9/11 Families POed at Richard Clarke.......

[TC4]

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/17683.htm

NYERS: CLARKE'S GAIN, OUR PAIN

By ADAM MILLER

March 28, 2004 -- A group of New York families of 9/11 victims came out swinging against Richard Clarke yesterday, accusing the former White House anti-terror chief of cashing in on the tragedy with his explosive book.

In a scathing open letter, the furious families also ripped Clarke for releasing the controversial tome to coincide with his appearance before the 9/11 commission on Wednesday.

"It was very disturbing to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 commission," they said in their emotional "Open Letter to America."

"The notion of [Clarke] profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us."

In "Against All Enemies," Clarke accuses President Bush of not doing enough to thwart the terror strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The fuming families said Clarke's motivations are also political and called the book - which has become an overnight best seller - divisive and mean-spirited.

"We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 commission could be used for political gain . . . with the presidential election less than eight months away," they wrote.

"Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet, he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales," they added.

"We believe it inappropriate for [him] to profit from and politicize 9/11 and further divide America by his testimony before the 9/11 commission."

Retired FDNY firefighter Jim Boyle, who lent his name to the letter, ripped into Clarke, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to the past four presidents.

"Richard Clarke is doing all of this to sell his book," said Boyle, whose Bravest son, Michael Boyle, died in the WTC. "What he's doing isn't right. He's trying to make money off our pain. This was all orchestrated to benefit him," Boyle told The Post.

Retired FDNY Capt. John Vigiano Sr. said he's "incensed" with Clarke.

"He's all about promoting his book, plain and simple," said Vigiano Sr., whose sons John, a firefighter, and Joseph, a police officer, died in the WTC attacks.

"It's all about greed. He shouldn't be doing this. He's showing a lack of loyalty to the president. It's awful."

The blistering letter, signed by more than 36 people who lost loved ones in the WTC, came a day after the Senate's top Republican, Bill Frist, accused Clark of an "appalling act of profiteering."

Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 65 percent of Americans say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion of the president.

Fifty percent of those polled said they believe Clarke is motivated by personal and political reasons.

Clarke, who retired early last year after 30 years in government service, has said he provided dire warnings to the Bush White House in the months leading up to 9/11 but that little was done.

[@DCGoldPants]

edit again: Nevermind, it was rude of me. My bad.

[OURYEAR#56]

I watched Face the Nation on channel 7 this morning. They interviewed a few of the family members that saw Clarke's ommissions. They said that Clark was the first government official to say the words "I'm sorry". They were asking for an independent commssion to assest the blame. I think either way you slice it Clark's remarks cast a doubt on Bush's abilities. In a society based on capitalisim people kill me :jerkoff: . Come on, Clark doesn't have the ability to tell the Publishing House when to release his book. Was it a bad move, sure. But Clark was there, and knows what happens. Why are we trying to kill the messanger? Heed the message.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56

I watched Face the Nation on channel 7 this morning. They interviewed a few of the family members that saw Clarke's ommissions. They said that Clark was the first government official to say the words "I'm sorry". They were asking for an independent commssion to assest the blame. I think either way you slice it Clark's remarks cast a doubt on Bush's abilities. In a society based on capitalisim people kill me :jerkoff: . Come on, Clark doesn't have the ability to tell the Publishing House when to release his book. Was it a bad move, sure. But Clark was there, and knows what happens. Why are we trying to kill the messanger? Heed the message.

You want to heed the message? Fine. Here it is in Clarks own words.

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

We had Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he (Clinton) used military force, and they stopped.

But in his book he says...

I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

So which statement is true?

[Ancalagon the Black]

Mike, you've been trying to make this point in approximately 1000 different threads. No one is taking up your call.

Why?

Because the answer to your last question is "both."

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Mike, you've been trying to make this point in approximately 1000 different threads. No one is taking up your call.

Why?

Because you don't want to hear the truth. You just want to hang Bush.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Because you don't want to hear the truth. You just want to hang Bush.

You'll notice that in all the threads about Clarke and Bush's knowledge, I haven't once posted that Bush is an evil man who deliberately ignored the evidence in order to satisfy some weird personal fetish. I think that Bush was doing the best he possibly could do. Like Clinton, I think he made some mistakes.

[SEF]

The book came out when it did because the White House was checking it first and apparently took their sweet time.

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by LC80

The book came out when it did because the White House was checking it first and apparently took their sweet time.

Now there's one of the dumbest and I mean dumbest things I've read on this site in a long, long time.

[SEF]

Which part did you have trouble understanding?

[OURYEAR#56]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

You want to heed the message? Fine. Here it is in Clarks own words.

But in his book he says...

So which statement is true?

I'll admit it sounds like double talk to me when you post it like that. But we need to know the nature of the Publishing business to understand what's going on. If the only thing that make people question Clark is the time the book came out then we are missing thebig picture. We didn't elect Clark. He was hired. We put Bush in office to run our country, and it's being run into the ground. Even if Clark is off, the war in Iraq is still a mess. All the reasons for the war were misleading.....the people don't want any damn liberation, so that squashes that. We haven't found any WMD....except possibly under Bushes chair at his little function he had.....what a jerk. I respect the executive office but I can not respect the man or his leadership abilities. It's time for a change. Clinton had weed, White Water, and WTC I; Bush has the death of soldiers, civilian casualties, WTC II, a Whack Iraqi war......a a strange sense of humor. Put down the pam pam people this guys a loser. BTW :eaglesuck

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by LC80

Which part did you have trouble understanding?

Please tell me what a vet is.

[@DCGoldPants]

I guess the title of this should be changes to "Some 9/11 Families" or "9/11 Familes on BOTH sides of the issue"

By Pat Wingert

NewsweekApril 5 issue - For two long days last week, Lorie Van Auken sat in a stiff, armless chair in the 9/11 commission hearing room, right behind the witness table, listening as one government official after another tried to explain how things had gone so wrong. As the hours wore on, Auken, whose husband, Kenneth, was killed in the World Trade Center, was becoming irritated. "We had been sitting here listening to all these people tell us what a great job they had done," she says. Then, on Wednesday afternoon, Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief, pulled up to the microphone. Turning around to face the family members of those who had died, Clarke issued a blunt apology. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you," he said. "And I failed you." Clarke asked their forgiveness. Van Auken, like many of the family members in the gallery, began to cry. "I cried hysterically, and I couldn't stop. Here was somebody, at last, telling the truth."

For many families of the dead, Clarke's apology was important not only for what he said, but where he said it. A little more than a year ago, President George W. Bush had seemingly shut down any possibility of an independent investigation of the tragedy. The families were told there would be no commission. No hearings. And certainly no testimony from top officials. As it turned out, the White House underestimated the determination of Van Auken and thousands of other family members.

They are, the president discovered, a hard group to say no to. In the two and a half years since the attacks, the various groups formed by surviving relatives of 9/11 victims have become a vocal, powerful—and politically diverse—lobbying force. The families have near-iconic status, not least because Bush himself has emotionally invoked their loss in speeches. They have shrewdly used that clout on television and on Capitol Hill to push for the investigation, and force the president's hand. "There's no question that the momentum for the creation of the commission came from the family groups," says commission spokesman Al Felzenberg. "That's beyond dispute." Even so, the families aren't ready to recede quietly just yet. Many are unhappy both with the partisan sniping that marred last week's hearings and the continued lack of cooperation from a reluctant White House. Until the commission's final report is on the streets this summer, Van Auken says, "We will keep poking and prodding."

By now, they are used to pounding the table to get what they want. Family members started asking for a 9/11 commission just weeks after the attacks, and immediately ran into trouble. "Our biggest opposition was the White House," says Stephen Push, who belongs to one of the largest groups—the 2,000-member Families of September 11. "They were opposed to any investigation whatsoever." Push—whose wife, Lisa Raines, was on the plane that hit the Pentagon—says family members spent more than a year "slogging through Congress," haggling with politicians about the need for an independent panel. "We were told we were dead in the water, and that we should forget about it." Instead, the families went on TV, where interviewers gave them sympathetic treatment. "We were vocal in the news media when it was necessary," Push says, "to embarrass the administration into doing the right thing. And it clearly worked." After the Senate voted 90-8 in favor of the commission, the White House started to negotiate.

The new commission's members found themselves flooded with documents from the families. Some had been obsessively compiling 9/11 information. They gave detailed briefings to the commissioners, urging them to not simply repeat the work of Congress's 9/11 inquiry. "I don't know of any family members of any tragedy who are as involved and dedicated as this group," says former New Jersey governor Tom Kean, who chairs the commission. When the White House and congressional Republicans attempted to run out the clock by failing to make documents available, the families helped Kean win an extension. They also successfully pushed for hearings and pressured Bush into sitting for questions. "If we say we need help," Kean says, "they get in their cars and come down right away."

The elation at Clarke's apology turned to anger when Democratic and Republican panelists reduced the hearings to a nasty partisan battle over Clarke's credibility and the truthfulness of his book. Other family members were annoyed to learn that Clarke, in an apparent attempt to boost sales of the book, had moved up the publication date to coincide with his appearance at the hearings. Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband, Ronald, died in the World Trade Center, says she and several other family members sent Kean a terse note last week telling him to get hold of his panel. It said, "Enough with the Clarke book!" she says. "This is not a New York Times book review, this is supposed to be a fact-finding commission."

NEWSWEEK RADIO | 3/28/04

9/11: Clarke and the Commission II

Steve Push, Board of Directors, Families of September 11th, Jonathan Alter, NEWSWEEK Senior Editor/Columnist, and Michael Beschloss, Presidential Historian

Some of the family groups now find themselves accused of playing politics. Recently, Rush Limbaugh told listeners that Breitweiser and other relatives of 9/11 victims "sound like campaign consultants," and accused them of being "aligned with the Democratic Party." In fact, Breitweiser voted for Bush. Even so, the press does tend to lump all the family members together as if they were a monolithic group. They are anything but. Many, like Deena Burnett, whose husband, Tom, wrestled with the hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93, are ardent Bush supporters. "No one else would have the compassion and the commitment he has shown," she says. "If he's not re-elected in November, I think the 9/11 families are in for a rude awakening." The president himself realizes the family members are potent political symbols. At a campaign rally in New Hampshire last week, Bush pointed out Cheryl McGinnis, whose husband, Thomas, piloted American Airlines Flight 11.

No matter which candidate they back, many of the families are determined to see the commission through. Their latest quarry: Condi Rice, who has refused to appear. "I think it's mind-boggling that she hasn't offered to testify," says Breitweiser. "The longer she refuses, the longer they'll have to come up with lame excuses, and the more suspect it appears." It may take a while, she says, but so far the families have been very effective at getting what they want. Until then, they'll be sitting in the stiff-backed chairs, waiting and watching.

With Tamara Lipper, Holly Bailey, Martha Brant, Karen Breslau and Rebecca Sinderbrand

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4616154/

[NavyDave]

I'd be p1ssed too.

A liberal hack showing weakness to those overseas to enjoy with glee and trying to make the appearance that he is apologizing for the bush administration with this frivilous #$#.

What exactly is the goal of the liberals besides trying to fabricate that bush is weak on terror and clinton and democrats were/are gung ho?

We were attacked.

We were attacked in the 90's thru to the 21st century and instead of coming together liberals once again are going the ethics be damned lets try to get back in office route and the worse off the nation is the better for us.

Heck our undermining we can blame on bush too.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Mike, you've been trying to make this point in approximately 1000 different threads. No one is taking up your call.

Why?

Because the answer to your last question is "both."

Your full of it. This proves Clarke is a hypocrite and a stupid one at that...

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by Sir Lucious

Your full of it. This proves Clarke is a hypocrite and a stupid one at that...

Not only that but a rich one too. Schlepping a book in partnership with the media is a good gig if you can get the right lackey.

[Brown 43]

I'm with ya Mad Mike! I just don't have the time write. This Clarke is a liar, plain and simple!

[BD]

Just to clarify: Clarke's book was slated for release at the end of April. The release was moved up by a little more than a month once his hearing with the commission was scheduled.

BD

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Sir Lucious

Your full of it. This proves Clarke is a hypocrite and a stupid one at that...

How am I full of it? Please explain in simple words, as apparently you believe that I have no abilities in reading comprehension. In my warped, twisted world, the following rules hold:

a) X attacked the USA

taken together with

Y attacked the USA

does not necessarily imply

c) X was in collusion with Y

[Phat Hog]

I think Clark would be more believable if he wasn’t so (seemingly) partisan – but to appoint blame to the current administration only and not accepting blame himself would stretch anyone’s credulity, given the circumstances. Unfortunate.

[Funkyalligator]

Clarke did take blame himself and he also placed blame on the Clinton administration......he is just merely pointing out the fact that the Bush administration didn't think terrorism was as important as it should have been....

[chomerics]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

Now there's one of the dumbest and I mean dumbest things I've read on this site in a long, long time.

Is the truth dumb? Here's the timeline. . .

Clarke's book was submitted to the White House for security approval in April of 2003. . . The White House cleared it for release two weeks before he was due to go before the investegating commite. . . His publisher initially had the book slated for a mid April release, but thought they'd sell more books if they released it now.

So here's the question. . . Why did the White House sit on the book for so long???

1.) They knew Clarke was due to testify before the 9-11 commission at the end of March.

2.) They knew what his testimony would be, espically after reading the book.

3.) They cleared the book for publishing two weeks before the hearings, just enough time for the publisher to send the book to print and set up a national release.

4.) With the timing of the book, the White House could put the spin that Clarke was releasing the book before the hearings to sell more books.

5.) That's the spin they've been trying to put on him since his testimony.

If you can't see or understand this, than you're a naieve person. Since when does the author decide the date for release anyways?

Besides, if you still think Clarke's book release was in fact to sell more books, don't you think the timing on the White House clearing the book is suspicious at best?

[aREDSKIN]

Not to question your facts as presented but please provide substantiation to your assertions.

[Renegade7]

Someone's gotta whine about something in this country. That's America for ya.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

Not to question your facts as presented but please provide substantiation to your assertions.

A CBS interview with the White House:

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- A veteran CBS correspondent grilled the White House Tuesday about its role in delaying the publication of Richard Clarke's book critical of the Bush administration's handling of the al Qaeda threat before 9/11.

CBS correspondent Bill Plante peppered Press Secretary Scott McClellan with questions concerning the security review process that books by former administration officials must undergo to ensure that classified material is not made public.

Plante stated, "[Clarke] says that the book could have been published in December, but for the White House security review process."

McClellan responded, "His book went through the normal review process. This is standard practice to make sure that classified information is not inadvertently released."

"Dick Clarke could have released his book at any time, but the fact is he chose to release it at a time and in a way where he could maximize coverage to sell books, and at a time when he could have the impact to influence the political discourse," McClellan added. "That's very clear."

The press secretary went on to say, "If he had such grave concerns, he could have raised those a year ago when he was leaving the administration."

The CBS correspondent continued to press for a statement on when the book was cleared for publication, and McClellan shot back, "Keep in mind that his publisher put out that it would come out at the end of April."

He added, "He chose to release it at a time when he could influence the political discourse."

He never says when the book was cleared for release, when there were obvious oppertunities to refute the White House had anything to do with the timings.

A link to a Newshour report where Clarke claims the issue.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/clarke_03-22.html