So why is Clarke telling all now?

Newsday ^ | 3-23-04 | James Pinkerton

[truthandlife]

Richard Clarke has published a devastating critique of George W. Bush's national security policy. Of course, the allegations might not be the whole story, because lots of other people have their stories too. So it's a good thing that we have an ongoing investigation, in which people could go to jail if they lie.

In a bombshell appearance on "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Clarke set forth the three arguments in his new book, "Against All Enemies."

First, he asserts that the administration "ignored" the threat from al-Qaida right up to 9/11. Second, he argues that even after the attack from Osama bin Laden's forces, many in the administration wanted to ignore bin Laden's hide-out in Afghanistan and go after Iraq instead. Indeed, Clarke continues, the administration wrongly targeted Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Third, the president, having done a "terrible job" prosecuting the war on terror, now seeks to be re-elected by shamelessly spinning a three-year record of incompetence and distortion.

That's quite a litany of accusations, but they must be considered in three different lights.

The first light should shine down on Clarke's motivations. Having worked as a civil servant for 30 years, he resigns from the government in 2003. He spends the next year writing this tell-all book, published less than eight months before the presidential election.

Why is Clarke doing it? Is he seeking revenge on the Bush 43 people, who demoted him in 2001 after he'd been working the anti-terror beat at the White House for a decade? Is he trying to whip up a controversy to achieve best-sellerdom? Is he "auditioning" for a job with a hypothetical President John Kerry, as one Bush adviser put it? Or, alternatively, is he what he says he is - an "outraged" citizen, free to speak out against this malignant administration?

[Peach]

Clarke told CBS that there was no link between Iraq and either Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

And yet, on January 23, 1991 he was quoted in the Washington Post on page A02 as saying that intelligence does link bin Laden to Iraq when he said the following:

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa (Iraq) or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

[maestro]

So why is Clarke telling all now?

Same old same old!

"Follow the Money."

[Diogenesis]

NOW:

"Please buy my new book. Why now? Because it lists the "soft sites" to be targetted by terrorists
all around America; and leaks and leaks and leaks US secrets mixed with my delusions.
Yes, my book IS owned by CBS. Did not Lesley Stahl tell you?.
I was the greatest in DC because I use remote viewing; and I see that my
book will one of "the" future terrorist handbooks.
Why now? Don't forget to vote for John Kerry in at least two states, OK?"

---

FLASHBACK:

"Mr. Clarke, Mr. Clarke, this urgent. We can take out Osama. Please!!! We have him in our sight."

Clarke: "Nope. Forgetaboutit. No big deal. They will attack our Apple computers first."

---

PARTIAL LIST OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IGNORED BY CLARKE
AND CONDUCTED BY TERRORISTS SUPPORTED BY CBS (WHICH OWNS CLARKE'S BOOK AS Ms. STAHL REFUSED TO ADMIT)

1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered

[Conspiracy Guy]

Why now? Probably some ketchup money and to promote his book. I'm sure he and his sponsors weren't thinking about this being an election year.

[A. Pole]

That's quite a litany of accusations, but they must be considered in three different lights. The first light should shine down on Clarke's motivations.

When the defense starts with the questioning the motivation of the critic it is usually the implicit admission of guilt. The innocently accused deny the accusations first and only after later look for the motives behind the slander.

[A. Pole]

Clarke told CBS that there was no link between Iraq and either Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. And yet, on January 23, 1991 he was quoted in the Washington Post on page A02 as saying that intelligence does link bin Laden to Iraq when he said the following:

So which time Clarke was wrong? Are his latest charges true or false? What is more important - the integrity of his person or the policy of administration?

[Mr. Bird]

Well, considering the White House released a complete, detailed refutation of Clarke's assertions before the 60 Minutes broadcast, isn't now the appropriate time to question his motivation?

[samtheman]

thanks for the pictures

[Peach]

There are so many links to Iraq supporting not just terrorism in general, but Al Qaeda specifically.

Monsoor Ijaz said today that Clarke knew full well that Saddam and OBL were working hand in glove for years and challenged Clarke to appear on any television show to debate this matter. Practically called the guy a liar.

What Clarke would just as soon we forget:

Okay - here are just a FEW of the links between terrorism and AQ specifically and Iraq.

Read about what the press was saying in the 90's about the links between Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1

Growing evidence of AQ/Iraq link:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts

Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the World:http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

Saddam link to bin Laden:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

The Al Qaeda connections:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

NYT - 1998 - OBL and Iraq agree to cooperate:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts

Document links AQ and Iraq:http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

Iraq and terrorism:http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

WSJ - Iraq and AQ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts

Iraq and Iran contact AQ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts

Proof Saddam worked with AQ: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml

Saddam's AQ Connection:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

Terrorist killed in Iraq after refusing to train Al Qaeda terrorists:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

Osama's Best Friend: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts

Case Closed - OBL and Iraq agree to work together:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Terrorist behind 9/11 trained in Iraq:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1039898/posts?page=154

The Clinton view of Iraq/AQ ties: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

Saddam's ties to terror: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

[A. Pole]

Well, considering the White House released a complete, detailed refutation of Clarke's assertions before the 60 Minutes broadcast, isn't now the appropriate time to question his motivation?

Could you provide the link for this refutation? I do not watch TV, I listen to the radio (primarily conservative talk) and the only thing I heard were the personal attacks on Clarke which left me unsatisfied.

BTW, I do not find his personality so important. If his motives are pure but his accusations are false the second is the ONLY thing that matters. On the other hand if his motivations are vile but his accusations are true, again the second is important.

When you put the national interests on the one side of the scale and personal problems of some official on the other the first should be heavier.

Usually when the defence responds with the personal attacks it is admission of guilt.

[steve50]

Well, considering the White House released a complete, detailed refutation of Clarke's assertions before the 60 Minutes broadcast, isn't now the appropriate time to question his motivation?

These new conservatives can't get in front of a friendly talking head and camera fast enough when a story breaks against them. When asked to place their hand on a Bible, take an oath, and get in front of the cameras for one of the hand picked investigating panels they seem to go silent.

[A. Pole]

There are so many links to Iraq supporting not just terrorism in general, but Al Qaeda specifically.

There are more links pointing to UFO. And USA itself had more links with Taleban than Iraq ever had. And the number of 9/11 bombers who were from Iraq were the COMPLETE ZERO (even if the majority thinks otherwise).

The very reason why Iraq was waging agressive war against Iran (with the support from USA) was that Baghdad regime was more anti-Islamists than America.

[Mr. Bird]

National Review helpfully posted it yesterday. You can find it here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/clarke200403221131.asp

[InvisibleChurch]

for money

[Peach]

There are more links that you are an idiot than that there are UFO's.

[Brilliant]

It can be summed up in one word: partisanship.

[punster]

"Same old same old!

"Follow the Money.""

Good point! It would most interesting to find out if Clarke had received in grants or stipends from George Soros, the Tides Foundation, Teresa Heinz, or their toadies.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

He's just hawking his book. He's already failed in his chosen career.

[syriacus]

Too bad the Dems were in charge of the Senate Select committee on intelligence before 9/11. Perhaps things would have been different if Jim Jeffords hadn't defected.

Looks like Bob Graham dropped the ball.

Pakistani President Meets US Congressmen Agence France Presse , August 28, 2001: )

Bob Graham (D-FL), chairman of the US Senate select committee on intelligence, is assured by Zaeef* that "that the Taliban would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country."

(*Abdul Salam Zaeef was ambassador to Pakistan from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban)