Clarke & the 9/11 Commission could mean the end for Bush

Remove all ads!

Good counterpoint - that was 1993 wasn't it? Still, it pales in comparison to what took place in 2001. Still you're right.

Don't get me wrong, the report is certainly not going to do much for the Clinton administration in how they handled things. They did very little to upset al Qaeda while they were in power. There was the attack in 1998 where they launched a few dozen tomohawk missile at a couple of terrorist camps and a suspect chemical factory, but other than that nothing.

I think the problem here is that Bush didn't trust anything from the Clinton Presidency, and didn't see the benefit of continuing Clinton's policies regarding al Qaeda. Instead of expanding upon what Clinton had done, it appears that even less was done prior to 9/11. Granted, in Bush's first year as president the economy was already starting to go in the toilet, so he had domestic concerns that had to be dealt with as well, but the issue here seems to be that Clinton did very little, and Bush did nothing. It was only a matter of time before people starting pointing fingers. I'm just surprised it took this long to start...

 

Well it's an election year isn't it? There isn't a better time to point fingers.

I think it's a little silly trying to point fingers at any one person. It's even more silly how it's so political. Even here on this board. Those who like Bush will support him no matter what, and those who oppose him will try to nitpic at every thing they can find that paints his administration in a bad light.

I'm glad you mentioned the attacks on Sudan and Afganistan in 1998. Clinton was rediculed for those attacks at the time. One of the main arguements against Clinton, at the time, was that he used the attacks to take attention away from the Monica Lowinski hearings. That they weren't necessary, and that they were unwarranted. Now people wish that he had done more. Hind-site really is 20/20.

The bottom line is that ALL of the past administrations(lets say from Carter till now) are to blame for the 9/11 attacks. It's just way too complex.

Lastly, I think people put way too much emphasis on the office of President.

 

I remember bombs for Monica. The second term of the Clinton administration was overshadowed by a small incident with an intern. There also happened to be a war, wag the dog and a constant linkage between war and scandal. I think the Clinton administration had bound hands to some degree, not to say that the losses of human lives seemed small up to that time, which propably wouldn't get the backing for an invasion.

I think one of the main counter-terroristic points was implented recently through the Bush-administration. The replacement of troops formerly stationed in Saudi-Arabia, where they caused some disturbance, the bad point in my view would than only remain in being through causing a even greater disturbance.

As I see it, shoulda, woulda, coulda won't help here anything. Searching, looking at things and learn, that's a good thing for sure. But I don't think that looking into past matters here will cause an earthquake.

As for the consequences for Bush, from the matter at hand only if there would be some very surprising and astonishing news reveiled, like they had a clear warning or something like that. I doubt that. That Bush made it to become president is in itself such a miracle, that everything else just pales. The US seems to be a deeply divided society and Bush just a sideeffect of that situation. So, he took some spectucular time off of office. I think everyone knew that at that time already and most didn't care. It never mattered, why would it suddenly begin to matter ?

The only thing that Bush has to fear is, that the split in the society changes a little bit, from 48/52 to 52/48 or that he upsets people, that wouldn't normally vote.

 

The fact that Clarke did not come out with his accusations UNTIL the time that his book was scheduled to be released, should discredit him in the minds of all objective persons.

Can you say "Pete Rose"?

You can bet that his well timed public attack on the Administration was planned by some scum-bag publicist. I rest better at night knowing that both Clarke and his scum-bag publicist will be able to afford that lovely summer home on the island.



Spin Doctors.

Mr. Clarke...your 15 minutes is up.

 

To me, it seems that Clark has some deep-seeded hatred towards the Bush administration, and no doubt he would like for the Bush administration to be hurt as much as possible by the accusation. However, if that is true, why release the book in March? Why not wait until at least the late summer when we're closer to the election to come forward?

 

That makes no sense. It was very smart of him to come out with his message at the same time his long, public, well-detailed memoire was released to reinforce his points to be scrutinized and layed all out for everyone to see. The fact that the White House released their attack dogs on him so quickly is actually an indication that he's not nearly as "uncredible" as some like to make him out to be.

You know, you're right. It was those "scum-bag publicists" in the White House who delayed the release of Clarke's book for 3 months. Those bastards! I mean if it had come out on time, it wouldn't have been drowned-out completely by all the Dean melt-down hubbub, and lost in the bickering of the democratic debates. No, not at all. That Clarke sure is a slick, slick fella.

PS - I notice you choose to attack the messenger, not the message. Nice one. Only makes him look MORE credible when people do that, by the way.

 

Plus, the commission was scheduled for now anyway. Wouldn't Clark have been interviewed by the Commission regardless of whether or not his book had come out now, and wouldn't he have supposedly given the same answers, regardless of whether his book came out now, 3 months ago, or 3 months from now?

 

@Chandos [snip] - I don't even know what the hell you are talking about at this point. How about getting/staying on topic or giving it a rest?

[Insulting nickname removed, warning pending.] -Tal

[ April 02, 2004, 14:05: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Oh well, and I really missed that thread??? Yummy! My two cents:

As I see it Clarke basically accuses Bush to be an imposter - that is - he accuses Bush of playing Mr. Tough-Guy-On-Terror while he had actually been ... at the ranch or wherever and letting his goons focus on non-issues like missile defense where the USS Cole, not that far away when Bush entered office, starkly underlined that terror was an acute problem.

Worse, even after 911, when the threat of terror manifested itself painfully obvious, Bush still follwed the neo-con rogue-state script, when he was actually facing a non state actor. Instead of finishing the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan he turned to Iraq, another issue that came into office with the Bush crew.

That's it: Clarke wrecks Bush's image as the successful terror-fighter. In fact, Bush's war on Iraq has made America less safe. And that hits, bullseye.

And that is why the white house fears and smears him.

As for Clarke's motivation - I think he understands that terror is an imminent threat that this administration, by ideological fundamental philosophy, fails to understand (that is, the neo-cons will likely remain with Bush if he's re-elected) and fails to adress adequately (maybe by foolishly invading more countries after the election - you know - bold foreign policy a la Perle & Wolfie), and that this threat will transcend the election of 2004.
Form that point of view it is only consequent, more, necessary to damage Bush to prevent more neo-con blundering and further harm from the US.

That would be highly patriotic and be quite a rare and remarkable display of integrity - in the end the security of America is not about GOP or Dems on power. As a public servant who served in 4 administrations and under both GOP and Dems he must understand that. That issue, underlined by 911, is too serious to be left to partisan politics. So if it damages Bush? So be it. It's not about him or GOP, it's about America.

He didn't write his book for profit. Clarke must have known what he will have to endure once the smear mashine is in full swing. That's not fun and sure not worth the money.
What he does requires courage and spine. Someday, the partisan assaults on him will be recognized as the highest of compliments.

 

The last of Clarke's credibility is shot (if he ever had any). The fact is he stated that al Qeada was of imminent importance to the Clinton administration, and Clinton backed him up stating that they (the Clinton administration) discussed al Qeada every day.

The funny thing is, in the final report on the international security threats to the US, the very same one that was passed on to the Bush administration, al Queda is not mentioned once. (A document that was published to the public prior to the 9/11 commission) In a 44,000 word document regarding international threats to the US they forgot to mention something that was a daily worry?

Oh yeah, bin Laden's name is printed 4 times. This is in a document that if published as a hard cover book would be 222 pages long, and he gets his name printed 4 times?

Yep, I bet al Queda was a big topic with Clarke and Clinton.

Clarke is a willing tool of the DNC.

If Clarke isn't in it for the money let him donate all his earning to the widows of the widows of the families of those who have died as a result of the ranting of people like him, Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and Terry McAuliffe. These people are not discussing or making valid points. They are making inflammatory, unfounded, and unproven comments solely intended to discredit Bush (Such as McAuliffe’s claim that Bush was AWOL while he was in the National Guard. Bush released his medical records to disprove this, now where are Kerry's? Come on Kerry, let’s see the proof behind those Purple Hearts you got without ever seeing a Dr! ). These quotes and stories are regularly reported by al-Jazeera, which just encourages more attacks. Yeah Clarke, Kennedy and McAuliffe are representing Kerry and the Democratic Party verrry responsibly.

As far as Ragusa's article, well, you can stand up to them now, stand up to them later, or let them win, but do not be mistaken to the belief that there is some middle ground out there to meet radical Islam on. There is also no way to stand up to them without inflaming them. Send surrogates, or operatives to assassinate their leaders, and sooner or later the cat gets out of the bag, and then you have an international scandal (and a bunch of pissed off terrorists). Go after them directly and you get the Kennedy treatment (and a bunch of pissed off terrorists). This leaves negotiation, but radical Islamics don't want to negotiate, except as a means to becoming stronger for future attacks. I hope and pray that the American people, and the people of the world, realize that these terrorists want something that we cannot give them unless we are willing to give up our allies and our way of life. As Patrick Henry so eloquently put it - "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!". I don't consider living the life that radical Islam preaches as embodying liberty.

 

Don't tell me that silly fairytale of the islamo-fascist hordes at the gates, waiting to destroy your western way of life or that we head into the unavoidable clash of the cultures ( great and convenient point of view - if the clash is unavoidable anyway, why stop and ponder - Ready! Aim! Fire! And don't even need to question your approach too ). You don't believe that yourself I hope. Geez. The west is nowhere near to be run over by militant islam. You ignore, or don't believe, that militant islam still is a fringe.

Great bit on that part:

Clarke accuses Bush to have focused on Iraq soon after 911 instead of finishing the fight on Al Qaeda first. Well, senior british diplomats actually confirm Clarke was right. Obviously, a partisan smear campaign on part of the brits - don't you see the timing to the US election campaign are there any friends left today? Truly, the US stands alone! Really, that "It's all anti-Bush party- bias" nonsense is pathetic.

Clarke could be as right as he well might be, you would don't want to believe him anyway because he damages your man - Bush - Boo-Hoo! Not everything is a partisan smear attack - that is life made easy.

 

Ragusa,

I completely disagree with the article you have quoted from. This has the potential to grow into something much greater. It is the ultimate goal of the radical Islamics to convert the world to their views, just as it is the goal of Christians to spread Christianity across the globe (historically even if it meant killing people to prove themselves right).

You are correct that the west is not overrun with extremist Islamics. But the number of attacks by Islamics in the west is increasing. In France they are already having such problems with attacks on Jews and Jewish property that they are advising Jews to hide their outward symbols of their religious beliefs.

I would think as a child of a nation that was taken over by a minority group that no one thought was a threat, you would be more sensitive to such actions, but apparently just the opposite is true. If you believe that radical Islam will be satisfied with just having a nation, or 2, or the entire Middle East, you sorely underestimate the avarice that is contained in man. Very few people are ever satisfied with what they have, they always want more.

Just as the scorpion states in a famous parable, "It is my nature".

I can't comment on you link regarding senior British officials, the link doesn't work for me, though other links on the page do. Sorry

 

@ Darkwolf

Honestly, sometimes your intellectual dishonesty astonishes me.

If you had actually read any portion of the report (hint: I have!) you would have noticed that even though bin Laden is mentioned only four times by name (as if that's insignificant when it's uncommon for people to be mentioned by name in such reports), "terrorism" is mentioned 7 times in the introduction alone, and 58 times in the section called "implementing the strategy." So what if the report didn't mention al Queda by name? You assert that terrorism was basically fluffed off by Clark and Clinton, and it's just not true. This is yet another example of you believing exactly what you want to believe. Why not start disproving what he is saying and not why YOU think he is saying it?

Speaking of people making making inflammatory, unfounded, and unproven comments.

For god sakes, Clarke is a Republican! He voted for John McCain in the last election, and both Reagan and Bush I. You people seem to think that because he's friends with people running Kerry's campaign that he's in cahoots with them, which, considering how many people in Washington tend to be friends with people in other parties, especially if they are former colleagues, is just laughable. And the fact that he's written a book just shows that he's willing to lay his entire case out in the open for the whole world to read, judge, and scrutinize. Unlike certain administration officials who refuse to testify under oath...or even alone.

Has anyone been able to debunk the facts in his book yet? NO. If Clarke's account is a lie, the White House should have ample documentation to prove that the events he said took place either did/didn't happen, and they so far can't do that. I mean, why do that when you can just call him a Lefty Goon and be done with it, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? Gimme a break. Either disprove what he is saying and not why YOU think he's saying it, or shut up.

If you honestly think that Kennedy, McCaulife, and Kerry being shown on al Jazeera denouncing the war is what is inspiring terrorism, you're more of a right-wing shill than I thought.

Al Jazeera - Click the top link under "features"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3610579.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608315.stm

Honestly, which do you think has a bigger impact on the Muslim world in strengthening the resolve of our enemies? Kerry, Kennedy and others saying what most of the world agrees with (that Iraq is a total sham), or pictures of women and children with their heads blown off at the hands of our own soldiers, following the orders of the President and the Pentagon? Whether our soldiers intended to/were ordered to kill those civilians is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that is how the Arab world is seeing it.

Well, that would be a decent arguement - if not for the fact that the Iraqi's were are currently in battle with are not the Saddam-loyal Sunnis, but the Shiites, whom were really our biggest supporters initially once Saddam was overthrown. Thanks to the policies of this administration, we aren't fighting the radicals anymore. We're fighting everyone.

As for the Viet Nam comparisons being "unfounded" - wrong. We attack, they retailiate. They attack, we retaliate. They don't want us there, and neither do the majority of our citizens. Our president and administration have misled us as to the reasons why we are there, has put us in debt to pay for it, and stubbornly refuses to include other world leaders in the reconstruction because they didn't buy the now FALSE WMD claims. There is NO end to Iraq in sight. We have NO exit strategy. There appears to have been little or no planning. We had no idea what we were getting ourselves into.

How is that NOTHING like Viet Nam?

If you could take your "I HATE ALL THINGS LIBERAL" sunglasses off for 5 minutes, maybe you would see what is at stake by conducting this war in the manner that we have been. Before 9/11, Osama and many other radical Islamic nutcases were seen as just that - nutcases, even by the majority of the Arab world. In Osama's propaganda, he would say that the great satan America would wage war on an oil-rich muslim country, unprovoked, and occupy it. So what did we do? Exactly that. Now al Quaeda is getting more recruits then they can handle, the Taliban and Osama's lietenants were allowed to regroup in Afganistan after all of the Marine special forces units tracking them down were pulled out and sent to Iraq,

Please tell me how doing EXACTLY what Osama said we would do is effective at conquering Islamic fundamentalists, and how John Kerry pointing out the obvious is somehow going to get us all killed.

 

I'd say it's more like South Korea. As the months pass, our total number of forces in Iraq will decrease, but I foresee the U.S. stationing a fairly large number of troops (say on the order of around 30,000) there on a permanent basis. There is no exit strategy, because we aren't planning on leaving.

 

Hm, if this is about comparing places and events, I'd say a South-Korea like outcome is the very, very, very best outcome one could hope for (A "North-Korea" would not exist anyway, as their is no major power neat that needs some breathing space from an other major power that got uncomfortably close). And staying in South-Korea isn't that bad for the common soldier.

I think the Brits and Amis are walking in the footsteps of the French and are making their own Algerian-Expirience. But that's just my opinion, yours may differ.

As for staying a long, long time. I think that was part of the plan in the beginning. Only my view, yours may differ.

About terrorism and France as target, which also got mentioned some posts above. I do not think that Algerian terrorism ever has ceased to exist, it may for times only have been reduced. Concerning the hatred that some Algerians bear against the French... With some dorks running around proclaiming their pride in having tortured Algerians... No need to wonder. Such scars last. That's no comparision, that's my opinion about the French and that they messed up big time in Algeria and still have to live with some unresolved questions of that time.

As for the attacks on jews. I think it is well known, that when you have large amounts of people in a country, who "feel" they are involved in another conflict, that the host country will have to deal with that "imported/immigrated" problem. Hm, sound strange what I write. Think the Dutch and the Danes are in a war and a there's a big population of both in Iceland. Tension propably will rise among the group-members in Iceland too. I think a lot of people feeling a nationalist link to the middle-east are trying to simulate wars in the ME with defensless victims where they live.

In short, religion mixed with politics always produces disaster. If religion is mixed into national mythology, as I think is happening in the ME and India since more then a century (Thank you Ghandi... not), the results are unbearable.

[ April 08, 2004, 20:06: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Actually, Slim is back. And for this usage, it's "Credability." Discounting Richard Clarke, the man who served our country for the past 30 years, many of those as the counterterrorism chief, is outrageous. As are many of the other rash statements that have been made in this thread.

 

Darkwolf,

That is an interesting argument, and an old one. And as an old argument it has proven itself persuasive, the content is interchangeable.

The Nazis used it to warn of a "Verjudung" (in brief: the general term used to describe a jewish plot everywhere, a conspiracy spreading) of germany and the world. I think you're very much hyperbole when you look at Islam. That is not meat to accuse you of racism, just to show you what it points to. An islamic threat is spreding, we have to act NOW! Boo-hoo. Hysterical nonsense.
IMO the current US path of agressive use of force in the islamic world could well bring us to the point of a clash of the culture: The cure as the actual factor that brings forth the illness. Cofer Black's remarks hint to that.

As for not agreeing with that article: The brits are pretty much among the top 3 of countrys with sucessful counterinsurgency expertise in the world. It takes a fool to dismiss their expericenes, gained over half a century, with the slight of a hand as wrong.

And I agree with Iago on France and Algeria. The Algerians wandered to France as a result of the colonial age, and conflicts with them result from the mistakes France made in Algeria, and the discrimination and unequal chances they had ever since.
Being an Algerian in France today givey you a good chance to end up unemploeyed. That is, the largest problems the French have with the Algerians are of a socio-economical nature.

 

Time to tear away a little of the "Bush was too focused on Iraq" crap that the Democrats are running.

Here is a nice little quote from Bob Kerry (Democratic Senator) from a statement he made on the Senate floor following the attack on the USS Cole (10/19/2000):

I guess it is OK for the Democrats to assume that Iraq was behind an attack, but it is different when the Republican President asks his staff to make sure that Iraq wasn't involved in another attack.

I wonder why Mr. Kerry had no comment on Dr. Rice's testimony.