Richard Clarke on "Meet the Press"

[Pexster]

Here's the transcript. We've had a week now to hear the original 60 Minutes piece, many White House spokespersons' rebuttals, and now Richard Clarke's responses this morning on Meet the Press. I thought it might be a good idea to consolidate the discussion on this in one place. Your keenly insightful thoughts and piercingly accurate analyses? (After reading the transcript, of course.)

[Optimus Prime]

"This document contains no data" .

[Chuckiechan]

Why did Clinton ignore Clark's reccomedations for all these years? And why should GWB have implemented them when Clinton didn't? Up until 9-11 the USA had no attacks while GWB was president. They were all under Clinton and Clark.

I think more things will be declassified to de-bunk Clark, further implicating the Clinton administration. GWB has had a "hands off" attitude toward critizing the Clinton administration for whatever reason.

It just dosen't play to place 90% of the blame on Bush when our three preceeding attacks were during Clinton's reign when Clark was the man in charge! Talk about chutzpah!

As more becomes public, the press is going to be forced to present more of the positive aspects of GWB's administration and policies leading up to 9-11. At some point, the press is going to have to delare themselves independant and get out of the Democrat's tent. The 9-11 event was caused by the terrorists reacting to Clinton and Clark's lack of response to previous attacks. The terrorists had no reason not to attack, since history showed no reprisals from the USA except a missile attack shooting up some empty tents in the desert. We were viewed as limp-wristed cowards by our Arab enemies.

One of Clarke's warnings:

"On July 5 of 2001, the White House summoned officials of a dozen federal agencies to the Situation Room. `Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,' the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, told the assembled group, including the Federal Aviation Administration, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Clarke directed every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer non-vital travel, put off scheduled exercises, place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert. For six weeks in the summer of 2001, at home and overseas, the U.S. government was at its highest possible state of readiness--and anxiety--against imminent terrorist attack."

What happened in July, 2001? Nothing. August, Zip. Did he suggest shooting down civilian airliners the deviated from their flight plan in September? Nope.

[Pexster]

Chuckiechan posted:

As more becomes public, the press is going to be forced to present more of the positive aspects of GWB's administration and policies leading up to 9-11.

Richard Clarke said today on Meet the Press:

. . . almost every day the president was hearing from George Tenet that there's an impending al-Qaeda attack. As far back as February, George Tenet testified before the Congress that al-Qaeda was the major national security threat. And yet, they have 100 meetings before they get around to dealing with it.

and

I think, before 9/11, he himself said--if you look at what he said to Bob Woodward, he himself said before 9/11, "This was not an urgent issue for me. I didn't feel a sense of urgency." He acknowledged bin Laden was not the focus of him or his national security team.

and on the issue of reprisals from the Clinton administration:

What else did Clinton do, however? We had Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he used military force, and they stopped. We had Iranian-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he used covert action against them, and they stopped. We had al-Qaeda attempts to blow up things in the United States during the millennium period, attempts to blow up embassies around the world, attempts to take over Bosnia during the jihad in Bosnia. And all of those attempts were thwarted.

Now, that doesn't mean that he did everything he should have done, but the president of the United States was active on these issues in the Clinton administration. The president of the United States was not active on these issues prior to 9/11 in the Bush administration.

In the last week, Clarke has been on 60 Minutes, Larry King, Fresh Air with Teri Gross,, Good Morning America, and probably a few other shows I've missed or forgotten. Plus, he's testified before the 9/11 committee. In all of these appearances, he's handled every question calmly and rationally, and laid out a matter-of-fact case for what he believes. I think his testimony is going to prove extremely damaging to Bush's credibility in the only area where he previously had any -- as a war president.

[Chuckiechan]

And.... you missed the most important part:

SOURCES: CLARKE 'TO EARN OVER $1 MILLION FOR BOOK'; CONTRACT: BONUSES ADDED


http://www.drudgereport.com/rc.htm


What a guy. I hope he has to spend it all on defense lawyers!

[usslindstrom]

Everyone likes to point fingers, and play the blame game.

[Pexster]

Chuckie, here is Mr. Clarke's response on the book profits issue --

MR. RUSSERT: The book is dedicated to those who were murdered on September 11 and you apologize to the families. Would you consider giving the royalties or profits from the book to the children of those families who were murdered?

MR. CLARKE: Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations. I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House, because I still have friends in the White House, having worked there for 11 years, are telling me that the word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was "he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life." So I have to take that into account, too, this sort of vicious personal attack is also directed at my bank account. But this is not about me making money. It's about getting the truth out. And long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.

This "he's making money on his book" attack is irrelevant in the big picture. The issue should be the message, not the messenger. Of course, if I were a die-hard Bush supporter, I'd be clutching at straws, too.

[RADAR1797]

by PexsterThe issue should be the message, not the messenger.

Hmmm, interesting take on the issue. I believe there was a story about a boy calling "wolf" that makes the credibility and intentions of the messenger important. But hey we learned that as kids, now we are older and more enlightened and can throw out basic concepts as being silly.

-RADAR

[Theophylact]

As this Washington Post Op-Ed article makes clear, character assassination and cynicism have just about killed honest discussion:

Before I offer a single thought, before I express a single opinion, I'll bet you're already wondering: Who's this guy? What's his agenda? Where is he coming from?

What I have to say, and the facts that I put forth to support my thesis, won't be nearly as important to many readers as trying to figure out my motivation. And because I'm writing in a Washington newspaper, and Washington is the epicenter of the disease that I am about to describe, the questions will take a familiar form. Am I a Republican or a Democrat? Conservative or liberal? Am I settling a score, riding a hobbyhorse or -- skepticism demands that this be asked -- advancing my career?

Call it the death of honest expertise.

Read the whole thing...

[Bill in SD, CA]

I find this all simply amazing.

Last fall there was one issue Bush was "bulletproof" on in the Presidential election: National Security and his handling of 9/11.

Supposedly to the point that it was a write off and quite possibly be the deciding factor in the election.

Without a doubt he was so "bulletproof" that the Democratic strategists probably never huddled together to find out how to overcome the problem.

Hallelujah!!!! ThaaannnK you Jeezuz!!!! A miracle!!!!

Clarke's book, 60 minutes, 9/11 commission testimony, and Meet the Press.

Can you spell: James Carvel boys and girls?

Anyone?

If it smells like fish ............. trust your nose!



Bill

[RADAR1797]

Theo,

I read that opinion yesterday and it was nothing more than a naive rant. Especially in DC, there really is no one without an agenda and railing that there might be, is IMO ludicrous. Supposed "government workers" without an agenda play politics all day long. I certainly see it in the building I work in, which is dominated by DoD Civilians, they play politics early and often. It may not be Democrat or Republican, but it certainly is vieing for power, position and/or prestige. But hey if this guy wants to rant and look foolish, more power to him.

-RADAR

[Pexster]

Good article, Theo. RADAR, you're right. One must of course examine the messenger when evaluating the message. In this case, we have a 30+ year civil servant who served four presidents and is widely acknowledged to be an expert on terrorism and al-Qaeda. Bill, what I smell is denial.

BTW, I love it when Carville gets so worked up he can hardly get his thoughts out. The guy is an absolute riot!

[Theophylact]

RADAR1797, it may be that no one is without an agenda -- but that's no reason for outright rejection of facts or expertise based solely on the presumed existence of such an agenda. Even Bush might sometimes have the facts on his side...

[aldtech]

RADAR1797

That is a very good point and would be a very apt description of Clarke if he where the only one crying “Wolf”. But, you also have Kay and other former administration officials who have also made public statements to the same tune. Are they all crying “wolf” too? Seems to me with all the wolf crying that something must be amiss with this administration. They can’t all be lying?

Theophylact

Great link but wasted on those un-willing to open their eyes to look past political associations or “axe grindings”.

AL

[MTAtech]

Great point aldtech, Clarke is not alone. Even Bush admitted what Clarke was saying.

In Bob Woodward's "Bush at War," the president himself acknowledged that Osama bin Laden had not been a central focus in the eight months before the attacks.

"I was not on point," Mr. Bush was quoted in the book as saying. "I have no hesitancy about going after him. But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling." {source: NY Times, March 29, 2004}

Paul O'Neill said that Bush was obsessed with Iraq from day one. SO, Clarke has confirmation.

Moreover, it is interesting to see the level of response to discredit Clarke. Bill Frist said Clarke's 2002 testomony contradicts his current story. However, intelligence experts say that isn't true. Clarke's response is to declassify all the testimony.

Sure doesn't sound as if he has something to hide.

This Clarke statement is quite to the point, "Now, Dr. Rice has characterized this as not a plan, not a strategy, not a series of decisions which could be made right away, but warmed-over Clinton material. Let's declassify that memo I sent on January 25th and let's declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice's committee approved nine months later on September 4th, and let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't. And what we'll see when we declassify what they were given on January 25th and what they finally agreed to on September 4th, is that they're basically the same thing and they wasted months when we could have had some action."

I seem to remember those early days of the Bush Admin. It was similar to the 'not invented here' mentality of engineering and tech companies. So, if it was a Clinton plan, it was automatically discredited.

[aldtech]

I gues that must have shut them up.

[MTAtech]

According to CNN, Rice will now testify. Yesterday, she said, 'I can't testify.' Today she said she will.

[Theophylact]

Originally posted by Chuckiechan
And.... you missed the most important part:

SOURCES: CLARKE 'TO EARN OVER $1 MILLION FOR BOOK'; CONTRACT: BONUSES ADDED


http://www.drudgereport.com/rc.htm


What a guy. I hope he has to spend it all on defense lawyers!

Well, Karen Hughes (who's being brought out of her retirement to salvage Bush's campaign) is getting close to a million for her book. That okay by you? And she's still working for Bush...