Richard Clarke

“I'm watching this guy, and I'm looking at a true patriot, the most credible witness I've ever seen, and the most lethal smoking gun our political system has seen since deepthroat.

Good bye George and Condi, the hand was in the cookie jar, and you not only got caught, ya got caught lying about the hand being in the jar.

You folks should see the (R) commission members squirm, it's historic!”

“Heard a blurb on local radio...said the administration is releasing some transcripts today in which Clarke admits that at the time of transition, the previous administration had no anti-terrorist plans at all. May be too early to call...”

“According to Madeline Albright, the Bush Administration scrapped the plans for dealing with Al Qaeda that Clinton had in place because Dubya was fixed on Saddam.”

“you almost have to take a day off, to catch this stuff. when i took yesterday off work to fix the swamp cooler, lo and behold. News from both sides,6 p.m. slant depending on station. They got you where they want you. Personally, I agree with Clarke, terrorism is spread out in several countries. Heroin profits go to Al-Queda from Afghanistan. Bringing up the Clinton administration doesn't stop the fact that billions are spent on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, that does nothing to stop terrorist in the US, although power and hate toting Americans pushing the right-wing fanatic Bush would like you to believe it is so. Bring it on. (actually a Pat Robertson saying) While us poor left-wing loony tunes have been saying all along, the war in Iraq is about Bush getting revenge and making oil profits.”

“What was that Clinton ;lan? shooting cruise missles at empty tents and up Camels butts?”

“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, 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.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then 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. That is in fact the timeline.”

“Unfortunately politics plays to big a role in all this when what we need to do is concentrate on what went wrong, why it went wrong and how to fix it, but instead everyone is playing the blame game. This countries failure against terrorism probably goes back at least 20 years. Americans view terrorism as a new threat and arrogantly accuse other counties of being soft on terrorism while they have been fighting it for decades.”

“That was Clarke in Aug 2002”

“News reporter Mansoor Ijaz, now stationed in London, who worked with Clarke a couple times called him an outright liar yesterday.

Yesterday retired Col. David Hunt who worked with Clarke called his claims "outrageous", that he "didn't trust him then", and that Clarke was "always doing double-speak".

Expert Frank Gaffney said he "most especialy disagreed" with the tone and current attack of Clarke.

But if you want the best source, how about a tape in which Clarke completely contradicts his current claims when he earlier told reporters that,

1) The new Bush administration changed existing plans on how to deal with al-Qaida and increased covert operations funding "five-fold".

2) "There was no plan on al Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

3) The Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaida."

4) That in March or April the new Bush administration "then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaida over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaida."


I submit, Clarke's early taped interviews with the press demonstrates that Mr. Clarke is a bald faced liar when he now asserts that President Bush did nothing about al-Qaida before 9/11.

Buddha Bear, you are a true patriot, but Clarke is a perjurer.”

“If you guys could hear this dude, and the reactions of the Republican committeemen, there would be no doubt. The repubs went from attack, to "how can you now help us" within 1/2 an hour. That is how credible this guy is. His answers ooze logic and truth, it's really totally void of spin, and so incriminating of the Bush Admin, I thought I was watching a movie or something.”

“ha ha, beat you to it, prosecuter”

“Wasn't that the guy that was the host of American Bandstand? Man, I loved that show!!!”

“Yeah, Mutt, and you did a better job too. Darn. The story of my life, 61 seconds too slow.”

“This is the info-mercial of a life time, of course he has the answers rehersed perfecly.

The guy is trying to sell a book. The truth dosen't enter into it.”

“The people on my side are telling the truth and the people on the other side are all liars.”

“Bobo, you crack me up, Dude! When are we doing that drink thing?

The question we don't know the answer to is whether Clarke's earlier statements were administration spin or truth as he saw it. If the latter, and he is now changing his tune, then he has "some splainin to do!"

If the former, he could be coming clean.

Then again, he could be a disillusioned wank who fell out of favor.

What is the truth? Do we really trust any of these people to tell us the unvarnished truth? I am frankly not surprised at any of this.

And what Madeline Albright might interpret as a plan, the Bushies would say was not a plan at all. Wow! What a surprise.

What is clear is that "shooting cruise missiles at empty tents and up camels' butts" did not work, nor was there any plan put into place before 9/11 that would have worked.

I don't know that Bush could have prevented 9/11, and frankly I'm not worried about the Al Qaeda situation at all. After 9/11, Bush did it right. I think the nit is being picked over the wrong damn issue.

I don't even know that it was intelligence failure. The very nature of intelligence is such that you cannot predict everything. These are not so much failures as cases where intelligence is so fuzzy you can't make heads nor tails of it. Intelligence is not rocket science, and even rocket science is not finite.

It's easy in hindsight to say we should have done something about Osama bin Hidin, but faced with the pre-9/11 situation all over again, it's not so easy to see what to do. We know now that the Taliban fell pretty easily, and that Russia steered clear. But back before 9/11, that was hardly clear.”

“The question we don't know the answer to is whether Clarke's earlier statements were administration spin or truth as he saw it.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/24/clarke/index_np.html

In an interview with Joe Conason in Salon, Conason asks Clarke the following (revolving around Clarke's claim that he gave the order that the President wasn't to come to DC):


In the first chapter of your book, which I must say is gripping, you give your account of your actions on 9/11, when great authority was turned over to you [by Cheney and Rice]. Is there an issue of disloyalty or ingratitude there? To be honest, it seemed to me that you saved their asses that day.

Clarke answers:


Well, that's for other people to say. As regards my loyalty to President Bush, I was a career civil servant. I wasn't loyal to any particular political machine. When the president makes a big mistake -- like he has in the way that he has fought the war on terrorism by going into Iraq -- I think personal loyalty or party loyalty has got to be put aside.

So Clarke was loyal to the truth, not to the Bush Administration. Apparently, he was telling the truth when he showed Bush was tougher on terror than Clinton ever was.”

“How the f_ck did you get that out your cut and paste, Mutt?”

“Ahh, yes grasshopper, but when was Bush tougher on terrorism than Clinton ever was? After 9/11. That damned old date keeps popping up, doesn't it.”

“Ahh, yes grasshopper, but when was Bush tougher on terrorism than Clinton

According to Clarke:

One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.”

“i personally think that all of you that see this guy as totally honest and forthright need to get a clue.

i don't doubt for a minute that bush did some shady things.

clark continually contradicts his earlier statements with his current attempt to cash in on his "civil" servant job. thanks to mutt for clearly pointing this out.

clark is no more believeable than is bush. they both tell great "stories".”

“W is going down...going back to Midland to be a half-broke oil-man. ( yeah....one that's sucking off the family trust fund...yeeha Georgie...let's play cowboy!!!!)”

“I think it's called "spin," baume. But back in the Nixon years they were called lies, or damned lies, or maybe unconscionable damned lies.”

“Geobeet, you were wrong on the "spin" argument, and you're wrong on the "when did dubya get tough on terrorism" argument. Clarke's own words prove you wrong.”

“while he may have it coming, being torn down from a double talker trying to sell a book is a sad state.”

“The folks at Bush, Inc. don't like to record any meetings, write anything down or send email (basically anything that can be subpoenaed at a later date).... Perhaps they just forgot that they were supposed to pursue Al Qaida for the first seven months they were in power.”

“And there's Tilt with adolescent non-sequitur gibberish.”

“Mutt, meetings to discuss the issue do not amount to getting tough. Had they actually put that policy into action before 9/11, then that would have been tough. The post 9/11 attacks were tough. And they were unmistakable. And they were the right response. No quibble there.

Hell, anybody can say they were doing something before the fact long after the fact, but that does not mean beans.

Credibility issue? How about this: "We need to take Saddam out because he has weapons of mass destruction that are a threat to America?"”

“By Jonathan Darman
Newsweek
Updated: 1:40 p.m. ET March 24, 2004March 24 - The publication of “Against all Enemies: Inside the White House’s War on Terror”—the new tell-all memoir by Richard A. Clarke—has the White House on the defensive this week. In the book, Clarke, a top counterterrorism official held over from the Clinton years, charges that the Bush administration ignored clear warnings about the Al Qaeda threat prior to the September 11 attacks. In the eyes of some, the book calls the president’s leadership in the war on terror into question. Indeed, the criticism was strong enough for the Bush White House—which prides itself on “not doing book reviews”—to come after Clarke, hard. At best, White House officials are saying, Clarke’s book paints an inaccurate portrait of the Bush presidency. At worst, some are implying, it puts America’s national security in danger.”

“Gee, Geobeet. Notice how when Baghdad fell, all the recalcitrant ME terrorist sympathizing nations suddenly were toeing the line in cooperating with the war on terror. Yeah, Bush lost all credibility on that one!”

“Gee, Geobeet. Notice how when Baghdad fell, all the recalcitrant ME terrorist sympathizing nations suddenly were toeing the line in cooperating with the war on terror.

Damn, did I miss something in one of Dubya's pre-invasion speeches? Did he slip that line in while I was nodding off or what?”

“Mutt, meetings to discuss the issue do not amount to getting tough. Had they actually put that policy into action before 9/11, then that would have been tough

They increased the CIA's funding "fivefold" to go after al qaeda specifically. Also, it's difficult to take hugely visible, decisive actions without a huge, visible, moral imperitive. 9/11 made it possible for the U.S. to take drastic action. And even then, it was damn difficult to do with all the ostriches in the world. Prior to 9/11 it would have been politically unfeasible.”

“That's according to what Clarke said in 2002. In his book he seems to say something else.”

“And how's that war on terror going Mutt? Ask the Spanish. Bush needed 9-11 and his war in Iraq to justify his existence. An all those recalcitrant ME terrorist sympathizing nations are really toeing the line. Pakistan? The Wal-Mart of WMD. Outside the ME? N.Korea? Oh yeah, their toeing the line. Stop apologizing for the nitwit president.”

“salon interview

How different were the two administrations in their approaches to terrorism?

Well, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration didn't have an approach to terrorism. They'd never gotten around to creating an administration policy. It was in the process of doing so, but it hadn't achieved that. And it was clear that the national security advisor didn't like this kind of issue; she didn't have meetings on this issue. The president didn't have meetings on the issue of terrorism.

Now the White House is saying, oh, they had meetings every day. But let's be clear about what those meetings every day were. Every day George Tenet, the CIA director, would do the morning intelligence briefing of the president, and he would raise the al-Qaida threat with great frequency. That's not the same as having a meeting to decide what to do about it. That's not the same as the president shaking the lapels of the FBI director and the attorney general and saying, "You've got to stop the attack."

Apparently on one occasion -- of all these many, many days when George Tenet mentioned the al-Qaida threat -- the president on one occasion said, "I want a strategy. I don't want to swat flies." Well, months or certainly weeks went by after that, and he didn't get his strategy because Condi Rice didn't hold the meeting necessary to approve it and give it to him. And yet George Bush appears not to have asked for it a second time.

In fact, he told Bob Woodward in "Bush at War" that he kind of knew there was a strategy being developed out there, but he didn't know at what stage it was in the process. Well, if he was so focused on it, he would have kept asking where the strategy was. He would have known where it was in the process. He would have demanded that it be brought forward. He had a fleeting interest.”

“Also:

Before Sept. 11, I was so frustrated with the way they were handling terrorism that I had asked to be reassigned to a different job. And the job I proposed was a job I helped to create -- a job to look at the nation's vulnerability to cyber-attack. So that job was supposed to be one that I went into on Oct. 1 [2001]; the actual transfer was delayed, of course, because Sept. 11 intervened.”

“And:

Were you concerned about your friendship with Rand Beers being used, as it is now, to suggest that you did this in order to help John Kerry in his presidential campaign?

This is the most interesting charge against me -- that I am a friend of Rand Beers, as if that's some terrible thing. Who is Rand Beers? Until a year ago, he was someone who was working for George Bush in the White House. He worked for George Bush's father in the White House. He worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House. But now it's a terrible thing to be a friend of Rand Beers? He and I have been friends for 25 years. I'm not going to disown him because he's working for John Kerry. He's my friend, he's going to stay my friend, we teach a course together [at Harvard]. He works for John Kerry. I don't.”

“alpineaire chicken gumbo gives me gas,very bad gas”

“If this guy is lacks sooo much credibility, then why isn't Condi Rice testifying? Ya know what, I'm not going to even bother explaining this to the juvvvy section of TT. Finally, like Violin, Treebeard, Geobeet, Phaedrus, Tilt and MarkO, I have realized that it's a complete waste of my time.

Have fun being a flock of misinformed sheep, glad it's not me!”

“Clarke had credibility when he stated the Bush admininstration changed the U.S. stategy to the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda and increased efforts five fold over the previous administration.

Condi Rice is testifying, just not publicly.

Buddha Bear, don't be a "misinformed sheep". Buy Clarke's book. His current statements have really helped sales.”

“Unfortunately this body has no subpoena powers. Rice and Bush should be questioned at length, under oath.

Now that it has been established that it is possible to sue a sitting president, perhaps a suit will be brought forth and Bush can be deposed... at length and under oath.”

“well buddha, i never thought that you would fall into the group that dismissed anyone with a differing opinion as misinformed sheep, but your statements speak for themselves.

how disappointing that is.


richard clarke is a liar. there is no way around that. he is trying to sell his book, and it fits right nto the medias venue. good for all of them. george bush is a liar too. he's trying to sell a war instead of a book.



just an opinion of one of the uniformed sheep.


baaaaaa, baaaaaa, baaaaaa.”

“Seems like hindsite is 60/40 in this case. I don't know who to believe.”

“Have fun being a flock of misinformed sheep, glad it's not me!

Buddha bear, sometimes you make a good point, but lately you've been acting like Tilt - fingers in ears yelling "nah nah nah - I'm right you're wrong - can't hear you".

I think you're being dishonest with yourself. I think you're emotionally upset over whatever death prompted you to be angry about the war, and you're focusing in on everything that reinforces and justifies your bitter affect at the expense of intellectual honesty. In other words, you're engaging in selective observation to justify your new preconceptions rather than allowing your observations to form a realistic point of view.

And, you sound strikingly similar to the French response to the WOT. Hmmm....”

“Condi Rice TESTIFIED (past tense) for 4 hours, in a rpivate session. She isn't testifying anymore.

Clarke admitted to spewing "spin" to the press. Now that he's no longer employed by GWB, the truth can come out..... amazing, isn't it?

This is becoming a pattern with the Bush admin....... spin something to make it digestable, and then spin and discredit when the truth comes out.

Also, I don't mind if the sheep disagree with me, but please, admit you are sheep. Nobody has produced a logical unspun arguement to combat any of my statements (even strat!).”

“Clarke admitted to spewing "spin" to the press.

Directly contradicting himself - again - when he stated "I was a career civil servant. I wasn't loyal to any particular political machine."

See - you're only observing what you want to observe, and you have the nerve to tell others they're sheep. Too funny, and yet kind of sad. Go to France, Buddha - you'll find like company there.”

“It is interesting to see that people who come out of this Admin, are labled with something, usally along the lines of lier, or Dem and they loose all creditblity!?! Do they not hire correctly up there? Maybe they have a thing about how they treat there employees?

I'd hate to work for these guys. Ya get kicked in the pants after ya leave.

At any rate, there seems to be a lot of people upset with the wat things are going, both sides of the ailse.


I thought this guy was a "Uniter"....hmmmmmmm”

“of course he is going to say he lied, he's a liar. nobody can produce anything for you buddha, you have blinders on. anything anyone says to you will be "spin".

i love folks who give the old "well, i was lying then, but you can trust me now" line. and the folks who believe it. and then you call others sheep? hahahahahahaahaha! well vanna, i'd like to buy #&%!$ing a clue. wake up.

he's trying to sell a book. and obviously doing a damn fine job of it.

open your eyes buddha, they are all liars.”

“"he earlier told reporters that:"......."I submit, Clarke's early taped interviews with the press demonstrates that Mr. Clarke is a bald faced liar when he now asserts that President Bush did nothing about al-Qaida before 9/11."

He was talking to the press, right? Those were his ideas and policies right? We now have a total of 3 former ranking officials of different departments, making statements showing a pattern of Bush spin in comments that they made to the press.

Dude, you are a lawyer, weigh the evidence and the facts. Your arguement is that a few reporters called him a liar, and a colnel did as well. Did they testify under oath? Where is thier evidence?

Maybe you folks should have watched the testimony before jumping on the spin bandwagon.

Sound Familiar?”

“LOL”