http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040326/COCLARKE26/TPComment/TopStories



Our testimonial, of course, will not convince Bush partisans, let alone administration officials. They portray Mr. Clarke as an out-of-the loop bureaucrat with an axe to grind, a book to peddle and a close friendship with Rand Beers, Senator John Kerry's chief foreign-policy adviser.

That sour-grapes argument leaves unmentioned the fact that on Sept. 11, Ms. Rice asked Mr. Clarke to direct emergency-response efforts from the White House. It also glosses over the fact that Mr. Clarke was an ally of Vice-President Dick Cheney and deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and favoured their call to march on Baghdad. Also left unmentioned is that Mr. Beers is himself a veteran of many administrations, and resigned his post as the senior counterterrorism official on the NSC staff in 2003 to protest what he saw as Mr. Bush's mishandling of the terrorist threat.

Here is what Mr. Clarke had to say in August 2002, before he decided to write the recent book. More than a slightly different tune.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37763

It's just amazing how much any reporter's opinion really does shape the news.

Joe,

Can you find that article from a news source that is not Conservative (or Liberal)? I personally can't trust anything that comes from either side.

If you find this in BBC that would be perfect as they are an outside source.

Joe, what in that article disputes what Clarke claims now?
He has claimed in these hearings that He, and the current administration, and the former administration, have all let down the American public.

There have been comments made by Clarke that supported Bush to some extent, but they were made while he was an employee of Bush and was told to put a good light on things.

Why does C. Rice refuse to testify publicly, yet she will go on 5 morning TV shows on the same day to try to refute Clarkes testimony?

Why are C. Rice's and Scott McClellan's press conferences scripted?

Why, as Dick Cheney says, was the Director of anti-terrorism (Clarke) "out of the loop". Would you not want to have him in the loop?

Why was President Bush NOT in the situation room on September 12, 1991, as the republicans claim? Would that not be the place he should have been?

Why was Clarke put in charge of white house operations shortly after the attacks of 911, if he is as bad as the republicans would have us think?

Why does C. Rice refuse to testify publicly, yet she will go on 5 morning TV shows on the same day to try to refute Clarkes testimony?
This really bugged me during the hearings. Why would the bush administration not allow her to speak in one of the most important hearings in US history?

And now she wants to go in front of the committee again to refute Clarke's charges, but refuses to do it UNDER OATH.

Her testimony has absolutely no credibility.

Originally posted by alvinks
Joe,

Can you find that article from a news source that is not Conservative (or Liberal)? I personally can't trust anything that comes from either side.

If you find this in BBC that would be perfect as they are an outside source.


My very point is that I don't believe it is possible to find any sources that don't belong to either side.

What I object to is so many of the "trusted" sources like the NY Times leading the public to believe President Bush dropped the ball on terrorism or attacked Iraq on false pretext when in reality his decision to go to Iraq was made in the similar context of President Clinton's decision not to go to Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole. Yet Mr. Clarke excuses President Clinton's decision and blames President Bush.

Here is an excerpt from this article. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/894kpvcp.asp)

CLARKE: The interagency group on which I sat and John O'Neill sat--we never asked for a particular action to be authorized and were refused. We were never refused. Any time we took a proposal to higher authority, with one or two exceptions, it was approved . . .


FRONTLINE: But didn't you push for military action after the [al Qaeda bombing of the USS] Cole?


CLARKE: Yes, that's one of the exceptions..


FRONTLINE: How important is that exception?


CLARKE: I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.

short snip

FRONTLINE: So that's a pretty basic mistake that we made?


CLARKE: Well, I'm not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues. None of these decisions took place in isolation. There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals.


Given the period of time in which the terorrists have been operating, the author of the last referenced piece correctly points out that it makes little sense for President Bush to take the blame for 8 months of service while the media (not specifically Richard Clarke) fails to take President Clinton to task for 8 years on inaction.

And yes Blue, Richard Clarke was on Bush's staff, but was hired by Clinton and almost assuredly remaind loyal to the Democratic Party.

Originally posted by Joe Bonanno
And yes Blue, Richard Clarke was on Bush's staff, but was hired by Clinton and almost assuredly remaind loyal to the Democratic Party.


Actually, he was hired by Ronald Reagan and worked for both Bushes.

Most people don't think that Bush could have prevented 911, at least intelligent people don't.
It's what he did after 911 that should be discussed. He has made the USA less safe by persuing an agenda that his Father created instead of going after the real perpetrators.

Consider me corrected regarding his hiring.

I happen to like the notion of taking the fight to the terrorist instead of simply trying to police our borders. The length of our borders make success there unilikely in my opinion.

http://www.speedkill.org coincidentally he's the main topic on one of the political sites I host. See earlier posted link.

Originally posted by Joe Bonanno
Consider me corrected regarding his hiring.

I happen to like the notion of taking the fight to the terrorist instead of simply trying to police our borders. The length of our borders make success there unilikely in my opinion.


I agree with you 100%. The only thing is, the threat was not coming from Iraq it was coming from Afganistan.

There are countries such as Saudi Arabia that are more directly funding and sponsoring terrorism against the US, and aiding Al Queda far more than Iraq was.

I think that Bush and his administraton, in their haste to attack Iraq, threatened the security of US citizens and put back the real war on terrorism by a year.

Some other interesting questions raised by blue that haven't yet been addressed by anyone.

...his comments on national TV were quite interesting. And, at the same time, quite depressing if its all true! The families of the victims for 911 must be frustrated!