Current Republican Misleading Attack Spi n

“al-Phaedrus, why not prove your contention that President Bush is more dangeous than the Taliban. I would like to see some documentation on that.

Your cowardly threats are so boring.”

“oh, bacpac, if u only knew”

“This is what I have come to expect from al-phaedy. He can't defend the issues so he comes up with personal taunts and personal threats and tries to bully his way out of the conversation.”

“Jesus. I can very easily defend the fact that the president is in a position to do more and longer-lasting damage to the country than a group of middle-eastern extremists. That much should be obvious even to an edentulous troglodyte such as yourself.

The fact that the taliban is said group, and no longer even hold positions of actual authority in any country should make it that much more obvious.

That Bush has led the country to war under dubious, at best, circumstances is also obvious - even you have admitted that more evidence of WMD was needed. That Bush ignored the outgoing president's security panel in its most vociferous warnings is also something that has come to light in greater detail.

Instead of dealing with the proven terrorist threat of al-qaeda, this president has us chasing saddam. Instead of dealing with the proven nuclear threat of North Korea, we're in Iraq.

All these things in combination make this president dangerous. The relativity is something you can decide for yourself, but trying to take my quote out of context and imply that I said I'd rather have the Taliban as a ruling party in the US is ridiculous and dishonest, like much of what you post.

Don't let me interfere with your catch-phrase, though. You've found something you think is working for you. Keep it up.”

“al-phaedy - it is kinda funny, at face value.

bacpaciban is much funnier!”

“I like Bac-Qaeda. Or Miss Al-Grope”

“LMAO!

What about the bacpacquese regime?”

“bacpacon ring”

“THAT's MISS BACPACONRING TO YOU BROTHA!”

“al-Phaedy, You cited the fact that this President has destroyed the Taliban to defend your postion that the President is more dangerous????

Then you say he has not gone after Al Qaeda? That dog won't hunt.

The War in Iraq has made us safer. Thousands of terroists have been killed. Libya has abandoned its Nuclear program after seeing the determination of this President.

North Korea/Taliban? This is not a factor whether or not President Bush is more dangerous than the Taliban.

Don't try to play the angle that President Bush is more dangerous simply, because he is President of the US.

The reality is that your hatred of the President has clouded your thinking and reasoning. You need to get a handle on your anger, before you make a serious mistake.”

“Methinks the bacpacon ring monniker hit a nerve.”

“Some People still support a guy who got us into a WAR to save us from Fictitious Weapons.... and THEY would accuse US of 'cloudy thinking'?

Un#&%!$ingbelievable. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how many different ways you say it, it's still un#&%!$ingbelievable that a functioning adult could still support this guy. Has half the population this country developed Mass Brain Damage somehow?

How we got into this situation with that wack-job in the White House....

The words to fully capture the situation simply haven't been invented yet.”

“Tilt,he is ginchy. Kinda like Tammy Faye ,but also like Sponge Bob, you know like an empty toilet paper roll.Yah,ginchy.”

“ginchy -- Form of this word made famous by Ed Kookie Byrnes in the song, "Kookie, Kookie, lend me you comb". ("Baby, you're the ginchiest!")

WTF? LMAO

http://www.cougartown.com/slang.html”

“The only serious mistake I've made is trying to debate anything with a weasel such as yourself, Missy.

I've made my point well. Spin all you want, but your arguments are generally beyond reason. You're contorting to such a degree as to be silly for a supposed adult.

Your iraq reasoning is baseless unless one buys into the entire fox-news world-view that there is a "front line" to the "war with terrorism". It's ridiculous to think that the people we are fighting as guerrillas in Iraq now would have presented a danger to Americans were we not to invade Iraq.

All things considered, You're a lightweight in matters of political debate. I'm happy to give you a catch phrase to latch onto, though. Your skills need the help.”

“Oh, and on libya:

How long have they been trying to bring themselves back into the mainstream of foreign relations and trade? Like 12 years, and it's been the US standing at the gate saying no. We said no because Khaddafi's a madman and we can't afford to have a madman like that in a postion to make war on his neighbors, blah blah blah.

Guess what? It's still khaddafi, and Bush is now willing to play ball with the madman. It's a good political ploy to fool people unable or unwilling to apply logic to the relations of the world toward this country in the recent past.

Care to offer more contortions about how the Iraq war is really all about fighting terrorism?

BTW, I've well-defended my original statement in its original context.”

“The only serious mistake I've made is trying to debate anything with a weasel such as yourself, Missy.



I've made my point well. Spin all you want, but your arguments are generally beyond reason. You're contorting to such a degree as to be silly for a supposed adult.



Your iraq reasoning is baseless unless one buys into the entire fox-news world-view that there is a "front line" to the "war with terrorism". It's ridiculous to think that the people we are fighting as guerrillas in Iraq now would have presented a danger to Americans were we not to invade Iraq.



All things considered, You're a lightweight in matters of political debate. I'm happy to give you a catch phrase to latch onto, though. Your skills need the help."



Phaedrus
12:31:24 AM
03/23/04
ignore this user

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh, and on libya:

How long have they been trying to bring themselves back into the mainstream of foreign relations and trade? Like 12 years, and it's been the US standing at the gate saying no. We said no because Khaddafi's a madman and we can't afford to have a madman like that in a postion to make war on his neighbors, blah blah blah.

Guess what? It's still khaddafi, and Bush is now willing to play ball with the madman. It's a good political ploy to fool people unable or unwilling to apply logic to the relations of the world toward this country in the recent past.



Care to offer more contortions about how the Iraq war is really all about fighting terrorism?



BTW, I've well-defended my original statement in its original context."



Phaedrus
12:43:55 AM
03/23/04”

“Oops, I better change my arrows into another symbol.

The only serious mistake I've made is trying to debate anything with a weasel such as yourself, Missy.

[more insults]

I've made my point well. Spin all you want, but your arguments are generally beyond reason. You're contorting to such a degree as to be silly for a supposed adult.

[not relevent, not true]

Your iraq reasoning is baseless unless one buys into the entire fox-news world-view that there is a "front line" to the "war with terrorism". It's ridiculous to think that the people we are fighting as guerrillas in Iraq now would have presented a danger to Americans were we not to invade Iraq.

[My contention that many foreign terrorists were killed in this war is well docmented by multiple sources. The threat presented by these people is real and is not cavalierly dismissed by anyone other than yourself.]

All things considered, You're a lightweight in matters of political debate. I'm happy to give you a catch phrase to latch onto, though. Your skills need the help."

[more personal attacks]

Phaedrus
12:31:24 AM
03/23/04
ignore this user

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh, and on libya:

How long have they been trying to bring themselves back into the mainstream of foreign relations and trade? Like 12 years, and it's been the US standing at the gate saying no. We said no because Khaddafi's a madman and we can't afford to have a madman like that in a postion to make war on his neighbors, blah blah blah.

Guess what? It's still khaddafi, and Bush is now willing to play ball with the madman. It's a good political ploy to fool people unable or unwilling to apply logic to the relations of the world toward this country in the recent past.

[Libya was induced to disarm because of the Iraq war. In fact, Colonel Qaddaffi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that he did so after seeing what happened to Saddam’s regime. The world is a safer place, because of this not more dangerous.]

Care to offer more contortions about how the Iraq war is really all about fighting terrorism?

[Not relevant to the topic]

BTW, I've well-defended my original statement in its original context."

[You have not. You have stated some opinions and made personal attacks on me. You have not presented any evidence that would cause a resonable to conclude that President Bush is more dangerous than the Taliban.]

Phaedrus
12:43:55 AM
03/23/04”

“Matt, thanks for running off all the liberals!”

“HEY --- what did weasels ever do to you?”

“Welcome weasel.”

“Miss Anne Thrope, you have argued your position with logic and sound reasoning quite well. Kudos to your debating skills here. But why such a silly troll name?”

“It is a play on words. Or play on one word.

mis·an·thrope
Pronunciation: 'mi-s&n-"thrOp
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek misanthrOpos hating mankind, from misein to hate + anthrOpos human being

; a person who hates or distrusts mankind”

“Yeah - nobody with less than a 3rd grade education got that one.”

“I am glad I could explain it for you violink.”

“A Band,

A 1622 Play in which the main character in a play becomes "the slave of a woman",

A dictionary definition of "One who hates or mistrusts humankind,"

An ancient greek play.

Deep. And all the while I thought you were an hermaphrodite.”

“Hermaphrodite, Yeah that is the image I am trying to project. I have sex with myself.

But then, who doesn't?”

“If any of this offends you, I'm sorry, but not very.
If it doesn't offend
you, please pass it on.


Doug Wingeier (a retired pastor and former theological
seminary professor
now living in North Carolina ) wrote this.

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a
crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you
need our prayers for
your recovery.

2. The United States should get out of the United
Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions
against Iraq.

4. The government has no business telling me I can't
have guns, but when
you want to exercise freedom of choice, then it's time
for a Constitutional
amendment.

5. George W (6% unemployment, $87+ billion to Iraq,
half-trilliondollar
deficit) is doing a great job getting us out of the
economic mess that
Clinton (3.8% unemployment, peace, huge surplus) got
us into.

6. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her
own body, but
multinational corporations can make decisions
affecting all mankind without
regulation.

7. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of
homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.

8. The best way to improve military morale is to
praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat
pay.

9. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless
you someday run for
governor of California as a Republican.

10. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents
won't have sex.

11. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our
longtime allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

12. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of
the public at heart.

13. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound
policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.

14. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are
junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

15. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a
bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did
business with him, and a
bad guy when Bush couldn't find Bin Laden.

16. A president lying about an extramarital affair is
an impeachable
offense. A president lying about nonexistent Weapons
of Mass Destruction to
enlist support for a war in which thousands die is
solid defense policy.

17. Government should limit itself to the powers
named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet.

18. The public has a right to know about Hillary's
cattle trades, but
George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

19. You support states' rights, which means Attorney
General John Ashcroft
can tell states what local voter initiatives they have
a right to adopt.

20. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital
national interest, but
what Bush did in the 1980s is irrelevant.

21. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is
communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of
international harmony.

23. We're leaving no child behind. Entire public
school systems, that's
another story.”

“Ahhh, The power of negativity.”

“Hits a little too close to home, doesn't it, bp........”

“Yeah, Bush is doing a hell of a lot of negative things, thanks for pointing them out so we can oust the bastard catskillhiker.”

“And, if all those facts are so negative, why support the guy?”

“"10 million jobs in four years."

John "Scary" Kerry

He didn't say they would be in the United States or that they would pay better than minimum wage. Sounds like B.S. to me. No one person can create jobs. Any president that would of been in office after 9/11 would of had problems with the economy after the airlines starting going bankrupt and if I recall correctly, didn't the recession start in Klinton's last year in office?

Liberals suck.

8)”

“Yeah, we need four more years of the same. That'll fix it.”

“Why don't you run Phaedy?

8)”

“Not old enough yet.

>:)”

“Well when you are I promise to vote for you two or three times.

8)”

“Talk about your Superior Firepower.... I think the Republicans just got nuked!”

“And, if all those facts are so negative, why support the guy?"
Buddha Bear
09:12:30 AM
03/27/04


They are not facts, they are opinions. If you knew the difference you would support the President also. You know like you did before you became a socialist union schill?”

“CLARKE'S COLLAPSE
By RICH LOWRY

March 25, 2004 -- DEAN Acheson famously titled his memoir of his years as secretary of state after World War II "Present at the Creation." Anyone close to Richard Clarke these last few days could write a memoir called "Present at the Self-Immolation." Rarely has a former public servant with such a sterling reputation shot it all away so quickly.
If Clarke is ever hired in another administration, it should be as Dishonesty Czar. Even by the standard of the host of recent anti-Bush books, Clarke's "Against All Enemies" distinguishes itself for its pathetically misleading and incomplete account of the facts.

For evidence of this, look no further than Clarke's August 2002 briefing for reporters while he was still at the National Security Council.

In that briefing, first reported by Fox News, Clarke portrayed Bush as an anti-terror stalwart.

Was he merely parroting talking points given to him by the Bush team? That's the explanation he offered at yesterday's hearing. But he can't get off the hook so easily.

At the very least, what he said in August 2002 must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.

So, if what Clarke said was true (and no one has contradicted it), why didn't he include it in his book?

A crucial (false) claim of Clinton defenders is that the Clinton team forged an anti-al Qaeda war plan that was then handed over to the Bush administration and ignored. In his August 2002 briefing, Clarke said, "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." His book seems to confirm that, but nowhere puts it so starkly.

In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.

Clarke in 2002 knocked down the idea that there was irrational animus toward the Clinton team on the part of the Bushies that blinded them to the necessity of strong counterterrorism. He offered himself, kept on as a holdover from the Clinton administration, as a refutation: "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me." In his book, he suggests there was such an irrational animus.

Finally, in his 2002 briefing, Clarke made it clear that there was no "appreciable" change in U.S. terror policy from October 1998 until the Bush team began to reevaluate policy in the spring of 2001 and get more aggressive. His book implausibly argues the opposite, that Clinton was on the ball and Bush dropped it.

This is just the beginning of the contradictions and mistakes.

* In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole.

* Clarke says in his book that Bush asked him to look into a possible Iraq connection to 9/11 in an "intimidating" way. No. Two other witnesses say there was nothing intimidating about Bush's manner.

* Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.

Given all of this, it's hard to believe that anyone takes Richard Clarke seriously - including himself.”

“Another "all-about-the-author-nothing-about-the-allegations" article.

Screw his book. Look at what he said under oath and try to disprove that.”

“Networks Undeterred by Any Doubts About
Clarke’s Credibility

Three events on Wednesday served to undermine former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke’s contention that the Bush administration failure to adequately pursue al-Qaeda in it first months in office made the attacks possible: First, the Fox News Channel released the text and audio of an August 5, 2002 background briefing given by Clarke in which he countered claims that the incoming Bush team had in any way fumbled the pursuit of terrorists in taking over from the Clinton administration; second, during his testimony before the 9-11 Commission hearing, Clarke conceded that any actions by the Bush team coming into office in early 2001 would have been too late to prevent the 9-11 attacks; and third, during the hearing commissioners pointed out how Clarke hadn’t made any of his anti-Bush claims in 14 hours of private testimony.

On the latter point, on the broadcast network evening shows on Wednesday, ABC’s Terry Moran uniquely observed how “several commission members pointed out that Clarke had never expressed his criticisms to them in 14 hours of private testimony.”

Yet none of the developments bruised Clarke’s credibility with the networks who still treated his anti-Bush take as authoritative. The broadcast networks on Wednesday night looked at Clarke’s 2002 words not from the perspective of his inconsistency, but as proof of how he’s under attack from the White House. CNN’s NewsNight didn’t even mention, in its two stories on the hearings, Clarke’s 2002 defense of Bush policy, though anchor Heidi Collins later cryptically referred to “the disclosure of Clarke’s 2002 background briefing,” leading Jeff Greenfield to offer a one-sentence summary of what Clarke had argued in 2002.

ABC anchor Charles Gibson noted how Clarke apologized to 9-11 families and then painted him as the victim: “The simplicity of his statement belie the ferocity of the fight the White House is waging to discredit Richard Clarke.” Terry Moran soon complained about how “White House officials launched a ferocious counterattack, taking the extraordinary step of allowing Fox News to unmask Clarke as the official who provided a background briefing for reporters in August 2002 when the counter-terrorism chief sang a very different tune.”

On the March 24 CBS Evening News, anchor John Roberts characterized Clarke’s testimony as “electrifying,” and trumpeted how “what Richard Clarke had to say captivated all who heard it” as “he pulled no punches, naming names and laying blame.” Reporter Jim Stewart gushed: “In an extraordinary day on Capitol Hill, the man formerly in charge of President Bush’s counter-terrorism program raised his hand, swore an oath, and with the first question from the 9/11 Commission, knocked the White House on its heels.” Stewart bucked up Clarke: “Few people have as many credentials to level such charges.” And he showcased a soundbite of Clarke declaring he’s no Democrat: “Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, I asked for a Republican ballot.”

Only at the very end of his story did Stewart acknowledge: “He ended his testimony on a note of stark reality, however. Even if the Bush administration had acted immediately on all of his recommendations, Clarke believes the plan and the men were in place, and 9-11 would have happened anyway.”

In a second story, Bill Plante, one of the reporters in on the 2002 conference call with Clarke, asserted: “Continuing its strenuous efforts to counter Clarke’s charges, the administration today alerted reporters to a telephone briefing which Clarke offered in August 2002. Responding to a Time magazine report that the Bush administration did not treat terrorism as a top priority before 9/11, Clarke painted a decidedly upbeat picture to journalists.” Plante, however, refused to credit FNC, whose Jim Angle kept an audio recording of the session, and instead referred to “a transcript of that phone call read by the Press Secretary.”

At least NBC’s David Gregory got up front to what CBS’s Stewart had buried. Gregory began his NBC Nightly News piece: “Today Clarke accused the Bush administration of failing to make terrorism a top priority when it came into office, but he also admitted that if officials here had listened to him sooner it still probably would not have stopped 9-11.” Unlike the other networks, Gregory also noted criticism of the Clinton administration: “While Clarke asserts that battling terrorism was an extraordinary high priority for President Clinton, it became clear today he was frustrated by the Clinton White House as well.”

As for Clarke’s 2002 take, Gregory, at the White House, also failed to credit FNC as he explained: “In a further attempt to undermine Clarke, today officials here made public this previously anonymous briefing which Clarke himself gave to reporters in August 2002. Clarke said that in March of 2001 President Bush ordered an change in the 'strategic direction’ of the anti-al-Qaeda plan, 'from one of roll-back to one of elimination.’ Today Clarke said he was just offering positive spin back then; he didn’t really believe the administration was doing enough.”

Gregory concluded with Clarke’s current spin: “Clarke says he is coming down so hard on the Bush White House because he believes strongly that the invasion of Iraq has undermined the war on terror and strengthened the culprits behind 9-11.”

In a second story, Andrea Mitchell went through the testimony of the others who appeared before the commission and, like CBS and CNN, without noting Kristen Bretweiser’s involvement with left-wing politics, she featured a soundbite from the 9-11 family member. Mitchell set her up as a representative family member: “At the hearings today, families of the 9-11 victims, frustrated.” Breitweiser opined: “It’s just lame excuses and, you know, to put it in a flip way, apparently nobody knows nothin’.”

Next on NBC, anchor Tom Brokaw quizzed National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice about her decision, citing executive privilege and the separation of powers, to not testify publicly, though she has done so extensively in private sessions. Brokaw proposed to her: “Dr. Rice, with all due respect, I think a lot of people are watching this tonight saying, 'well, she can appear on television, write commentaries, but she won’t appear before the commission under oath. It just doesn’t seem to make sense.’”

CNN’s NewsNight led with David Ensor’s summary of Clarke’s testimony. Ensor outlined it: “Before the 9/11 Commission Richard Clarke reaffirmed and sharpened his attack on the Bush administration he once served for failing, he says, to do enough to protect the nation against al-Qaeda terrorism in its first eight months in office.”

Following Ensor, CNN aired a piece from Kelly Wallace on other testimony and the reaction of 9-11 families. Later in the one-hour show, fill-in anchor Heidi Collins talked to Jeff Greenfield about the political impact of Clarke’s claims. Though Clarke’s 2002 defense of Bush had not yet been mentioned on the program, Collins raised it in her first question to Greenfield, a question that didn’t make sense: “The focus of today’s hearings was clearly Richard Clarke and his charge that the Bush administration didn’t take this threat of terror very seriously. Do you think that the disclosure of Clarke’s 2002 background briefing accomplished that pretty well?”
Greenfield replied: “I think it hurt Richard Clarke because the presentation that he’s been making ever since the 60 Minutes appearance Sunday night was a man anguished at the administration’s failure to respond to his urgent warnings. Then they produce this background briefing from August 2002, as you said, revealing that the senior official was in fact Richard Clarke, briefing the press about how on top of the situation the Bush administration was. What Richard Clarke said in the hearing today was well I was an employee of the White House, in effect I went out and was the good soldier. I put the best face on it. But that is going to raise some questions about just how much a truth-teller he’s prepared to be...”

Earlier, on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Jim Angle came aboard to outline what he found in an old audio recording of a background session with Clarke on August 5, 2002, a phone session the White House had wanted to be on background. But on Wednesday they lifted the restriction so FNC could quote from it directly and name the source.

Angle explained: “Clarke, who has written a new book on the topic, has been saying the Bush administration did virtually nothing about the threat from al-Qaeda in its first few months in office. But in a session with reporters in August of 2002, Clarke seemed to say the opposite, praising the Bush administration for acting quickly.”

Angle played two audio clips of Clarke who talked to reporters in order to counter a Time magazine cover story, which cited Clarke as a source, which contended the Bush team was provided with an anti-al-Qaeda action plan by the outgoing Clinton team, but dropped the ball. In the first clip, Clarke explained how the Bush administration did “add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.”

In the second, Clarke recalled: “When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD [National Security Presidential Directive] from one of rollback to one of elimination.”

FNC has posted a transcript of the August 5, 2002 conference call. Clarke’s first words: “I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration....”

For the full transcript: www.foxnews.com

An excerpt from the Tuesday, August 6, 2002, CyberAlert published the day after that conference call:

CBS and NBC on Monday night jumped on a Time magazine cover story about how the outgoing Clinton administration provided a plan to fight al-Qaeda which the Bush team failed to implement until after the 9-11 attacks. “The battle over history,” Dan Rather teased at the top of the August 5 CBS Evening News before declaring: “Veterans of the Clinton administration say the Bush team didn't take their al-Qaeda warnings and plans seriously enough.”

Rather set up the story by referring to how “controversy is swirling over what did or did not happen concerning terrorism in the early months” of the Bush presidency. Rather ominously intoned: “The controversy centers around serious questions raised by a counter-terrorism expert who worked for Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton.”

Over on the NBC Nightly News, fill-in anchor Stone Phillips led with the Time-relayed Clinton spin but at least added how the Bush side denies the storyline: "There is a new published report tonight that the outgoing Clinton administration gave the Bush White House a ready-made plan for attacking al-Qaeda that was ignored. Not true, says the Bush camp.”

On both networks the subsequent stories, by Bill Plante on CBS and Andrea Mitchell on NBC, conveyed the Bush team’s denials that they fell down on the job, insistence that the Clinton policy was less a plan than a set of ideas and how the Clinton people never implemented an anti-al Qaeda policy while in office. NBC’s Mitchell, for instance, noted that Bush officials pointed out “that the Clinton White House did nothing for more than two years until it ran out of time and left office.” But that was all in stories which had Bush team fecklessness as their theme....

END of Excerpt from Previous CyberAlert

For the August 6, 2002 CyberAlert item in full: www.mediaresearch.org

Now, full transcripts of Wednesday night, March 24, ABC and CBS stories, as taken down by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth:

-- ABC’s World News Tonight. Anchor Charles Gibson led the broadcast: “Good evening. It was the most anticipated moment of the hearings before the commission looking into the events leading up to 9/11. The appearance of Richard Clarke, the former top counterterrorism official in government, now a consultant to ABC News. Clarke has been sharply critical, in interviews and a new book, of the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism. His opening statement stunned the hearing room. Instead of further criticism, he addressed the families of those who died that day.”
Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism official: “Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”
Gibson: “The simplicity of his statement belie the ferocity of the fight the White House is waging to discredit Richard Clarke. Here’s ABC’s Terry Moran at the White House.”

Moran began: “Richard Clarke praised President Clinton’s effort to fight terrorism, but he leveled a damning indictment against President Bush.”
Timothy Roemer, 9/11 Commission Member: “How high a priority was fighting al-Qaeda in the Bush administration?”
Clarke: “I believe the Bush administration, in the first eight months, considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.”
Moran: “Even before Clarke began testifying, White House officials launched a ferocious counterattack, taking the extraordinary step of allowing Fox News to unmask Clarke as the official who provided a background briefing for reporters in August 2002 when the counterterrorism chief sang a very different tune. In that briefing, Clarke said President Bush ‘changed the strategy from one of rollback with al-Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al-Qaeda.’ White House officials immediately seized on Clarke’s briefing.”
Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary: “Dick Clarke, in his own words, provides a point-by-point rebuttal of what he now asserts. This shatters the cornerstone of Mr. Clark’s assertions.”
Moran: “At the hearing, Clarke was promptly confronted with his past statements.”
James Thompson, 9/11 Commission member: “Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book, and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?”
Clarke: “Well, I think the question is a little misleading. I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done.”
Moran: “Several commission members pointed out that Clarke had never expressed his criticisms to them in 14 hours of private testimony.”
John Lehman, 9/11 Commission member: “You’ve got a real credibility problem.”
Moran: “Clarke’s explanation, he says he was never asked what he says as the critical question: Iraq.”
Clarke: “By invading Iraq, the President of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.”
Moran: “Clarke’s former boss said he has lost respect for a man he has known for more than a decade.”
Andrew Card, White House Chief-of-Staff: “Well, I think he’s taken an opportunity to sell a book and take advantage of the publicity that comes with a 9/11 Commission hearing, and in the heightened political season, and I’m disappointed in Dick Clarke.”
Moran: “But at the end of the day, Clarke was still firing away at the President.”
Clarke, in interview for Nightline: “I think the truth hurts, and the White House, I think, believes the American people won’t like the facts once they see them.”
Moran: “But here’s another fact: Late today, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice released this e-mail that Clarke sent her four days after 9/11. In it, Clarke predicts questions would be raised about whether the Bush administration did all it could to stop the attacks. And he says, quote, 'The White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement, including the FAA, knew that we believed a major al-Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.,’ and it did ask that special measures be taken. Charlie, this is not over.”

Up next, Pierre Thomas reviewed the other witnesses, including CIA Director Tenet and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.

-- CBS Evening News. Anchor John Roberts teased up top: “The man in the middle of the 9-11 storm gives dramatic and damning testimony about the failures that led to the nation’s worst terrorist attack.”

Roberts opened the broadcast: “It is on rare occasion that one could describe a hearing on Capitol Hill as electrifying, but today’s was that and more. It was day two of public hearings by the commission investigating the September 11th attacks on America. And what Richard Clarke had to say captivated all who heard it. The former counter-terrorism aide, who has bluntly accused President Bush of bungling the war on terror, began by addressing the families of those who died on 9/11 with an admission and an apology.”
Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism official: “Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”

Roberts: “The content of Clarke’s apology clearly stirred a lot of emotions, but as Jim Stewart reports tonight, it was the substance of Clarke’s testimony that dominated today’s hearing, and he pulled no punches, naming names and laying blame.”

Stewart began: “In an extraordinary day on Capitol Hill, the man formerly in charge of President Bush’s counter-terrorism program raised his hand, swore an oath, and with the first question from the 9/11 Commission, knocked the White House on its heels.”
Timothy Roemer, 9/11 Commission member: “How high a priority was fighting al-Qaeda in the Bush administration?”
Clarke: “I believe the Bush administration, in the first eight months, considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.”
Stewart: “And Richard Clarke went on to say that although he made repeated requests, he was never asked even once during those eight months to brief the President on terrorism, and that a Cabinet-level principles committee didn’t meet until the week before 9/11 to discuss a counter-terrorism program.”
James Thompson, 9/11 Commission member: “Well, is that eight-month period unusual?”
Clarke: “It is unusual when you are being told every day that there is an urgent threat. I tried to insert the phrase early in the Bush administration that our goals should be to eliminate al-Qaeda. And I was told by various members of the deputies committee that that was overly ambitious.”
Stewart: “Few people have as many credentials to level such charges. Clarke’s counter-terrorism service began under the first President Bush, spanned all the Clinton years, and he was one of only a handful of professional policymakers kept on by President George Bush when he took office. Yet as intelligence of another massive al-Qaeda attack grew during the summer of 2001, Clarke said the closest he could get to the President was a question relayed for Mr. Bush through National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, wanting to know what plans he had to deal with the terrorists.”
Clarke: “And I said, well, you know, we’ve had this strategy ready since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you, you have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy any time you want. As far as I know, the President never asked again.”
Stewart: “Some skeptical Commission members wondered if Clarke wasn’t just trying to sell his book and auditioning for a job in a future Democratic administration. 'Hardly,’ he replied.”
Clarke: “Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, I asked for a Republican ballot. I worked for Ronald Reagan with you.”
Stewart: “He left, Clarke said, because he worried no one shared his fears.”
Clarke: “I thought if the administration doesn’t believe its national coordinator for counter-terrorism when he says there’s an urgent problem, and if it’s unprepared to act as though there’s an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.”
Stewart concluded: “He ended his testimony on a note of stark reality, however. Even if the Bush administration had acted immediately on all of his recommendations, Clarke believes the plan and the men were in place, and 9/11 would have happened anyway.”

Roberts then introduced a second story: “In response today, President Bush’s top aides tried harder than ever to refute Clarke’s criticism and leveled charges of their own against him. Bill Plante has more on the revved up White House reaction and its strategy for countering Clarke.”

Plante began: “The Bush White House remains in crisis mode over Richard Clarke’s charges, and again sent top officials to deny that the administration ignored the terrorist threat, and to accuse Clark of changing his story to sell his book.”
Andrew Card, White House Chief-of-Staff: “What he is reporting does not reflect the reality that I know to he true, and I spent a lot of time with the President. I’ve been in almost every one of his intelligence briefings. And what he alleges is not the fact.”
Plante: “Continuing its strenuous efforts to counter Clarke’s charges, the administration today alerted reporters to a telephone briefing which Clarke offered in August 2002. Responding to a Time magazine report that the Bush administration did not treat terrorism as a top priority before 9/11, Clarke painted a decidedly upbeat picture to journalists, including this reporter. A transcript of that phone call, read by the press secretary today, shows Clarke saying that the administration had vigorously pursued the Clinton White House’s concern with al-Qaeda, increasing money for covert action, and moving within months to do so.”
Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary: “This shatters the cornerstone of Mr. Clark’s assertions.”
Plante: “Confronted with that positive assessment today, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission that what he said wasn’t untrue, but it was a matter of tone.”
Clarke: “I was asked to highlight he positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done.”
Plante: “And Clarke rejected the suggestion that his shift from defender of the White House to accuser represented a different standard of morality.”
Clarke: “I don’t think it’s a question of morality at all. I think it’s a question of politics.”
Plante: “National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in an off-camera briefing, called some of Clarke’s remarks 'arrogant in the extreme.’ The White House is not allowing Rice to testify in public before the Commission, which caused some family members to walk out in protest.”
Kristen Breitweiser, 9/11 widow: “We had hoped that in light of three thousand people being murdered on homeland soil that she would want to set a moral precedent.”
Plante concluded: “Late today, the White House released this memo from Clarke to Rice written four days after 9/11, designed to show that the White House had indeed warned law enforcement officers and agencies of an upcoming possible spectacular al-Qaeda attack.””

“Strat, seriously!”

“To tell the truth
Mona Charen
March 26, 2004

Every election year, politicians massage, manipulate and sometimes outright distort the facts in order to get elected. When the contest is over, journalists gather at jaw jaws like the Joan Shorenstein Barone Center at Harvard and gravely pull their chins over this lamentable phenomenon.

But the journalists are the very people who can put a stop to this. If major newspapers and television news programs made a huge stink about every misleading ad, and if they did so even-handedly, the political climate would improve rapidly.

This does, of course, assume that the networks and other major media players are capable of fairness. And it further assumes that they can lift their sights from the dull horse race coverage upon which they focus so maniacally. Besides, for their own sanity's sake, if not for ours, can they bear eight months of who's ahead? Political reporters are constantly decrying spin, but they fail to do the one thing that would make spin less profitable -- fact check.

Here is my contribution.

The Kerry campaign has a new ad out suggesting that President Bush has "cut key education programs by 27 percent." According to the Annenberg Political Fact Sheet, they derived this figure by comparing the amount Congress had wanted to spend on the No Child Left Behind bill with what the president finally signed. That isn't a "cut," that is a dispute over how much to increase spending.

In fact, President Bush has increased federal spending by 58 percent -- a larger increase than President Clinton presided over and one that some of us very much regret. It is also peculiar to raise this particular criticism (false though it is) in an ad whose overall point is that Bush has ballooned (yes, this word has apparently become a verb) the deficit.

In a better world, it would be impossible for anyone of either party to suggest that more government spending is a good idea for education. A cursory glance at education spending over the past several decades shows that spending at all levels of government on education has tripled (in real terms) since 1960. Though buckets of ink are spilled analyzing the increasing cost of health care, education spending has increased far more. Last year, Americans spent half a trillion dollars on education. And unlike health care, which has delivered life-enhancing and life-saving medicines, procedures and tests, the money we've spent on education has brought us zero improvement.

Compare 1970 with 1995. Real per-pupil expenditure averaged $3,713 in 1970 compared with $6,447 in 1995 (in constant 2000 dollars). During this period, the pupil-teacher ratio dropped from 22.3 to one to 17.3 to one. (Source: School Figures, Hoover Institution Press). Reading, math, science and writing scores, meanwhile have fluctuated only very slightly during this period.

A chart mapping scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows a basically flat horizontal line. This is not due to larger numbers of poor or minority children in America's schools, because performance has flattened at the top, as well. Scholastic Aptitude Test scores have declined by 56 points, and the number of high scorers has decreased even as the total number of test takers has increased.

So please, no more demands for increased spending on education!

President Bush's team, meanwhile, has advertised that Sen. Kerry would raise taxes by at least $900 billion in his first hundred days in office. They derived this figure by adding up the amount Kerry has promised to spend on health care ($895 billion over 10 years) with the $165 billion Kerry has promised on this and that, and the price of repealing the Bush tax cuts.

Kerry's campaign vehemently denies that he intends to raise taxes by that much. Accordingly, the Bush commercial should be clearer. Their figures on what Kerry is promising are correct. But it's misleading to suggest that Kerry has proposed a tax increase of that size. The ad can simply say that the logical result of spending the money Kerry proposes is an even larger federal deficit or higher taxes, or both.

Now it's everyone else's turn.




misleading attack spin indeed...”

“A small note....

I heard from a radio talk host talking about Clarke's book....the host said Clarke had a financial interest in the publishing company....hmmmm? And that the media didn't mention this during his interview about his book last week. Think the media/interviewer is bias?”

“I heard that Dick Cheney has a financial interest in Haliburton and its subsidiaries. Hmmm..... makes one wonder, doesn't it?”

“uhhmmm......no?”

“Another "all-about-the-author-nothing-about-the-allegations" article.

Screw his book. Look at what he said under oath and try to disprove that."
Phaedrus
02:55:11 PM
03/27/04

Isn't the ongoing issue that he contradicted himself in statements he gave under oath in 2002 with the statements he is giving under oath today?”

“Yeah cause god knows no one has ever lied under oath or in a book. Especially when the stuff that could show he was lying is classified and won't for the most part see the light of day till years down the road. Just another disgruntled peoson that got canned and has a need to "take it out" on someone.”

“Why are people so emotionally attached to this incompetent president?”