Another gov't higher-up accuses Bush of messing up on terror, Iraq
03-20-2004, 04:12 PM
#1
Wannabe yuppie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another gov't higher-up accuses Bush of messing up on terror, Iraq
Disclaimer: This article presents one guy's opinion. He happens to be a ranking government official in the areas of terrorism and national security. He also happens to have a new book out. I am not presenting this article for purposes of Bush bashing, to in any way issue my own critical statements of the Bush administration, or to evaluate the merit of the statements/opinions of its subject, Richard A. Clarke. If you are going to engage in partisan arguments about over-reaching themes that have been discussed ad infinitum, refrain from doing so. If you are going to make comments about the supposedly liberal mainstream media, refrain from doing so. Please limit discussion to the merits or demerits of what Mr. Clarke is saying.
Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.
He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.
"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program.
CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies."
Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.
"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."
The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.
The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.
Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.
"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,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.
"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.
CBS said it asked Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy on the national security council, about the incident, and Hadley said: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."
CBS responded to Hadley that it found two people it did not identify who recounted the incident independently, and one of them witnessed the conversation.
"I stand on what I said," Hadley told CBS, "but the point I think we're missing in this is, of course the president wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9-11."
Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden.
"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."
Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in from the State Department in 1992 to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.
Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.
Original article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ism_adviser_14
Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.
He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.
"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program.
CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies."
Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.
"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."
The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.
The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.
Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.
"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,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.
"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.
CBS said it asked Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy on the national security council, about the incident, and Hadley said: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."
CBS responded to Hadley that it found two people it did not identify who recounted the incident independently, and one of them witnessed the conversation.
"I stand on what I said," Hadley told CBS, "but the point I think we're missing in this is, of course the president wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9-11."
Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden.
"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."
Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in from the State Department in 1992 to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.
Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.
Original article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ism_adviser_14
... that man [clark] is doing the right thing... :cheers:
03-21-2004, 12:58 PM
#4
Large Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 4,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like a political ploy to hurt Bush because he got owned and now he's bent.
We know Bush had plans to make Iraq comply to the U.N Resolutions or face force by the United States and/or U.N, from the instant he stepped foot in office.
Why does it matter that he told a guy to find out if he they had a hand in 9/11? My first thought was that Iraq had something to do with it too, of course it was proven they didn't and that was that. The same happened here.
*Shrug*
It's cool to be lop sided and never see the good a current politician does nowadays. It's lame.
We know Bush had plans to make Iraq comply to the U.N Resolutions or face force by the United States and/or U.N, from the instant he stepped foot in office.
Why does it matter that he told a guy to find out if he they had a hand in 9/11? My first thought was that Iraq had something to do with it too, of course it was proven they didn't and that was that. The same happened here.
*Shrug*
It's cool to be lop sided and never see the good a current politician does nowadays. It's lame.
03-21-2004, 01:27 PM
#5
Farscape 1 pilot
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THe problem with Iraq is they did not comply with UN resolutions from the past 12 years. And the rest of the world let them get away with it.
What good is the Non Proliferation Treaty if it's not enforced?
I took a class on WMD in college 2 years ago and Iraq had back as late as the mid 90s materials and half built weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological) and just "disappeared". If Iraq had been serious about having gotten rid of them they would not have stalled they way they did.
What good is the Non Proliferation Treaty if it's not enforced?
I took a class on WMD in college 2 years ago and Iraq had back as late as the mid 90s materials and half built weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological) and just "disappeared". If Iraq had been serious about having gotten rid of them they would not have stalled they way they did.
03-21-2004, 01:36 PM
#6
Large Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 4,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vampgrrl,
Very good! Another non-follower! Woo!
What the left-wing wants us to do, is give up our soverignty in being able to decide what's good for our country or not; and rest it with the U.N.
If the U.N doesn't agree, then we can't "act" because that'd be "wrong". So essentially they want to give up our ability to act in self defense of ourself, based on OUR intelligence and OUR reasonings behind a country's efforts against us, and soley rely on asking the world body to decide what *we* should do.
I'm sorry, the U.N is good for promoting peace and dialog through countries that would otherwise not have that dialog, but it should not be looked at as an "OK go ahead" or "Do not go ahead" for our country defending itself.
Last time I checked, no country in the world does something for the US in the best interest of the US. Just like the US doesnt really do anything soley for the interest of another country. Each country is out for itself, in its best interest, while there may be other motives that they take into account; when all is said and done, each country does what is best for itself. And frankly, I do not want to have to rely on a group of countries to decide what MY country does in defense of itself.
Very good! Another non-follower! Woo!
What the left-wing wants us to do, is give up our soverignty in being able to decide what's good for our country or not; and rest it with the U.N.
If the U.N doesn't agree, then we can't "act" because that'd be "wrong". So essentially they want to give up our ability to act in self defense of ourself, based on OUR intelligence and OUR reasonings behind a country's efforts against us, and soley rely on asking the world body to decide what *we* should do.
I'm sorry, the U.N is good for promoting peace and dialog through countries that would otherwise not have that dialog, but it should not be looked at as an "OK go ahead" or "Do not go ahead" for our country defending itself.
Last time I checked, no country in the world does something for the US in the best interest of the US. Just like the US doesnt really do anything soley for the interest of another country. Each country is out for itself, in its best interest, while there may be other motives that they take into account; when all is said and done, each country does what is best for itself. And frankly, I do not want to have to rely on a group of countries to decide what MY country does in defense of itself.
03-22-2004, 09:32 AM
#8
Wannabe yuppie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by antarius
What the left-wing wants us to do, is give up our soverignty in being able to decide what's good for our country or not; and rest it with the U.N.
If the U.N doesn't agree, then we can't "act" because that'd be "wrong". So essentially they want to give up our ability to act in self defense of ourself, based on OUR intelligence and OUR reasonings behind a country's efforts against us, and soley rely on asking the world body to decide what *we* should do.
I'm sorry, the U.N is good for promoting peace and dialog through countries that would otherwise not have that dialog, but it should not be looked at as an "OK go ahead" or "Do not go ahead" for our country defending itself.
If the U.N doesn't agree, then we can't "act" because that'd be "wrong". So essentially they want to give up our ability to act in self defense of ourself, based on OUR intelligence and OUR reasonings behind a country's efforts against us, and soley rely on asking the world body to decide what *we* should do.
I'm sorry, the U.N is good for promoting peace and dialog through countries that would otherwise not have that dialog, but it should not be looked at as an "OK go ahead" or "Do not go ahead" for our country defending itself.
We weren't attacked! We weren't going to be attacked! There is no evidence that Iraq even had the capability to do what our government claimed they were going to do! There is no evidence that Iraq had any formal ties with al Qaeda! Our government asserted that because Saddam did not account for weapons he had at some point in the past, that he still had them!
This has all been covered before, and you can take your incessant right wing posturing the hell out of my thread.
03-22-2004, 09:49 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ossining, New York
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
These kinds of ignorant statements are EXACTLY why the war hawks will never understand the objection to our country being in Iraq. Are you really so naive as to suggest that we who object to the Iraq war do so just because the UN didn't give the go ahead?
We weren't attacked! We weren't going to be attacked! There is no evidence that Iraq even had the capability to do what our government claimed they were going to do! There is no evidence that Iraq had any formal ties with al Qaeda! Our government asserted that because Saddam did not account for weapons he had at some point in the past, that he still had them!
This has all been covered before, and you can take your incessant right wing posturing the hell out of my thread.
We weren't attacked! We weren't going to be attacked! There is no evidence that Iraq even had the capability to do what our government claimed they were going to do! There is no evidence that Iraq had any formal ties with al Qaeda! Our government asserted that because Saddam did not account for weapons he had at some point in the past, that he still had them!
This has all been covered before, and you can take your incessant right wing posturing the hell out of my thread.
Mike, first off, he is allowed to have his opinion. If not then why even start the thread in the first place. He is totally right in my opinion. Iraq had these weapons and they were not following the rules that were set for them. Did you really feel safe in the words of Saddam that they did not have WMD? Did you really believe he would act peacefully and not attack us or some other country and potentially start a neuclear war? If so, you are very niave and trusting to a fault. Saddam is known for his lying and scheming and we did the rght thing by attacking and helping establish a democratic society in Iraq.
If you don't think so I can send you a link to hundreds of letters that DEMOCRAT Politicians wrote to Clinton when he was in office about how we had to take action. Clinton never did. Then Bush takes action and we were wrong? Give me a break. Of coure they would contradict themselves. This is for two reasons. 1. If they didn't then they would have nothing to run on in the 2004 election. 2. Bush is a Republican. If he were a democrat it would have been the greatest thing in the world. Gotta love how Democrats jump from side to side when it is convient for them.
