Richard Clarke says Bush "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism"

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by OaktonSkins/BushFan

:no:

Sorry, AtB. Wrong again. Not even in the same ballpark. But since you have decided to become so presumptous, I'll let you figure it out on your own.

What a great way to dodge scrutiny of your own reasoning!

But, then again, that's consistent with you dadgum back-pedalers.

I'm sick and tired of the back-pedalers and the back-pedaling media trying to brainwash us good Americans and take our tax money for their back-pedaling agenda, especially a war with no WMDs and no connection to Al Queda (not to mention the human cost).

In fact, back-pedalers are all Anti-Americans! Don't let them near your kids! They're trying to brainwash them too!

[aREDSKIN]

White House Hits Back at Ex-Bush Adviser

1 hour, 44 minutes ago

Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The White House is disputing assertions by President Bush (news - web sites)'s former counterterrorism coordinator that the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by al-Qaida in the months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001.

National security deputies worked diligently between March and September 2001 to develop a strategy to attack the terror network, one that was completed and ready for Bush's approval a week before the suicide airliner hijackings, the White House said in a statement Sunday.

It said the president told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) early in his administration he was "'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaida, rather than simply waiting to respond."

The point-by-point rebuttal confronts claims by Richard A. Clarke in a new book, "Against All Enemies," that is scathingly critical of administration actions.

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

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday.

Clarke said Rice appeared not to recognize post-Cold War security issues and effectively demoted him within the National Security Council staff. He retired last year after 30 years in government.

Rice echoed the administration's rebuttal in a guest column in Monday's Washington Post and addressed Clarke's characterization of her obliquely.

"Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation," she wrote. "President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA (news - web sites) every day — meetings that I attended. And I personally met with (director) George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterrorism effort."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel investigating the attacks, recounted his early meeting with Rice as support for his contention the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by al-Qaida.

He said that within one week of Bush's inauguration he "urgently" sought a meeting of senior Cabinet leaders to discuss "the imminent al-Qaida threat."

Three months later, in April 2001, Clarke met with deputy secretaries. During that meeting, he wrote, the Defense Department's Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, "You give bin Laden too much credit," and he said Wolfowitz sought to steer the discussion to Iraq (news - web sites).

The White House responded that the Bush administration kept Clarke as a holdover from the Clinton era because of its concerns over al-Qaida.

"He makes the charge that we were not focused enough on efforts to root out terrorism," Bush communications director Dan Bartlett said Sunday. "That's just categorically false."

Bartlett said Clarke's memo to Rice in January 2001 discussed recommendations to improve security at U.S. sites overseas, not inside the United States. "Each one of these, while important, wouldn't have impacted 9/11," he said.

Clarke harshly criticizes Bush personally in his book, saying his decision to invade Iraq generated broad anti-American sentiment among Arabs. He recounts that the president asked him directly almost immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.

"Nothing America could have done would have provided al-Qaida and its new generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country," Clarke wrote.

He added: "One shudders to think what additional errors (Bush) will make in the next four years to strengthen the al-Qaida follow-ons: attacking Syria or Iran, undermining the Saudi regime without a plan for a successor state?"

Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites), D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush — who 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., told 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."

Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) said Sunday he asked for copies of Clarke's book to review. Kerry is vacationing at his Idaho home through Wednesday before returning to the campaign trail.

"I would like to read them before I make any comment at all," Kerry told reporters. "I have asked for them."

Kerry's adviser on national security, Rand Beers, is a close associate of Clarke and held the job as antiterrorism adviser under Bush during part of 2002. Clarke quotes Beers in the book as asking his advice when Beers considered quitting because "they're using the war on terror politically."

The White House's Bartlett noted Clarke's friendship with Beers and the upcoming presidential election.

"We believe the timing is questionable," he said. "When (Clarke) left office, he had every opportunity" to make any grievances known.

<-------------It's the book, it's the book.

He's selling, selling & selling. Nothing more.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser&cid=544&ncid=716

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by Destino

If you guys are going to debate the article at least try to get it right. I keep hearing this "no credibility" and "sour grapes/axe to grind" thing.

The guy claims he brought up al qaeda BEFORE 9/11 and that this admin told them they didn't want to hear it. Now if you want to call a guy that worked for every Pres since Reagan a liar then do it. Don't be a sissy and attack the man or pretend he's bitter because intel warnings aren't the number 1 issue at the moment.

And if you want to believe everything this REPUBLICAN/Democrat hack has to say then go buy the book because there's probably more specious accusations there to. I'm sure he'll appreciate it. Geez you lefties always get your panties in a wad over corporate fraud & exploiatation but when smacked right in the face with it your blind as bats

[OURYEAR#56]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

And if you want to believe everything this REPUBLICAN/Democrat hack has to say then go buy the book because there's probably more specious accusations there to. I'm sure he'll appreciate it. Geez you lefties always get your panties in a wad over corporate fraud & exploiatation but when smacked right in the face with it your blind as bats

Uhm didn't the republicans get their panties all wet when the heard about "White Water"....you guys are funny. So what if he's selling a book, if Bush doesn't sue him for "slander" then it must be true, right?

[aREDSKIN]

For your perusal.

Richard Clarke, Fraud

By PowerLineBlog.com

PowerLineBlog.com | March 22, 2004

The press is abuzz with reports that former Clinton staffers are set to testify before the September 11 commission next week that "they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation — and how the new administration was slow to act." The Clinton officials expected to so testify include Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright and Richard Clarke.

Where to begin: the mind boggles at such shamelessness. To state the obvious, in late 2000 the Clinton administration was STILL IN OFFICE. If there were steps that needed to be taken immediately to counter the al Qaeda threat, as they "bluntly" told President Bush's transition team, why didn't they take those steps themselves?

More broadly, of course, the Clinton administration was in power for eight years, while al Qaeda grew, prospered, and repeatedly attacked American interests:

*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

So what, when they had the power to act effectively against al Qaeda, did these Clinton administration officials do? Little or nothing. Their most effective action was to bomb what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Sudan. They had the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, but decided not to do it because they were not sure their lawyers would approve.

For these people to criticize the Bush administration's efforts to protect Americans against terrorism, long after their own ineptitute had allowed al Qaeda to grow bold and powerful, is contemptible.

Of these Clintonite critics, the most important appears to be Richard Clarke. Clarke has written a book called Against All Enemies which will appear tomorrow--coincidentally, just in time for the 2004 election campaign. Clarke is being interviewed on 60 Minutes as I write this--a cozy corporate tie-in, as Viacom owns both CBS and the publisher of Clarke's book.

Clarke's charges against the Bush administration have already been widely published. Like his former boss Sandy Berger, he decries the Bush administration's failure to heed his "warnings" while Clarke and his fellow Clintonites were still in power. And he claims that Bush ignored terrorism "for months"--unlike his former boss, Bill Clinton, who ignored it for years.

But most of the attention flowing Clarke's way has centered on his claims about what happened when he was working inside the Bush administration after January 2001. Clarke was President Clinton's counter-terrorism coordinator; he was demoted by the Bush administration to director of cybersecurity. But before that demotion, he says that Bush's foreign policy advisers paid too much attention to Iraq. Then, after September 11, Clarke says that President Bush asked him to try to find out whether Iraq had been involved in the attack:

Now he never said, "Make it up." But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, "Iraq did this.'' He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection," and in a very intimidating way.

Clarke seems to view this request as a manifestation of a weird obsession. But Clarke must know that Iraq was involved in the Islamofascists' 1993 attempt to destroy the World Trade Center. So it was hardly unreasonable for President Bush to want to know whether Saddam was behind the successful effort in 2001 as well.

Assuming, of course, that the conversation ever took place. Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy, says that: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

More generally, Clarke accuses the administration of spoiling for a fight with Iraq and claims that Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, was talking about Iraq immediately after the September 11 attacks. This is exactly the same claim that was made by the rather pathetic Paul O'Neill. The most basic problem with this claim is that while the administration endorsed the act of Congress that made regime change in Iraq the policy of the United States, it didn't attack Iraq for a year and a half after September 11, and then only after Saddam had definitively thumbed his nose at a series of U.N. resolutions.

So, Richard Clarke's criticism of President Bush comes down to this: before September 11, like everyone else in the United States (including Clarke), he did not make al Qaeda terrorism his number one priority. Everything else he says is self-serving nonsense.

But let's pursue a little further the question, who exactly is Richard Clarke? What do we know about him?

First, we know that before September 11, he was professionally committed to the idea that al Qaeda represented a new form of "stateless terrorism" that could never cooperate with a country like Iraq:

Prior to 9/11, the dominant view within the IC was that al Qaida represented a new form of stateless terrorism. That was also the view promoted by the Clinton White House, above all terrorism czar, Richard Clarke. To acknowledge that Iraqi intelligence worked with al Qaida is tantamount to acknowledging that all these people made a tremendous blunder--and they are just not going to do it.

We now know that this dogma was false, and Iraq did in fact support and collaborate with al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. But there is no one as resistant to new information as a bureaucrat who has staked his career on a theory.

Second, we know that Richard Clarke was very willing to justify pre-emptive attack, on the basis of imperfect intelligence, when the attacker was Bill Clinton:

I would like to speak about a specific case that has been the object of some controversy in the last month -- the U.S. bombing of the chemical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote an article for the op-ed page of today's Washington Times about that bombing, providing the clearest rationale to date for what the United States did. He asks the following questions: What if you were the president of the United States and you were told four facts based on reliable intelligence. The facts were: Usama bin Ladin had attacked the United States and blown up two of its embassies; he was seeking chemical weapons; he had invested in Sudan's military-industrial complex; and Sudan's military-industrial complex was making VX nerve gas at a chemical plant called al-Shifa? Sandy Berger asks: What would you have done? What would Congress and the American people have said to the president if the United States had not blown up the factory, knowing those four facts?

Is it really a crazy idea that terrorists could get chemical or biological weapons?

Well, no, it's anything but a crazy idea. But Clarke seems to have gotten a very different attitude toward that possibility once a Republican became President.

Third, we know that Clarke bought into the now-discredited "law enforcement" approach to counter-terrorism: if people are making war on us, arrest them!

Long before our embassies in Africa were attacked on August 7, 1998, the United States began implementing this presidential directive. Since the embassies were attacked, we have disrupted bin Ladin terrorist groups, or cells. Where possible and appropriate, the United States will bring the terrorists back to this country and put them on trial. That statement is not an empty promise.

No, it wasn't an empty promise. Clinton's promise of due process for terrorists explains why bin Laden is alive today, along with many of his confederates.

So it is not hard to see why Richard Clarke, a discredited and demoted bureaucrat, would be bitter toward President Bush and the members of his administration who have carried out a successful anti-terrorism campaign, far different from the one endorsed by Clarke and the Clinton administration.

But is Clarke only a bitter ex-bureaucrat, or is there more to his attack on President Bush? Let's consider both Clarke's personal history and his current employment. Clarke now teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government; here is his Kennedy School bio, which notes that the capstone of his career in the State Department was his service as Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs.

Another professor at the Kennedy School is Rand Beers, who is evidently an old friend and colleague of Clarke's, as Beers' Kennedy School bio says that "[d]uring most of his career he served in the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs."

So Clarke and Beers, old friends and colleagues, have continued their association at the Kennedy School. Indeed, they even teach a course together. And, by the most astonishing coincidence, their course relates directly to the subject matter of Clarke's attack on the Bush administration: "Post-Cold War Security: Terrorism, Security, and Failed States" is the name of the course. Here is its syllabus:

Between them Rand Beers and Richard Clarke spent over 20 years in the White House on the National Security Council and over 60 years in national security departments and agencies. They helped to shape the transition from Cold War security issues to the challenges of terrorism, international crime, and failed states...Case studies will include Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, Colombia, and Afghanistan. Challenges of counter-terrorism and homeland security will also be addressed.

Why do we find this particularly significant? Because Rand Beers' bio says:

He resigned [his State Department position] in March 2003 and retired in April. He began work on John Kerry's Presidential campaign in May 2003 as National Security/Homeland Security Issue Coordinator.

There you have it: Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration's failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Thanks to the indefatigable Dafydd ab Hugh for noting the connections between Clarke and Beers.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12673

[flashback]

Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy, says that: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

Maybe we should put Lesley Stahl in charge of National Security. She found 2 sources of evidence that the meeting took place. Obviously, she's better at finding out the truth than the NSA.

[Kilmer17]

A former Clinton lackey writes a book and claims Bush is responsible and this is supposed to be news?

It would be interesting if they found a guy from Clintons camp that AGREES with Bush. Now THAT would be news.

This is not. This is nothing more than selling books and attack politics. Much the same way that the GOP will continue to pound on Kerry. Take all of these for what they are people.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

A former Clinton lackey writes a book and claims Bush is responsible and this is supposed to be news?

It would be interesting if they found a guy from Clintons camp that AGREES with Bush. Now THAT would be news.

This is not. This is nothing more than selling books and attack politics. Much the same way that the GOP will continue to pound on Kerry. Take all of these for what they are people.

He's worked for every Pres. since Reagan. Nice to see so many of you are falling for the "he's a Clinton guy" line the hacks you guys mistake for writers are feeding you.

[Kilmer17]

It doesnt matter who he worked for. While under Clinton he allowed numerous terrorist attacks to happen, and allowed Al Queda to gain strength. Mansoor Ijaz basically called him a liar this morning and challenged him to a debate on the subject. He got canned because he was inept.

But you keep drinking the Libby Koolaid. Your hatred and anger must keep you warm.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

It doesnt matter who he worked for. While under Clinton he allowed numerous terrorist attacks to happen, and allowed Al Queda to gain strength. Mansoor Ijaz basically called him a liar this morning and challenged him to a debate on the subject. He got canned because he was inept.

But you keep drinking the Libby Koolaid. Your hatred and anger must keep you warm.

- Saying he "allowed" terroists acts to happen is ridiculous. That's no different then stating Bush "allowed" 9/11 to occur.

- "Libby hatred" is getting old. If you want to debate me on who is more hateful conservatives or liberals we can do that.

[Funkyalligator]

A few things to note......'

didn't Clarke resign.....

Clarke worked for Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush Jr.....hmmm....thats a bunch of Republicans and one democrat...obviously his political views were more in line with Republicans

also under Clinton....Clarke position was a cabinet level post...but Bush decided it wasn't important and down graded the position.....if Bush had thought terrorism was such a big issue I doubt he would have down graded the post....Clarke would have been more involved in the whole process if he had been kept at the cabinet level.....

[Kilmer17]

There's no question which side is filled with more vitriol and hatred. It's the side out of power. It's even nastier now that the Dems are out of ALL power. But it was nasty when Clinton was in office.

Allowed was the wrong word, my bad. But there is no doubt that under his watch the terrorist problem flourished. And there is no doubt that he harbors resentment towards the Bush administration for firing him.

I cant understand why any bright person couldnt see EXACTLY what he's all about. When does his book come out? Think about it.

[Kilmer17]

Well technically speaking NOBODY gets fired from those posisitions. The first act of those offices is to sign a undated letter of resignation.

So yes, technically, he did resign.

[Mad Mike]

also under Clinton....Clarke position was a cabinet level post...but Bush decided it wasn't important and down graded the position.....if Bush had thought terrorism was such a big issue I doubt he would have down graded the post....Clarke would have been more involved in the whole process if he had been kept at the cabinet level.....

You only hear what you want to. The post wasn't demoted. HE WAS.

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.

Not only that you have Dems coming out and saying he's full of it.

AND....

None of you anti war types have yet addressed the fact that Clark admits Iraq attacked us.

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!'

What kind of president would dissmiss the idea that someone who attacked us once may do it again? Clark admits that Bush said "find out *IF* there is a link" then when Clark balked at the idea of looking again Bush got angry. I would too.

1) It was an order given by the president of the US. DO IT.

2) The surest way I know of being wrong is to assume you already know everything. You must always be willing to look again. To check and re-check your facts with each new event. And you sure as hell do just that When the security of the country is concerned. It seems to me that Clark was more interested in being right than finding out the truth. (something I have chastised a few of you about).

But the bottom line is still this. CLARK ADMITS Iraq used terroism against the US. That should be the headline in every US paper today. GUILTY.

Thank you Mr. Bush for finally laying the smack down on an evil Iraqi regime.

[Hersh]

Gotta love when you Republicans get defensive. Two things you always do when Bush is criticized, bring up Clinton and claim the guy must be a liberal hack regardless of crendentials.

To say this guy doesn't have any idea what he is talking about is laughable. Get somewhat real on occassion. I know Bush can do no wrong in your eyes, but to bring up the "axe to grind" business. Come on already. You guys read a couple of articles and think you know more about a possible link between AQ and Iraq than people who have real information and have spent countless hundreds of hours working on it.

As far as Iraq "attacking us," he is refering to the assasination attempt on Bush sr. Should we have bombed them even more then we did, absolutely. You can argue that Clinton didn't do enough to battle terrorism and I would tend to agree. Here is a news flash though, Clinton isn't in office anymore. He also didn't take us to war against Iraq regardless of whether he thought or what he said about Iraq and WMDs. It was all Bush Jr. It's my opinion that attacking Iraq took resources from hunting down OBL. This is now the second former administration official that has inferred the Bush administration wanted to go after Iraq upon entering office. Let me guess though, both are bitter, book selling, liberal hacks and somehow related to Clinton.

Kilmer,

You really believe that one side is more nasty than the other??

[Kilmer17]

Currently, yes, I think the Dems are filled with much more animosity and hatred than the GOP is. But I also know why. They have no power.

I dont think any GOPers hate Kerry. I think there are LOADS of Dems who hate Bush.

[Hersh]

I don't think they hate Kerry at all. I do think that Republicans hate either Clinton as much as Dems hate Bush.

[Kilmer17]

Good comparison. I agree. That's why I use the word "currently".

[NavyDave]

Nice strategic timing to peddle a book and continue the Bush bashing.

Good thing facts will dismiss this drivel

[Larry]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Would someone please address this...

("And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!")

That is Clark admitting that Iraq did in fact attack us. 8 YEARS!!!? Why the hell did it take 8 fcking years to make them pay? THATS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW!

Debate over. End of discussion. The man admits Iraq attacked us and Clinton did nothing. He admits that Iraq is GUILTY of attacking us. If another nation attacking us is not just cause for war WHAT IS? The only remaining question is why did it take so long.

Haven't waded through this whole thread, yet, so it's possible somebody's responded. But, I keep seeing people ask this question, and it hasn't been answered (so far in the thread), so:

The previous event Clark was referring to was Saddam's attemp to kill Bush I.

(I'll skip over asking people to explain why attempting to kill Bush 1 is considered "terrorism", whereas bombing Saddam's pallaces is an attack on a commander-in-chief, and therefore a military target.)

The event he referred to didn't happen under Clinton's watch (sorry, Conservative Maneuver 1: Blame Clinton doesn't hold).

According to Clark, the US response to this attempt was to blow up the headquarters for Iraqi Intelligence, and to tell Saddam that, if there were any further Iraqi terrorism against americans, the next response would be to destroy his entire government. (Which, frankly, sounds like a rather un-Clinton response, which might explain why it may have been effective.)

[Kilmer17]

I thought the attempt on Bush Sr. life took place after he left office?

[NavyDave]

VP Cheney is on Rush's radio show and pointed out that clarke was reassigned to the cyber terrorism section.

The guy who used the van to bomb the WTC was the cousin of the guy who came up with the idea to use planes to take out the WTC and floated this idea to OBL apparently in 1996.

stil the finger pointing isnt going to accomplish anything except show how soft liberals are

[Soliloquy]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I thought the attempt on Bush Sr. life took place after he left office?

It did, in 1993. Although it never really reached the 'attempt' stage. It was thwarted beforehand.