CLARKE KNEW! Not.
As shock-waves from dramatic testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday reverberated around the New York Times, the White House went on the offensive, as it sought to undercut the credibility of Clinton anti-terrorism holdover Dick Clarke, who reportedly was passed over for a promotion by Bush but swears he's not disgruntled and who just wrote a book but swears he's not peddling the book and who says the timing of its release is just a coincidence (or Bush's fault -- just like 9/11!) Clarke, Bush's accuser, left government soon after being passed over for deputy secretary of Homeland Security but he swears the timing was just a coincidence. America needs to learn the truth about Bush, says Clarke, and it's all in my book, Against All Enemies, available at bookstores near you. In the book, Clarke, who says he has no ax to grind and no hard feelings, considers Bush among the 'Enemies' for despicably attempting to scapegoat Saddam, who hadn't committed genocide in years, for Sept. 11. (Trying to shift blame for 9/11, eh, Bush? Nice try!) Rumor has it Bush became obsessed with blaming Saddam, so -- out of spite -- he invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban only weeks after 9/11. (From his book, Clarke has no information on the Taliban toppling incident).
Seizing on his testimony, the media frenziedly sought to undercut Bush's credibility in the War on Terror, saying Clarke's testimony proves Bush is to blame for 9/11. The White House hit back, with one senior Bush official, speaking to reporters, detailing point-by-point U.S. strategy pre-9/11. The White House rebuttal brought Clarke's credibility into question. "The Bush administration decided . . . in late January (2001)," said the official, "to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing (Clinton) policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings. 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 . . . That process, which was initiated in the first week of February (2001), decided in principle 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 Bush official blasted the Clinton administration for doing nothing to retaliate for the U.S. Embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole. He also ripped Clinton for having no plan to fight al-Qaeda, in contrast to Bush, who "acted quickly and decisively," Fox News reports.
Oh, wait -- that was Dick Clarke in August 2002, briefing reporters. Fox News' Jim Angle captured it on tape. (Kerry immediately rejected the charge that Clarke was flip-flopping, saying there's nothing wrong with some S.O.B. voting for the policy, before voting against it).
"You've got a credibility problem," commissioner John Lehman told Clarke at the public inquiry, televised live. Clarke's facial expression gave me the impression that he had never heard the term *Credibility* before. Clarke strongly denied lying to Jim Angle's tape recorder, and that, anyway, Bush made him do it. Bush made him shade the truth. Clarke said he was asked by Bush to make that case to the press but that he didn't believe it. "I was special assistant to the president and I made the case," Clarke testified. (Clarke -- always fiercely loyal to Bush). Then, pressed further, Clarke changed his position, insisting he wasn't shading the truth at all. "No one in the White House asked me to say things untruthful and I would not have," said Clarke, snarling. (Oh my, the things that presidents make innocent little government bureaucrats -- who've been screwing up for 30 years -- do!) Commissioner Bob Kerrey immediately condemned Fox News for release of the transcript, which outrageously shows Clarke contradicting Clarke. "Fox should say occasionally fair and balanced after putting something like this out," screamed Kerrey, looking fairly unbalanced. The media says the only thing shown by the tape, which slimed Clarke by replaying Clarke, is that Clarke lied when he worked for Bush but tells the truth now that he works for CBS-Viacom. (I'll grant that Clarke's sincere, that he's genuinely moved by all of this, especially at $$$ per copy, hardcover).
In not preventing 9/11, "Your government failed you," Clarke told relatives of Sept. 11 victims in opening remarks, adding, "those entrusted with protecting you" -- with seeing to it that 9/11s don't happen -- "failed you and I failed you." Then, immediately he changed his position, noting there was nothing Bush could have done to prevent 9/11, though Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, he said. He also noted that, though "I failed you," it was really Bush who made him fail. Bush had 8 months -- 8 whole months -- to retaliate for the Cole bombing, the Khobar bombing, the Embassy bombings, the WTC bombing, but he didn't. (Eight years of hard work by Clinton preparing a plan of action for Bush, and Bush drops the ball in just 8 months).
"My view," Clarke told the 10-member commission thoroughly probing 9/11, which followed a Senate committee thoroughly probing 9/11, which followed a House committee thoroughly probing 9/11, "was that this administration, while it listened to me, either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem." (Bush is too dumb to understand how smart I am!) Had Bush held more meetings with Clarke, 9/11 would not have happened. (High-level meetings in Washington -- one sure way to scare the bejeebers out of al-Qaeda, believe me. Or what if the White House had tried airing 30-second spots pre-9/11? Announcer: 'This is a military tank. The two men you see riding in it are Bush and Clarke,' both wearing padded helmets. 'Be afraid, al-Qaeda! Be very afraid!') Although Bush could not have prevented 9/11, Bush, said Clarke, was too busy planning to take down Saddam (Ho! Ho! Hey! Hey! How many rouge regimes did you kill today!) and that's why 9/11 happened. With no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, clearly Bush has totally botched the War on Terror.
In a nutshell, say critics like Clarke, the problem is Bush started planning an Iraq invasion immediately after taking office and, with so much time and energy consumed with Iraq, small wonder the war was won so quickly. Critics like Clarke also note that Bush, immediately after taking office, was in a Rush to War and failed to plan adequately and that's why the war hasn't been won and is bogged down in quagmire.
Under Clinton, said Clarke, there was no higher priority than fighting terrorists. Bill Clinton, warts and all, resolved to fight that most notorious, most deadly global terror mastermind . . . Slobodan Milosevic. So high a priority was fighting terrorists for Clinton, he pardoned only 16 FALN terrorists convicted of bombing buildings in New York. (C'mon, even Clinton's staunchest critics admit it's a record to be proud of!)
Look, let's face it. The Bush people were obsessed with doing things the very opposite of Clinton. Think about it. Would Bush give Osama a fair trial, lose the War on Terror, kowtow to Europe, kowtow to Kofi, pardon terrorists, give Saddam another 12-year break? Nope. That's what Clinton would do. Bush, obsessed with not being Clinton, has beaten the crap out of al-Qaeda, is winning the War on Terror, won't kowtow to Europe, won't kowtow to Kofi, hasn't pardon terrorists, and threw Saddam in the pokey, alienating the French and al-Qaeda. Even more outrageous, Bush refuses, despite pleas from the press, to have even one major scandal -- that's how obsessed Bush is with not being Clinton. Sheesh. Bush, commiting ethics, winning wars -- small wonder he's making Dems nuttier and nuttier by the hour.
America stands proud again -- and it's all Bush's fault!
;-)
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
