Richard Clarke's Book

[zenith-nadir]

So ex-counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke's book is out. In a nutshell the reviews say Clarke felt Bush had a hardon for Iraq and ignored him regarding Al Queda.

I am not sure what to think because I am trying to think of things Clinton did about Al Queda during the previous 8 years of Richard Clarke's tenure.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Jesus Clinton again? There's no more flesh on that corpse. The whole blame it on the previous administration thing is like a 7 yr old blaming his sister for the stolen cookies. Instead of saying Bush is not responsible Clinton is , why don't we shorten it to Bush is not responsible If I replaced a manager and 3 yrs. later he was blaming his predecessor for massive failures and general ◊◊◊◊-ups , I would fire him on the spot . You don't hire ANYONE for excuses ( let alone a President ) , you hire them for performance. Actually, I wouldn't let it go on for that long. The strategy is an old one "the common enemy" -I'm this and that but even tho these are trying times you don't want to go back to CLINTON again do ya???


Don't engage in conjecture, read the book. More then one source said Clinton Had daily intelligence briefings about many subjects including Al-Quida, it was a point of much concern. . The book says that basically Bush didn't want to know and had his own agenda. This from other sources including Paul O'Neil and two current ( un named) hi level administration members. The frustrated Clarke finally had his chance to demonstrate to Bush the danger of OBL. He and some other analysts and functionary's prepared a report for Bush and it was finalized 09/10/01.

That does not mean that Bush was responsible for 9-11, but that if the administration had paid attention to the experts ( Clarke was not the only one to raise alarms) , it may have been averted or lessened. Now the Bush re-election campaign...err the administration calls Clarke a lier.I have not gone too far in the book yet but I did see a few Clarke interviews and some background sources from journalists. Theres no Axe there.

Kill the Messenger!, Kill the Messenger!

 

[crackmonkey]

Oh, but the Clinton administration is very much a relevant topic when a member of both administrations lambastes Bush for inaction against Al Qaeda when CLinton did far, far less. Clinton doesn't deserve a mention, apparently, yet he actually turned down the offer of having bin Laden delivered as a prisoner. This while episode smacks of Clarke's hypocrisy.
Another bitter ex-employee.

 

[RandFan]

Jesus Clinton again? There's no more flesh on that corpse. The whole blame it on the previous administration thing is like a 7 yr old blaming his sister for the stolen cookies. Instead of saying Bush is not responsible Clinton is , why don't we shorten it to Bush is not responsible If I replaced a manager and 3 yrs. later he was blaming his predecessor for massive failures and general ◊◊◊◊-ups , I would fire him on the spot . You don't hire ANYONE for excuses ( let alone a President ) , you hire them for performance. Actually, I wouldn't let it go on for that long. The strategy is an old one "the common enemy" -I'm this and that but even tho these are trying times you don't want to go back to CLINTON again do ya???


Don't engage in conjecture, read the book. More then one source said Clinton Had daily intelligence briefings about many subjects including Al-Quida, it was a point of much concern. . The book says that basically Bush didn't want to know and had his own agenda. This from other sources including Paul O'Neil and two current ( un named) hi level administration members. The frustrated Clarke finally had his chance to demonstrate to Bush the danger of OBL. He and some other analysts and functionary's prepared a report for Bush and it was finalized 09/10/01.

That does not mean that Bush was responsible for 9-11, but that if the administration had paid attention to the experts ( Clarke was not the only one to raise alarms) , it may have been averted or lessened. Now the Bush re-election campaign...err the administration calls Clarke a lier.I have not gone too far in the book yet but I did see a few Clarke interviews and some background sources from journalists.

I think Clinton is quite relevant in this instance. Also, it should be noted that there are credible sources that counter Clarke.

Theres no Axe there.

Hmmmm....

Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Have You read the book?
If not , please withold you opinion.

Copyright 1999 Houston Chronicle News Services

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration said Tuesday that there is a direct link between the terrorist group led by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden and a dozen or so suspects detained in an unnamed Mideast country on grounds they were planning a Year 2000 attack against Americans
NOTICE THE DATE Article here:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/side2/1054464


Please post proof that custody of OBL was offered to the Clinton administration and refused.

 

[RandFan]

...please withold you opinion.

Sorry, I know of no reason that I can't discuss relevant topics being discussed in the media about the book. Many of the incidents are documented and can be varified or rebutted without reading the book.

Please feel free to put me on your ignore list or contact the moderators and make a complaint... BTW Subgenious has heavily and repeatedly invited discussion of this topic. Perhaps you should complain directly to him.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Let's try it your way
OK so Clinton was responsible for the massive failure of the Bush administration to deal with a real threat to America - and I don't mean Iraq. Bush was in charge. Why didn't he make it better. Why didn't he form policy that dealt with the terrorist that Clinton let thrive and defeat it. Sorry gents . You arguments are null.

 

[RandFan]

Let's try it your way
OK so Clinton was responsible for the massive failure of the Bush administration to deal with a real threat to America - and I don't mean Iraq. Bush was in charge. Why didn't he make it better. Why didn't he form policy that dealt with the terrorist that Clinton let thrive and defeat it. Sorry gents . You arguments are null.

Did you read Condoleezza Rice's rebuttal?

9/11 for the record.

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.

During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.

We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well that hardly a counter point now is it?
You may try to score some rhetorical points , but your post is irrelevant and your position vacuous.
Also I was addressing Crackmonkey

 

[headscratcher4]

And, of course, we know from the WMD debate that we can always rely on the word of Candi Rice because she has no other motive but to tell the truth without any spin, coloration, exageration, minimization, etc. Just strait-up facts.

 

[RandFan]

Well that hardly a counter point now is it?
You may try to score some rhetorical points , but your post is irrelevant and your position vacuous.
Also I was addressing Crackmonkey

How do we know who you are talking to? Your post followed mine. Perhaps you could do as I and others have done and quote or note who you are talking to.

What do you mean my post is irrelevant and my position is vausous? This is just gainsaying. Can you make a logical arguemnt and avoid rhetoric?

As to my points, I was quite clear.

1.) You have given no reason for those who have not read the book to withold comment.

2.) The subjects and events are being discussed in the media right now.

3.) Others have invited this discussion.

Don't get so emotional. I'm not your enemy.

 

[RandFan]

And, of course, we know from the WMD debate that we can always rely on the word of Candi Rice because she has no other motive but to tell the truth without any spin, coloration, exageration, minimization, etc. Just strait-up facts.

Hi headscratcher,

I don't know of the incident that you refer. Could you provide some context and perhaps a link.

Thanks in advance.

RandFan.

 

[headscratcher4]

Hi headscratcher,

I don't know of the incident that you refer. Could you provide some context and perhaps a link.

Thanks in advance.

RandFan.

Sorry, just voicing opinion. I don't trust Candi Rice because I once trusted her and the Administration's assertions that Saddam had WMDs and that he posed an immenient threat. There were no WMDs. Why should I believe her now when she says Clark is wrong and doesn't know what he is talking about?

In short, for me, she has little or no credibility...why would anyone believe her?

Further, given how they used the WMD issue, why should anyone trust her ability to analyze or act on inteligence information?

As I said, just rantin' in the wind.

Thanks for playing.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, just voicing opinion. I don't trust Candi Rice because I once trusted her and the Administration's assertions that Saddam had WMDs and that he posed an immenient threat. There were no WMDs. Why should I believe her now when she says Clark is wrong and doesn't know what he is talking about?

In my book it is opinion worthy of consideration. You hold sway with me.

In short, for me, she has little or no credibility...why would anyone believe her?

Further, given how they used the WMD issue, why should anyone trust her ability to analyze or act on inteligence information?

As I said, just rantin' in the wind.

Thanks for playing.

No problem. Your points are valid. I might not draw the same conclusion but I'm forced to consider your points. I will have to consider the political nature of her job in both instances and try and be consistent.

I know how you feel. I was a fan of Albright's untill she was trotted out to lie for Clinton. I know they are not comparable because Albright did not really know the truth while Rice had damn well better.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

jeeze .....this is like traffic w/o the stop lights at the corners
Ran I'm neither emotional or defensive of you. I gotta go shopping ( din-din) will return later.

 

[RandFan]

jeeze .....this is like traffic w/o the stop lights at the corners
Ran I'm neither emotional or defensive of you. I gotta go shopping ( din-din) will return later.

Cool, bon ape tit..er moltiple bunies or something.

 

[subgenius]

Here's more White House rebuttal:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040322/D81FMINO0.html

Cheney: "He was out of the loop."

(Who put him there)

Condi: "He didn't tell us anything."

(He said, she said.)

Cheney: "Axe to grind, passed over for promotion."

McCellan: "No record it happened."

(Leslie Stahl: two independent sources)

More later.

 

[subgenius]

How about this:
He could be a lying disgruntled ex-employee.
He could be telling the truth.
Do I know? No.
Ya throw it on the wall and see what sticks.
Is that an unreasonable position?

 

[subgenius]

"This is Dick Clarke's American grandstand. He just keeps changing the tune," McClellan added.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040322/D81FMINO0.html

Got a good beat, easy to dance to.
I wonder if Dennis Miller is writing their material now.

 

[corplinx]

How about this:
He could be a lying disgruntled ex-employee.
He could be telling the truth.
Do I know? No.
Ya throw it on the wall and see what sticks.
Is that an unreasonable position?

The largest problem I see is that people are now saying that Clarke's account is worthless since he was perpetualy kept out of the loop by both administrations.

Why would they keep this guy around if you don't let him do anything of substance? Is this common practice for bureacrats and staffers to be kept on like dingleberries?

For instance, the people claiming that Sandy Bergner and Warren Christopher dropped the ball with dealing with the Sudanese for Bin Laden are saying Clarke wasn't even informed or involved. How do you not tell the terror czar that you have a deal to cap the leader of the group that nearly brought down the WTC in 93? Did they not trust Clarke? Was Clarke just a functionary they ignored? What's the deal? Clarke called the sudanese deal a fable and now the people who have documented where the buck stopped are biting back.

Essentially, Clarke was betrayed by other administration members on his own watch as terror czar. I think he is going to have a very uncomfortable time before the 9-11 commission.