CLARKE'S COLLAPSE

New York Post ^ | 3/25/04 | RICH LOWRY

[kattracks]

March 25, 2004 -- DEAN Acheson famously titled his memoir of his years as secretary of state after World War II "Present at the Creation." Anyone close to Richard Clarke these last few days could write a memoir called "Present at the Self-Immolation." Rarely has a former public servant with such a sterling reputation shot it all away so quickly.

[NYCVirago]

Jeff Greenfield said tonite that Clarke's testimony today will do great harm to the president because he's a republican. The spin has begun in earnest and we must not let our guard down for one moment.

I know -- I heard an ABC News report on the radio emphasizing him being a Republican. Sickening, isn't it?

[kcvl]

Yes Chris was spitting he was so worked up over "Bush trashing Clarke". Yeah right. It was Clarke who was trashing Bush. How they can turn facts around to suit themselves is beyond me. They think we get our news from them. I guess that is why his show is a big whopping .05 in viewing.

[Qwinn]

That's interesting.

Here's his political donations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Clarke%2C+Richard&txtState=VA&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N

Both persons in questions were running for office as Democrats, one in Missouri and one in Minnesota.

Qwinn

[Mo1]

Yeah right. It was Clarke who was trashing Bush. How they can turn facts around to suit themselves is beyond me. They think we get our news from them. I guess that is why his show is a big whopping .05 in viewing.

It's an old play out of the Clinton Game Book

What they fail to realize is ... it ain't 1992 or 1996 anymore

Thanks to Al Gore .. We got the Internet :0)

[Mo1]

According to his testimony today, he only registered as a Republican in 2000, and, as you pointed out, that was to vote for McCain

I wonder if it was to help split the conservative vote in the Primaries?

And why didn't Sid mention who Clarke voted for in the general election??

[kcvl]

And GOOGLE! lol!

[Mo1]

*L* .. yep .. that too!!

[Kozak]

Clarke in 2002 knocked down the idea that there was irrational animus toward the Clinton team on the part of the Bushies that blinded them to the necessity of strong counterterrorism. He offered himself, kept on as a holdover from the Clinton administration, as a refutation: "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me."

And here the Bush team is do some criticism, for not recognizing what a creature this slimeball was. Should have shown the door on inauguration day, along with Tenant and Mineta.

[NYCVirago]

I wonder if it was to help split the conservative vote in the Primaries? And why didn't Sid mention who Clarke voted for in the general election??

I think your assumption is correct on the McCain vote. Clarke is claiming that he voted for Bush in the general election, but I'm not buying it. As I posted in another thread on this, he sounds like a freeper troll, emphasizing that he's a Republican, yet claiming with a straight face that Clinton's No. 1 priority was terrorism. Heck, I don't think even Clintonistas would claim that! Clinton's No. 1 priority (besides the obvious) was the economy. And if Clarke really believed that Clinton was so focused on terrorism, then why didn't he vote for Gore, Clinton's successor?

Not to mention Clarke saying that we need to understand why the terrorists hate us -- that's something a peacenik lib would say, not a Republican. It just doesn't pass the smell test. We freepers are very experienced with figuring out when somebody is pretending to be a Republican; unfortunately, the media isn't!

[The Raven]

The worst thing is EVERYONE in the media is siding with CLARKE as being correct since he is anti-Bush. Neither Clinton nor Bush thought al Q would hit us at home and our defenses reflected that.

Turns out - Clarke thought the same thing.

[The Raven]

[kcvl]

Fox Reports Exposes Clarke Lies; Indictes Media, Clinton Administration

[kcvl]

Kyl questions attacks on Bush team in Clarke book


Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
Mar. 25, 2004 12:00 AM


WASHINGTON - Richard A. Clarke's attacks on the Bush administration may help boost his book sales, but they are "not a full or fair assessment of the views I know he held," according to Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.

Clarke, the former counterterrorism official with the administrations of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, previously testified before a Senate subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security that Kyl heads.

"Dick Clarke appeared before my subcommittee during both the Clinton and Bush years, and I know his concerns about the government's response to terrorism long preceded the current administration," Kyl said.

Kyl said he is surprised Clarke is saving his sharpest rebukes for the Bush administration in placing the blame for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, rather than the Clinton team.

"Indeed, if we're going to start assessing blame for 9/11, then one must consider that the Clinton administration had eight years to confront the al-Qaida threat and the Bush administration less than eight months," Kyl said.

Kyl then extended this challenge: "Until Dick Clarke produces his detailed strategy memo that would have toppled the Taliban government in record time, captured or killed two-thirds of known al-Qaida leaders, bolstered dramatically intelligence-sharing here at home and assembled one of the greatest global coalitions in history to go after terrorists all over the world, I'll find it hard to believe he had a better plan for fighting terrorism than George W. Bush."

[ThirstyMan]

Both persons in questions were running for office as Democrats, one in Missouri and one in Minnesota.

Thanks for the scholarship. This helps us understand..."by their fruits you will know them."

[kcvl]

October of 2000:

RICE: Osama bin Laden, do two things, the first is you really have to get the intelligence agencies better organized to deal with the terrorist threat to the United States itself. One of the problems that we have is a kind of split responsibility, of course, between the CIA in foreign intelligence and the FBI in domestic intelligence. There needs to be better cooperation because we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory.

[kcvl]

Clarke's Terror Contentions Close to Absurd
By Frank Salvato
March 25, 2004

Richard Clarke's new book, as related in his interview on 60 Minutes, accuses the Bush Administration of being so inept that anyone who isn't legally blind can see it is politically motivated. In a book released suspiciously close to an election cycle, the former counterterrorism official, a holdover from the Clinton Administration, comes out swinging at the President and his inner circle while going very light on his former boss, Bill Clinton. He does this even though Clinton was responsible for a plethora of oversights regarding al Qaida including botching several opportunities to have Osama bin Laden's head on a plate. So, much to the liberal-left's dismay, this can only be viewed as another disingenuous and deceitful hatchet job by the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, and the liberally biased elite media, a tactic all of them have used many times in the past.

In excerpts from his book, and during an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, Clarke claims everything that came out of the Bush White House after September 11th was focused on Iraq. This is a strange contention at best. Clarke speaks as if no one remembers the events of that day. I am here to say he is sadly mistaken.

I remember quite clearly watching the news that day. How could it be avoided? I remember being glued to the news stations feeding on every bit of information the media had to offer. I recall learning bit-by-media-fed-bit that our government targeted Osama bin Laden and al Qaida as the ones responsible for the attacks and that they even approached the Afghani government quite quickly about his whereabouts. I remember reports of it being conveyed beyond a shadow of a doubt to the Afghani government the severity of the repercussions should they be harboring bin Laden and his inner circle. And I remember the Taliban spokesman denying any knowledge of al Qaida or Osama bin Laden even as al Qaida issued statements of responsibility.

I remember President Bush addressing the nation for the second time that fateful day to explain who did this. At no time did I ever hear the words "Iraq" or "Saddam Hussein" but from the media. If the Bush Administration truly wanted to lay blame at the feet of Saddam Hussein for September 11th why would they have even mentioned bin Laden, al Qaida, the Taliban or Afghanistan? Conversely, if they wanted to lay the blame at the feet of Saddam Hussein why wouldn't they have centered the President's speech to the American public that day on Hussein's government and Iraq? It doesn't add up.

Clarke accuses National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice of being ignorant to the fact al Qaida actually existed. This comes as quite a surprise seeing as she had mentioned the terrorist organization in lectures on terrorism prior to her White House service. Enough said about that.

He accuses Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of saying on September 12th there were no good targets in Afghanistan and that there were better ones in Iraq. Anyone who understands the way the Pentagon works at Rumsfeld's level can see through this statement. When a Secretary of Defense gets orders to achieve a battle plan he calls upon his Joint Chiefs of Staff who in turn call upon the best within their respective branches of the armed forces to construct several battle scenarios. With all the intelligence the Pentagon had from the decade-plus war between the Afghan Rebels and the former Soviet Union and even from providing limited and covert support to the Taliban regime in their fight against our Cold War foe, it would be inconceivable that we wouldn't know almost every site worth hitting in Afghanistan. As Operation Enduring Freedom proved, there were plenty of targets in Afghanistan, so Clarke's assertions are at the least puzzling and at best fraudulently spun.

Clarke said in his interview with 60 Minutes that, "The President dragged me into another room, along with a few other people, and asked me to find out whether Iraq was involved." This statement made me raise an eyebrow. The questions have to be asked, why would a sitting President of the United States have to drag anyone into any other room than the Oval Office or the Situation Room, probably the most secure rooms in the world, in order to have a sensitive conversation? Where would the President have "dragged" Mr. Clarke? A broom closet? A super-secret invisible room that no one else knows about? The room that Bill Clinton used to molest Monica Lewinski? As with the Pentagon, anyone with the slightest shred of understanding of how the White House works knows the President just doesn't go around "dragging" people into side rooms and clandestine closets in order to talk secretly to them unless he has the scruples of a slug, a cigar and no intentions of talking at all. The idea that Clarke was "dragged" anywhere is suspect at best.

This book looks to be something of a "C.Y.A." attempt in light of the fact Mr. Clarke was the counterterrorism expert in the Clinton White House. During the eight years he spent in that position we saw the first World Trade Center bombings, the bombing of US embassies around the world, the bombing of the USS Cole, the proliferation of al Qaida throughout the Muslim world and the repeated failure to capture Osama bin Laden even though foreign countries were offering him up on a sliver platter. If I were Richard Clarke and I had presided over such incredible failures in counterterrorism I would be looking for a scapegoat as well.

The assertions made in Richard Clarke's book, and especially the timing of its release, are so suspect and transparent in their motivation it is laughable. The mainstream media has gotten so used to stuffing inane garbage and political sensationalism down our throats it seems they have missed the moment many of us got bored with the headlines in the checkout lines at the supermarkets and opted for truth in news. While Clarke's assertions may be laughable, what is not laughable and is in fact quite sad and infuriating is that the mainstream media would give face time to someone so politically jaded. What is even more sad and more infuriating is that there are those out there who will choose to believe this because they have embraced hate toward President Bush; one trick political ponies who hate because they don't have the courage to embrace what needs to be done to make our world safer.

The Bush-haters and the liberal-left in this country, and around the world, would be making a huge mistake by embracing the bitterness of Richard Clarke. At best his accusations are nothing more than opinionated rage from someone who not only is an ardent John Kerry supporter and outspoken opponent of the Iraqi military action but someone who is trying to sell a book during a small window of opportunity in time. Alleged facts that are based in opportunism are seldom ever based in reality as well. It is time for the liberal-left to vilify those who spew hatred toward the President. They are starting to look more foolish than ever.

[kcvl]

Criticism From Kerry

The Kerry campaign has made similar criticisms of Bush as Clarke. The organization yesterday sent out a fund-raising letter signed by retired General Wesley Clark, 59, who ended his campaign for the Democratic nomination on Feb. 11.

Bush, the letter says, ``took us to a war we didn't have to fight and distracted us from our focus on the most dangerous threat -- al-Qaeda.''

Kerry, who is in his fourth term in the U.S. Senate, hasn't commented on Clarke's book. He got a copy while on vacation in Idaho and said yesterday he was still reading.

``It's very interesting,'' Kerry told reporters traveling with him. ``I have to finish it before I say anything.''

The independent political group MoveOn.org, which says it is working to defeat Bush Nov. 2, sent out an e-mailed statement yesterday that it plans to use Clarke's testimony in ads.

Clarke told the commission that he voted in the Republican primary in Virginia in 2000. He also noted that he was giving public testimony under oath and said, ``I will not accept any position in a Kerry administration, should there be one.''

Republican lawmakers said they aren't worried about Clarke's statements or the publicity over his book.

``It's political bottom-feeding,'' U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters on Tuesday. Bush's ``credibility has not been impugned.''

[kcvl]

Congressman Casts Doubt on Clarke's Credibility
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
March 24, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, a Republican congressman noted that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism -- and Richard Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."

"When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," wrote Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) in a March 24, 2004 letter to the national commission investigating the terrorist attacks.

Shays said the commission might find the information about Clarke relevant, given the fact that Clarke was testifying on Wednesday. Clarke made headlines this week after blasting the Bush administration in various media appearances and interviews.

Clarke, in a newly released book, accused the Bush administration of ignoring his warnings about al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks; and he also accused the administration of bungling the war on terrorism by invading Iraq, instead of concentrating exclusively on nabbing Osama bin Laden.

"Clark was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat," Shays wrote to the commission on Wednesday.

He also noted that "no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."

In fact, said Shays, his subcommittee was "so concerned about Mr. Clarke's narrow view of the terrorist threat" that the subcommittee wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, to express its concerns about Clarke.

Shays is chairman of the House Government Reform Committee's National Security Subcommittee.

[listenhillary]

Clarke's fundraising letter for J. f'n Kerry

Dear John McCain (email sign up name)

I love this country. That's why after proudly serving it for 34 years in uniform, I just can't sit by and watch much of what I've fought for slip away. I believe in the promise of America. I know our best days are still ahead. And I know that we need John Kerry in the White House to help restore the promise of this great nation.

Join me today and pledge your support for John Kerry.

https://contribute.johnkerry.com

Over the past three years, we've watched George W. Bush squander so much that we've worked to build. At a time when we need unity at home and abroad, President Bush's policies have been divisive.

This is not the time for reckless unilateralism in matters of foreign policy or national security. This is the time for an experienced, battle-hardened leader to put our campaign against terror back on track. John Kerry is that leader. He will win the peace in Iraq and fight terrorism around the world.

The last few days, we've been raising money to help John's campaign in an effort we call, "Come Together: $10 Million in 10 Days." It's been the most successful fundraising drive in our party's history: almost $9 million in nine days. And why? Because Americans believe we need new leadership. George W. Bush has had three long years to take our country forward, and instead he's moved us back. He could have done more to keep us safe before 9/11. After 9/11, he took us to a war we didn't have to fight and distracted us from our focus on the most dangerous threat -- Al Qaeda. In the process, he has damaged American credibility, run up enormous budget deficits, and jeopardized our children's future. That's why so many Americans are saying, "Your time is up, Mr. Bush."

So here's my challenge to you: send a donation right now to help me bring us to $10 million today. Send a message to George W. Bush that we're not going to let him play politics with national security. Give John Kerry the resources he needs -- today -- to stand up to the Republican mean machine and fend off their distortions and negative attacks.

https://contribute.johnkerry.com;

I urge you to support him today with a contribution of $25, $50, or $100 to fuel our fight to take back the White House. America needs John Kerry. And John needs you.

Thank you.

[listenhillary]

Sorry above text - from WES Clarke