(Clinton) Holdovers in addition to Clarke) Held Up Security Strategy ("MUST READ")

Insight Magazine ^ | March 29, 2004 | J. Michael Waller

[FairOpinion]

"The Clarke drama is a textbook case of why presidents should put their own people in the most sensitive decisionmaking positions and be choosy about hanging on to officials who served in the previous administration, "

BINGO!

====

The article has an error:

"He implies he voted Republican in 2000."

From another article:

"Clarke said he voted for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000, but "I'm not going to endorse John Kerry," Bush's presumptive opponent in November. "That's what the White House wants me to do. They want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign."

http://www.saukvalley.com/286757695738052.bsp

And I think someone posted an interview of Clarke on TV, posting the actual quotes. If anyone remembers it, could you please post the link -- we need to let Insight Magazine know of the error in their otherwise excellent article.

[nutmeg]

ping

[Joy Angela]

The frenzy to get CONDOLEEZA RICE to testify is
meant to degrade our President by giving the Democrats
the power to "call out" whomever they choose.

The other motive is to degrade a potential female rival
that could square off (and expose) Hillary Clinton
when "Her Royal Commie" runs for President.

-The Conspiring Clintons-

An Evil only Satan could love.

[Joy Angela]

Clarke Refused to Testify in 1999,
Citing Same Reasons as Condi
[FR mentioned as first to unearth]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1107531/posts?page=37

[TheSpottedOwl]

Under Clinton, Clarke held a Cabinet-level post as "counterterrorism czar." His powerful position gave him wide-ranging authority to task the intelligence community to focus on specific terrorist threats, and to be the lead point man in developing counterterrorism policy for the president, advising the president and ensuring execution of the policy his way.

Too bad they spent more time trying to sink freedom of speech on the internet, instead of going after real terrorists. Yet another illustrious example of Clinton's legacy...

[StriperSniper]

Excellent article.

[Mike Darancette]

When do Algore and Slick Willie testify under oath?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think he talked about being a Republican and voting for Gore in 2000 on Sunday's Tim Russert show.

[FairOpinion]

Thanks -- with that info I found it. I didn't remember it was Russert.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106797/posts

MR. RUSSERT: And we're back. Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?

MR. CLARKE: No, I did not.

MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.

MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.

MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?

MR. CLARKE: I'm not going to endorse John Kerry. That's what the White House wants me to do. And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?

MR. CLARKE: That's my business.

[PhiKapMom]

Please see that that information makes the rounds of your email lists. It is getting more obvious by the day that the lazy, biased media for the most part are not going to be reporting on factual information. The beltway and NY media seem to prefer reporting democRAT Talking point papers!

[FairOpinion]

Here is another article, where someone who was working side by side with Clarke debunks his lies. And amazingly enough it's in the NY Times.

Colleague of Ex-Official (Clarke) Disputes Part of Account

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1107729/posts

The official, Franklin C. Miller, who acknowledges that he was often a bureaucratic rival of Mr. Clarke, said in an interview on Monday that almost none of the conversations that Mr. Clarke, who was the counterterrorism chief, recounts in the first chapter of his book, "Against All Enemies," match Mr. Miller's recollection of events.

But then he disputed many of the most dramatic moments recalled by Mr. Clarke, from conversations with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to the question of whether another aide in the room was yelling out warnings that a plane could hit the White House in minutes. Efforts to reach Mr. Clarke on Monday through his publisher were unsuccessful.

[fly_so_free]

"The Clarke drama is a textbook case of why presidents should put their own people in the most sensitive decision making positions"

Worth repeating. I believe if you look back at the FR threads from the 2000 election, it was predicted by Freepers that the Clinton hold out people would turn out to be nothing but trouble, especially considering all the corruption of his administration. How could anyone even trust them?

As far as Condi Rice testifying, It looks to me like the rats aren't trying to resolve anything about 9/11, but are trying to blame Bush and the pubbies for it. Unfortunately the press is successfully spinning this to make Condi look bad.

I think now would be a good time to re-visit the memo that Sean Hannity has ( that was leaked to him), about the rats plans to use National Security committee to trash president Bush. As I recall, they came up with a plan (in the memo), that seems very similar to what is going on in the "hearings" today (i.e.find info that makes Bush look bad.)

It's also another example of their (rats) total disregard for our security. I don't think people got it at first, but now it will make more sense to them.

Since the Clintons were so "concerned" about terrorism, Why did they pardon terrorists?

[piasa]

Howlin said he admitted he voted for Gore on Meet the Press.

[piasa]

MAY 20?, 2002 Thursday AM : (IS DASCHLE PLOTTING AGAINST BUSH? ) During his press briefing with Capitol Hill reporters on Thursday morning, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle could barely contain the smile on his face as he discussed what he believed the Bush Administration knew about possible terrorist attacks prior to September 11. "I wouldn't know," Daschle said with a smile, adding quickly that he was never briefed on those issues by the White House, nor did he ever ask. Daschle should be smiling, and White House staffers know why. The initial leaks about the intelligence briefings President Bush received last August came from Democratic staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee, not the FBI or the CIA as some on Capitol Hill would have us believe. According to one knowledgeable Senate source, the Senate and House intelligence committees received some of the briefing material prepared by the CIA for the president's daily review about three weeks ago. This, as part of their ongoing review of the CIA's analysis of potential terrorism threats leading up to September 11.
"It wouldn't be the kind [of intelligence information] the committee staffers would normally see in the course of their work," says the source. "Those briefings are limited to the White House, the President, the Vice President, Condi Rice, senators and representatives don't get those briefings. I don't know if the CIA intended for that material to end up here or not. It might have been an oversight. No matter now, the cat is out of the bag."
According to a senior Democratic Senate aide, the word has been out for more than six weeks that "We have to get Bush," says the source. "Daschle is absolutely desperate. Gephardt, I guess is absolutely desperate. Bush's polling numbers weren't moving down, he was bulletproof. Everyone was under orders to keep their eyes and ears open for anything we could use."
It's not clear whether Daschle was aware of the potentially explosive information prior to its being put in the hands of Washington reporters. "I'd be surprised if he did," says a senior Democratic leadership aide. "It isn't the kind of thing he's want to really see or know about beforehand. But we know someone friendly to our side did the leaking. We knew if we could get something out there, the media wouldn't try to put the leak into political perspective for the public, just the potential for a 'Briefing-gate.' And, as usual, the press did our job for us."- ''We Have to Get Bush,'' American Prowler, 5/20/02 , The Prowler

JANUARY 6, 2003 : (CAPITOL HILL BLUE ARTICLE : DEMOCRATS PLAN CAMPAIGN TO ATTACK BUSH) Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue. A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party. The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt.
In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President’s intentions on the pending war with Iraq.

Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism. “The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media,” one Democratic consultant confided. “No Democratic member of Congress will question the President’s patriotism openly but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts.”
Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB’s parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President’s real intentions, including:

--Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party;

--Claiming the Bush administration has “manufactured” evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq;

--Suggesting a wartime economy is the only way the administration can revive the country’s lagging economic situation.

“It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values,” the talking points say. “To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America’s true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war.”
Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush. “My boss doesn’t want anything to do with it,” one senior Senate aide told Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. “You don’t undermine this country to win elections.”
Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White House and Congress back under Democratic control. “The real war isn’t in Iraq,” one Democratic consultant said. “It’s right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004.”
Among the other points Democrats hope to make in the coming weeks:

--Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are controlled by oil and defense industry special interest groups. --The war on terrorism is a failure because Osama bin Laden is still at large.

--America is unprepared for another terrorist attack because of White House preoccupation with Iraq. --War will increase the country’s economic woes.

--Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the war.

“It’s time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just how dangerous George W. Bush’s policies are to the future of America,” the talking points conclude.
Democratic sources say the talking points were developed by Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt.
“This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched earth campaign,” crows one DNC staffer. “Take no prisoners. That’s how you win elections.” Democratic party spokesmen would not return phone calls seeking comment on this report.
- "Dems Plan to Undermine America to Beat Bush," by Doug Thompson, CapitolHillBlue, January 6, 2003

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bump

[fella]

They are nothing more than another part of the demonrats obstruction plan.

[FranklinsTower]

Bump for future reference.

[Broadside Joe]

"--Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party;
--Claiming the Bush administration has “manufactured” evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq;"

Isn't this called treason?

[Shery]

How does the public go about opening an investigation into this kind of stuff? With the filibustering of judicial candidates, etc. These pols need to realize they are public servants, and WE ARE THEIR CONSTITUENTS!

[Elkiejg]

His top NSC special assistant for intelligence programs, Mary K. Sturtevant, had been on the job only eight weeks before the 9/11 attacks. For months, Sen. Levin personally had held up the confirmation hearings of Bush's appointees who were to design the U.S. antiterrorism strategy - Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Programs J.D. Crouch and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman - refusing for apparently partisan purposes to allow them to take office until late July 2001. While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs - a fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaeda.

Sent to Levin with the added note that the blood of 9/11 victims is on his hands. What a disgusting, evil man.