Wes Clark Claims Richard Clarke Allegations "not Political" (Today Show this-dog-won't-hunt alert)

[governsleastgovernsbest]

For once, let's start with the conclusion, then get to the facts. Conclusion: the allegations by Richard Clarke that the Bush administration was asleep at the switch when it came to fighting terror pre-9/11 will not have a significant negative impact on W's re-election prospects.

The Dems have given it their best shot, starting with last night's appearance by Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes, and continuing this morning with an appearance on the Today Show of Kerry surrogate Wesley Clark.

And the reliably liberal Norah O'Donnell, in her set-up piece before the interviews of Condi Rice and Wes Clark did her best to hide Richard Clarke's Clinton ties. She never mentioned that Clarke was in the Clinton administration. At very end of he piece she alluded to the fact that he was involved with anti-terror "for a decade" but didn't put that in the political context. You might say she mentioned the fact to build his credentials as an expert rather than to expose his political bias.

Here's the case against the political significance of Richard Clarke's statements: First, he presented them in blatantly political manner. The clip shown on Today this morning shows Clarke animatedly asserting that it is "outrageous" that W is running for re-election on the basis of strong leadership on national security, whereas he in fact did a poor job.

So Clarke himself immediately casts his allegations in a political context. Given that he was a long-time member of the Clinton admin who was a hold-over in the Bush administration, his bona fides as a neutral observer are very questionable.

Next, there is the Dems problem with people in glass houses not throwing stones. As Condi Rice pointed out in her interview with Matt Lauer, Richard Clarke was the anti-terror czar during the the first bombing of the WTC bombing, of the Khobar towers, the Cole, the US embassies in Africa and most of the advance planning for 9/11. Yet he and the Clinton administration did little or nothing to stop or react to any of them.

The deluded Wes Clark was interviewed by (the ditzy) Ann Curry. Clark tried to keep a straight face - and to give him credit, he certainly didn't blink ;-) - while claiming that Richard Clarke's charges were "not political."

But even the very liberal Curry clearly was not buying. She interrupted Clark on a number of occasions, repeating the charges that Condi had made to the effect that the Clinton administration shared the blame. Clark made a pitiful effort to change the subject, claiming that the Clinton admin's responsibility is "not the question."

Curry then asserted: "but you supported the war against Iraq."

A very agitated Clark shot back: "I never supported the war!" [Well, with the exception of that first statement I made on the first day of my presidential campaign when I said I did. But that was before Mary helped me.]

Curry: "But John Kerry supported the war. He voted for the resolution."

Clark: "He supported dealing with the problem, but not in the way the Bush administration did so."

[rantaway]

unfortunately, folks, Clarke has tons of credibility. worked for both repubs and dems.

i am going to study him further and his history. if anyone has links, i would appreciate them. if this came out of Carville's stained mouth it would be different. i want to take a close look. i hope it isn't true. i'll report back if/when i find anything

[Mo1]

From Amazon it says Free Press

Product Details
Hardcover: 304 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.13 x 9.30 x 6.36
Publisher: Free Press; (March 22, 2004)
ISBN: 0743260244
In-Print Editions: Audio Cassette (Abridged) | Audio CD (Abridged) | All Editions
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 5
(Publishers and authors: improve your sales)

[Quilla]

Fabulous post, presented beautifully. Thank you for watching and sharing your observations. You do us all an incredible service.

I was worried that only Fox was presenting the administration's response to Clarke's ludicrous charges. Dr. Rice did a wonderful job combating these lies this morning.

[MEG33]

#19

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Clarke has tons of credibility.

Have you read the other posts about Clarke on this and other threads? Are you aware that he has close ties to the Kerry campaign and that there is every reason to think that he is an embittered Dem partisan?

I don't like to immediately accuse newbies of being trolls, but I do note that you registered recently and as far as I can tell this is your first post.

[rantaway]

THANKS! looking into it. that helps TONS!

[rantaway]

am reading that now. not my first post but haven't been around much (understanding your concern).

am reading more as we speak. thanks for the heads up

[hobson]

The UN scam will be an ongoing story. There will be tons of connections, deals, payoffs, etc. uncovered between now and the election. The Dems will be running like sceeerd rats to get away from that story.

[TomGuy]

Thanks Mo1. Looks like this is one Dem attack that won't get traction.

This is an atrocity! If those mean Bushies don't stop, Clarke's book won't even sell as many as (or as few) as Jason Blair did. So far, Blair's Burning Down My Masters' House, after 2 weeks of interview plugs on the liberal media, has sold around 3,000 total copies.

lol.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks, Q. I was actually a bit distracted with other matters this morning while watching Today and composing my thread, so I'm particularly glad to read that you found it useful.

[Mo1]

unfortunately, folks, Clarke has tons of credibility. worked for both repubs and dems.

Clark forgot to mention what good friends he is with Randi Beers .. a Kerry adviser and supporter

And from what I am hearing on TV this morning ... Clark has no credibility

[Peach]

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

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Glad I didn't jump the gun with you!

[solo gringo]

If this Clarke was so good he would still be working for Condi Rice.IMHO

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Excellent info, thanks for posting. Let's hope the mainstream media pick up on these facts.

[rantaway]

thanks and a question.

CNN reported this morning that Clarke was a registered Republican.

is he a Bush supporter or no?

thanks again

[Semper Paratus]

FR and the Internet are great. Haven't had my morning coffee yet and Clark has already been sh**canned.

Now onto Hamas.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

is [Richard Clarke] he a Bush supporter or no? /I>

Now you're making me doubt your bona fides again. How could you possibly have read this thread and imagine Clarke is a Bush supporter. Did you read in the initial post that Clarke claimed that it was "outrageous" that Bush is running for re-election on the basis that he has been strong on national security? Does that sound like a Bush supporter to you?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Yes, the collective FR machine really ground Clarke up and spit him out this morning, didn't it!?

[roses of sharon]

Funny how this Clarke guy has been commentating all over since 9/11, with Nightline ect.

And he suddenly has "new revelations"?

The Dem and their media are like the Arab media. They lie to incite hate.

BTW, WHERE ARE THE CRIES OF NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING BY MCCAIN?

Shouldn't he be on every channel defending Bush as he does Kerry?