what is there to say? clarke’s credibility is about as spotless as you can get. if he were

really spinning tales out of spite, well, does anyone believe he’d not be in jail already

on libeal and/or treason charges? not a chance. the logic of the clarke detractors isn’t

logic at all, but the reactionary spasms of those who live the unexamined life. let the

truth be told, free americans with minds of their own can handle it. those without said

minds should examine just what it is freedom means.

kerry/huffington ‘04

Clarke’s interview will get spun as usual.

For anyone who’s really interested tak a look at

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039

Will the same thing that happened to Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill happen to Ret. Gen. Jay Garner, the first American leader placed in Iraq, before he was replaced by Bremer in May 2003?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1171689,00.html

“Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq’s first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed programme of privatisation.

In an interview to be broadcast on BBC Newsnight tonight, he says: ‘My preference was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can, and do it with some form of elections … I just thought it was necessary to rapidly get the Iraqis in charge of their destiny.’

Asked by the reporter Greg Palast if he foresaw negative repercussions from the subsequent US imposition of mass privatisation , Gen Garner said: ‘I don’t know … we’ll just have to wait and see.’ It would have been better for the Iraqis to take decisions themselves, even if they made mistakes, he said.

‘What I was trying to do was get to a functioning government … We as Americans like to put our template on things. And our template’s good, but it’s not necessarily good for everyone else.’

Describing his dismissal after he called for elections , he said: ‘The night I got to Baghdad, [the defence secretary Donald] Rumsfeld called me and told me he was appointing Paul Bremer as the presidential envoy … The announcement … was somewhat abrupt.’

Gen Garner was careful not to criticise his successor directly. He said the imposition before elections of free market economic schemes drawn up by the US as early as 2001 ‘was a more orderly approach’ than his own.”

—The Guardian, by David Leigh, Thursday March 18, 2004

+++++++++

I especially like Garner’s statement about “free market economic schemes” for Iraq that were drawn up in 2001. This fact supports Richard Clarke’s claims of early plans for an Iraqi invasion. Clarke’s statements also correspond with Paul O’Neill’s January 2004 statements about the Bush administration’s pre-occupation with pre-emption and occupying Iraq.

I saw Condolezza Rice smearing Clarke by reminding us that he was counter-terrorism czar during the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole, etc., suggesting that he was to blame for not preventing them. Which begs the question of why Team Bush kept him on if he was so useless.

A bank should be careful not to lend to the signature project of a contractor. Previous projects develop the reputation and future potential. The signature project can become a cash cow for the benefit of the contractor and against the interests of the lender. The contractor’s behavior has changed with the circumstance.

I don’t see why one such as Clark cannot undergo a similar change. Instead of improving his career through quality service to others he’s now trying to improve the payoff to himself from having had an unusual prior access.

The following is from an extensive article by Warren P. Strobel published in The Gold Coast Bulletin (Australia) on January 29, 2001, full text available at nexis.com (subscription required).

It’s been named ‘the war in the shadows’, the global fight against a terrorist leader and his network.

WHEN a pair of suicide bombers crippled the destroyer USS Cole in a Yemeni port in October, killing 17 American sailors, top US counter-terrorism officials had a fearful intuition: This is revenge for Albania.

In mid-1998, the CIA, working with Albania’s intelligence service, had rolled up a terrorist cell guided by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden.

[…]

Few realise the full extent and intensity of what has become an around-the-clock, across-the-globe campaign against fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, a confusing web of groups and names fused only by their hatred for the United States and, often, their shared experience fighting the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

This war is waged largely in the shadows, a cat-and-mouse contest between terrorists and intelligence agencies that only rarely comes into public view.

But much of the vast US national security machinery - and a ballooning budget - are trained on the threat.

[…]

Bin Laden finances and motivates a ‘network of networks’, co-opting homegrown terrorist groups, from Egyptian Islamic Jihad to the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

“It’s like you’re winding up little dolls and sending them back to their own countries and letting them create their own movements,” says Sandia National Laboratories’ Gary Richter, who has written extensive classified reports on bin Laden.

The United States was slow as a government to recognise what bin Laden was doing, White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke said in a recent interview.

“He was doing something much more than spreading the money around.”

Without fanfare, Washington in 1999 opened a new front in the war. The strategy: Go on the offensive, hound and disrupt terrorist cells wherever they can be found.

[…]

More than two dozen suspects have been brought to justice, CIA chief George Tenet told Congress in March [note—that’s March 2000].

[…]

One year ago, the CIA launched the largest counter-terror operation in US history, working with counterparts in Jordan and other countries to thwart a multi-continent ‘terrorist spectacular’ during the millennium celebrations.

CIA operatives in more than 50 countries pressured, pleaded, and paid local authorities to crack down on Islamic radicals.

The message was, “It’s crunch time,” a US official recalled. “The agency blew a wad of cash and resources in doing that.”

[…]

The United States has tried to block the money flow but has made little progress.

Despite the nature of the quarry, Clarke insists that progress is being made in the war on terrorism.

“We’re certainly holding our own,” he says. “There’s a chance that we’re gaining ground.”

[…]

That threat [“millenium plot”] was thwarted, but others keep coming - an average of 30 each week, say FBI officials.

Fighting terrorism is like being a soccer goalie, says Dale Watson, head of the Bureau’s counter-terroism division.

“We can block 99 shots, but you miss one and you lose the game.”

• • +

I suppose 9/11 was the shot that the goalie failed to block? Or were U.S. administration priorities shifted between January 2001 and September 2001?

Andrew your arguement has one critical flaw that is the difference between Clinton and Bush.

“More than two dozen suspects have been brought to justice, CIA Chief George Tenet Congress in March.

[…]

“The threat [Millenium plot] was thwarted, but others keep coming - an average of 30 each week, say FBI officials.”

First of all if believe all the quotes in your post you also believe that one shot out of 100 will score, no matter what has been done to provent it. Why the implication that WTC 2001 was created by Bush placing priorites elsewhere?

The assertion that the FBI or CIA foiled the Millenium terrorist entering from Canada inroute to Los Angles is patently false. He was caught by a female Customs Agent that “just had a funny feeling” because of answers she received in questioning him.”

Is there a reference listing all the others that were caught worldwide in an attempt to carry out an attack on the eve of the Millenium. The only other sucess on the Millenium was a exclusively Jordanian operation.

Given Tenets statement that 26 have been brought to justice and the FBI’S est that 30 a week “are coming” that’s a ratio of 26 caught out of a possible 1560 in Clintons last year in office.

How many have been “brought to justice” that have been involved in the following acts? all BTW during Clintons watch.

*1993: Shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia

*1994: Plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila

*1995: Plotted to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines

*1995: Plot to to bomb simultaneously, in midair, a dozen US trans-Pacific flights was discovered and thwarted at the last moment

*1998: Conducted the bombings of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others

*1999: Attempt to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations was discovered just in time by Jordanian authorities

*1999: In another millenium plot, bomber was caught en route to Los Angeles International Airport

*2000: Bombed the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 US Navy members, and injuring another 39.

The biggest question of all is WHY NOW. Why has Clark chosen this moment to reveal his accusations? If in fact most of what he is saying is true why didn’t he go to whatever authorites he deemed apporiate to start impeachment or criminal charges against Bush or others? Why did he chose to “tell all” on 60 minutes?

The answer is he has a book to sell. 60 Mins is owned by Viacom who also owns the publishing company that published Clarks book.

Beware of those that will profit from there own statements.

The opposite side of Andrews post can be read here.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006214.php

I don’t normally insert myself into discussions on the boards, but hell, this might be fun. Cranial raises the question of “WHY NOW” and calls it “the biggest question.” Well, I don’t think it’s the BIGGEST question by far, but as for why now, well, when? There’s always an election coming up and he just quit in February. So when? Is anyone who criticizes Bush between now and November automatically disqualified because it’s an election year? Are the critics supposed to wait until AFTER the election?

As for financial disclosures, I didn’t see the interview (waiting someone to send it to me) and CBS was wrong not to mention the ties to Viacom. But in the online coverage — on CBSnews.com — they DID mention the coverage.

But also, to a degree, so what? Would he be more credible if he’d gone on, say, ABC?

And what authorities would Clarke go to? Only Congress can draw up articles of impeachment, and Bush appoints the heads of Justice, the FBI and the Attorney General? What relevant authorities are there to go to? In this case, Clarke is taking about the only road available to an ex-official: the court of public opinion, and that usually involves writing a book. Will he get rich off it? Perhaps, but the economics of book publishing argue against it. Speaking fees, maybe. But jeeze, man, is he not allowed to earn a living?

Anyway, just some gasoline for this fire.

He could have gone to the same “authorities” that he did this week, the press. Or those with the power to draw up articles of impeachment, Congress, as an ex-admin official he would have open access to air his charges. Do you think that the amount of hate on the Dem. side the Isle wouldn’t persue the charges?

And I didn’t ask anyone to believe or disbelieve him all I asked for is caution.

To add to the previous — and this is a slam for CBS/Viacom not directed at Clark. The Richard Perle book that was published earlier was also by the same CBS/VIACOM owned company. Also take a look at the last 3-4 CBS News polls that have been taken. They had three in a row that showed Kerry ahead of Bush by fairly good margins, all duly published and noted on the evening news. Then if by magic the last one done (I believe I have not checked) had Bush ahead of Kerry and no mention was made of it. Strange they wouldn’t publicize their own poll. Oversight? Doubtful.

And here is more on the career of Mr. Clark

In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke “played a key role in the Clinton administration’s misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.” The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.

Trying his hand in cyberspace, Clarke’s most lasting contribution is probably the new corporate exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. Originally designed to immunize companies against the theoretical malicious use of FOIA by competitors, journalists and other so-called miscreants interested in ferreting out cyber-vulnerabilities, it was suggested well before the war on terror as a measure that would increase corporate cooperation with Uncle Sam. Clarke labored and lobbied diligently from the NSC for this amendment to existing law, law which he frequently referred to as an “impediment” to information sharing.

While the exemption would inexplicably not pass during the Clinton administration, Clarke and other like-minded souls kept pushing for it. Finally, the national nervous breakdown that resulted from the collapse of the World Trade Center reframed the exemption as a grand idea, and it was embraced by legislators, who even expanded it to give a get-out-of-FOIA-free card to all of corporate America, not just those involved with the cyber-infrastructure. It passed into law as part of the legislation forming the Department of Homeland Security.

cranial,

none of those points, however true they might be, have anything to do with what

his book is about: a pathologically misplaced emphasis placed on iraq by the bush

administration, which lead to a lack of focus on al qaeda. i’ll say it again, if what he

is claiming were untrue, with what’s on the line, and the powerful parties involved,

there’s no doubt criminal charges would be brought against him. libeling the president

in a time of war would not stand if that’s what really happened. and no company

would publish it if it were that likely to be false. see peter mathiessen’s “in the spirit

of crazy horse” as an example. and that book was meticulously researched and

footnoted. and it still got shelved for more more than decade i think. until the suits

were thrown out of court. this shit is true, bush knows it, and he’s just hoping to squirm

out from trouble again.

this whole thing is looking more and more shakespearean every day. lies, deceit,

violence, revenging an attempt on father’s life, ignoring the real problem for

personal gain. truly pathetic.

From “Atrios”:http://atrios.blogspot.com/20040321atriosarchive.html#107999847741730837:

On the Newshour, Richard Clarke just said that the publication of the book had been delayed for 3 months because the White House delayed clearing it for publication. So, if not for their meddling, it would have been before any reasonable person could have accused him of being “political” for releasing it during the election season.

PS: I do remember reading today in one of the major papers (gotta find the link) that a lot of his manuscript had to be cleared for classified info and run by Chief of Staff Andrew Card. So a three-month delay — for whatever reason — seems like a reasonable explanation for the timing. Plus, it takes a while to write a book. Usually, it’s a year process of writing, editing, rewriting, galleys, publication. Assuming this book has an accelerated schedule, 13 months after Clarke left his job doesn’t seem that suspicious.

But even if it is “political” does that mean what he says isn’t true? (Disclaimer: I’ve not read the book yet, obviously.) I mean, this is actually a larger theme in the Bush campaign that any criticism is “politics.” Well, sure! That’s how government is run! You make deals, you cajole, you convince and you run in opposition to some guy. If a citizen — or former official — doesn’t think the president is doing a good job, is he not allowed to engage in “politcs” in order to exercise his or her right to engage in the process? Should he just shut up?

Cranial, you say you’re merely urging caution, but your comments are aimed at discrediting Clarke for producing an allegedly suspiciously timed book, being pissed off or having nutty ideas in the 1980s. But none of these criticisms actually get to the heart of Clarke’s charges. In short, your criticisms are “political” — and that’s cool! That’s the way it’s supposed to work. I’d like you to attack him on the basis of facts, but failing that, bang away on the table. It’s totally within your right. But bear in mind that simply calling something “political” is a pretty lazy debating tactic.

Man, I need to do a post on this.

Frankly I don’t get the great to-do about this among those in the know. We all knew this before. Rumsfeld begging to bomb Iraq on 9/11/01 was in Woodward’s book on Bush (and/or the associated WaPo article). I have heard Wes Clark say it several times….here’s one quick cite on that:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8353

Then you have Paul O’Neill’s stuff.

Truth be told, having Clarke join the chorus, this is just P.R.; it’s P.R. of the best kind, the truth, done for an honorable purpose, but it’s still just P.R!. To convince the dense American public! The more prestigious the mouth the better.

So those that see P.R. motives in it are seeing reality.

And those still trying to convince themselves that it is not true or fishy, well they are just nuts!

Cranial,

Viacom was also the same company that rejected the “Bush in 30 seconds” ad by MoveOn.org from playing during the Super Bowl, and has been a past supporter of good ol’ Ed Gillespie, so Viacom has not always been a big Bush opponent (if they ever were), which feels like part of what you’re implying when you admonish us all about people profiting from what they say.

On the other hand, perhaps that’s changing, at least for Viacom. Some media firms seem to be shifting their allegiances and money to Kerry’s campaign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1144797,00.html

Maybe firms like Viacom are turning toward Kerry because they see something of value compared to whatever it is that Bush represents. No one is obliged to continue supporting someone who doesn’t resonate with his/her needs or viewpoints, and the media firms are no different. So what if they and Clarke make some money off Clarke’s book? Is that a crime? I’d rather know who’s donating to or making money off of whom rather than not.

The Little Green Footballs & Instapundit affiliated PowerLine blog page you link to goes on and on about how supposedly Clarke is a fraud because a) he had different opinions when under Clinton, and b) that he’s now changed his mind and brought under more intense scrutiny things he’s learned over the years (that jibe with what others have said, like Paul O’Neill, who this blogger attacks as well) about how the Bush White House really operates. What’s actually wrong or unsavory about this, other than the fact that it naturally potentially disturbs anyone whose steadfast, right-wing, Bush-inspired worldview blinds them from seeing anything else.

I like the way Chalmers Johnson explains to others about how he himself has changed his viewpoints on a wide range of issues, including the Vietnam War…

from: The Disquieted American

By Jim Benning, San Diego City Beat, March 15, 2004

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18119

“When someone once accused the economist John Maynard Keynes of being inconsistent, Keynes responded, ‘When I get new information, I change my position. What, sir, do you do with new information?’” Johnson grinned. “That’s the point,” he said. “I got some new information.”

And maybe these media firms like Viacom got some new information, like the truth. How they present it, like the poll data you wonder about, is up to them, and is proof of why we voters should never rely on a single source — left or right or in-between — for our decision-making fodder. Sept. 11, and Bush’s ongoing debatable response to it, have changed — and are changing — a lot of people’s opinions and attitudes about how the US govt should be run. I wouldn’t hold that against them.

Time itself will tell us whether Clarke is to be believable or not. Right now, so far, I’d say his believability is pretty watertight.

Cranial,

I suppose by my “argument” you mean my defense of Clarke’s representation of the Bush administration’s actions.

And I suppose that by “flaw” in my “argument” you mean that the Clinton administration, while having managed to prevent attacks, failed because they did not prosecute or completely stop Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

After watching former U.N. Ambassador and Secretary of State Albright testify before the 9/11 commission this morning, I still believe [as she apparently does] that questions need to be asked of those in the Bush administration as to how they treated counterterrorism during the first eight months of their tenure. Did they pick up on the Clinton administration’s U.S.S. Cole findings and pursue further action, or did they shift focus away from counterterrorism, as Clarke says?

And if Richard Clarke, a holdover, states in his book, on 60 Minutes, for Viacom, for himself, for whatever motive—

if he states the TRUTH—

I have no regard for the circumstances, only for the truth.

History may have regard for the circumstances, as to how Richard Clarke will be viewed in times to come, but should he be stating the truth, he will be but a footnote to the magnitude of lies, coverups, smears, and disinformation employed by the Bush administration.

Paul Krugman writes in today’s New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/opinion/23KRUG.html

“When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife’s career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system’s chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration’s prescription drug plan.”

Add the treatment of these individuals to the treatment of Clarke, O’Neill, and Garner [and I’m sure there are plenty of others]—well, there is an obvious antisocial behavior pattern—arguably criminal and impeachable—going on here from within the Bush administration.

Cranial, can you find me a comparable list of ex-Clinton appointees being personally attacked for revealing truths?

It is sickening to me, although it is as old as dirt—those in power attacking those who told the truth. Mel Gibson just made a lot of money with a graphic depiction of just such an act, with a lot of that money probably coming from people who, ironically, support Bush.

All I read, all I hear in defense of Bush, all is personal attack.

“Show me the money.”

Show me your version of the truth, the version that incontrovertibly contradicts my version, and I will take heed of what you say.

“Bang away on the table” and I think you’ve got no legs upon which to stand.

Scott McClellan, Condoleeza Rice, and Dick Cheney did an awful lot of table-banging yesterday, and I’m sure they have access to notes and transcripts to the same meetings that Clarke was attending.

Why didn’t they just produce those records and flat-out refute Clarke?

Because, most likely, they’ve got no legs upon which to stand.

If only the political opposition of today could pursue this story as the political opposition of yesterday pursued an affair with an intern.

Just want to point out that Richard Clarke also exposed the White House’s involvement with the post-9/11 exodus of members of the bin Laden family from American soil—when all domestic air travel was supposed to have been grounded, the White House organized air travel for and aided the bin Ladens in their departure when they could have had material knowledge of their relative’s actions and plans.

Is Clarke a democrat or republican? He used to work for Clinton, then stayed behind to work for Bush. If he’s democrat, he’s out to get JFK elected. If he’s republican, Bush’s boys(and girls) must have screwed him over. nuff said.

He was a registered Republican in 2000. Maybe he still is. He not only worked for Clinton, but also GHW Bush and Reagan.

BenGar,

So no one could possibly be exposing this negligence for any other than self-interest?

A dim view of free Americans. A dim view of humans, in general. Are you just such

a grubber, too? Come on, take that weak game home. This is far too serious a matter to

be flip without an ounce of actual evidence to back up such wet brownies. No different than

Ellsberg (sic?) and the Pentagon Papers. Why even bother to post when you can’t bother

to think a little? Free Americans should aim a bit higher.

Richard Clarke is scheduled to speak before the 9/11 Commission tomorrow, 24 March 2004, from 1:30-4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the subject of National Policy Coordination.

James Ridgway in this week’s Village Voice reports on Richard Clarke’s book at:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo1.php

Here’s an excerpt:

“…Clarke’s recollections tend to reinforce the opinion of critics who think Rumsfeld and Bush had made up their minds to attack Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before Osama bin Laden struck on American soil—regardless of whether there were any ties between Saddam and bin Laden or whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In September 2002, CBS reported that it had obtained a note written by Rumsfeld at 2:40 p.m., September 11, 2001: ‘Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden, as he was then sometimes called]… . Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.’

In Ron Suskind’s book about Paul O’Neill, the former treasury secretary refers to a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ The document included a map of potential areas for exploration. And O’Neill reveals that he got top-secret briefing materials, including a ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq’—which, according to Suskind, were discussed in January and February of 2001. “

Richard Clarke is about as legitimate as snow skiing in the Sahara Desert.

While the 9/11 Commission is convened they have rejected Bill Clinton’s admission of passing on Bin Laden http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3.

Clarke himself ties Iraq and al-Qaeda together:

“Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden; Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism,” Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, A02, January 23, 1999.)

During Clarkes watch under Clinton these Terrorist attacks went ‘unanswered’ unless you believe that bombing a Sudan aspirin factory and killing the night watchman as a serious effort against terror.

The short list:

1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993

1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions

1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994

1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995

1995 Saudi Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995

1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995

1996 Khobar Towers attack

1996 Sudanese Missionarys Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996

1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996

1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997

1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997

1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998

1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998

1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100’s murdered

1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100’s murdered

1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)

2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered

2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 100’s dead and injured

2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000

While President Bush meets ‘daily’ with CIA officials, Clinton would ‘not meet with the CIA’. Just another failure of Clinton.

I can’t help but post a link to an article pointing out Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s self-confessed crime of promissory fraud—more evidence of an “above the law” Republican regime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/opinion/24AYRE.html?th

In response to “Dan”—

1) how does one “reject” an admission?

2) From your Washington Post reference:

A) “U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama bin Laden’s extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton administration’s senior counterterrorism official said yesterday.”

Refutes your inaction claim.

B) “While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is ‘sure’ that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.”

The involvement of Iraqi nerve gas experts in Sudan does not mean the Iraqi government was involved. And a cruise missile attack on a suspected WMD site seems a hell of a lot more reasonable and appropriate to me than the BILLIONS of dollars spent in a similar wild goose chase for WMDs that begain a year ago today.

3) In the future, if you are going to make a list supporting your claim of inaction, omit anything that says “thwarted”. And just because events are on your list does not mean there was no government response. It just means you have not taken the time to present a “fair and balanced” argument.

4) Saying “Clinton would ‘not meet with the CIA’” out of context means nothing to me—it is just hearsay as you present it.

Nice try, but I’m still not convinced—maybe the “facts” you present should actually support your argument?

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News’ Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter’s decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy — uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn’t get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn’t sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You’re saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that’s correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I’m saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from ‘98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from ‘98 on or was some of it …

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from ‘98 on.

ANGLE: When in ‘98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of ‘98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to …

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics …

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: ‘Til late December, developing …

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 ‘til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was …

CLARKE: No, that’s not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that’s really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you’re saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ‘98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That’s right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That’s right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I’ve been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven’t completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don’t know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we’d had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News’ Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter’s decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy — uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn’t get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn’t sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You’re saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that’s correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I’m saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from ‘98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from ‘98 on or was some of it …

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from ‘98 on.

ANGLE: When in ‘98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of ‘98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to …

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics …

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: ‘Til late December, developing …

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 ‘til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was …

CLARKE: No, that’s not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that’s really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you’re saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ‘98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That’s right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That’s right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I’ve been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven’t completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don’t know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we’d had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

1) By NOT accepting the information as part of the Commissions investigation. Duh

2) Gee, Richard Clarke stated that there was a ‘direct connection in 1999’ between Iraq and al-Qaeda, whereas today the democrats who did nothing, claim there ‘is’ no connection. Hmmm.

3) Clinton did ‘nothing’ but act like terrorism was a ‘police action’ while Bin Laden openly called for the death of those who weren’t a part of his ideology. He termed the US as a ‘paper tiger’ following our abandoning our troops in Somalia and allowing them to be summarily attacked. This ‘emboldened them’ and they continued to escalate their activities against those of Western society.

4) It was common knowledge that CIA Director James Woolsey rarely had any meetings with Mr. Clinton. The president never supported Mr. Woolsey’s urgent request for Arabic-language translators for the CIA in 1994. A separate feud between Mr. WoolseyandSen.Dennis DeConcini, Arizona Democrat, was allowed to run its course without direction by the Clinton White House, which further set back the CIA director’s appeal for Arabic translators. So, as the author concludes, “a bureaucratic feud and President Clinton’s indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted.”

Bill Clinton’s failure on terrorism

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102359-9067r.htm

Hardly hearsay.

Clarke DISCREDITS his book from a 2002 interview:

Clarke Praises Bush Team in ‘02

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

By Caspar W. Weinberger

The fact remains is that you’re not interested in the truth as it would shatter your worship of Clinton and his attention set on Interns rather than our National Security which is in far contrast to the real leadership of President Bush and his actions against terrorist threats.

dadler,

“So no one could possibly be exposing this negligence for any other than self-interest?”

What do you think politicians and beaurocrats are for?

“A dim view of free Americans. A dim view of humans, in general.”

Dim is what dead Iraqis see when they get blasted to Allah for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Dim view is for Bush and his gang who killed tens of thousands of innocent people to avenge 911. Also got a sea of oil to boot!

Free American?! Tell that to the Americans arrested under the patriot act!

“Are you just such

a grubber, too? Come on, take that weak game home.”

Like why American soldiers should go home and leave Iraq now?

” This is far too serious a matter to

be flip without an ounce of actual evidence to back up such wet brownies. “

Serious-this is life and death ask any Iraqi, Brownies, that’s what illiterate GI’s call Iraqis.

“No different than

Ellsberg (sic?) and the Pentagon Papers. “

Donald Rumsfeld IS your favorite hero.

“Why even bother to post when you can’t bother

to think a little? Free Americans should aim a bit higher.”

Thinking is what Bush should have done before they ordered the murder of the helpless and innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by dadler at March 23, 2004 05:39 PM

Post your dadle here ==> ( o ) dat ur sorry bum dadle

You know what I say? I say no one KNOWS anything except maybe the key players, and even they might not know as much as they think because the people who do their dirty work have THEIR own agendas, too. So have fun speculating, but if you think you know anything, you’re living in la la land…

Way to go, Trish. The bottom line has to be that something is rotten in the Untied States of America.

I believe that what she’s saying, Niall, is that some things ARE rotten in the U.S.; not that there HAS to be.

The fact that we see a steady stream of our employees from across the political spectrum, principally engaged in justifying their actions and inactions, and trying to lay blame elsewhere, should suggest to any thoughtful person, it seems to me, that SOMETHING is less healthy than might be desired. For one thing, they must be convinced the American people and the American media are looking to find somebody to blame…or they wouldn’t be acting like that. Condaleeza Rice, the President and Mr. Cheney wouldn’t mind appearing publicly, I presume, unless they were concerned they had something to lose by doing so.

That’s a little ripe, isn’t it? Doesn’t that suggest something unfortunate in us, to you?

I can’t see a rational or constructive reason for blaming anyone but al Queda - particularly those 19 hijackers - for the tragedy of 9/11. ‘Luck’ obviously figured into it, along with a great many aspects and dynamics one could trace back into the Middle Ages.

I do not favor most of the policies, ideologies, methods and attitudes at play in the White House, and I find more than a few things downright despicable about several of the principal players there. In my view, it requires a great capacity for denial to believe these folks did not both manipulate/bully the nation into the Iraq invasion, and rush forward without adequate or thoughtful planning for the war and its aftermath. And it’s UNdeiable that several have moved past ‘prevarication’ and into the sphere of ‘lying’ to the nation, about more than a couple of things.

And are you familiar with the Haliburton business?

Enron?

But I wouldn’t suggest that they were to blame for 9/11.

That’s as crazy as suggesting that invading Iraq was a smart and necessary move, and that applying our resources and focus there has reduced, not increased terrorism.

Why do you suppose the country appears to be so polarized over these issues? How does that happen? Half of us are morons? (I hope you aren’t one of those who prefer assigning ‘evil’ as the designation of choice to those who are on the other side of a given fence.)

I don’t think any of those options explain it.

It isn’t a good thing, altogether, is it? It’s a wonder there isn’t even MORE cynicism here; if there are times when it should be forgiven, surely

these times are among them.

Some things ARE rotten in the U.S. I say let’s acknowledge that - and that almost none of us are without some of the blame. There is just too much, to dump it all on Bill Clinton, George Bush, bin Laden and Saddam.

I hope Clarke makes $87-BILLION on his book (which he won’t, publishing and the economy being what they are); lord knows that Shrub and all his little Shrubbites have profited hugely from their malfeasance run amok these past 3+ years. Clarke should rightfully make a fortune from being brave enough to be truthful and stand up to these self-righteous godwhackers who have run the U.S. into the ground. The fact that Clarke appeared first on CBS is nothing short of a miracle, given the Republican-shill stance CBS has betrayed in the recent past. My phone-punching fingers have developed callouses from calling CBS to protest its behaviour on a myriad of issues lately. That certainly bolsters Clarke’s credibility, if it needed bolstering.

But I take exception to the broad, general statement that “almost none of us are without some of the blame”. If you are saying we’re all guilty because we happened to be born in the U.S., that’s one heckuva stretch - but okay. If you are saying we all bear the blame for being unable to stop the Shrubbery Machine, all I can tell you is that many of us did everything humanly possible from the first Daze of Florida to stem the flow of bloodletting from these wealthy leeches - and the fact remains that the WTC DID NOT happen under anyone else’s watch; it happened after the White House was taken by fraud by a bunch of self-aggrandizing amateurs who wanted to play Pol. That’s not happenstance, such as the 99/100 golf shot scenario would imply; that is a direct result.

I hope everyone else in the know (but “out-of-the-loop” - geez!!!) now comes forward and sings loud and long about what they know. It is apparently going to take that to grab the attention of the couch-taters out here in TV land and get them to form a worthy opinion (or indeed, any opinion) and go vote in the next election. And this time, let’s jolly well count the votes.

I find it loathesome, how easily some Americans will brush aside the truth for political agendas. How people will post comments here without signing a real name. How lame attempts to discredit people are supposed to distract us from the truth.

Show me one person claiming to be an anti-Bush liberal slandering or libeling Richard Clarke.

Time to bang on the table for the sake of banging on the table, because I’ve had enough button-pushing for one day—

“The fact remains is that you’re not interested in the truth as it would shatter your worship of Clinton and his attention set on Interns rather than our National Security which is in far contrast to the real leadership of President Bush and his actions against terrorist threats.” —some anonymous person on this Comments board.

Hollow words (Bush a real leader? Down the road to hell, maybe), personal attacks (Clinton’s attention to Lewinsky was nothing compared to Republican attention to Clinton’s attention to Lewinsky—which, in your immodest Republican opinion, was more distracting to National Security?), and who speaks of the truth?

I’ll go out on a limb and say that while those attacking Richard Clarke (and me) are not all morons, they certainly like to instigate, inflame, and enrage—and maybe I’m wrong for assuming my support of Clarke’s testimony, under oath, instigates, inflames, and enrages them. Maybe the truth hurts.

Maybe if Condoleezza Rice was prepared to face the 9/11 commission before the public, she would have more credibility, herself. What is she hiding from? Why is her only response to Clarke’s statements incredulity and shock and denial? If she’s in the right, she should have transcripts, memos, and records of her own to easily refute Mr. Clarke.

And why would the White House send someone like Richard Armitage, who wasn’t even a part of the Bush transition team, to testify before the 9/11 commission? There were a hell of a lot of “I don’t know”s and “I can’t answer that”s. What was the point?

Commissioner Ben-Veniste had proof that other NSAs had testified in public—Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sandy Berger. Rice whined that no other NSAs ever testified in public. So who’s the liar, Rice, or Ben-Veniste? HINT: It wasn’t Rice holding the proof in her hands when she made the claim.

Is the best defense a good offense? Because the anti-Clarke comments on this board and coming from the White House are incredibly offensive. Like I said before, there is a pattern here, definitely antisocial, arguably criminal and more impeachable than a personal relationship with an intern.

Maybe the attacks are meant to distract the public from the claim at hand—that the Bush White House came into office with an agenda for the invasion of Iraq, and that they spent more time planning that invasion and not enough time dealing with the real problem of terrorism, before and AFTER 9/11.

I remember a smug monkey saying something about “bin Laden dead or alive”, or words to that effect. Yet for the last two days we’ve seen a parade of his goons claiming that a dead bin Laden would not have stopped 9/11, and gosh, if the Clinton administration had such a hard time finding him, why do you expect us to find him now?

And you and that Midwestern yokel Jim Thompson want to say that Clarke discredits himself with the press background he presented as a former member of the goon squad? Hell, he was just doing what every current member of the Bush administration is getting paid to do. Fault him for not quitting his job, fault him for misleading the press, and you are convicting every current member of the Bush administration.

Just because he has a conscience and is telling the real story that the 9/11 commission wants to hear, you want to crucify him. The Passion of Richard Clarke, coming soon to a theater near you. Go ahead, keep putting him up and the cross, and his followers will continue to grow in number.

Thanx, Mr Brenner—You said everything that I was too frustrated to say =)

Read the book and saw his testimony at 9/11 commission- what self serving rubbish. This guy Clarke is responsible for counter terrorism for eight or more years. 9/11 is biggest failure in counter terrorism for years. Has to testify in public about what he did or didn’t do before this (this is his job remember). Instead his book comes out just before his testimony and he is puffed up in the media. He starts with his apology for the governments and yes his failures before 9/11. The rest of his testimony is not about his role in the lead up to 9/11 but an attack on George Bush. He has successfully diverted attention away from himself, in fact made it look like he was a urging the administration that the attack was coming and he was ignored because the administration was focussed on Iraq not Al-Qaeda.

Talk about self promotion!!! This guy was a major part of the problem not the solution.

Hey Andy,

Didn’t you get the memo from your boss that the White House had already stopped using those pathetical lies as repeated by you and other morons? At least read Clarke’s book before further embarrassing yourself.

You people crack me up. Liberals are the only people who can hear audio of Clark completely flip flopping on his 911 testimonies, and then blame fox news for “burning a source” and then you can say with a straight face that Clark has all this credibility. NO matter how you liberals spin it, you heard what Clark said in the Angle interview, and then in front of the 911 commission. But you liberals donÂ’t seem to care who flip flops what, thatÂ’s why Bill Clinton is still your hero.