Watch 60 minutes tonight: National Security related
 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

It's supposed to start at 7pm eastern.

It will have an interview with Richard Clarke, former National Security Advisor to Clinton and then to Bush on the lack of attention that Bush gave Al Qaeda in particular once he took office, despite numerous warnings to the contrary.
Richard has a book detailing all of this, it comes out on March 22. I suggest you read it.
Against All Enemies-- Inside the White House's war on terror. What really happened
Whatever side of the issue you are on, please make this part of your information aggregate.

Is this the same advisor that was under slick willie when OBL was offered up by the Sudan?

Just curious as to why he hasnt said that after the first WTC bombings, embassey bombings and the USS cole why he wasnt too concerned about OBL then.

Re: Watch 60 minutes tonight: National Security related
 

*blink blink* Wasn't GWB just inaugurated on January 24th, 2001? That doesn't really give him much time to act, does it? :rolleyes:

Recon: He blames Bill plenty as well. Did you watch the segment? You should try reading the book. If you don't wanna give this guy money up front, at least borrow it from the library.
This guy was under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and the Bush II.

GWB had plenty of time to act. Clarke and the terrorism issue was barely even paid any attention to from day one. The first serious meeting over terrorism happened the week before 9/11.
Bush's first job is national security, he had plenty of time to take some kind of action, he took none.

well, 9/11 was 8 months later, roughly. that seems like plenty of time. he took a vacation during that time didnt he? However, i hope you note that this is in response to the time issue. i'm not saying that 9/11 was preventable or placing blame.

Clarke also is saying that it probrably wasn't preventable. But he does blame Bush for failing to commit to any anti-terrorism acts.

He did compare it to the LAX threat, however, that was prevented. He attributed that to Clinton's willingness to place everyone on alert status.

wrong thread dreadfully sorry

If you've read the Yahoo/AP story (unless of course you believe the AP is a liberal threat:rolleyes: ) you might also find it interesting to hear that Mr. Clarke recounts in his book that Mr.Cheney told him under no uncertain terms to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
And when did Mr.Cheney say this to Mr. Clarke?
Why 9/12/2001 of course

CBS and the AP both found sources confirming this yesterday (3/20), and when the WhiteHouse was contacted for confirmation, the press secretary's office response was that......

wait for it.....

"CBS is missing the larger picture, that Mr.Bush has helped make the world safer through the removal of Sadam." *not a direct qoute*

Mr. Clarkes book also recounts at least 5 high level cabinet meeting in Bush's first 5 months of office disccusing the possability of attacking Iraq. All before 9/11

*scurries off to find a link on Yahoo or NYTimes for the link junkies*
edit: can't find the AP artical. Here's one artical that is interesting though.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rism_adviser_9

to pull a qoute:

I hear the sound of millions of toilets flushing. I think it might have something to do with bush's reelection prospects. It might be difficult for him to pretend he's not soft on security now- at least when it comes to nonfamily-grudge issues.

11.9 million toilets flushing actually.
 

...from drudge.

'60 MINUTES' TOP-RATED SHOW OF SUNDAY NIGHT WITH 11.9 RATING/19 SHARE... STAHL INTERVIEW WITH CLARKE LIFTS EYE TO WIN IN PRIME, MOST-AUDIENCE, ACCORDING TO OVERNIGHTS...


That's awesome this got in right after the NCAA games. CBS advertised the hell out of this 60 minutes throughout the games. That really bumped their rating I think.

I hope more people buy the book, and catch this guy around the circuit. He's at number 1 right now on Amazon.

Stuff that backs up his claims

http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=39039
All backed up by internal government documents, not rhetoric.

The US has been woefully inept at stopping terrorism against us for 20+ years yet Bush was supposed to have achieved this magical protection in 8 months.

My problems with this guy specifically:

He's got a book that he's promoting, and his job was downgraded from cabinet level in the Clinton administration to staff level in the Bush administration. In the interview he tries to take credit for predicting the "pending Al Qaeda attack" with no specific targets or methods identified.

Once again, every administration since Carter has failed miserably to deal with the growing threat of terrorism. Every one of them can be pointed to as failing in many regards. I have no problem pointing fingers at Bush, the FBI, NSA, CIA, et al but to think the Bush administration has done a worse job than all the others is ridiculous. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has done more to combat terrorism than all other administrations combined.

Clinton's admin stopped an Al Qaeda attack on LAX. This happened specifically because Clinton and Clark put the proper emphasis on terrorism as was needed. Clinton and his staff was ridiculed for being too focused on terrorism and has several funding requests specifically designed to fund our terrorism efforts denied by the republican congress who wanted him to make due with what he already had.
So, no, we have not been inept. At least not when we try to stop it.
Bush didn't have to do everything, but prior to 9/11 he didn't do anything evidenced by my previous post which outlines, with admin documents, the tremendous anti-terrorism program slashing that went on in the months preceeding 9/11.

This isn't a case of sour grapes either. Clarke didn't quite the admin in disgust. He accepted a job offer by Bush to head up a position called cybersecurity czar. If he was bitter and just had an axe to grind, he would have just left.

I dunno. I hope you're right, but I have a feeling that this is too far away from the election. I think the public will have forgotten this just as they have forgotten all the other wrongs done by this administration. After all, the President of the United States outright LIED in the state of the union address, yet we hear nothing of that today. It's totally forgotten. I think this will go the same way, unfortunately.

Clinton's administration failed to stop the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the USS Cole attack. How many arrests were made after these attacks? How many terrorist cells were dismantled? How many Al Qaeda leaders were killed? How many governments supporting terrorism faced any fallout?

What about the response to the first WTC attack (which occurred under Clinton's watch)? Did the actions taken after this attack alter the ability of terrorist organizations to strike the US?

Despite Clinton's supposed sharper focus on terrorism the planning for 9/11 was accomplished.

As far as it not being a case of sour grapes, it takes a little time to write a book. Might as well stick around and get paid while you do it, perhaps even gather up some information to use in said book.

Those were all overseas where our security capabilities are extremely reduced.

When al Qaeda attacked our warships Clinton and Clarke drafted a plan of war in which the US took on a full scale invasion and destruction of both the Taliban and al Qaeda. But the Cole bombing was in OCTOBER, and clinton was out of office in 2 months. You don't start a long term war and occupation months before you leave office. So he did the proper thing and handed it off to Bush with the urgent request that Bush make this his top priority. And Bush pissed on it and took up other priorities. Like a month long vacation in August of his first year.

By the way, the attack that Bush used in our Afghanistan battle is the exact same plan that was handed to him 11 months earlier by Clinton and Clarke.

_________________
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6827369.htm
The Associated Press has a fascinating summary of the information provided to us via Khalid Sheikh Muhamed.

Among the interesting tidbts:

1) Planning for the 9/11 hijackings began in 1996.

2) The plot was delayed because the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION wouldn't let Al Qaeda operatives from Yemen into the country.

3) Bin Laden decided to use Saudi operatives instead, because it was EASIER TO GET THEM INTO THE COUNTRY.

4) Two of the main operatives for the hijacking, met with Muhammed in Kuala Lampur in 2000, and the meeting was monitored by Malaysian intelligence on behalf of the CIA.

___________
Or maybe... he thought, as a longtime national security/terrorism expert, he was in prime position to effect national policy and the direction of the war on terror.

Before someone comes out and says gotcha, drudge has more.

It seems more likely to me that this was done not to smear Bush, but either 1). by mistake, or 2). simply to make money.

So, overseas terrorism doesn't count? Refueling US warships in Yemeni waters is about as assinine as you can get yet it was decided to be the place to do it.

What about the consequences of the first WTC attack?

Saudi citizens would have just as easily gotten into the US under Clinton. Delaying an attack is hardly a point of success.

Again, for all the supposed terrorist focus you claim for the Clinton administration terrorism certainly seemed to thrive before, after, and during his administration.

I dont give a rats ass that Clinton was weak on terrorism....he never claimed to be fighting a war on it.It amazes me how every critisism directed at GWB and his administration, quickly becomes an attack on somebody else. Why not just stick to the present, and the future as we can actually effect them both with actions we take.
Hows this.....Clinton didnt do his job as well as we would have liked, and in fact failed in many regards. END OF STATEMENT>

Now.....perhaps we can discuss what is happening with the current administration and the failures and shortcomings happening today.There is evidence availible showing the disregard for our safety as a nation, perpetrated by the very men who now claim to be fighting a war on terrorism. There is evidence showing a purposeful push to attack a country for reasons other than defense of the united states. There are insinuations of deceit from the administration towards the people of this country(read propoganda).

*discuss*

In case you missed it, I criticized every administration from Carter onward with regard to terrorism. I responded only to the ridiculous assertion that Clinton was winning some supposed war on terror while he was in office.

The Bush administration has taken more steps to combat terrorism than any of the ones before it and Iraq is a part of those steps. The fight against terrorism is not just about 9/11 but about all countries who support terrorism and there is no doubt that Iraq supported it. Of course, they were forced to finally act against terrorism by 9/11. I have no doubt had 9/11 not happened they would have taken no serious steps to eliminate terrorism.

Oh come on! Surely this tactic is familiar to you. Remember Ronnie Reagan, the Teflon President? Nixon, the "well THEY did it so it's ok for ME to do it" president? Bush is just following in the footsteps of those who came before him.

Now....thats more like it.

Yup, Superbelt beat me to it.
This is making alot of money for people, far more than if his tell all book had been sold with a different slant, like how "Someone that ought to know thinks Terrorism continues to plague the United States, and we need to do something different about it, because despite the best efforts of the past several administrations, the problem hasn't been solved."
It sells alot more, and gets more viewers, to frame the same thing as "Secret Insider information reveals how incompetant and stupid Bush has been".

CBS indicated in the article linked by Superbelt that the publishers of the book and cbs were owned by viacom.
"Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom."

I think it most definitely is a marketing ploy, but to simplify things so drastically is a big mistake. just because this story will make money for viacom does not mean it is not newsworthy. look at it in a hypothetical situation: staff member of a president (any president) writes a tell all book that is accusing the president of lacking somewhere. that's most definitely newsworthy in any case: agriculture, business, energy, defense, sex, boobies, spam, and more spam. So, in conclusion, i dont believe 60 minutes journalitic integrity was tainted (if they had any in the first place) they are, after all, a sensationalist news source as any on television nowadays. long live "newshour with jim lehrer"!!!

WASHINGTON - The Clinton and Bush administrations' decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaida allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.
The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

"We found that the CIA and the FBI tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks," the bipartisan report said. "The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled."

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, appearing on CBS's "The Early Show" Tuesday, said, however, the commission will not make any final judgments about the Clarke allegations or other assertions until it has reviewed all the evidence.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the commission that "President Clinton and his team did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."

The preliminary report said the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan without resistance.

In spring 1998, the commission found, the Saudi government successfully thwarted a bin Laden-backed effort to launch attacks on U.S. forces in that country.

The Clinton administration turned to the Saudis for help. Clinton designated CIA Director George Tenet as his representative to work with the Saudis, who agreed to make an "all-out secret effort" to persuade Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to expel Bin Laden.

Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, using "a mixture of possible bribes and threats," received a commitment from Taliban leader Mullah Omar that bin Laden would be handed over.

But Omar reneged on the agreement during a September 1998 meeting with Turki and Pakistan's intelligence chief.

"When Turki angrily confronted him Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi government. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out," the report said.

In conclusion, the report said "from the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice," the report said. "The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."

The report was part of the commission's two-day hearing focusing on the two administration's failed responses to the threat from al-Qaida.

Scheduled to testify Tuesday were Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as well as their counterparts in the Clinton administration, William Cohen and Albright. They were appearing as part of the panel's review of failures in diplomatic and military strategy.

The hearing comes following explosive allegations in a book released Monday by Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration, who is expected to testify Wednesday.

He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before."

The commission's report Tuesday said Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time. The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11.

The 10-member commission had invited Rice to testify, but she has declined on the advice of the White House, which cited separation of power concerns involving its staff appearing before a legislative body.

Other potential diplomatic failures cited by the commission:

_ The United States in 1995 located Mohammed in Qatar. He was then a suspect in a 1995 plot to plant bombs on American airliners in Asia. FBI and CIA officials worked on his capture, but first sought a legal indictment and then help from the Qatari government, who they feared might tip Mohammed off. In 1996, Qatari officials reported Mohammed had suddenly disappeared.

_ The U.S. government pressed two successive Pakistani governments from the mid 1990s to pressure the Taliban by threatening to cut off support. But "before 9-11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives or pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship."

_ From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties, with little success.

Scheduled to testify Wednesday are CIA director George Tenet; Rice's predecessor, Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger; and a new witness added Tuesday to fill Rice's slot, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. On that day, the panel will review intelligence and national policy coordination.


This is an AP story from today, if I am reading it correctly Slick Willie dropped the ball numerous times and Clarke is saying that Bush failed to pick it up for him.
Lets pass the buck.

Frankly, from what I can tell Clarke is saying that we, as a nation, dropped the ball years and years ago and have looked at it from time to time but have never bothered to pick it up. I am not going to defend anyone on this issue. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now W. Bush all have to share blame. I hope that this country learns from this commission and makes the appropriate changes in policy. I also hope that the current administration decides to be more cooperative with the commission, Condoleeza Rice in particular.

I find it "refreshing" (if that's the right word) that Clarke, in fact, blames himself in part for the 9/11 attacks. We would be a much stronger nation if those parties who are to blame, accepted this blame and helped us to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it in the future.

:rolleyes:

Every criticism about bush becomes one about clinton.

I think we all remember in the days following the first bombing at the WTC, when clinton demanded that the cia find a way to link this to iraq. And then he proceeded to invade iraq based on a revloving wall of excuses, clinging to each side only as long as was politically expedient.

Does it say somewhere in that article how clinton tried to use terrorism as an excuse to invade a completely irrelevant country? No sir, it doesn't.

It must be difficult to keep your grip on bush's swinging nutsack with both your hands covering your ears.

Well, we're in agreement about the fact that all administrations up to 9/11 have been unproductive against the terrorist threat. The jury is still out (and will be out for a long time) on whether the Bush Doctrine, as it's sometimes called, will have any lasting success.

I hold little hope for this commission however. It has already become far too politicized and nothing significant will come from it. There will be some nuggets for the Republicans to bitch about that the Democrats did and the same for Dems bitching about Republican action or inaction. In sum they will be a wash and there will be little change to the current process/systems.

As far as Clarke, I see his gesture of taking "some" blame as token and given his high level involvement in anti-terrorism action over the last decade or more I hold him just as responsible as the Senators and Representatives who failed to act in our nations best interests by pushing agendas against terrorists. Of course, our Commanders in Chief are more responsible than all because none took the lead and stood up to the rising threat against our citizens.

You are absolutly correct, Willie was more worried about his willie than finding who bombed WTC the first time.

He might have shown a speck of concern for our country by actually doing something to try and find the criminals.

So because I approve of my presidents actions means that I am swinging on his nutsack huh?

So being you will support anyone who runs against Bush makes you a liberal with no real belief in a person, just a party.
Well buckle up and bury that head in the sand cause your in for 4 more years of whinning.

So it doesn't bother you at all that bush doesn't think you deserve the truth? It doesn't bother you at all that he used 9/11 to act on his grudge against saddam? And you tell me to bury my head in the sand?

Nope, you're right. Its all clinton's fault. This purely hypothetical, but i bet that if clinton had tried to put one over on the taliban we'd have never heard the end of it from all of the staunchly anti-nation building/anti-america-as-world-police republicans. Anne coulter would be on cnn shreiking about how america has no place policing the world's problems whilst trent lott calls for a censure of clinton for his willful disregard of afghanistan's sovereignty.

Speaking of whining, how about that republican party between 1992 and 2000?

<a target=new href="http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm">LA Times: Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize – LINK – 12.05.01</a>

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

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



BTW - in this thread – <b>Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02</b>

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=50082

Clarke totally contradicts himself praising Bush back in 1992 and blaming Clinton for inaction

Opening remarks by Clarke. First person to take blame for 9/11. Only person to look the families of the victims in the eyes at any time.

Clarke is testifying now. You can watch it on TV or catch it on NPR or catch it streaming audio on www.npr.org

What Clinton DID do.
 

Clarke - 9/11 Commission Testimony

[Question:] The vice president commented that there was "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s, when you were serving under President Clinton. He asked, "What were they doing?"

It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn't notice.

Does some blame attach to Bush for what happened on 9/11?
All we hear from the Bush administration is that they couldn't anticipate that planes might be used as guided missiles to attack ground targets. This is a bold lie to make in face of the facts.

The French foiled an attempt to hijack a plane and fly it into the Eiffel Tower in the late 1990's and the U.S. was informed. At the G-8 summit before 9/11 the U.S. had fighter planes flying the skies above Italy because they had received intelligence that terrorists might hijack a plane and fly it into the meeting. The CIA anticipated and warned the Bush administration that planes might be targeted for hijacking months before 9/11.

What did the White House do? Nothing. No increased passenger screening. No air marshalls placed on passenger planes. No heightened efforts to be ready to scramble fighter planes.

Nine months in office. Nothing. Fuck Bush and his "there was nothing we could have done."

This book by Clarke is the second one written by a Republican insider in what, six months.

First there was Paul O'neal, the former Secretary of the Treasurery, now there is Clarke.

O'neal was in cabinet, period and painted the picture that W is essentially the moron that many have been stating he is for years. What was it that O'neal said, "it was the blind leading the deaf" or something like that.

And the fact that O'neal said that there was a Saddam fixation right from day 1.

Clarke, who comes at it from a Security point of view basically says the same thing.

Obviously, when you get two different guys saying the same thing, there is something there.

I can never remember EVER a time where guys in the inner circle broke ranks in such a way. It's unheard of. This alone indicates there are very serious problems within the current Bush Administration.

The guy I would love to hang out a bar and get drunk with would be Colin Powell. I would love to know what he candidly thinks of the whole situation.

Clarke - 9/11 Commission Testimony

"it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn't notice."

this last part about Haliburton bothers mew. Seems like he's just mad at Cheney and petty. It doesnt smell right.


I have this in another tread here's the first few points where he contraticts himself with todays -
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=50082


WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

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.

Well, seeing as how Cheney and some others went all over the media, including Limbaugh where he said Clarke "Wasn't in the loop" when he was the HEAD of the nations counter-terrorism efforts up until 9/11. Cheney et all were slandering his good name. They haven't been digging into the meat of the allegations, they just attack the man. Yeah I think he's a bit mad at Cheney.

You're right, there is something there. Lots of money being thrown at people to write books to capitalize on all the conspiracy theories out there.

How did they get to the same independent conclusions though?

It's amazing how many high level members of the Bush administration have resigned and come out saying how fucked up things are there.

Diullo
Beers
O'Neil
Clarke

And a lot of the stuff is corroboration upon corroboration.
If Clarke, a registered republican and Reagan appointee, wanted to just make money he would write his book exclusively as a tell all trashing Clinton and his terrorism response.
Clinton bashing books have the luxury of being backed by far right financiers like Richard Melon Scaife who purchase the book in huge bulk quantities. It's why Ann Coulter can make a living writing books. Her sales get artificially propped up and then the inflated bestseller ranking can take it from there.
(see also Hannity, Sean; Savage, Michael)