Proof that Clarke is full of it!

[Backtothemac]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Yea, it is fox news, so what ;)

It is a transcript of an interview with Clarke. Read this, and then tell me if the book, published by, who? Simon and Schuster (who also published O'Neal's book) is a direct contradition to this interview. Look at it with an open mind. Just for a second forget that Bush is the President, pretend it was Gore. Or Clinton. Would you then think the attack was political? Just because he is a republican doesn't mean crap. There are democrats out there that vote republican, and republicans that vote democrat.

Keep in mind the way he was scorned, and passed over. He has a crudge.

Period.

[numediaman]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Yea, it is fox news, so what ;)

It is a transcript of an interview with Clarke. Read this, and then tell me if the book, published by, who? Simon and Schuster (who also published O'Neal's book) is a direct contradition to this interview. Look at it with an open mind. Just for a second forget that Bush is the President, pretend it was Gore. Or Clinton. Would you then think the attack was political? Just because he is a republican doesn't mean crap. There are democrats out there that vote republican, and republicans that vote democrat.

Keep in mind the way he was scorned, and passed over. He has a crudge.

Period.

I read the whole thing and I have a question: why did you post this to support your point? It says nothing about Iraq, which is at the heart of Clarke's accusations.

If the point was that Clarke said something positive about the Bush administration, and you say he's full of it, then are you saying this proves that there is nothing positive about the Bush administration? I doubt it, so what is your point?

Clarke is a career bureaucrat that has served three Republican administrations and one Democratic. His accusation is that the Bush administration, and Bush himself, was more interested in going to Iraq than fighting the war on terror. In about 12 minutes he is going before the 9/11 commission -- we'll certainly learn more then.

[wordmunger]

I haven't read his book, but I heard him interviewed on Terry Gross this afternoon, and nothing he said today contradicted this interview. Bush did not make fighting Al Qaeda a major priority. The push to eliminate Al Qaeda was not even being made at the cabinet level, let alone the presidential level. Bush's top three priorities in foreign policy pre 9/11 were Iraq, Russia, and Star Wars. Whereas the Clinton Administration (and Clarke) had urged him to focus on Al Qaeda, Israel/Palestine, and North Korea. Imagine if Bush had followed that advice!

None of this is contradicted by the earlier interview. It was Clarke's job to fight terrorism, and he did the best job he could. His point in the book is that he could have done it better if he had more support from the president. Clarke gives an example of how Clinton behaved when he had similar intelligence about possible terror threats related to the millennium/Y2K. There were presidential meetings with DOJ/intelligence officials every other day, where the president asked what was being done to prevent an attack. The result was the prevention of three attacks (most notably the L.A. airport attack) planned for the millennium.

[Backtothemac]

Oh man, how about the point that Condi did not even know who Al Qeada was. That Bush had a plan to execute Al Qeada and did not do it.

The purpose for the war in Iraq was simple. To send a message to nations like N. Korea, Lybia, and Iran, that we will come knocking on the door. It was designed to setup a democracy in the middle east to combat terrorism in the region. It is designed to see benifits in 50 years, not 5 months.

[zimv20]

in true b2tm fashion, i submit this:

a cousin of a friend of mine dated clarke for a long time. she says that he's overzealous in his pursuit of terrorism and is convinced he's absolutely telling the truth.

[miloblithe]

The purpose for the war in Iraq was simple. To send a message to nations like N. Korea, Lybia, and Iran, that we will come knocking on the door. It was designed to setup a democracy in the middle east to combat terrorism in the region. It is designed to see benifits in 50 years, not 5 months.

So the purpose of the war had nothing to do with what the administration said the war was for?

[wordmunger]

Oh man, how about the point that Condi did not even know who Al Qeada was. That Bush had a plan to execute Al Qeada and did not do it.
Like I said, I haven't read the book, but that's not what he said in the interview I heard today. He said that the President told Condi he wanted a solution, not swatting at flies. Condi relayed this info to him, and he told her he had written a counterterrorism plan and wanted a cabinet level meeting to address the plan. She said she'd get back to him. But Al Qaeda got to us first.
The purpose for the war in Iraq was simple. To send a message to nations like N. Korea, Lybia, and Iran, that we will come knocking on the door. It was designed to setup a democracy in the middle east to combat terrorism in the region. It is designed to see benifits in 50 years, not 5 months.
Well, if that's the purpose, it has done just about the exact opposite. It's also not what Bush said the purpose was going into the attack.

[Backtothemac]

in true b2tm fashion, i submit this:

a cousin of a friend of mine dated clarke for a long time. she says that he's overzealous in his pursuit of terrorism and is convinced he's absolutely telling the truth.


LOL. I love you too buddy.

Actually, I think there are many fronts to political actions. However, I am sick of all of the politics in Washington. Now, that being said, I would have done the same thing in Bush's shoes, and I think Gore would have as well, and Clinton would have also. I think they did the best they could do under circumstances that they were not ready for.

[IJ Reilly]

Clarke Warned of Hundreds Dead Just Before 9/11

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke sent a letter to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) one week before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks urging Bush administration aides to imagine how they would feel if hundreds of Americans were killed in a terrorist strike.

The existence of the letter came to light in testimony on Wednesday to the national commission investigating the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).

[...]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040324/ts_nm/security_commission_clarke_dc

[toontra]

The purpose for the war in Iraq was simple. To send a message to nations like N. Korea, Lybia, and Iran, that we will come knocking on the door. It was designed to setup a democracy in the middle east to combat terrorism in the region. It is designed to see benifits in 50 years, not 5 months.

That's strange. I seem to remember being told it was to rid Iraq of its WMD.

[Backtothemac]

That's strange. I seem to remember being told it was to rid Iraq of its WMD.

Exactly, your right. you are 100% right. I wish they would just say what everything really is about. At least them people can form opinions of facts.

But again, I contest that the world thought he had them.

[skunk]

Exactly, your right. you are 100% right. I wish they would just say what everything really is about. At least them people can form opinions of facts.
What? You want honesty? "We went in to make sure we had control of the oil reserves (look out Venezuela: you're next!) and could set up long-term military bases in the Middle East. We went in using borrowed money so we could line the pockets of our friends. We went in because the ends justify the means. We went in because the American Way is the Only Way, and we don't care HOW many bystanders we kill to bring freedom to them, and corporate profits back to us." Sounds good.

"They make a desert, and they call it peace".

[toontra]

Exactly, your right. you are 100% right. I wish they would just say what everything really is about. At least them people can form opinions of facts.

But again, I contest that the world thought he had them.

I agree with you here. If the US had gone to the UN & the world with their real agenda, which I'm sure you rightly outline in part above, then everyone (especially the UK & other "coalition" countries) could have made their minds up on that basis.

But that's not what happened and that's why everyone is in deep ****** now.

[mactastic]

If that's proof that Clarke is full of it, then I can probably provide 'proof' that pretty much everyone in Washington is 'full of it'.

Just off the top of my head, Rummy saying Iraq wasn't an imminent threat should put him in the 'full of it' catagory. Same with Bush for saying he wouldn't get involved in nation-building, also for his stance on the so-called 'patients bill of rights'. Cheney is 'full of it' for saying he thinks the issue of gay marriage should be up to individual states, as well as a host of other comments he's made about WMDs in Iraq.

If this transcript is the standard of proof for being 'full of it' I think most of Washington DC is 'full of it'.

[vwcruisn]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Yea, it is fox news, so what ;)


In other news, a baby gorrila with two heads is born to a woman who had sex with her oversized jumbo ferret

National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/)

[Savage Henry]

If that's proof that Clarke is full of it, then I can probably provide 'proof' that pretty much everyone in Washington is 'full of it'.

Darn-tootin.

This side of the pond, and in the same context, Blair is so far full of it it's shooting out his ears like a fire hydrant. Sadly thought, at least Bush will be out at the next election. We've got Blair for another 5 years cos his only political threat is his own chancellor.

[toontra]

Sadly thought, at least Bush will be out at the next election. We've got Blair for another 5 years cos his only political threat is his own chancellor.

Not so quick there, SH. I reckon there's a lot more political fall-out for Blair in the next few months, sparked off by the enquiries going on in the US.

This would be one substantiation for the rumour of an early election this autumn, though (ie before Kerry is elected and starts distancing himself from Blair's Iraq strategy).

[IJ Reilly]

In other news, a baby gorrila with two heads is born to a woman who had sex with her oversized jumbo ferret

Aw come on, you're full of it.

[skunk]

Aw come on, you're full of it.

Well, she certainly was.... :p

[Savage Henry]

Not so quick there, SH. I reckon there's a lot more political fall-out for Blair in the next few months, sparked off by the enquiries going on in the US.

This would be one substantiation for the rumour of an early election this autumn, though (ie before Kerry is elected and starts distancing himself from Blair's Iraq strategy).

You speak the truth sir. But I can't see regular Joe Blow voting in droves for an alternative party (and I sadly can't really blame them!). I absolutely agreewith you, but I fear Bliar will still get in, but with his majority halved.

[numediaman]

I'm sorry that those of you who are overseas could not see the Clarke testimony live. It was extraordinary. Two Republican attack dogs attempted to go after Clarke for what they saw as inconsistencies between his testimony and book, and a background briefing he gave (the original excerpt that stated this thread). I think it only served to call into question whether Fox is really media, or an arm of the Federal government.

In any case, I think this will be of interest:

Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth
Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 3:22 PM PT

I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National Security Council official who has launched a broadside against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is telling the truth about every single charge. There are three reasons for this confidence.

First, his basic accusations are consistent with tales told by other officials, including some who had no significant dealings with Clarke.

Second, the White House's attempts at rebuttal have been extremely weak and contradictory. If Clarke were wrong, one would expect the comebacks—especially from Bush's aides, who excel at the counterstrike—to be stronger and more substantive.

Third, I went to graduate school with Clarke in the late 1970s, at MIT's political science department, and called him as an occasional source in the mid-'80s when he was in the State Department and I was a newspaper reporter. There were good things and dubious things about Clarke, traits that inspired both admiration and leeriness. The former: He was very smart, a highly skilled (and utterly nonpartisan) analyst, and he knew how to get things done in a calcified bureaucracy. The latter: He was arrogant, made no effort to disguise his contempt for those who disagreed with him, and blatantly maneuvered around all obstacles to make sure his views got through.

The key thing, though, is this: Both sets of traits tell me he's too shrewd to write or say anything in public that might be decisively refuted. As Daniel Benjamin, another terrorism specialist who worked alongside Clarke in the Clinton White House, put it in a phone conversation today, "Dick did not survive and flourish in the bureaucracy all those years by leaving himself open to attack." . . .

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/

[Sayhey]

Just a side note on all of this. Fox News has released this briefing that was given on background. It is interesting that they would make a decision that is clearly politically helpful to the President in the face of long standing tradition that such background briefings are never exposed. Seems like Fox is fine in divulging sources if it helps a conservative agenda. Journalistic integrity be damned. Not that it wasn't clear already, but it is very blatant in this case.

I've read the Fox report and it doesn't seem to contradict any facts in Clarke's recent statements, but it does give a positive spin for the administration on them. I would not expect anything different from someone giving such a briefing on behalf of the administration. Remember Clarke was a member of the administration at the time. Lastly, none of the comments on background touch on the greatest criticisms of Bush by Clarke - his decision to launch an invasion of Iraq.

[wwworry]

Oh man, how about the point that Condi did not even know who Al Qeada was. That Bush had a plan to execute Al Qeada and did not do it.

You keep harping on the report that said Clark thought your best friend "Condi" did not know who Al Qeada was. Where is this report?

&

The second hand report I read said "she acted as if ..."

I can act as if I have never heard of MacRumors. It's easy and different from not actually knowing about MacRumors. So until you come up with something where he said Rice never heard of Al Qeada you should get off that kick. Besides he also stated that he briefed her about the previous administrations dealings with them soon after the election.

He readily admits he probably made some mistakes with the events leading up to 9/11. He does not say that Clinton was so great on it either. He says several simple things that you refuse to acknowledge. Paul O'Neill said the same thing - Another republican insider.

[IJ Reilly]

The other night when Clarke was on the NewsHour, his interview was followed one with White House spinmeister Dan Bartlett. When the Bartlett interview was done, my wife turned to me and said, "I didn't understand any of that."

I told her, "You're not supposed to."

One of the oldest rules in politics: if you can't respond factually, obfuscate. We're witnessing a frantic effort to make the water so muddy that we won't be able to see the noses in front of our faces, let alone the bigger picture being described by the facts. I'm sorry to see that anyone buys the administration's distraction campaign. It sure doesn't work for me -- but then I suppose I'm not in the target audience. I'm not grasping for a reason to believe that Bush is wise and good.

[Neserk]

Oh man, how about the point that Condi did not even know who Al Qeada was. That Bush had a plan to execute Al Qeada and did not do it.

The purpose for the war in Iraq was simple. To send a message to nations like N. Korea, Lybia, and Iran, that we will come knocking on the door. It was designed to setup a democracy in the middle east to combat terrorism in the region. It is designed to see benifits in 50 years, not 5 months.


GIve me a break! The purpose of the war with Iraq was to raise the price of oil and so Shrubby could get "revenge" for his daddy...

[Neserk]

I think they did the best they could do under circumstances that they were not ready for.

I think Clarke's point is that they *should* have been ready for it. But choose to focus on where Shrubby wanted his war to start.

[Backtothemac]

I think Clarke's point is that they *should* have been ready for it. But choose to focus on where Shrubby wanted his war to start.

No, the point should be that the policy was in place, and executed under another administration, and was carried over into Bush's. I don't blame Clinton, that is stupid to do that. Clinton was in an unknown territory, as is Bush.

[Backtothemac]

Ok, the pupose of the war was to *raise* oil prices. Now that is a new one. Which is more plausible. That Bush wanted to send a message to second tier states that we mean business, and show the might of the military, or raise gas prices?

Even those that think I am full of **** can figure that one out.

Guys, I may not be clear on what I am trying to say, so let me try again. I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU!

You guys are so used to arguing with me your not hearing me. They are all full of ****, all of them, Bush, Clinton, Clarke, O'Neal, all of them! I don't think that Bush acted based on a lie, but bad intel. Why not point the finger at the real problem. The lack of communication between intel agencies, their inability to work in certain types of second tier states, and the stupid ass Washington politicians that cover their screwups with fingerpointing at each other.

Fact is 9/11 was going to happen because we did not think it could. Those that did were discredited as radicals, and now look like genius's. There are plenty of people that are acting on political agenda's (Clarke, O'Neal, Dick, Bush, Clinton) to help their own ends because they don't think someone else could do a better job.

Personally, I think we have to be very agressive against terror. If I were president, I would say I am sorry to the world. Sorry not for doing anything illegal, but for acting on bad intel. I would say, we made a mistake. And seriously mean it. I would tell Israel guys, if you don't stop the ****, your on your own. I would tell the PLO to stop it, or Israel would wipe them off of the face of the earth.

I would personally meet with every family of every service member and say I am sorry. I would personally meet with ever Iraqi that lost a family member and say I am sorry. I would personally accespt responsiblity for the actions of this government like a man.

Something that NO ONE IN WASHINGTON IS DOING!

[Neserk]

No, the point should be that the policy was in place, and executed under another administration, and was carried over into Bush's. I don't blame Clinton, that is stupid to do that. Clinton was in an unknown territory, as is Bush.


Darn, can't find it... but apparently the Bush adminstration twarted 3 attacks. Why? Because they didn't *want* a war, unlike Bush.

[Neserk]

Ok, the pupose of the war was to *raise* oil prices. Now that is a new one. Which is more plausible. That Bush wanted to send a message to second tier states that we mean business, and show the might of the military, or raise gas prices?

Even those that think I am full of **** can figure that one out.


Keep in mind, he has investments in oil. If oil becomes more rare its price goes up and he makes more $$$



Guys, I may not be clear on what I am trying to say, so let me try again. I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU!


No, Bush is full of ****. More than the average politician. This isn't about Clarke and Clinton. This is about BUSH! And the blame rests clearly on his shoulders.

[Neserk]

I haven't read his book, but I heard him interviewed on Terry Gross this afternoon, and nothing he said today contradicted this interview. Bush did not make fighting Al Qaeda a major priority. The push to eliminate Al Qaeda was not even being made at the cabinet level, let alone the presidential level. Bush's top three priorities in foreign policy pre 9/11 were Iraq, Russia, and Star Wars. Whereas the Clinton Administration (and Clarke) had urged him to focus on Al Qaeda, Israel/Palestine, and North Korea. Imagine if Bush had followed that advice!

None of this is contradicted by the earlier interview. It was Clarke's job to fight terrorism, and he did the best job he could. His point in the book is that he could have done it better if he had more support from the president. Clarke gives an example of how Clinton behaved when he had similar intelligence about possible terror threats related to the millennium/Y2K. There were presidential meetings with DOJ/intelligence officials every other day, where the president asked what was being done to prevent an attack. The result was the prevention of three attacks (most notably the L.A. airport attack) planned for the millennium.


Do you have a link to this? I'd like to post it elsewhere (the link).

[G4scott]

Clarke is playing the John Kerry Flip-Flop game. Praise Bush one day, vilify him the next. I imagine he's just doing this to sell his book, and it's working. He's been motivated purely by politics, and is just doing this to get his "15 seconds of fame." It's sad though, that Clarke is exploiting the investigation on the worst terrorist attacks on America just to sell his book.

Also, it appears Clarke was wrong in assuming that Condoleezza Rice knew nothing about Al-Qaida when he briefed her.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/120740.shtml

Some comments by Clarke made to reporters in 2002:

"There was no plan on al Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."
The Bush administration was briefed on the existing plans and strategy regarding Afghanistan, among other things, that the Clinton administration had in place.
The Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaida."
Once the administration was fully in place, in March or April - because of the election debacle - the new administration "then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaida over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaida."


It seems as if Clarke has 'politicized intelligence' for his own benefit, which is a very dangerous thing to do. It just goes to show that he's not being motivated by the truth, but buy whatever sells his book, and the controversy he's created is doing a good job of it.

[jefhatfield]

being a democrat, i go for the ideals but since i have followed the cabinets and dissent since the carter administration, i have usually noticed a trend of turncoats that are on democratic administrations

but i have never heard of a gop administration that had major dissent

but now, with clarke and o'neill, things are not looking too good for w...and then there are reports of rummy not on the same page as bush (vietnam quagmire commnet re irag after w said things were in control and over) and powell not being too happy with w

one thing i can say about reagan and bush sr's staff...they were either really loyal or really quiet about their presidents

but w's staff and fellow gop mates, mccain, hatch, etc is in self destruct mode, but being that the american public is not too aware of these subtle types of trends, it won't hurt him too much...kerry, while honorable, is a bore to most people....kind of like gore, mondale, etc and w will...unfortunately...win this november

no matter how much he screws up between now and nov, he will win since his loyal followers, many of them fundamentalist christians, will never leave his side....the fundamentalists are often very loyal and forgiving and jim bakker and jimmy swaggart pretty much did not lose any support through their troubles

if the fundamentalists see you as one who is their ally, they will look past any transgressions and flip flops because they are now enjoying support in high political places and they know, like any other splinter group, that it's better to have a lukewarm and inconsistent spokesperson than nobody at all

and then, if they realize that bush is a hypocrite and warmonger and it bothers them, they feel he must have jesus and he can fix any shortcomings of the president since he is "their" work in progress

w has been politically smart in allying himself with such a loyal die hard group of followers and if non fundamentalists, mainline christians, agnostics, atheists, muslims, liberal catholics, and many other groups actually went out and voted like the fundamentalists, gore would have likely beat bush in 2000

so the trend with high voter turnout with fundamentalists and fundamentalists looking past bad transgressions of a supporter, is in bush jr's favor right now and most likely all the way to a win in 2004

i will vote for kerry and i know it won't help...even gore the bore would do better in 04, but the man i liked, lieberman, would do terribly against w, even worse than kerry...i hate to be such a doomsdayer but when i see a weak candidate, i call it like i see it

[IJ Reilly]

Forget oil prices -- that's just a side-show issue at this point, at least insofar as Iraq is concerned. The real story is the Bush administration's failure to keep their eye on the terrorism ball, their poor judgment in invading Iraq, their inept planning for the post-war period, and their selective use of intelligence data to justify their predisposed ideas. This is the big picture the Bush apologists don't want the American people to see, because if they do, Bush will not be invited back for another four years.