though about this, is the accusations that Bush was fixated on Iraq from the begining. who knows, if he had been focused on Al Qaeda, as Clarke apparently was telling him to, 9/11 MAY have been prevented. Maybe the chances of preventing it were 5-10%, well thats better than nothing. Again I am not blaiming him for 9/11, but there was a small chance he could have prevented it. Now, I agreed with the war in Afghanistan, it was a worthy war, one which had to be fought. Now the war in Iraq is another thing. It now seems like Bush and his Admin were thinking more about Iraq than Al Qaeda, so the war seems even more heinous, I dunno, I think all Americans should really be thinking about this.

[ QUOTE ]
The hearings are crap.

[/ QUOTE ]
The hearings are not crap. The main goal of the hearings is to find out what both Admins did wrong, and what we can do differently in the future to prevent more terrorist acts. The hearings are definitely not crap.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]

Lets look at the numbers during the Clinton Years shall we:
1) North Korea developed Nukes
2) Iran developed Nukes
3) Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets to anyone with money
4) Libya had developed an advance Nuclear program.
5) US Embassies were destroyed
6) The USS Cole was attacked
7) Terrorists attacked the world trade center - 1st
8) The attack for the second WTC attack well under way
9) Al Qaeda went from nothing to a thriving international terrorist organization
10) The Mid East Situation exploded
11) The US was hugely embarrassed in Somalia
12) Mass numbers died in the Balkans before Clinton would lift a finger - (wait. Tell me again. Wasnt that a unilateral action??)











Tell me here what is not true.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good question, anyone care to answer it?

W

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Should Bush be impeached and convicted?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...but I certainly don't think he should be rewarded with re-election.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should Bush be impeached and convicted?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...but I certainly don't think he should be rewarded with re-election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey,hey...

Impeachment is for law breakers:
Perjury = Bill Clinton
Violating an act of congress = Andrew Johnson

Re-Election is for doing a good job:
Good Job = me

W

[ThaSaltCracka]

Douche Bag,
The truth will come out eventually.
You can revel in you "success" if you want, however it will only make it hurt more when your not re-elected.

BTW, I met one of my dads Air Force buddies that served with him in the 60's and 70's. he fuckin hates you and your dad.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
It's obvious Clarke is pissed off about something that happened while he worked at the White House and now is trying to sell books.

[/ QUOTE ]

To support my previous statement, I offer the following evidence:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115084,00.html

(Cut and paste this, the system is not recognizing the link)

Is it possible the bosses at Viacom took a look at Clarke's book, said "This is a real stinker, no one will buy this crap" and then ordered their underlings at CBS to create some news via the "Responsible journalists" @ 60 Minutes so the book would sell? Nah, I didn't think so either.

[elwoodblues]

Are you really suggesting that the parent company took that much interest in one, relatively small, product in one (of many) subsidiary ---- ridiculous.

The relationship clearly should have been disclosed. In my opinion, the existence of the relationship is not enough to condemn the interview. The article you link to doesn't even do that...instead they say note that otherwise hard-hitting questions look like some sort of grand theatrical performance.

Clarke is a former employee; thus, he can't be trusted.

CBS and S&amp;S are owned by Viacom; thus, the non-disclosure of this relationship must mean that interview was merely theatre.

Doesn't this scream to you of political dodgeball? Avoid the accusations by smearing the accuser --- this tactic done by the previous administration was (and should have been) highly criticized.

[jcx]

My purpose is not to absolve Bush of anything, his administration has answered these charges, the people can decide for themselves if they are being truthful (I am a Libertarian and will not be voting for either of these gentlemen). My assessment would be Bush was a little eager to get into Iraq, 9/11 gave him an excuse. But that doesn't change the fact that I think Clarke is a weasel. And as far as this book being insignificant to Viacom, I don't see it that way. First, bestselling books are very profitable to the publisher. Second, the fact that the liberal media bosses got to take a swipe at Bush under the sham of an "Unbiased" interview was no doubt very attractive.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
My assessment would be Bush was a little eager to get into Iraq, 9/11 gave him an excuse. But that doesn't change the fact that I think Clarke is a weasel

[/ QUOTE ]
reread what you just said. Bush was a little eager to go into Iraq and 9/11 gave him an excuse. Now if Clarke is a weasel for telling the truth, what is Bush for telling America lies?

[jcx]

Don't twist my words. I have made no judgement as to whether Bush or Clarke is lying. You've made up your mind, that's fine. Everyone else has the right to do the same.

[ThaSaltCracka]

okay,
well then explain to me why Clarke is a weasel then?

[Chris Alger]

1. I understand Clark's assertions to be (1) that the President ignored warnings of an al Qaeda attack and (2) tried to use the attack that came as a pretext to conquer Iraq. These allegations are hardly undermined by the political expediency of invading Afghanistan first. After all, Clarke hardly overlooked the fact of the Afghan war and Bush hardly had the political support to reverse the chronology. In addition to political constraints, the delay in invading Iraq could be partly attributed to the need for logistical planning. Also, several insider reports besides Clarke's suggest that the decision to invade Iraq was made shortly after 9/11.

2. I generally don't address the potential benefits of the Iraq war for the same reason I don't address the potential benefits of the 9/11 attack. I suppose someone could argue that America is actually better off as a result of the attack, citing improvements in domestic security and so forth, perhaps with statistics suggesting that resultant policy changes will save more lives than were lost that day. Specifically, I don't believe that wars of choice are properly judged according to a speculative cost-benefit analysis. Wars and their cleanup are expensive, kill massive numbers of innocents and create predictable and unpredictable repercussions that last generations. A century afterward people are still paying for "the Great War," among many others. If the Iraq war leads to a nuclear terrorist attack 100 years from now, all the "benefits" that resulted from the war between now and then can be vaporized in an instant.

In short, the proximity of war to an "infinite cost" is one reason why most people find it justified, if at all, only as a last resort.

I also believe that the U.S. is dedicated to protecting and prosecuting it's interests in Iraq rather than bestowing upon ordinary Iraqis "liberation," "democracy," "fruits of opportunity" and other high ideals. U.S. interests have run afoul of ordinary Iraqis before, and I am dismally confident they will again.

[Cyrus]

Utah, your List of A Few Hits and Lotsa Misses is as impressive as the Billboard Top 100!

"Let's look at the numbers during the Clinton Years shall we?"

Shoot.

"1) North Korea developed Nukes

MISS. It is incorrect to lay the blame for the Korean mess on the Clinton administration. On the contrary, Clinton's was an exception to the series of blunders and miscalculations that characterized American policy toward North Korea for decades. If you want a sober primer about the North Korea mess and the United States' pivotal role in worsening that mess, here's a little something : "Wrong Again" (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n23/cumi01_.html)

"2) Iran developed Nukes"

MISS. Can you spell "Iran-Contra-gate"? The damage started with Ronald Reagan's colossal mistake of providing the mullahs in Iran with high-technology missiles and other weaponry, to get them to help in the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. This is what encouraged Iran in its road towards nukes and freed other vendor nations into selling nuclear plant equipment to Tehran.

Talk about two strikes (against!) with one pitch! Caving in to the demands of terrorists AND arming them!

(Trivial tidbit : White House aide Oliver Northhad had pressured Kuwait, at the time, into freeing seven convicted and jailed Muslim terrorists, as part of his Iranian bargain. Ya think any of those guys later learned how to pilot a Jumbo plane?)

"3) Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets to anyone with money"

NEAR MISS. Pakistan had been traditionally the American "friend" in the region, in order to counter the Soviet "influence" on India, as that was perceived during the Cold War. So Pakistan was allowed pretty much a free hand in its domestic human rights abuses, its armaments and its high-tech research.

More recently, the top Pakistani nuclear scientist sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya (note the timeline) "for personal gains and profit, during <font color="blue"> the late 80s and the early and middle 90s </font> ". Care to tell us who was United States President at the time? Care to tell us when was the last time the United States slapped the wrist of Pakistan over anything?

"4) Libya developed an advance Nuclear program."

MISS. In the 1980s, Kaddafi bluntly stated that Libya would embark on the path towards buliding "an Islamic nuclear bomd" as he named it. According to the Colonel's logic, since there was in the world a Christian nuclear bomb, a Hindu bomb, a Buddhist bomb, and a Jewish bomb, there should also be a Muslim bomb. The program started in the 1980s and progressed with various bumps and stops (went nowhere actually) during the following decades.

Important update : Kaddafi recently announced the scrapping of his nuke program and re-opened a dialogue with the West. Bush supporters see this as a result of Dubya's "hard line policy". Nonsense! This is the result of clandestine negotiations, led by the British diplomacy of the Foreign Office, that began from the time of Clinton's presidency. There are people who, contrary to all evidence and Dubya's record, actually believe that Bush is capable ofs starting negotiations with "a terrorist like Kaddafi"! It boggles the mind.

"5) US Embassies were destroyed"

MISS. The bombing of U.S. embassies is the symptom rather than the illness itself, of course. And the illness is terrorrism. Clinton identified, as I pointed out, the danger of terrorism early on in his Presidency and acted sensibly to confront that danger. As Richard Clarke knows only too well.

Oh, and did you know how that Semtex, the explosive used in the attack against the American embassies came to be in the possession of Muslim terrorists? It was a Reagan/Bush-steered CIA that provided the plastic explosive to the Afghan Mujaheddin. It found its way, as did all the American materiel, to bin Laden's freedom fighters/terrorists who used some of it to destroy two American embassies in Africa in 1988. Nice work, Ronnie.

"6) The USS Cole was attacked."

MISS. You are missing the target! It is far more important what the President does before and after an incident rather than during the incident itself. So I cannot lay the blame of what happened during 9/11 itself, on George W Bush. But I do blame him for his benign attitude (and the GOP's attitude) towards the threat of Muslim terrorism, before 911 and his disastrous response, so far, after 9/11 (he attacked two countries, for pete's sake!), a strategy that strengthened rather than weakened the terrorist threat.

I am not arguing that Clinton's anti-terrorist was perfect. It was honorable but flawed. I am arguing that Bush's is even more and far more flawed!

"7) Terrorists attacked the world trade center - 1st"

MISS. A big MISS! Clinton's people actually captured the 1993 bombers and put them in jail (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-01-2002/vo18no13_terrortrail.htm) , where they still are. You can visit them there, if you wish. (Just bring some girlie magazines for the boys.)

"8) The attack for the second WTC attack [sic] well under way"

MISS. If I can make out your garbled syntax, you are implying that the preparation for 9/11 had started during Clinton's watch. So it might have, so it might have, but what could Clinto do to prevent the preparation? A President can only work towards defending against an attack. Clinton did precisely that BUT HE WAS OPPOSED BY REPUBLICANS EVERY STEP OF THE WAY whenever he asked Congress for any anti-terrorist measure or funding!

And you are ignoring Jane's Intelligence Weekly (http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=710291385), which, on October 2001, stated the following : <font color="blue"> Moscow's Permanent Mission at the United Nations submitted an unprecedentedly detailed report" to the UN Security Council six months before the American atrocities [of 9/11]. According to Alex Standish, the editor of the Review, the attacks of September 11 were less of an American intelligence failure and more the result of U.S. inaction based on "[the Bush's administration] political decision not to act against Bin Laden". </font>

"9) Al Qaeda went from nothing to a thriving international terrorist organization."

MISS. I have no idea what you are talking about. The Qaeda came about as a result of the presence of "infidel" American troops on the "sacred" soil of The Two Holy Mosques, i.e. Saudi Arabia. That was a legacy from the first Iraqi War, started and executed by Bush Senior.

Bill Clinton inherited essentially the following situation : A strong regime in Afganistan comprised of Muslim fanatics that were been subsidised by the United States only yesterday; a situation in the Middle East as explosive as ever; American troops stationed in S. Arabia; a fanatic, Saudi millionaire loose on the terror network. What Clinton did to thwart bin Laden and terror in general has been posted elsewhere. Look it up. But to lay the blame for al Qaeda's strnengthening on him is silly! The person responsible for swelling the ranks of terrorirsts and those willing to join the "terrorists' struggle" is George W Bush, whose mindless beligerence has radicalized Islam everywhere.

"10) The Mid East Situation exploded."

MISS. A terrible MISS! On the contrary, the efforts of Bill Clinton were the most noble and efficient ones ever undertaken by an aAmerican President, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter. If his successor had followed through (and had not capitulated completely to the criminal Right still in power in Israel) we might be seeing today some light at the end of that tunnel.

You may consult the literature relevant to the Oslo diplomacy. Lots of texts around, from both sides, Israelis and Palestinikans, notably agreeing in their praises for Clinton's efforts. (If anything, Bill Clinton should have been much, much less tolerant of Israeli arrogance and intransigence.)

"11) The US was hugely embarrassed in Somalia."

HIT. You are correct. Big mistake there! The thing is, Clinton learned something from the debacle. He didn't sent American soldiers foolishly in harm's way again.

"12) Mass numbers died in the Balkans before Clinton would lift a finger."

HIT. Clinton's Balkan policy essentially replaced one ethnic cleansing (Kosovar Albanians by Serbs) with another (Kosovar Serbs by Albanians). Plus, it strengthened the hand of nationalist Albanians to the point that the whole region became even further destabilized. It still is, as the revent ethnic violence in Kosovo shows. And the NATO bombing of Yuogoslavia was an atrocious affair.

Although Clinton's blunders in Kosovo was not directly relevant to the war against terror, the presence of strong, armed and beligerent Albanian nationalists in the Balkans is very promising for Muslim terrorist recruiters and agitators. The Balkans have been relatively safe from terrorism until now.

--Cyrus

[Utah]

It must be you Lanny. Because I have never seen anyone else obfuscate the Clinton record so completely.

I asked for a checking of the facts. I will be happy to discuss cause and effect after we can agree to the facts


1) North Korea developed Nukes
I am pretty sure that they did develop nukes. Considering first of call, because North Korea says they have them as well as every other nation says they have them. Do you believe they were in compliance with the Clinton treaty?

2) Iran developed Nukes
Do you not think that they have nukes? I suppose its possible. But, all evidence points to yes

3) Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets to anyone with money
Fact. You even agree. Pakistan sold nulcear nulcear secrets during Clinton years.

btw - You are framing this discussion all wrong. You are taking the classic republican versus democrat approach. I am not a Republican, I did not vote for Bush 1 either time. I reluctantly voted for Bush 2 more as a protest of Gore/Clinton and I will very likely not vote for him again. I liked Clinton very early on and therefore I am not a mere republican basher of him.

Therefore, may I suggest that we simply focus on the facts of the Clinton years. Better yet, I recommend that we focus on the 10 years pre 9/11. There is no need on your part to continue with the "but your guy did this..." type of argument simply because I have no guy.

4) Libya developed an advance Nuclear program
They did have an advanced program. Is that fact wrong. Yes, you are probably right about the reason for dismantling it. However, do you no think they every president would spin that to fit their agenda?

5) US Embassies were destroyed
No, I am pretty sure that embassies were destroyed. Or is that just sexed up intelligence?

6) The USS Cole was attacked.
ditto. I am pretty sure that the Cole was attacked and I am positive our response was underwelming.

Terrorists attacked the world trade center - 1st
ditto. Was the trade center attack not attacked? I bet that whole "throw a few disposable terrorists in jail thing" really scared Al Qaeda. I am sure UBL said, "Thats it. Were done with this all. If we continue some of our guys will go to jail. Americans have mercy on us!!" ...Oh wait....they he didnt say that. Instead Al Qaeda launched an even more terrible attack.

Your "throw them in jail" line on terrorism completely misses the point. It is like the president saying that he will combat a surge in domestic crime by throwing the guilty in jail. I highly doubt you would accept that. Why then do you accept it as a response to terrorism?

8) The attack for the second WTC attack [sic] well under way
Your absolute strongest point - My syntax was completely garbled.

So it might have, so it might have, but what could Clinto do to prevent the preparation? A President can only work towards defending against an attack. Clinton did precisely that BUT HE WAS OPPOSED BY REPUBLICANS EVERY STEP OF THE WAY whenever he asked Congress for any anti-terrorist measure or funding!
No, a president can do way more than try and defend against an attack, he can take the fight to the enemy. A defensive strategy never ever works.

Please provide facts on your assertion that the republicans blocked terrorism efforts.

As I have said before, Dubya was terrible against terrorism pre 9/11. That fact alone might make him unfit for office, regardless of what he did after the attack.

10) The Mid East Situation exploded.
It certainly did. Would you like us to give points to Clinton for giving it the "old college try"? GW has been no better.

btw - you have said several times that Clinton started this or that and Bush didnt follow through. Clinton had 8 years to affect change. Its therefore pretty weak to say, "well things we in the works"

11) The US was hugely embarrassed in Somalia.
Cyrus Logic - Huge Miss.
There was no worse policy of Clintons than his inability to put soldiers in harms way. Game theory will tell you that the bully wins. The problem is that if you follow the Clinton plan you will actually end up putting MORE troops in harms way in reactive situations. History easily shows this. If a country knows you are likely to get in there and whomp ass if they mess with you, they arent going to do it. The inverse is unfortunately also true.

12) Mass numbers died in the Balkans before Clinton would lift a finger.
This is not really related to terrorism and it should not be on this list.

[Cyrus]

This show is over, buddy, in case you didn't know. You are free, of course, to stick around and amuse the barteneder and the cleaning ladies.

Let me be the straight man :

"I will be happy to discuss cause and effect after we can agree to the facts."

Quickly, where exactly did I deny the facts? I doubt several historical timelines and so do you (you wrote, for example about Korea, "I am pretty sure that they did develop nukes"). But even accepting, for argument's sake, that all those bad things happened or developed in Clinton's watch, is that all that needs to be said? You must be one great game analyst!

"Game theory will tell you that the bully wins."

This is a nonsensical statement! (I will go out on a limb here and speculate that, on the basis of the above nonsense, you have a completely distorted idea of what game theory is.)

Next gag : I agreed of course that "The US was hugely embarrassed in Somalia". I even called it a "Huge Miss" on the partr of Slick Willie. Yet you labeled my admittance as "Cyrus Logic". Are we conversing in English or are you using some other language? Please let's determine languages first, merci.

"The Mid East Situation exploded. Would you like us to give points to Clinton for giving it the "old college try"?"

Yes, absolutely. As I said, what Clinton did was the best effort any American President did, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, to pave the way towards peace in the Middle East (the root of Muslim terrorism, if you care to know). That Clinton failed is indicative of the level of Israeli arrogance and its hold on American policits : No American President anymore, sadly, can impose his will on Israel. That's the only country in the world one say that about.

Note that George Bush Senior tried to get tough with Israel during the last year of his presidency. He was sending Baker left and right trying to ram through some peace roadmap. Of course, any kind of permanent solution is anathema to Zionist objectives so the effort was torpedoed and Bush lost the election. Perhaps for irrelevant reasons...

"Mass numbers died in the Balkans before Clinton would lift a finger : This is not really related to terrorism and it should not be on this list."

But, but, but it was you who posted that as indicative of Clinton's failings, dufus! I know that the Balkan mess has little to do with the war against terror but you claimed it has. It was part of the list of 12 points where Clinton had failed in the war against terror. Remember?

...Now since we have "agreed" on the "facts", do your worse and try to rebutt my analysis (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=596089&amp;page=9&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1), which claims that President Bill Clinton did very well in his foreign policy, in general, and certainly far, far better than the father &amp; son duo.

Knock yourself out while I have one for the road. Cheers.