Richard Clarke, Fraud

1 posted on 03/22/2004 3:56:32 AM PST by kattracks

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.'' He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection," and in a very intimidating way.

Just how does this turkey figure that the above makes his case that the Bush Administration insisted that he come up with a report that blamed Iraq for 9/11?

He seems obsessed that the Bush Admin was looking at Iraq before 9/11. Well what the hey - Iraq was not complying with a boatload of U.N. resolutions and the Klinton Admin had actually let them kick the inspectors out. It would have been naive and irresponsible to not look at Iraq.

2 posted on 03/22/2004 4:07:44 AM PST by trebb (Ain't God good . . .)

Amazing how good the Clintonites' hindsight is now, considering they had their heads up their hind-ends on terrorism for 8 years.

3 posted on 03/22/2004 4:08:21 AM PST by TomGuy (Clintonites have such good hindsight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)

In late 2000, I vaguely recall that the Bush team wasn't in a transistion mode with the Clinton administration, because of the stupidity going on in Florida.

4 posted on 03/22/2004 4:10:13 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke)

5 posted on 03/22/2004 4:13:05 AM PST by Jonx6

He seems obsessed that the Bush Admin was looking at Iraq before 9/11.

He and everyone else on the left were/are obsessed that Bush was making plans of going into Iraq if/when Al-Qaeda would strike a target in the US. It's the machinations of the conspiracy nuts of the left winged kooks.

6 posted on 03/22/2004 4:13:30 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke)

Clinton Administration were soft on terrorsim for eight years. Bush Administration got tough on terrorism within eight months.

7 posted on 03/22/2004 4:43:37 AM PST by Milligan

Bob Woodward in his book Bush at War was given unprecedented access to the president and his administration, including Clarke. Clarke did not mention his concerns about a "focus on Iraq."

The Bush administration was continuing the Clinton administration's foreign policy which called for regime change in Iraq.

Iraq's involvement in supporting terrorists is longer than I can post her but some of the more obvious: Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. Paying Palestinian bomber's families. Salmon Pak where terrorists used a real airplane to learn how to hijack OUR planes.

Clarke claims that Condi Rice didn't even know who Al Qaeda was. I'm nearly falling on the floor laughing. The entire world knew UBL was a threat when he was interviewed in a world exclusive interview, by CNN's Nic Robertson in August of 1998, televised in it's entirety to the world via CNN and CNN International and when he famously repeated his jihad against America.

Just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.

Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.

Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:

"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."

The list of excuses seemed endless:

"Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.

"Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was.

"Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process.

"Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

And what about President Clinton? According to what Clarke told Miniter, he rejected the attack plan. Instead Clinton twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.

Clarke offered a chillingly prescient quote from one aide who agreed with him about Clinton administration inaction. "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?" said the dismayed Clintonista

8 posted on 03/22/2004 5:39:35 AM PST by Peach

John Kerry > Rand Beers > Richard Clarke

Tinker > Evers > Chance

Yeah, I'm an old guy.

9 posted on 03/22/2004 5:47:25 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)

He seems obsessed that the Bush Admin was looking at Iraq before 9/11.

First O'Neill, now Clarke. There's just one little problem.

No one ever recalls that, during the first months of the Bush admin, most foreign affairs media coverage was focused on SADDAM'S INCREASINGLY BELIGERENT ATTACKS ON U.S. PLANES ENFORCING THE NO-FLY ZONES! Wouldn't that partly explain Bush's focus on Iraq?

10 posted on 03/22/2004 5:53:42 AM PST by Timeout (Down with Donks!)

To: BigSkyFreeper

In late 2000, I vaguely recall that the Bush team wasn't in a transistion mode with the Clinton administration, because of the stupidity going on in Florida.

Excelent point. They were too busy removing the "W"'s off of the computer keyboards in spite to be concerned with passing along vital national security info.

11 posted on 03/22/2004 5:57:51 AM PST by machman

President Bush is paying a high price for his (or someone's) decision to tolerate the left wing hangers on that he inherited from previous administrations. Even with all of the political treachery that has come to light he still tolerates many of those who have no interest in supporting anything other than a leftist agenda. By holding these people over he has given them credibility and guaranteed that they could stab him in the back at the first opportunity.

12 posted on 03/22/2004 6:05:42 AM PST by FreePaul

It was very sensible, given that Iraq hid the terrorist behind the first WTC bombing, to ask Clarke to make SURE Iraq wasn't behind 9/11.

Also, in the book The New Jackals by Simon Reeve, it was noted that Iraq went on its highest state of alert with its military two weeks prior to 9/11 and Saddam sent his family into his most secure bunker where Saddam himself went and didn't emerge until mid-October.

13 posted on 03/22/2004 6:17:44 AM PST by Peach

The Clinton administration, willing or unwillingly, from either ineptitude or outright fear they woukld have to confront it, let Bib Laden and his band grow in strength.

A gun was pointed at America's head. Several rounds had been fired successfully. Yet Clinton, the master pol slept.

Besides, he was too busy bombing Yogoslavs, and installing corrupt leaders like Aristide, in trying to form a legacy that only the UN would love.

14 posted on 03/22/2004 7:02:51 AM PST by CT (Clinton Soup: kleptocracy, with a few hundred extra dashes of treason and wanton deceit.)

The Clinton administration, willing or unwillingly, from either ineptitude or outright fear they woukld have to confront it, let Bin Laden and his band grow in strength.

A gun was pointed at America's head. Several rounds had been fired successfully. Yet Clinton, the master pol slept.

Besides, he was too busy bombing Yogoslavs, and installing corrupt leaders like Aristide, in trying to form a legacy that only the UN would love.

15 posted on 03/22/2004 7:03:09 AM PST by CT (Clinton Soup: kleptocracy, with a few hundred extra dashes of treason and wanton deceit.)

You forgot to mention that he was busy playing with an intern.....

16 posted on 03/22/2004 7:06:31 AM PST by jveritas

17 posted on 03/22/2004 7:07:14 AM PST by Peach

Bush said he would and did reach across the isle to work together with the Dems. QUESTION: Has any hold over or Dem appointee NOT bit him in the hand? They have proven and keep proving they are nothing but garbage.

18 posted on 03/22/2004 7:08:50 AM PST by Lowell (QUESTION!)

To: BigSkyFreeper

I recall liberals telling me during Clinton's rule that Bush I was a fool not to take Saddam. That was because Clinton the master pol would, and thus get credit for removing a scourge.

When all is said and done, I am convinved Clinton would have removed Saddam if he had the cajones. The only problem is, being a liberal, he figured lobbing a few Tomhawks - the use of as much to distract Americans from Monica as to try and send Saddam running - was pure wishful thinking on his (their) part.

9/11 is the indelible stain on Clinton's legacy, as much as the famous stain on that blue dress.

19 posted on 03/22/2004 7:09:34 AM PST by CT (Clinton Soup: kleptocracy, with a few hundred extra dashes of treason and wanton deceit.)

These people never cease to amaze me. They sell their credibility(assuming they ever had any) for 15 minutes of fame.

20 posted on 03/22/2004 7:24:49 AM PST by hobson

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794