Clarke's New Book (Check It Out )

  • News
  • Thread starter Nommos Prime (Dogon)
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Book
In summary, the conversation was about Richard Clarke, a former White House Terrorism Adviser, criticizing President George Bush for sending US soldiers to Afghanistan for his own agenda. It was revealed that CBS, the network airing the interview, also owned and had a financial stake in Clarke's book. Both sides of the argument were presented, with Clarke accusing the president of pushing for a connection between Iraq and 9/11 and the White House responding with questions about Clarke's past advice to Bill Clinton during Al-Qaeda attacks.
  • #1
Nommos Prime (Dogon)
224
0
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

“They died for the US President’s own agenda.”
Richard Clarke, talking about Bush’s reasons for sending US soldiers to Afghanistan. Mr Clarke was President George Bush’s (Former) White House Terrorism Adviser and Counter-terrorism Director.

Also, he was the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council. Refer;
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisors_clarke.html

At last, An American calls it.
I’ve been saying that ever since the Kamikazes became Cherry Blossoms…
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.
 
  • #3
Rebuttals by the whitehouse:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040322/D81FMINO0.html
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site__032204/content/stack_a.guest.html [Broken]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html [Broken]



Now, what I really love is things like this:
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."


So this whole blame game is based on the tone YOU THINK he took and what you THINK he meant by it?
Then you return the report, and just assume that people don't give the president things YOU think he wouldn't like to hear?

Real convincing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
lol@PHATMONKY'S LINKS.
 
  • #5
hahahahaha :D I didn't think there would anyone would accuse me of any slant, considering it's just quotes from the whitehouse in response. I only posted so people could hear both sides
 
  • #6
Originally posted by phatmonky
hahahahaha :D I didn't think there would anyone would accuse me of any slant, considering it's just quotes from the whitehouse in response. I only posted so people could hear both sides
Just the Rush link is REALLY funny...:wink:
 
  • #7
Oh, and mentioning CBS's being owned by Viacom...might as well not even bother with that, the media is so consolodated at this point that he would have had to go though a publisher linked to one of the networks no matter what.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and mentioning CBS's being owned by Viacom...might as well not even bother with that, the media is so consolodated at this point that he would have had to go though a publisher linked to one of the networks no matter what.

Interviewing someone on their book without giving a disclaimer as to your financial interests in that book is a pretty serious deal. It has to make you wonder why certain questions weren't asked, while he sat accusing the president and the rest of the administration.

Perhaps, Mr. Clarke could put to rest the idea that he has the proverbial axe to grind, and simply answer some questions about his past.


Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exactly advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?


Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?

Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?

Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?

Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic?
 
  • #9
Ah yes, and let's not get started about the suggestion of sonic booms over libya to 'scare them' into submission.
 
  • #10
Right on the button Phatmonkey! CBS disguises a plug for books sales on a TV news interview without divulging the financial connection.

Before someone gives too much credence to Clark's words, they should be aware of some of his past security recommendations. My favorite was where he advised President Reagan to scare Omar Khadafi with the sonic booms of F-111 aircraft. Maybe that’s why President Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant. After all BC had two Clarks to ill-advise him.
 
  • #11
Whats That Say Then?

I love how the Nationalists ignore the facts!

He WAS APPOINTED BY BUSH, as his most SENIOR counter-terrorism official.
I repeat
George Bush’s (Former) White House Terrorism Adviser and Counter-terrorism Director.

Also, he was the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council. Refer;
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/poli...ors_clarke.html

Ok, if the guy IS LYING, what does that say for the President of the USA’s choice of the MOST CRITICAL position in his Administration, regarding “The War On Terrorism”?
 
  • #12
There's almost enough spinning here to make you dizzy. Almost.

CLAIM vs. FACT: Administration Officials Respond to Richard Clarke Interview by David Sirota
In the wake of Richard Clarke's well-supported assertions that the Bush Administration neglected counterterrorism in the face of repeated terror warnings before 9/11, the Bush Administration has launched a frantic misinformation campaign - often contradicting itself in the process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM #2: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM #3: "(Clarke) was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM #4: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high we were at battle stations. The fact of the matter is (that) the administration focused on this before 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" - Washington Post, 3/22/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM #5: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." - Washington Post, 3/22/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM #6: "Well, (Clarke) wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04
FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM #7: "(Bush) wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with (terrorism), and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Bush said (in May of 2001) that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." - Washington Post, 1/20/02
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
I love how the Nationalists ignore the facts!

He WAS APPOINTED BY BUSH, as his most SENIOR counter-terrorism official.
I repeat
George Bush’s (Former) White House Terrorism Adviser and Counter-terrorism Director.

Also, he was the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council. Refer;
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/poli...ors_clarke.html

Ok, if the guy IS LYING, what does that say for the President of the USA’s choice of the MOST CRITICAL position in his Administration, regarding “The War On Terrorism”?

When did I ignore the facts? I stated there are other views as well to think about. And I'm the one sided one? How dare I question the intentions of this man! I must just be a ravenous irrational nationalistic republican pig!

Lose the rhetoric if you want me to continue this. Until then, I'm out. [zz)]
 
  • #14
Yeah, Phatmonkey perhaps you should abstain...

one would think your on the Whitehouse payroll the way your trying to do spin-control. There is now substantial evidence the the assertions in Clarke's book are credible. (Thanks Chemicalsuperfreak) Paul O'Neil assertions about the Bush admin are supportive of Mr. Clarke's allegations. In fact, they reinforce each other. "Thou doth protest to much" as the Bush admin is now doing seems to shows they are probably fearful that more truth will come into the light. And Americans are seeing first hand how the current admin distorts the facts and manipulates the truth.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by phatmonky
I

Perhaps, Mr. Clarke could put to rest the idea that he has the proverbial axe to grind, and simply answer some questions about his past.


Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?



Oh, Mr. Clarke answers those questions in his book. He completely debunks it. It's a bunch of partisan propaganda and has no basis in reality. It was further debunked today (4/23) under oath in front of the 9-11 commission.
 
  • #16
Note - Clarke was rescheduled for 4/24/04

Its sort of obvious that Bushco will tout a lot of lies to discredit Clarke because he practically caught them red-handed and with their pants down.
 
  • #17


Originally posted by amp
Its sort of obvious that Bushco will tout a lot of lies to discredit Clarke because he practically caught them red-handed and with their pants down.

I for one would like to know why are they lying about 9-11 and what is it they're covering up?
 
  • #18


Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
I for one would like to know why are they lying about 9-11 and what is it they're covering up?
Who knows? They could just be lying because that is what those slimeballs do, instinctively. I have it on good authority that Cheney hasn't spoken a public, on the record truth since 1987. :wink:
 
  • #19
Yep.

Phatmonkey, will you stop pretending that you know about things you obviously have no idea about.
Its nice that you try to chime in (as much as possible, when ANYTHING ant-establishment pops up), but simply doing a quick "Yahoo Search", then regurgitating admin lies, really does discredit you.
Check things out before you start raving like a HAWK...
 
  • #20


Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Phatmonkey, will you stop pretending that you know about things you obviously have no idea about.
Its nice that you try to chime in (as much as possible, when ANYTHING ant-establishment pops up), but simply doing a quick "Yahoo Search", then regurgitating admin lies, really does discredit you.
Check things out before you start raving like a HAWK...

I believe this counts as a personal attack. Continuing this will result in a lock of this thread, and a possible banning of you(both would stop my amusement) Zero hates my politics, but loves my input. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks your post is anything but worthless.

Let's try to keep this thread on track. If you still wish to continuing losing an argument, we can go back to the alien martian thread, and you can finish telling me about how I am trying to make us the United States of the Universe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Oh, Mr. Clarke answers those questions in his book. He completely debunks it. It's a bunch of partisan propaganda and has no basis in reality. It was further debunked today (4/23) under oath in front of the 9-11 commission.
Could you further expand on this? I won't be buying his book, if nothing else because I am disgusted by the underhanded way he got help to promote it.
 
  • #22


Originally posted by amp
one would think your on the Whitehouse payroll the way your trying to do spin-control. There is now substantial evidence the the assertions in Clarke's book are credible. (Thanks Chemicalsuperfreak) Paul O'Neil assertions about the Bush admin are supportive of Mr. Clarke's allegations. In fact, they reinforce each other. "Thou doth protest to much" as the Bush admin is now doing seems to shows they are probably fearful that more truth will come into the light. And Americans are seeing first hand how the current admin distorts the facts and manipulates the truth.

Why should I abstain? because I point out the conflict of interest in his interview? Because I ask some questions? If they are all so OBVIOUS there wouldn't be a 9/11 commission at all right now. We woudln't need them.
Thinking different doesn't make you right. So drop the "you shouldn't be posting here" attitude [zz)]

O neil has his own axe to grind, you can't deny that. Not to mention, he has openly said that he doesn't understand or condone the idea of preemption - thus, he has admitted his prejudice against the act against Saddam beforehand.


What I find FULLY amazing is that is I ask questions, point out conflicts of interest, or mention that some guy's firing might play into his reasonings for some of the things he is saying, I am on Bush's payroll. However, every single person in this thread that has launched a personal attack on me believes EVERYTHING that these two guys (O'neil and Clarke) have said. So, instead of wondering where the grey area between is, you just jump to one side and assume "if it isn't the 'system', then it must be true! " And somehow, I'm the one who is 'blind'.
 
  • #23
Clarke's resignation letter praises Bush:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3&printer=1 [Broken]

Doesn't really mean anything to me, since I believe him to be a good politician. However, those of you who believe him to be of high integrity then have to wonder why he would do this? Or admit that he isn't that he too can do things for his own personal gain - just like everyone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Stop Crying Ignoramus!

God, you're a whinger!
Stop crying phatmonkey!

Ban me! (just like Carlos and Bloodsucker)
See if I give a flying root!
 
  • #25
I Reported Myself...

Don't worry, I reported myself "as an inappropriate post".

It was worth it to call you an idiot once more,
because that is what you are.

See you later fool!
 
  • #26
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/ [Broken]

By Fred Kaplan

I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National Security Council official who has launched a broadside against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is telling the truth about every single charge. There are three reasons for this confidence.

First, his basic accusations are consistent with tales told by other officials, including some who had no significant dealings with Clarke.

Second, the White House's attempts at rebuttal have been extremely weak and contradictory. If Clarke were wrong, one would expect the comebacks—especially from Bush's aides, who excel at the counterstrike—to be stronger and more substantive.

Third, I went to graduate school with Clarke in the late 1970s, at MIT's political science department, and called him as an occasional source in the mid-'80s when he was in the State Department and I was a newspaper reporter. There were good things and dubious things about Clarke, traits that inspired both admiration and leeriness. The former: He was very smart, a highly skilled (and utterly nonpartisan) analyst, and he knew how to get things done in a calcified bureaucracy. The latter: He was arrogant, made no effort to disguise his contempt for those who disagreed with him, and blatantly maneuvered around all obstacles to make sure his views got through.

The key thing, though, is this: Both sets of traits tell me he's too shrewd to write or say anything in public that might be decisively refuted. As Daniel Benjamin, another terrorism specialist who worked alongside Clarke in the Clinton White House, put it in a phone conversation today, "Dick did not survive and flourish in the bureaucracy all those years by leaving himself open to attack."

Clarke did suffer one setback in his 30-year career in high office, though he doesn't mention it in his book. James Baker, the first President Bush's secretary of state, fired Clarke from his position as director of the department's politico-military bureau. (Bush's NSC director, Brent Scowcroft, hired him almost instantly.) I doubt we'll be hearing from Baker on this episode: He fired Clarke for being too close to Israel—not a point the Bush family's political savior is likely to make in an election season. (For details on this unwritten chapter and on why Clarke hasn't talked to me for over 15 years, click here.)

But on to the substance. Clarke's main argument—made in his new book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, in lengthy interviews on CBS's 60 Minutes and PBS's Charlie Rose Show, and presumably in his testimony scheduled for tomorrow before the 9/11 Commission—is that Bush has done (as Clarke put it on CBS) "a terrible job" at fighting terrorism. Specifically: In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. This move not only distracted us from the real war on terrorism, it fed into Osama Bin Laden's propaganda—that the United States would invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country—and thus served as the rallying cry for new terrorist recruits.

Clarke's charges have raised a furor because of who he is. In every administration starting with Ronald Reagan's, Clarke was a high-ranking official in the State Department or the NSC, dealing mainly with countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Under Clinton and the first year of George W. Bush, he worked in the White House as the national coordinator for terrorism, a Cabinet-level post created specifically for his talents. When the terrorists struck on Sept. 11, Condi Rice, Bush's national security adviser, designated Clarke as the "crisis manager;" he ran the interagency meetings from the Situation Room, coordinating—in some cases, directing—the response.

Clarke backs up his chronicle with meticulous detail, but the basic charges themselves should not be so controversial; certainly, they're nothing new. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote in his book, The Price of Loyalty, that Bush's top officials talked about invading Iraq from the very start of the administration. Jim Mann's new book about Bush's war Cabinet, Rise of the Vulcans, reveals the historic depths of this obsession.

Most pertinent, Rand Beers, the official who succeeded Clarke after he left the White House in February 2003, resigned in protest just one month later—five days before the Iraqi war started—for precisely the same reason that Clarke quit. In June, he told the Washington Post, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terror. They're making us less secure, not more." And: "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged, and generally underfunded." (For more about Beers, including his association with Clarke and whether there's anything pertinent about his current position as a volunteer national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, click here.)

Clarke's distinction, of course, is that he was the ultimate insider—as highly and deeply inside, on this issue, as anyone could imagine. And so his charges are more credible, potent, and dangerous. So, how has Team Bush gone after Clarke? Badly.

To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop.

Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."

It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)

In a further effort to minimize Clarke's importance, a talking-points paper put out by the White House press office states that, contrary to his claims, "Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank." At the same time, the paper denies—again, contrary to the book—that he was demoted: He "continued to be the National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism."

Both arguments are deceptive. Clarke wasn't a Cabinet secretary, but as Clinton's NCC, he ran the "Principals Committee" meetings on counterterrorism, which were attended by Cabinet secretaries. Two NSC senior directors reported to Clarke directly, and he had reviewing power over relevant sections of the federal budget.

Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.

Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. (One less-noted aspect of Clarke's book is its detailed description of the major steps that Clinton took to combat terrorism.)

The White House talking-points paper is filled with these sorts of distortions. For instance, it notes that Bush didn't need to meet with Clarke because, unlike Clinton, he met every day with CIA Director George Tenet, who talked frequently about al-Qaida.

But here's how Clarke describes those meetings:

"[Tenet] and I regularly commiserated that al Qaeda was not being addressed more seriously by the new administration. ... We agreed that Tenet would insure that the president's daily briefings would continue to be replete with threat information on al Qaeda."
The problem is: Nothing happened. (It is significant, by the way, that Tenet has not been recruited—not successfully, anyway—to rebut Clarke's charges. Clarke told Charlie Rose that he was "very close" to Tenet. The two come off as frustrated allies in Clarke's book.)

The White House document insists Bush did take the threat seriously, telling Rice at one point "that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaeda."

Here's how Clarke describes that exchange:

"President Bush, reading the intelligence every day and noticing that there was a lot about al Qaeda, asked Condi Rice why it was that we couldn't stop "swatting flies" and eliminate al Qaeda. Rice told me about the conversation and asked how the plan to get al Qaeda was coming in the Deputies' Committee. "It can be presented to the Principals in two days, whenever we can get a meeting," I pressed. Rice promised to get to it soon. Time passed."
...




Responses from the right? Seriously?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27


Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Don't worry, I reported myself "as an inappropriate post".

It was worth it to call you an idiot once more,
because that is what you are.

See you later fool!

http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/tweetz/wiggle2.gif
 
  • #28
Originally posted by RageSk8
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/ [Broken]




Responses from the right? Seriously?

Since I am consider a extremist republican on this site, I'll say that I have not responded because I am hoping to wait for Clarkes testimony tomorrow. I'll be happy to then. Until that point, I fear that I will be rehashing a subject that has been beat to death on several boards.
Tomorrow things go under oath. I am curious to see what we'll get then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29


Originally posted by The_Professional
This is wha

Delete that! They have a picture to cover people stealing bandwidth! YUCK! :p

And I mean nothing else. Our pal Nommos has some issues that I addressed in another thread. Let's not make this thread into that as well.
Delete your post and I will be deleting this one as well :)
 
  • #30


Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
will you stop pretending that you know about things you obviously have no idea about.

Pot an kettle syndrome strikes again!
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top