Skip to comments.
Clarke’s criticism should provoke debate (The Washington establishment is out to get Bush)
winfieldcourier.com ^
| March 22, 2004
| winfieldcourier.com
Posted on 03/22/2004 9:30:00 PM PST by Destro
EDITORIAL - Clarkes criticism should provoke debate
The Bush White House must not be surprised by the criticism of Richard Clarke, President Clintons counterterrorism coordinator, whom President George W. Bush kept on in a lesser capacity.
In an interview on CBSs 60 Minutes Sunday, Clarke said Mr. Bush set out to make the case against Iraq immediately after the attacks of 9/11.
Clarke quotes the president from a meeting between the two: Iraq! Saddam! Find out if theres a connection, the president said, according to Clarke. Mr. Bushs tone was intimidating.
Although the CIA and the FBI knew al Qaida was based in Afghanistan and there was no known connection between al Qaida and Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq, according to Clarke.
There arent any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq, Clarke reported Rumsfeld as saying.
Clarke is scheduled to testify Tuesday before the panel investigating 9/11 and whether it might have been prevented.
In spite of his own involvement with previous administrations, and in spite of the timing and partisan overtone of his criticism, Clarke deserves credibility.
He was a career anti-terrorism expert in the government. He could have quietly faded away. He has a lot to lose by attacking the president in this way. Clarkes bold criticism shows courage and is driven, in part at least, by outrage at the presidents decision to campaign on the Iraq-9/11 connection.
No doubt the White House counterattack on Clarke will be bold as well. Clarke looks like a heavyweight, however, and debunking his attack may not be as easy as spinning the criticism of former Treasury Secretary Paul ONeil into sour grapes. Both men represent highly placed, high profile, highly motivated dissent from President Bushs post-9/11 strategy. They appear to be trying to provoke a national debate on that strategy. We should take them up on it.
This document was last modified March 22, 2004 and is copyright © 2004 by the Winfield Publishing Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; glabalist; richardclarke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
To: MEG33
Yep, if true, all he asked Clarke to do was to look! Isn't that the "connecting of the dots" the libs DEMANDED after 9/11?
I find it interesting that today it was reported Libya again was way ahead of where our "intelligence" thought they were. They have 20 TONS of mustard gas.
But when Bush concluded Iraq was a danger with all kinds of intelligence from every source on the planet, he's wrong because we haven't found "stockpiles".
I heard a true IDIOT on the Hannity radio show today say "how could those stockpiles be moved to Syria without our knowledge". DUH! Probably because those stockpiles could have fit into Saddam's spider hole.
Idiots on the left just can't fathom reality and facts and physics. Just ask one if the Earth is closer or farther from the Sun during winter in North America and have fun laughing at their total stupidity of basic fact.
21
posted on
03/22/2004 11:53:27 PM PST
by
Fledermaus
(Ðíé F£éðérmáú§ ^;;^ says, "John Kerry is an admitted War Criminal and should thus be in jail"!)
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
I heard someone interviewed today that worked under Clarke.I can't recall which cable program,He heard the question Bush asked(I did not know of the timeline discrepancy) and declined to answer if Clarke was unduly "pressured" though pressured to do so.
The President asking the question was a responsible thing to do,Clarke's framing it as an unspoken command is quite another.I don't believe Clarke's underling thought undue pressure was implied by the President just by reading the man's demeanor.
22
posted on
03/23/2004 12:23:14 AM PST
by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
To: MEG33
Kiss and tell makes interesting tv viewing to most people. The issues involved mean nothing.
23
posted on
03/23/2004 1:06:40 AM PST
by
meenie
To: meenie
I believe the information gleaned from the 911 investigation is important,though coming during an election year,I fear it will be more fingerpointing and CYA than a way to discover how we can help prevent such an attack in the future.
Mr Clarke's publishing a book at this moment just before his 911 commission testimony and doing the "circuit" doesn't add to his credibility.Larry King will have him on right after his testimony and we all know how tough Larry is on his guests/sarcasm.
24
posted on
03/23/2004 1:37:40 AM PST
by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
To: Destro
Clarke is a sniveling ineffectual bureaucrat who was demoted during a time of great import to our country.
It is like being the parking lot attendant at the wedding of your boss after telling everyone you were one of the in-crowd.
25
posted on
03/23/2004 2:58:43 AM PST
by
Enduring Freedom
(Guess How We Ended Japanese Kamikaze Attacks?)
To: Enduring Freedom
The story behind Clark's claims should be FOLLOW THE MONEY! His claims against Bush's WOT don't make sense.....he spent 8 yrs. in the Clinton WH swamp where NOTHING of value was done about the terrorist threat. Now he's blaming a President who IS fighting the terrorists??? I smell money somewhere in this picture - and not just from book sales.
26
posted on
03/23/2004 3:15:43 AM PST
by
Elkiejg
(Clintons and Democrats have ruined America)
To: Elkiejg
Joe Wilson, Rand Beers and Richard Clarke leave the Bush camp. All supposedly having some type of "experience" in counter terrorism. Rand Beers and Joe Wilson are now working for the Kerry campaign as "advisers". Do we see a pattern here? /sarcasm. How long will it be before we hear that Richard Clarke has joined the Kerry camp.
27
posted on
03/23/2004 3:28:50 AM PST
by
kcvl
To: Elkiejg
Clarke has the look and feel of a weasel.
He rarely looked his interviewer in the eye.
If someone was a classic Traitor to America, he would be in Richard Clarke's position and act like Clarke.
28
posted on
03/23/2004 3:31:40 AM PST
by
Enduring Freedom
(Guess How We Ended Japanese Kamikaze Attacks?)
To: Destro
"The best mechanism for democracy, whether at the level of the multinational state or that of the planet as a whole, is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves."
Do you believe that a One World Central government will be good for all the people of the earth? Perhaps this one world leader will be a deceptive man with a hunger for power and a lust for the souls of men; perhaps the corruption of this one world leader would lead him to believe that he is better than other men and eventually seduce him and he would destroy and kill his own people as many despots do. A union of nations with a sovereign central government could be responsible for the deaths of more people than abortion has killed and much crueler than you could ever imagine. What if the leader were a communist or cruel despot, history has proved over and over again the woes of centralized government; America's federal government is worse than the state governments in most cases except for exceptions like California and New Jersey and some other churlish democrat run states.
Good intentions pave the road to hell, sovereign nations are much better than centralized government; such a government would cause the people to groan and die early deaths if you did not agree with the lies they espoused. Look at North Korea or China or Russia or the arab nations to see what would be the result of this foolishness.
29
posted on
03/23/2004 3:57:01 AM PST
by
wgeorge2001
(Pr. 8:36 36. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death)
To: MEG33
Well, I agree with that. There was nothing inappropriate about the question, and I thought the suggestion that it was intended as a subtle order was a major, major stretch.
There is actually a problem with the timeline, according to Michael Medved. There is no record of the President being where Clarke said he was when Clarke said he was there.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson