• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Clarke's Book

President Janus can't have it both ways.. Either he was involved deeply in the policy developments Vis-a-Vie Al-Quida and he kept the person who's direct responsibility it was, out of the loop ( along w/ Mr. Tenant over at the CIA). That means both irresponsibility and a bad policy of HIS design. The other explanation is that he received faulty information or was not informed by Clarke who held regular meetings on the subject and sent repeated memos to Rice and others.. Which some in the administration state. Which is it? They claim both

In 1996 Sudan offered to the United States extradition of OBL, to arrest or monitor him, and/or provide intelligence on the activities of him and his associates, but the Clinton administration never accepted their offers

OBL was a party of interest but was not wanted by the US at that time .Sudan was not considered a reliable source . It appeared they were ( after years of no relations with Washington ) trying to ingratiate themselves. If only we had arrested Oswald BEFORE the shooting....

When he was in fact identified as a tie in w/ the '93 WTC bomb, he also admitted that he was behind bombings in Saudi Arabia , his citizenship was revoked and he fled to Afghanistan That was in 1998.
snip/
U.S. President Clinton ordered his assets frozen in 1998, but none were ever found. Clinton also admits authorizing OBL's arrest and/or assassination while in office; one assassination attempt with cruise missiles in August 1998 failed, while killing 19 other people. The U.S. never apologized for these killings, since the attack was directed at what they considered to be a meeting of terrorists. The U.S. offered a $25 million reward for information leading to his apprehension or conviction and, in 1999, convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him.
/snip

Untill the end of his tenure Clinton held daily intelligence meetings that included OBL as a major threat. So much for Clinton.

The claims of Clarke are supported by O'Neil's assessment of the Whitehouse at the time as well as other still active (unnamed) officals the current administration. There are comments by the administration quoted elsewhere in the thread to that effect.
The timing and reasons and motivation for the book and comment's by Clarke mean nothing. Nada.Zip. All that matters is whether The allegations are true or not.
 
subgenius said:
A long ignored story (note the date):

Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
Run Date: 05/26/01

(snip)

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage

There is reason to believe that we paid for the 9/11 operation.
Click to expand...

Not ignored.... Dismissed as minor irony. It seemed to be a somewhat reasonable thing to do, given the circumstances at the time, and assuming the Bush admin did not know about the upcoming terrorist plot.

It's unlikely that much, if any, of that money paid for 9/11, considering that the operation had been in progress for years before that money was given. Plus, that assumes the Taliban would just give Al-Qaeda money. I always thought their support was more of tolerance and leeway rather than monetary.

At the time, I was opposed to giving the Taliban money because it would be helping to support a fundamentalist regime. They didn't show much interest in listening to our side of these issues, so I felt it was money down the drain...
 
Jane's, a company solely devoted to providing news about military events throughout the world, published an article on September 14, 2001 that provides another explanation of CIA involvement: Why? An attempt to explain the unexplainable
[janes.com]. The article says,

The trainers [in terrorism] were mainly from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various U.S. training establishments. Mass training of Afghan mujahideen was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan Army...

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw010914_1_n.shtml

Note that both this article and the one linked below called Blowback Chronicles say that Arabs were brought to the U.S. for training in terrorism.

http://www.hevanet.com/peace/paz/cia_trained_bin_laden.htm

"Delighted by his impeccable Saudi credentials, the CIA gave Osama free rein in Afghanistan, as did Pakistan's intelligence generals."

Bin Laden and a man named Mustafa Chalaby, who ran a jihad refugee centre in Brooklyn [New York, U.S.A.], were both protégés of Abdullah Azzam. A formative influence on bin Laden, the charismatic Azzam was killed in a car-bomb in 1987: according to some rumours he was killed by the CIA. Others claim he was himself a CIA agent.

At the Farm and other secret camps, young Afghans and Arab nationals from countries such as Egypt and Jordan learned strategic sabotage skills. Passed down to the younger jihad generation which filled the ranks of the Bin Laden organisation, these skills would come back to haunt the United States. [The "Farm" is a commonly used name for the CIA's training center in Virginia, U.S.A.]

This is a remarkable statement. This and other sources say the CIA brought Arabs to the U.S. and trained them to be terrorists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,551971,00.html
 
headscratcher4 said:
This exrpt is, admittedly, from Salon (which can be a biased source)
Click to expand...

Its an interesting article. However, many of the criticisms of clark and the refutations are misleading or incomplete, non contextual, etc.

Much of it is very debatable.

This is the part of politics that turns so many people off, the he-said she-said finger pointing ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. And all of this has sprung up because this bureacrat is trying to sell some books.

Dick Clarke, thanks a lot buttwipe.
 
crackmonkey said:
So... Clarke is saying that immediately after 9/11, Bush was so fixated on Saddam that he went ahead and invaded... Afghanistan. Is that about right?
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you think Bush had any choice about whether to invade Afghanistan or Iraq first? As Lurker said, could you imagine the fallout if he had chosen to go after Iraq first?
 
So here's the White House's smoking gun: Clarke wrote a nice letter to George when he resigned:

"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."

But:

"But the letter contains no praise of Bush's anti-terror actions before or after the attacks — only on the day of. Clarke does commend Bush for his "intuitive understanding" of the importance of cybersecurity."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto.../ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3&printer=1

Like their other counter attacks this one also backfires. If he was just a disgruntle ex-employee why did he write a letter praising him, although damning him with faint praise?

If it was sincere praise, what happened, according to the White House, subsequently to p*** him off? Kind of a delayed disgruntlement.

If it was, as it appears to be a gracious good-bye, how "disgruntled" was he?

There's more:

"Also, even though the White House argued that Clarke's memoir was released to do the maximum political damage to Bush in a presidential election year, McClellan would not say when the required national security review of the book was completed, allowing its publication to proceed. Publications by administration officials are routinely vetted to make sure that nothing is released that compromises classified information or national security."

When Mr. McClellan, when?

Hey, I've already admitted of the possibility that he's a lying disgruntled ex-employee.
How many of the Bush supporters will concede that he might, just might, be telling the truth?
 
Rumsfeld, in his 9/11 testimony, seems to corroborate Clarke's story:

"He acknowledged he was briefed in February 2001 on ways of dealing with bin Laden and documents he submitted indicated that one plan included a phased campaign in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

But he said he did not consider it "a comprehensive plan to deal with al-Qaeda and its sanctuary in Afghanistan."

"One thing is clear -- as of February 2001, we had not yet developed the kind of clear new policy direction which must properly precede the development of war plans," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...fp/us_attacks_rumsfeld_040323210044&printer=1

So, he was warned, but did nothing because of his characterization of the plan.
 
Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action and by supporting United Nations sanctions.

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

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

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

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/bush.clarke/

I am quite surprised he brought up the Lebanon bombing under Reagan. Another ignored story.

What do you call 300 Marines in Lebanon without bullets in their guns?









Targets.
 
Not fair and balanced? (Actually I'm swarthy and prone to vertigo)

---Warning posted elsewhere and therefore subject to being considered spam:

And more of the other side, from of all places, the other side! Those nasty Dems what evil do they have up their sleeves?

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites), D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that the Bush administration — which defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on Fox News Sunday. "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...er_18&printer=1
 
Reacting to charges that his new book represented "profiteering" from the terrorist attacks, Clarke said he planned to donate a "substantial" but unspecified portion of its sales to the attacks' survivors and to the widows and children of military personnel who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Clarke also fired back at the administration by reading Bush's response to his resignation letter.

Noting it was in the president's handwriting, Clarke said the letter read that he would "be missed. You served our nation with distinction and honor," and had "left a positive mark on our government."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040329/D81JNBJ00.html

So Bush tries to smear Clarke with a farewell letter from Clarke, and Clarke counters with a nice response from Bush.

Which is inherently more credible? Picture yourself as a resigning employee.
 
The Senate Republicans want to further the smear by having Clarke's Congressional testimony "declassified." They say his testimony under-oath is inconsistent with his statements today. Clarke, btw, says his testimony should be declassified.

This is how truely partisian this debate has gotten...and the willingness of the Bushies to smear and "take no prisoners".

If Administration officials testifying before Congress as Administration officials...painting the Administration's picture (any Administration) is to be considered "lying" for telling a different stroy when out of the Administration, than every cabinent and sub-cabinent and high civil servent will be "guilty" of lying. Every general who told a Congressional committee that they "needed" an aircraft the Administration wanted, is a liar. Every Assistant Secreatry who argued that a base should be kept open in a politically sensitive state because it furthered national security, is potentially lying to Congress. Every Secretary who said that Medicare would cost $400 billion when they knew it would cost $530 billion has committed perjury.

My point is that whether before Congress or in "deep" brieifing on behalf of the Administration, Clarke said what he was supposed to say. That is the way politics and the Administration works. If his is lying to Congress, than, it seems to me, they are all liars.

And, they all do inflate, spin, control the truth when they talk before Congress or on behalf of the Administration? So, what is the big surprise?
 
It isn't impossible to believe Clarke was out of the loop. Government at that level is about giving supporters and pals good jobs, wether they are qualified or not. Clarke may have been appointed the job and everyone half-way competent said "Uh-oh...."
 
headscratcher4
You post insightful arguments and seem to have a grasp of the issues You involve Yourself in. I just have one question, I'm not whining but could You lose the excessive sig paragraphs? Please?
 
A favorable review.

The first - and by far the best - chapter is a heart-stopping account of the turmoil inside the White House on the morning of Sept. 11, when Washington suddenly came blinking into a bloody new world. I hope Clarke has sold the rights to Hollywood, at least for his opening chapter, because I would pay to see this movie. You can guess who gets to play Jack Ryan in his retelling of that historic morning.

By Sept. 11, 2001, Dick Clarke had become the ultimate White House insider; he was not only a Clinton holdover, he was a holdover from the first Bush administration and had served in the Reagan State Department. He had been working at the National Security Council for about a decade, and in 1998 had been named White House counterterrorism coordinator by President Clinton. He was asked to stay on in the same post by the second Bush administration. But he had quickly become frustrated by the new team's unwillingness to address the mounting threat from Osama bin Laden. By the morning of Sept. 11, he was still handling counterterrorism, but was planning to leave for a lower-profile assignment dealing with cybersecurity.

In the first minutes after the attacks, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, told Clarke to act as crisis manager in the White House Situation Room, and he seized the moment. In his account, it was he who recommended to Vice President Dick Cheney that President Bush should not come back to the White House from Florida, and he who gave the order triggering the Continuity of Government procedures, the doomsday rules under which cabinet members and Congressional leaders were whisked to undisclosed locations.

With Clarke at the helm of a secure videoconference network linking the White House with other key agencies, in quick succession thousands of commercial aircraft were grounded; the country's land and sea borders were closed; the military went to Defcon 3, its highest alert level in nearly 30 years; and the Russians were notified. ''Damn good thing I did that,'' Clarke quotes Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as telling him. ''Guess who was about to start an exercise of all their strategic nuclear forces?''

While Clarke and his aides were holding down the fort in the Situation Room and the president was flying around the country on Air Force One, Vice President Cheney, his wife and aides were holed up in a little-known bunker in the East Wing of the White House called the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. At one point that morning, Clarke went to the bunker to see Cheney; navigating his way into the vault past grim, shotgun-toting guards, he found that Lynne Cheney had turned down the volume on the television hooked up to the secure videoconference so she could listen to CNN.

The most controversial incident in ''Against All Enemies'' deals with the president's eagerness to link the Sept. 11 attacks to Iraq, and comes on the night of Sept. 12. Clarke writes that he saw Bush wandering alone through the Situation Room. The president then stopped and asked Clarke and a few aides to ''go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.''

Clarke said he was ''taken aback, incredulous.'' He told the president, ''Al Qaeda did this.''

''I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred. . . .'' After the president left, one of Clarke's aides said, ''Wolfowitz got to him.''

Within a few months of the attacks, Clarke's access clearly did begin to dwindle; White House officials played on his lack of firsthand knowledge of Iraq war planning to attack the credibility of his book. But the key allegation in the book - that the Bush team was obsessed with Iraq even when faced with overwhelming evidence that it was Al Qaeda that was attacking the United States - can't be dismissed by assertions that he was out of the loop. During those early days, Richard Clarke was the loop.
Click to expand...
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
headscratcher4
You post insightful arguments and seem to have a grasp of the issues You involve Yourself in. I just have one question, I'm not whining but could You lose the excessive sig paragraphs? Please?
Click to expand...

I could...but how would you learn about the latest developments in the life of Kim Jong Il? :p
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
headscratcher4
You post insightful arguments and seem to have a grasp of the issues You involve Yourself in. I just have one question, I'm not whining but could You lose the excessive sig paragraphs? Please?
Click to expand...

Headscratcher is the only forum member who is exempt from the '1000 words or less sig line' rule. It isn't cool to ask him to trim his sig line. Some of us need our Kim fix.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Headscratcher is the only forum member who is exempt from the '1000 words or less sig line' rule. It isn't cool to ask him to trim his sig line. Some of us need our Kim fix.
Click to expand...
He's got the best hair in the dictator biz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom