Clarke in '02: Bush Admin Began Counterterror Plan in Jan. '01 (Clarke Caught!Fox Exclusive!)

FoxNews ^ | 24 Mar 04 | Jim Angle

[xzins]

WASHINGTON

[BlessedByLiberty]

Thank You, just stepping in briefly. This is absolute exposure of the partisan media and more proof that Clinton diddled whenever America burned.

[MrB]

DUmmies probably won't turn on Fox News, it scares them too much that there is a voice out there that isn't supporting their weakassed ideology.

[Dane]

The only question remaining on this matter is this:

What sort of troll is JohnGalt?

Is he a DUummie zombie?

Or is he from the Buchanonite Bund?

Is there a difference between the two?

[Republican Red]

Clarke testified under oath a few times in front of Congress with a story more closely matching the Fox interview than his new book. Senator Chambliss was on Fox & Friends this morning asking why his testimony didn't match what he wrote in the book.

[ladyinred]

Surely this will be played or read when he tesi-lies at the commission on bashing Bush?

[Signalman]

Rush discussing this NOW!

[Sabertooth]

We have an answer to the question:

What falls faster than Howard Dean?

[My2Cents]

My question is why would someone come out and make the comments that have been made this past week, knowing full well there is videotape contradicting those comments? I guess the answer is the hallmark answer to everything "Democratic" -- ARROGANCE.

[Steve_Seattle]

Does the administration have any friends on this commission, or just a bunch of Arlen Spector-types who want the media to like them?

[Indy Pendance]

This is the clinton legacy....

[Amntn]

"His publisher should sue for fraud."

I would imagine that it was his publisher and the Clinton's idea to come up with this book in the first place. It fits thier m.o. to hit the press first before damaging information can come out, in the hearings, about his failures.

[Wolfstar]

Yep, but let's see if it's reported in the Slimes.

Forgive my monumental skepticism and cynicism, but it's not likely to be reported anywhere except Fox News, talk radio, internet sources, and non-Leftists newspapers like the Washington Times and the New York Post.

In other words, the vast majority of the American populace — who do little more than skim the surface of news events (if that much) — will have already gotten the message via "mainstream" media that the Bush administration was somehow at fault for not preventing 9/11. But the more in-depth information, such as this interview, will totally escape their attention.

The laziness of the average American as regards civic affairs, combined with the power of the Leftist "mainstream" media to shape public opinion, is putting us all in grave danger, in my opinion.

[Republican Red]

Made Newsmax: DRUDGE You Awake Yet?

Clarke On Tape: Bush Administration Planned to Eliminate al Qaida

In addition to Richard Clarke's praise of President Bush in Clarke's own resignation letter, the former counter-terror czar contradicts himself, while speaking on tape to reporters in 2002, and actually defends the Bush administration.

He details how the new administration changed existing plans on how to deal with al Qaida and increased covert operations funding "five-fold."

Clarke told reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle, who posted a transcript of the tape on foxnews.com, back in 2002:


"There was no plan on al Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

The Bush administration was briefed on the existing plans and strategy regarding Afghanistan, among other things, that the Clinton administration had in place.

The Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaida."

Once the administration was fully in place, in March or April - because of the election debacle - the new administration, "then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaida over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaida."
The 9-11 commision hearings have unfortunately beciome the 'beat witnesses over the head with Richard Clarke's book' hearings, but now at least this new evidence suggests that Mr. Clarke may simply be wrong in his recollections for his book

[Pippin]

Me too!

[StarFan]

So this was not an exclusive interview with Fox? Other media reps were present?

Yes, according to Fox it was a WH briefing meaning CBS, ABC, NBC and other biased reporters were present but none have come forward. Speaks volumes.

[namvetcav]

You appear to not understand the "on background" concept. Reporters can't publish background. They will get burned forever if they burn the backgrounder with a direct attribution by name. Fox had to get cleared by the White House. They "own" the background "rights". It certainly helps the White House, but your position is simply an unsupported political smear that shows you don't know very much about what you talk about.

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, this was a briefing, not an interview. Other members of the press outside of Fox were present. This was a "backgrounder," in which the speaker answers questions from the press, but is not to be quoted absent permission from the White House. (That permission was given yesterday.)

John / Billybob

[Mamzelle]

Now--some dectective needs to look into any possible connection between Clarke and Soros. This was such an amateur production...it looks and sounds like Soros small-time big-bucks...

[epluribus_2]

NICE TRY 'RATS!

[MeekOneGOP]

More proof that Clarke is a liar and a phony. And in his own words to boot! LOL

Yeah, really ! Way to go, Jim Angle (FOX News reporter) !

Clarke in '02: Bush Admin Began Counterterror Plan in Jan. '01
(Clarke Caught! Fox Exclusive!)

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.