Dick Clarke, and facts....

[Ignatius J.]

So this dick clarke guy comes out and attacks the president with serious allegations that, if true, show the president to be entirely incompetant in the one area the public views him as most competant.

From what I can tell, Clarke thinks that the white house did not make counter-terrorism a priority. Of this he has no facts, no real evidence, save for the 20-20 hindsight afforded by the tragic events of september 11th. (and the oer'hasty invasion of Iraq)

The Bush response seems to be no less devoid of facts, though. Clarke is an imbecile, who contradicts himself repeatedly. A clown and a buffoon who once was the head of our anti-terror efforts, and who now is not. We've heard the tapes, the contradictions, the guy is not to be believed. Fine, I actually accept that for the most part.

But still some part of suspicion lingers. At some point, who cares about clarke? If I grant you that he is a knave, do you still have nothing to answer for? Shouldn't there be more evidence, or have I missed it? (I would not be suprised if I had missed it, the drudge on CNN, Fox News, all reaks of character, which here in this post I have no use for)

If bush made terror the priority he claims to have made it, shouldn't there be more evidence than e-mails af interoffice bickering? Shouldn't there be more than press briefings? Shouldn't there be at the least budget allocations. Reciepts of some sort? Memos from late night meetings discussing how they were going to confront the terror threat?

I cannot believe that national security is so much at stake. Not only is this two years ago, but september 11th should have changed everything. A good deal of clarke's comments pertain to decisions made before 911. So isn't there something?

If better evidence were there, wouldn't bush use it? But this too is no real dagger to bush. It too is a ghost. But, still, there has been so much said, and yet nothing. It is hard to know what to think.

Does anyone know anything?

-DB

[Joe Sick]

"Does anyone know anything?"

That is the problem!!

Whatever they know, they spin it partisan style. What they don't know, they make up.

Like G.I. Joe said "and knowing is half the battle."

[Brown 43]

I was watching "the Charlie Rose" show?? They had Rudolph Guiliani on and he claims Dickie-boy made a remark in 2002 before the attacks saying, that the Bush administration beefed up survalence of Al-Quida 5 times as much as the Clinton presidency did. Hmmmmmmm.............

[Baculus]

Well, if this guy was such a buffon, why did he continue to do his job over several administrations? I'm not saying he *wasn't* a buffon, but why did he keep his job?

Perhaps there is more to this story then at first glance....

Also, I think it's natural that the Bush administration SHOULD take some heat. After all, the 9-11 failure happened during Bush's term in office. Does anyone here really think that folks wouldn't be pushing for answers if Clinton, or any Democrat OR Republican, would be in office? For the Bush apologists, I'd want to ask: If Clinton was in power, would you be using the same energy to defend him for his perceived mistakes if 9-11 happened during his administration? And the question could be posed to the Democratic supporters of Clinton as well.

[JeffSchmeff]

I can't believe you guys are being so critical of a guy that has helped America ring in the new year so many times. :doh:

[redman]

If we're going to place blame for 9/11, then I think the "blame" such as it is rests with the individual American's propensity to think like an isolationist. (Obviously, al Qaeda's responsible, but we're being introspective here.)

For at least 25 years, Islamic fundamentalist militants and terrorists have been waging war against us, and yet we treated each incident separately, as if it's all be coincidence. Sept 11 forced us to reconsider that stance on things. Our leaders - of any political stripe - have of course led us in this regard as we've wanted to be led. That's not to their credit, but it's somewhat understandable.

The fact that we are also physically separated from the rest of the world has led us to believe, as we so often have in our history, that we were immune from terrorist attacks. After all, that's what happens in Israel, not here!

We had a wake-up call. The result is that while we should certainly study and understand what happened before 9/11, I'm more interested in what our response has been and will be thereafter.

[gbear]

I guess my biggest issue raised by Clarke is where he talks about him and a few others being pulled aside by Bush right after 9/11. He was told to find the link to Iraq. He was incredulous, but he and his subordinants went back and rehashed through everything before against coming to the conclussion Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

Does no body else remember all of the aligations that the White House was trying to preasure analysts to implicate Iraq? We were assured this was not the case. I note that in all of the character assinations, not one word has been uttered to refute this part of the story. According to Clarke, he wasn't alone in the room.

IN his interview for NPR, he said he's not sure his second report saying the first one was correct ever made it to the President because his staff has a way of not passing along analysis contrary to the Presidents beliefs. THat's a concern.

He also said that after he resigned, the guy after him resigned too about the same Iraq conclussions within just a few months of taking the promotion. That's a little scary. Of course in the interview he pointed out the guy who quit now works for Kerry so the right will paint him as biased too.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by redman

If we're going to place blame for 9/11, then I think the "blame" such as it is rests with the individual American's propensity to think like an isolationist. (Obviously, al Qaeda's responsible, but we're being introspective here.)

For at least 25 years, Islamic fundamentalist militants and terrorists have been waging war against us, and yet we treated each incident separately, as if it's all be coincidence. Sept 11 forced us to reconsider that stance on things. Our leaders - of any political stripe - have of course led us in this regard as we've wanted to be led. That's not to their credit, but it's somewhat understandable.

The fact that we are also physically separated from the rest of the world has led us to believe, as we so often have in our history, that we were immune from terrorist attacks. After all, that's what happens in Israel, not here!

We had a wake-up call. The result is that while we should certainly study and understand what happened before 9/11, I'm more interested in what our response has been and will be thereafter.

Very insighful post redman.

[codeorama]

I thought Dick Clarke was the New Years eve guy.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by gbear

I guess my biggest issue raised by Clarke is where he talks about him and a few others being pulled aside by Bush right after 9/11. He was told to find the link to Iraq. He was incredulous, but he and his subordinants went back and rehashed through everything before against coming to the conclussion Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

I find it interesting that the White House, after initially denying any such meeting or discussion took place, now not only admits the meeting but claims its only natural that Bush would want to look for ties to Iraq. Which might be true...but its unfortunate for Bush that his people took so long to think of it.

[@DCGoldPants]

Here is my favorite

“Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor, alleging that Clarke said in 2002 that the Bush administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al-Qaida before the attacks.

Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. But he said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/

Brilliant

[SkinInsite]

This is great, no one knows what the hell is going on or who's telling the truth.

[got2u]

To DB:

On Sept.10th 2001 ---the day before our world changed---- a "war plan" was laid on Bush's desk for his signiture----- to take out the Taliban in Afganistan--------signed off by Rice, Rumsfield, Powell at el----how that would have been sold to the American people before Sept 11th is a mystery to me----but I think it shows that the Bush people had "gears" turning before the attack on this country----maybe that is the best piece of evidence out there-----but it is not covered by the media------and I can hear the screams from the left had Bush tried to make the case for war before Sept. 11th.-----Maybe war has to start with an attack-----think about it-----we watched as europe fell----and Great Britan was besieged----it was only AFTER Pearl Habour that we surendered 300,000 of our countrymen's lives to the "war".

[@DCGoldPants]

sweet, if they have that "war plan", just hand it over to the 9/11 commish.

cool?

[got2u]

Bufford----you are what's wrong with this country----you need to read more----it is not disputed that the Bush administrayion had come to a conclusion about Afganistan---it is well documented that it had been signed off on by everyone except Bush on Sept. 10th----it is not some fecking hidden document-----it is just portrayed as "too little too late"----but I think it should at least be acknowledged that some one was thinking in the white house.-----(Though I still believe they could never had made the case for war to the american people before Sept 11th----least ways with people like you)

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm what's wrong with America?

Only took 22 posts for a personal attack.

Thank you.

"administrayion"

[chomerics]

Personally, I like Kerry's quote on the administration having documents calling Clarke a liar.

“My challenge to the Bush administration, would be, if he’s not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury, because he is under oath” Kerry said in an interview with CBS News. “They have a perfect right to do that.”

The would if they could get him on purjury, but it's hard to purjur yourself when you're telling the truth.

Now ask yourself when he was lying. . . When he was speaking at a press briefing on behalf of his employer, or under oath during the 9-11 commision.

Yea, that would make a lot of sence for him. A man, who has worked for the Government for 30 years, decides to purjur himself before Congress after he retires, yet he's telling the truth at an informal press briefing on how his employer is doing at his job.

Why would he want to tarnish his career? Go out in a blaze of glory? Think about, it makes no sense. He knew the administration would sick the dogs on him. Why would he do this unless he has nothing to hide?

And as far as promoting his book, don't use that as an excuse. It was the White House, who decided to release the book this week, right before the hearings. Why do you think that is?

The thing is, he wasn't lying in either case. He makes mostly statement that depend on tone and opinion. The only facts that he states ARE true. The opinion part of his testimony and the white house breifing can be thrown out. Well, the only facts he stated which can be prooved are in the testimony Wednesday. In his white house press breifing, he states things which were known. He says things like "Clinton had no NEW plan" Bush increased funding in covert operation 5 fold. (He did that, but it the money wasn't earmarked to go th Al Qaeda.) There are others in there as well, like Clinton nog giving Bush a "plan" on Al Qaeda. They met before the transition and discussed Al Qaeda, but they didn't hand off a "plan" they briefed them on the threat and left it up to Bush to make his own judgement.

Read both transcripts, pull out all the tone and opinion and see what you have. Look at the facts that wa and come back to tell me he was telling the truth then yet he's lying now.

One more thing, on September 12th, Bush met with Clark and a few other people. He pushed for a link to Iraq & 9-11. The White House denied the meeting ever took place, until another person who was at the meeting came forward and called them on it.

They continue to lie to us yhey said "we imfatically deny" the rumor. Onece somebody came forward to back up his claims, their amnesia disappears. . .

You want his head for saying what you don't want to hear.