[js1138]

placemarker

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Howlin , do you have a ping list?

[thackney]

BTTT

[Dolphy]

The fact is, when he had the authority and responsibility to craft U.S. counterterrorism policies, he consistently failed to articulate a cogent strategy or plan to Congress.”

Having authority and responsibility really paralyzes people like Clarke. They prefer just talking about how well they would do something or how much they know.

[betty boop]

His answer: “No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment, I know the threat.”

To say the very least, Clarke is an exceptionally arrogant man, even for a Washington politico/bureaucrat type, who all tend to be arrogant. Thanks for the post, cricket.

[Peach]

The issues are too important for the RNC to let the DNC play games the way they have been.

The RNC needs to keep up the pressure and take it to the people and bypass the liberal filter.

Couple this with the White House trying to declassify Clarke's private testimony to the 911 Commission and see if he committed perjury AND Condi Rice's scheduled interview on 60 Minutes - we're getting someplace!

The leftists will regret making Clarke their go to guy and the presstitutes will be shown for the mere stenographers they are.

[lilylangtree]

Clarke is demoncRAT posing as a Pub. Rec'd this a.m. the following email where Clarke donated only to demoncRATS in the last decade.

Insight on the News - National
Issue: 3/30/04

Records Show Richard Clarke Gave Only to Democrats
By J. Michael Waller

Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President George W. Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats.

Clarke is suspected of using his former post in the Bush White House as a weapon with which to slash and wound the president during his re-election campaign against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). The Kerry campaign's coordinator for national security issues, Rand Beers, has described Clarke as his "best friend." According to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where Clarke and Beers are adjunct lecturers, they teach a course together about terrorism. Clarke's detailed Harvard biography specifically mentions his service under President Ronald Reagan and the elder President Bush, but says nothing about his eight years working for President Bill Clinton.

During the 9/11 commission hearings this week, Clarke denied any partisan leanings. "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raised it," he told Commissioner John Lehman, pointing out that he, like Lehman, had served in the Reagan administration. "The White House has said that my book is an audition for a high-level position in the Kerry campaign," he said. "So let me say here, as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration, should there be one." He said he was a registered Republican in 2000.

But what about this presidential election year? According to FEC records, Clarke has been giving his money to Democratic friends -- not Republicans -- running for national office.

In 2002, while still on the Bush National Security Council (NSC), Clarke gave the legal maximum limit of $2,000 to a Democratic candidate for Congress, Steve Andreasen, who tried to unseat Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota. Andreason had been director for defense policy and arms control on the Clinton NSC. In making his donations of $1,000 on July 22 and another $1,000 on Nov. 7, 2002, Clarke listed his occupation as "U.S. Government/Civil Servant," according to FEC records indexed with the Center for Responsive Politics.

Clarke maxed out again in the 2004 election cycle, donating $2,000 to another Clinton White House veteran, Jamie Metzl, who is running as a Democrat for Congress from Missouri. Metzl was a staffer on the Clinton NSC and worked for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) as deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With that donation, made on Sept. 15, 2003, after his resignation from the Bush NSC, Clarke listed his occupation as "Self-Employed/Consultant."

FEC records show that Clarke reported no political contributions when he worked in the Clinton administration in the electoral cycles of the 1990s and 2000, when he said he was a Republican.

J. Michael Waller is a senior writer for Insight. An in-depth story about Clarke will be posted at Insightmag.com on Monday.

[cyncooper]

Read the letter Shays submitted to the 9/11 commission in advance of Clarke's appearance.

Also included is a copy of a letter he sent to Clarke in the summer of 2000 admonishing him for his demeanor and conduct when he appeared before Shays' committee, and a letter Shays sent Dr. Rice on *January 22, 2001* (two days after GWB was inaugurated) informing her of his concerns about Richard Clarke:

http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

[hchutch]

Well, well...

Shays jumps in. And on the right side of something for once...

[Cicero]

It's not enough at this point to show Clarke up as a clintoid liar. Not enough people will see it. He has to be ground into the dirt and convicted of perjury. Nothing less will do to reverse some of the damage and discourage more clintonoids from doing the same thing.

But the big mistake was keeping these jokers on in the first place. If and when Bush gets re-elected, he MUST get rid of all these traitors in his administration. This guy NEVER should have been kept on. He was politically treacherous and incompetent at his job. So, why was he retained?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related thread:

Goss Questions Truthfulness of Clarke’s 2002 Testimony- could launch investigation soon

[GeorgeWashington777]

Read the letters! And Rush has a link posted to them on his Web site!

This absolutely without a doubt refutes everything and anything we've heard from this man and the former administration that they had a plan and Bush failed to act on it!

This shows this man to be a liar with no credibility and these whole hearings to be a sham! I mean without a doubt we all know there was serious intel failures, but for this man to be saying what he's saying, and then to read these letters from the subcommitee on terrorism and intelligence to and from him in 2000.

I've yet to hear one thing in the media on this! All that Fox or any of the major media has to do is show these letters from the subcomittee before 9/11 to the public and this would completely lay to rest who this man is!

And that the former Administration not only didn't have a plan, but that this man is a lying POS!

I looked everywhere on all the news programs last night to see if this would be brought up and revealed. Nowhere did I see it! O Rielly, and many others are still giving this man credibility! Why? I'm just completely disgusted!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

A good link here:

FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR RICHARD CLARKE'S LEGACY OF MISCALCULATION

Posted by --- Jim Robinson.

____________________________________________________________________________________

FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR RICHARD CLARKE'S LEGACY OF MISCALCULATION
securityfocus.com ^ | Feb 17, 2003 | By George Smith

Posted on 03/19/2004 4:52:05 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation

The outgoing cybersecurity czar will be remembered for his steadfast belief in the danger of Internet attacks, even while genuine threats developed elsewhere.

The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.

September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction.

Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender.

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

Instead of combating terrorists, Clarke would be left to wrestle with corporate America over computer security, a match he would lose by pinfall. Ridding the world of bad guys and ensuring homeland safety was a job for CIA wet affairsmen, the FBI, the heavy bomb wing out of Whiteman Air Force Base -- anyone but marshals in cyberspace.

Information "Sharing" and Cruise Missiles
The Slammer virus gave Clarke one last mild hurrah with the media. But nationally, Slammer was a minor inconvenience compared to relentless cold weather in the east and the call up of the reserves.

But with his retirement, Clarke's career accomplishments should be noted.

In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.

Trying his hand in cyberspace, Clarke's most lasting contribution is probably the new corporate exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. Originally designed to immunize companies against the theoretical malicious use of FOIA by competitors, journalists and other so-called miscreants interested in ferreting out cyber-vulnerabilities, it was suggested well before the war on terror as a measure that would increase corporate cooperation with Uncle Sam. Clarke labored and lobbied diligently from the NSC for this amendment to existing law, law which he frequently referred to as an "impediment" to information sharing.

While the exemption would inexplicably not pass during the Clinton administration, Clarke and other like-minded souls kept pushing for it. Finally, the national nervous breakdown that resulted from the collapse of the World Trade Center reframed the exemption as a grand idea, and it was embraced by legislators, who even expanded it to give a get-out-of-FOIA-free card to all of corporate America, not just those involved with the cyber-infrastructure. It passed into law as part of the legislation forming the Department of Homeland Security.

However, as with many allegedly bright ideas originally pushed by Richard Clarke, it came with thorns no one had anticipated.

In a January 17 confirmation hearing for Clarke's boss, Tom Ridge, Senator Carl Levin protested that the exemption's language needed to be clarified. "We are denying the public unclassified information in the current law which should not be denied to the public," he said as reported in the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News.

"That means that you could get information that, for instance, a company is leaking material into a river that you could not turn over to the EPA," Levin continued. "If that company was the source of the information, you could not even turn it over to another agency."

"It certainly wasn't the intent, I'm sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity," replied Ridge while adding he would work to remedy the problem.

Thanks for everything, Mr. Clarke.

George Smith is a Senior Fellow at GlobalSecurity.org, a defense affairs think tank and public information group. He also edits the Crypt Newsletter and has written extensively on viruses, the genesis of techno-legends and the impact of both on society.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Clarke is not only a lier, apparently he is also too lazy or too stupid to write up an antiterrorism plan.

[There's millions of'em]

marker

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Clarke just tries me crazy!

I have got to go do some work.

[aimhigh]

placemarker

[Grampa Dave]

http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2004/march/clarke.pdf

The above link is for those who might want to Chris Shay's letter to the liar Clarke.

[freethistle]

Actually the bi-partisan Hart-Rudman Report was a 2-year endeavor to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with terrorism. It was initiated in 1998 when Clinton was in office through the Department of Defense.

Newt Gingrich was part of it.It was completed at the end of January 2001, so it was being done during Clinton's term but delivered to President Bush.

Bush decided to not implement it, as was his right. He appointed Vice-President Cheney to head a new task force to draw up a comprehensive plan. (I think that was in Spring, 2001. I remember reading about it).

I think Cheney just hadn't had an opportunity to begin work on it before 9/11 happened.

The Hart-Rudman Report contained the recommendation for creating the Department of Homeland Security-I don't remember what else was in it.