Ex-Adviser Says Bush Ignored Terror Threats

Clinton and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993.

Clinton and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing after the Khobar Towers were bombed.

Clinton and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing when Iraq kicked out the UN inspectors.

Clinton and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing when Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries repeatedly painted American fighter jets.

Clinton and the Democrats are the ones who refused Sudans offer of OBL on a silver platter.

Clinton and the Democrats are the ones who pardoned the FALN terrorists.

Clinton and the Democrats are the ones who did nothing when the USS Cole was bombed.

Small wonder RAGHEADS, the leftist press, and Democrats have a problem with George W. Bush and the Republicans willingness to defend our country.

Gellman, though, has been on top of Clarke for quite a while- since the Pheonix memo bit- trying to make Clarke look like some kind of central figure and hero in this snippet:

Before Sept 11; Unshared Clues and Unshaped Policy
by Barton Gellman
Washington Post
Friday, May 17, 2002

(snip) On July 5 of last year, a month and a day before President Bush first heard that al Qaeda might plan a hijacking, 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, according to two of those present. (* My note: Well, no kidding! We've been under attack since before the 1993 WTC bombing, Sherlock...)

The group included the Federal Aviation Administration, along with the Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Clarke directed every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer nonvital travel, put off scheduled exercises and place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert.

(* My note: Clark did all that single-handedly, eh? Wasn't anyone else doing that, like George Tenet, and all the OTHER experts?)

For six weeks last summer, at home and overseas, the U.S. government was at its highest possible state of readiness -- and anxiety -- against imminent terrorist attack.

That intensity -- defensive in nature -- did not last. By the time Bush received his briefing at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, the government had begun to stand down from the alert. Offensive planning against al Qaeda remained in a mid-level interagency panel, which had spent half a year already in a policy review.

(* My note: and where was "offensive planning against al Qaeda," say, since 1993? How often did Clinton get briefed by Woolsey, Deutch and Tenet during his eight years in office, by the way? Did he bother to put down his cigar during the briefing or was he multitasking?)

The Deputies Committee, the second tier of national security officials, had not finished considering the emerging plan, and Bush's Cabinet-rank advisers were still a month away from their first meeting on terrorism. That took place Sept. 4, a week before hijacked planes were flown into the Pentagon and World Trade Center in synchronized attacks.

What Bush and his government did with the information they had in August became the subject of a political brawl on Capitol Hill yesterday, largely shorn of the context of those weeks before Sept. 11. A close look at the sequence of events, based on lengthy interviews early this year with participants and fresh accounts yesterday, appears to support the White House view that Bush lacked sufficient warning to stop the attack. But it also portrays a new administration that gave scant attention to an adversary whose lethal ambitions and savvy had been well understood for years.

(* Right. I remember the USS Cole bombing in Clinton's time- when State Dept officials were informing us that the deaths of the sailors on the USS Cole didn't compare to the suffering of the Palestinian people...)

Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet had been "nearly frantic" with concern since June 22, according to one frequent interlocutor, and a written intelligence summary for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on June 28: "It is highly likely that a significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks."

By late summer, one senior political appointee said, Tenet had "repeated this so often that people got tired of hearing it." (/snip)

(* My note: He'd been repeating it during the last months of the Clinton admin too and no one bothered to listen then, either... Toricelli was more interested in attacking our own intelligence services than attacking al Qaeda, as I recall.)

The book is published by...?

For someone who yawned after the first WTC attack, he's sure got a lot to say now.

It doesn't matter to me which side they are on, when someone goes on a TV "news" show to sell a book I don't pay any attention to them.

This mope Clarke was a 'cybersecurity' expert and that's what he 'pushed'. His concern was a cyber attack, nothing more.

And if Clarke was sooooo dam smart, how come Billy Jeff ignored his 'advice'?

Surely if you write it down in a book it's all true.

Considering you can be sued if it isn't, it is advisable to have at least some sort of documentation.

Well he said, she said, so what she said to him must be true. After all, he was sitting right there when she said that. And if you don't believe that, then he obviously didn't have sex with that woman.

Or something like that. Most of these suits go nowhere. Ask Bill O'Rielly.

So the guy who was the architect of the failed Clinton antiterrroism policy is now criticizing Bush for ignoriing terrorism. Unf'ing believable.

But oh so predictable, as is the breathless way this stuff is reported by the lamestream. It's almost to the point of cliche, anymore.

Thanks for the ping!

The book is published by...?

I don't know or care - this guy was an advisor, got fired after 9/11 and now has a book out. 'nuff sed...

My favorite libel suit -- a fight that seemed to end in June when a federal district court dismissed the lawsuit by mutual agreement, leaving John Dean and Gordon Liddy to battle it out in the court of public opinion.

Its published by the same company that owns CBS.

Richard Clarke? The computer geek from X-Files who believe in the paranormal?

Ahhh - the plot unfolds...

Thanks

Having just watched 60 minutes, I must say that I believe that this was as good a job as they've done with this type of story as I've seen in a long time. I think they made some effort to be even handed and give the administration a voice.

Lesley didn't ask him about his heroic vetting of the target site for bombing the asprin factory to keep the public focus off Clinton.

Lesley didn't ask if when Bush said that You could be damn sure our response wouldn't be to fire a million dollar missle at a ten dollar tent and hit a camel it had galled him because that was all he came up with after the Embassy bombings.

Lesley didn't ask him about his cyber terrorism and e-mail attack worm warning and how in the face of airliners bringing down the world trade center it wasn't logical for him to be out of a cabinet level status.

Lesley didn't ask him why Sandy Berger plays such a big role in framing the backgound in Age of Sacred Terror and what was their interaction.

Lesley didn't ask him why Rumsfeld seems to be a Secretary of Defense that can execute a war plan, in Ahfghanistan and in Iraq and he was on the way out if Dick is deep down really just a dummy.

Lesley didn't ask him.....

Oh, well, we know who's pocket CBS is in, they are still pissed about the FCC response to the superbowl

Links of Interest:

BOOK: "Dereliction of Duty: An Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security" by Buzz Patterson

USDOJ/OIG Special Report: "BOMBS IN BROOKLYN: HOW THE TWO ILLEGAL ALIENS ARRESTED FOR PLOTTING TO BOMB THE NEW YORK SUBWAY ENTERED AND REMAINED IN THE UNITED STATES" (March, 1998)

INTERNET HAGANAH (WASHINGTON POST: "FREEH LINKS IRAN TO KHOBAR BOMBING" (December 19, 2003)

BOOK: "HOW TO DESTROY A VILLAGE: WHAT THE CLINTONS TAUGHT A SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD" by Jason D. Fodeman

BOOK: "LOSING BIN LADEN: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" by Richard Miniter

NewsMax.com: "Clinton Audio Exclusive: Pre-September 11 Bin Laden Strike Wouldn't Have Worked" (August 7, 2002)

NewsMax.com: "CLINTON: CHINA OR EUROPE WILL REPLACE U.S. AS TOP POWER" by Carl Limbacher and the NewsMax.com staff (May 2, 2003)

WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG - www.house.gov - Congressman Curt Weldon - COX REPORT: "CLINTON-GORE ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING, CHINESE ESPIONAGE, and U.S. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO PRC" (Note: PRC is The Peoples Republic of China.)
ARMED SERVICES.house.gov: "Testimony of Gary Milhollin Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School and | Director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control Before the Committees on International Relations and National Security United States House of Representatives June 17, 1998" (TESTIMONY SNIPPET: "When we look at the history of U.S. sanctions policy, we see a willingness to sanction China for missile proliferation in both the Bush Administration, which applied sanctions in 1991, and in the Clinton Administration, which applied sanctions in 1993. But in 1995, the Clinton Administration policy changes. China supplied the C-802s to Iran in 1995; China supplied other missile components to Iran and Pakistan in 1995 and has continued to supply up to the present time. And in 1996, the Administration refused to act on explicit findings by the intelligence community that the transfers occurred. Also in 1996, the Administration started transferring control over satellites exports from the State to the Commerce Department, insulating them from the application of missile sanction laws in the future. For some reason, the Administration decided in either 1995 or 1996 that missile sanctions would no longer be part of U.S. policy in dealing with China. Why did U.S. policy change? I don't know the answer to that question, but I urge the Committees to look into it. We do know the result of the policy change. It gave China a green light to proliferate. Our government's policy on sanctions has enabled Chinese satellite launch companies to sell missiles and missile components to Iran and Pakistan without fear of punishment. Thus, it may be that we are asking the wrong question about how our satellite export policy affects missile proliferation. Whether or not our satellite exports caused U.S. missile technology to go to China, they have made it easier for Chinese missile technology to go to Pakistan.")

NewsMax.com: "NORTH KOREA NUKES CLINTON LEGACY" by Charles R. Smith (010803)

FREE CONGRESS.org - Notable News Now: "NEGLIGENCE: BILL CLINTON'S REAL LEGACY ON NATIONAL DEFENSE" -Commentary by Paul M. Weyrich (120502)

WorldNetDaily.com: "U.S. FIRMS HELPED CHINA WITH NUKES? State Accuses Hughes, Boeing of Providing Missile Technology" by Jon Dougherty (010203)

GertzFile.com

SoftWar.net
TOWNHALL.com: "CLINTON SCANDALS CONTINUE TO SURFACE" -Column by Phyllis Schlafly (COLUMN SNIPPET: "...The GAO discovered that those pilots departed because the Clinton administration ordered them to receive the anthrax vaccine, and 86 percent of those who did take the shots reported adverse side effects. Now, after scores of resignations and hundreds of careers destroyed by court-martial, we discover that our brave servicemen and women were right to resist the anthrax orders, and the government was fatally and corruptly wrong. A lawsuit filed by two Connecticut Air Force Reserve pilots asserted that the vaccine used on the military was never properly tested, and the Food and Drug Administration's recent response was to halt use of existing stocks of the vaccine...") (110502)

stepping back in time...GULF1.com: "CLINTON and SADDAM" by Robert L. Pappas, Col. USMC (Ret.) (September 19, 1998) (Reposted July 21, 2003)

stepping back in time....RPC.SENATE.GOV: "Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia Into Militant Islamic Base" (011697)

"HUSTLER: The Clinton Legacy" by Joe Sobran

CONGRESS ACTION: "TEAPOT DOME AND NUCLEAR MISSILES" by Mr. Kim Weissman (012002)

WorldNetDaily (Human Events) article by Tim Carney: "U.S. TAX DOLLARS BUILD NUKE PLANT IN CHINA Clinton Deemed Government Loan 'in the national interest'"

"THE YEAR OF THE RAT: How Bill Clinton Compromised American Security for Chinese Money"

SNIPPET: ""I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," Clarke told CBS."

Yep. That's a heck of a brilliant statement. (/sarcasm off)

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html