The 9/11 Record1600 vs. Richard Clarke.(White House official response)

I did a search and did not see where this had been posted. Good rebuttal.

1 posted on 03/22/2004 10:06:54 AM PST by KJacob

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

2 posted on 03/22/2004 10:07:42 AM PST by Peach

3 posted on 03/22/2004 10:08:56 AM PST by Peach

4 posted on 03/22/2004 10:09:26 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)

Great post KJ.

Clarke is a liar. He stated on 60 minutes that Clinton met with Tenet and Freeh on a day to day basis. A lie.

5 posted on 03/22/2004 10:10:12 AM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)

Thanks for this excellent post.

6 posted on 03/22/2004 10:10:34 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)

7 posted on 03/22/2004 10:11:18 AM PST by LiteKeeper

8 posted on 03/22/2004 10:11:53 AM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)

The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was "tired of swatting flies" and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qa'ida, rather than simply waiting to respond.

See..the libs are right.

It's obvious now that the only reason 9-11 occurred was in response to our intended offensive. If we had left them alone they would never have attacked us.
oops..just thought, we did leave them alone and they still attacked us.

How can that be? I'm so confused ;-)

9 posted on 03/22/2004 10:14:49 AM PST by evad (Such an enemy cannot be deterred, detained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed)

10 posted on 03/22/2004 10:14:49 AM PST by Calpernia (http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm)

11 posted on 03/22/2004 10:15:50 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)

Bump-a-rooni!

This is a most excellent dissertation on the willingness of the left to misstate facts to get ahead politically. Of course it all depends on what the definition of terorrism is...

12 posted on 03/22/2004 10:29:59 AM PST by RedWing9 (No tag here... Just want to stay vague...)

13 posted on 03/22/2004 10:38:23 AM PST by FreedominAmerica

President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence.

AWESOME response.

14 posted on 03/22/2004 10:38:31 AM PST by Naspino (HTTP://NASPINO.COM)

To: FreedominAmerica

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

No. It takes a village to raise a liar. :-)

15 posted on 03/22/2004 10:43:38 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)

To: FreedominAmerica

I'm new here. I'm a little puzzled. Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

Please don't flame me. I'm trying to understand.
******

Clarke may have been a Republican in the past.
He was a career diplomat starting in 1973 - retired with 30 years in civil service. He was not a poitical appointee, who had to get approval from the senate, and who could be removed by the admin who appointed him.

If you stick around FR for a little while you will read numerous examples of leftist lying attacks. The fact that Clarke is lying, is teaching a course with Randall Beers 9Kerry's foreigh policy advisor), and is defending the Clinton administration, does not mean that all liberals are liars. The two ideas are just simultaneously correct.

16 posted on 03/22/2004 10:45:24 AM PST by maica (World Peace starts with W)

Thanks for those links Peach!

17 posted on 03/22/2004 10:47:18 AM PST by PogySailor (Proud member of the RAM)

To: Peach; marron; Kenny Bunk

Simple to attack Clarke.

Focus on his comment that Condi Rice appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda. Condi should come out saying the statement is absurd and insulting.

The statement is ridiculous, most Americans, let alone security officials, had heard of AQ. Remember the Cole?

Clarke's a nut, and his statements only make sense in a Kerry environment where he's trying to detach Iraq from 12 years of experience there, with the sanctions, bombings, no fly zones, etc. all for political purposes. Call them on it.

Clarke's as much a nut as the Treasury official. Overthrowing Saddam was express government, Kerry-approved law since the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

18 posted on 03/22/2004 10:54:38 AM PST by Shermy

To: FreedominAmerica

I believe he was a holdover from the clintoon admin.

19 posted on 03/22/2004 11:01:54 AM PST by mathluv (Protect my grandchildren's future. Vote for Bush/Cheney '04.)

To: FreedominAmerica

Clarke's claims are based on half truths and hysteria. Just because someone states they are 'Republican' really doesn't mean they are. It's their record, and clearly Clarke is a liberal. Notice how Clinton was never brought up in the interview, or the facts that terrorism happened during his administration, BTW, the Clinton Administration did nothing to stop terrorists, and had at least THREE opportunities where they could have gotten bin Laden. The media would like to rewrite history, claiming all the bad things that have happened from 9/11 onward are a direct result of the Bush Administration alone, conveniently forgetting all the attacks which happened during the Clinton Administration.

Here

and here

PS, welcome aboard!

20 posted on 03/22/2004 11:12:58 AM PST by Indy Pendance

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