Hardball Tonight: Clarke - 9/11 Might Have Been Prevented

MSNBC ^ | Updated: 3:35 p.m. ET March 31, 2004 | Alex Johnson

[ironman]

NEW YORK - Richard Clarke, President Bush’s former chief counterterrorism adviser, said Wednesday that it was possible that he and his team could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks if the Bush administration had paid more attention ahead of time to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.

Clarke’s comments, in an hourlong interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” were a departure from the testimony he gave last week before the independent commission investigating the attacks, when he answered no to the question of whether there was “the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11” even if everything he had called for had been implemented.

But Clarke told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he hoped he and his team would have been able to take action to quash the attacks, which killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, had the CIA and the FBI sufficiently coordinated the bits and pieces of information they had about the 19 Saudis who hijacked four planes and crashed them in the worst attack on U.S. soil.

Acknowledging that he was indulging in “20/20 hindsight,” Clarke said it was likely that he could have made a difference had he known that some of the hijackers were in the country ahead of time and had drawn suspicion. The full interview is scheduled to air today at 7 p.m. ET on MSNBC-TV.

[ladyinred]

I cannot stomach one more sentence from this traitor to this country.

[Trueblackman]

Yes Yes 9-11 could have been prevented, but the outcry of federal officers stroming airplane nationwide and dragging of Arab men would have been deafening from puppet groups like the ACLU, NAACP and other professional protest and democrat puppets. Should have Could Have Would have.

[Mo1]

I take it this is the right thread??

[Howlin]

Everybody over here for the live thread!!!

[onyx]

Present and thanks.

[doug from upland]

With a condom, Clarke could have been prevented.

[Cold Heat]

OK!

What is the fuss?

We gonna rip up the Clarke Bar?

[Wolfstar]

Clarke's assertion that the Clinton administration placed a higher priority on fighting terrorism is belied by their reaction to the attacks on our embassies.

If you'll permit a little "correction:" Clarke's assertion that the Clinton administration placed a higher priority on fighting terrorism is...laughable.

[firewalk]

okay

[Howlin]

Right. After all, Gergen and Isikoff are SO fair and balanced!

Mabye they could get Christina van whatever he name is, too!

[prairiebreeze]

I cannot stomach one more sentence from this traitor to this country.

Me neither. But here is a quote from a Democrat former NSC colleague, Coit Blacker that disputes Clarke:

"I'm uncomfortable with the charge that somehow the Bush people ignored or didn't treat in a serious way the fact that this country was under major threat from terrorist organizations," said Coit Blacker, a former National Security Council (NSC) official who was special assistant to President Clinton.

"I just don't think that's right," Mr. Blacker said. "They may not have been sufficiently attentive to what Dick thought they needed to know, but that's not the same thing as taking a cavalier attitude toward the threat."

The thread about it is here.

Prairie

[MNJohnnie]

I don't have a problem with anything Clarke is saying. My problem is that the mainstream media promotes his words as gospel and uses them in the media inspired inquisition of Bush. I also am pi$$ed the media promotes his book that would have went nowhere without their help.

Me too, just sent another donation to the Bush Camp. They are going to need all the help they can get given how the DNC directed "News Media" has pulled out all the stops to smear Bush.

[Howlin]

Oh, that's a Clinton guy, too!

Wasn't there one yesterday from a guy who was actually in the Situation Room with Clarke on 9-11?

[MNJohnnie]

Sending them an email does have a cathartic effect. I wish someone in the Administration or the media would pick up on the fact that the number of casualties inflicted by AQ prior to 9/11 were huge. Clarke attempts to minimize the damage prior to 9/11 by citing just the US deaths. The property damage was also in the hundreds of millions. Clarke knows the causus belli was well before 9/11 and he should assume some of the blame for our policy.

Actually I think they should just back off an let Clarke and the media hang themselves. When they stuff like "well only 36 people dies on Clinton's watch" they look petty, childish and irrational. The MORE exposure Clarke gets, the MORE the Media hyperventilates about Clarke the LESS the Average Voter takes them seriously. I suspect that Bush's numbers at the end of April will be higher then right now MAINLY because of Clarke. For the average voters there is the for Bush Crowd and the Anti-Bush crowd and having wacko hate filled bigots like Clarke and MoveOn.org linked to Kerry does NOTHING to help Kerry with the Political Middle

[Peach]

Without going through the whole "Bush at War" book by Woodward, I'd be interested in knowing the entire quote attributed to President Bush that he wasn't focused on terrorism pre-9/11.

Does anyone have that quote handy?

[MNJohnnie]

I really like this quote from the MSNBC article:
Clarke’s testimony was considered so damaging that the White House agreed Monday to allow the commission to question Rice in public and under oath, reversing course after insisting that she should not have to do so to protect the president’s executive privilege.


Oh yeah, it was so damaging that Bush is UP to 51% in the latest Pro Democrat POST CLARKE CNN/GALLUP poll. OH my MR DNC Media, please don't inflict any more such damage on President Bush.

The media clowns still do not get it. The bulk of the American people neither like nor trust them.

[Wolfstar]

The more he talks, the loonier he looks, IMO. He's taking on that Captain Queeg demeanor now.

Absolutely! Partly because I was in the middle of moving when this story broke, and partly because I didn't want to polute what's left of my brain (post-move) with the blatherings of a bitter Leftist bureaucrat, I've paid virtually no attention to this story. Which is to say I've gotten news about it in the same way the vast majority of Americans usually get their news — in bits and pieces as events of the day sort of wash over them while the TV or radio is on in the background of their lives.

Even paying such sparse attention, the strongest impression that came through to me was that this guy is a mean, bitter, near-anonymous DC bureaucrat who hung around the fringes of power long enough to acquire too high an opinion of himself. I keep wondering if the idea for doing a book was his own, or if someone approached him and offered a fat deal (read bribe) if he'd come up with something to rock the Bush administration.

Doing it on your own can take upwards of a year or more to develop a book proposal, shop it around, get a contract with a publisher, write the manuscript, self-edit it, have the publisher's editor work on it, get it on the publishing schedule, get it printed, bound and out to bookstores, and arrange for a book tour. (Of course, if someone connected to a publisher approaches you to do a book, the first several steps are unnecessary.) When did Clarke leave his government job?

[Mo1]

It's On!!!

[Howlin]

And I am FURIOUS already.

He said that Cheney testifying with Bush would "help him" remember some of the answers.

[EllaMinnow]

What an ASS!