[nutmeg]

ping!

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[Lucky2]

By the sounds of the statements this guy is making, I'm quite sure he's on the clinton payroll. He's lying to get kerry elected and the clinton's name cleared. It's all about legacy you know!

[NYC GOP Chick]

Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke said Sunday that President Clinton would have been more likely to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks than President Bush, because he took the threat posed by al Qaeda more seriously.

Then why the HELL didn't he?! They were planning this as far back as 1999 -- before Bush was even a candidate!

Oh, I forgot about Clintigula's grand Black Ninja Plot. Yeah, that sure makes me feel safe...

[Pres Raygun]

The Democrats are obviously desparate and Clarke's actions will hurt them dearly in the end. Clinton did nothing in 8 years, while Bush in eight month had put together a plan to go after Al Queda by overthrowing the Taliban. This put blame directly on Al Gore and the DNC who recklessly delayed the Bush transition by dragging the election results through court after court. Surely Al Gore knew the perilous times we lived in. Then we forget how the Democrats dragged their feet on Bush's appointements throughout the first few months of the Bush administration. These delays probably delayed the implimentation of Bush's plan to go after Al Queada. I've always found it interesting that 9/11 occurred just days before Bush's plan was to go into effect. Did someone in the administration tip off Al Queada? If so it had to be someone who was a holdover from the Clinton admisinistration since, only the cabinet posts were filled by Bush appointees. Someone who was intimately aware of the government's anti-terrorism efforts. I wonder who that could be?

[capydick]

"In December 1999" said Clarke, "every day or every other day, the head of the FBI and the head of the CIA and the attorney general had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack."

So - they went to the White House, sat in a room together and reported to whom? It's been established like Clintigula did not meet with these people on a regular basis - so, who ran these meetings? Also - if true (which I doubt) - it seems like a pretty juvenile way to conduct National Security business.

He said the meetings forced Clinton officials to return to their agencies and "shake the trees" for evidence of the plot.

Again - a pretty juvenile way to take care of the nations security.

In the months before Sept. 11, however, Clarke said Bush did nothing similar.

Because President Bush is not juvenile and, he's got people with real experience on the case now. Please step aside Mr. Clark - you are in the way.

[dirtboy]

Clarke, do you seriously believe that the Clintonistas would have acted more vigorously against al Qaeda, when this was their response to the Cole bombing?

Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on Bin Laden

Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.

Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:

"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."

The list of excuses seemed endless:

"Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.

"Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was.

"Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process.

"Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

And what about President Clinton? According to what Clarke told Miniter, he rejected the attack plan. Instead Clinton twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.

Clarke offered a chillingly prescient quote from one aide who agreed with him about Clinton administration inaction. "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?" said the dismayed Clintonista.

[bondjamesbond]

"In December 1999" said Clarke, "every day or every other day, the head of the FBI and the head of the CIA and the attorney general had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack."

In December, 1999, every police agency in the World was on alert because of the coming Millenium celebrations. The US knew full well that the celebrations in NYC and other major US cities were a terrorist magnet of the first order. Clinton quite properly formed a task force to deal with this potential threat.

And the LAX bombing was twarted by an alert Border Guard in Port Angeles, Washington, who spotted a terrorist coming off of the Victoria/Port Angeles ferry. A search of the vehicle revealed explosives and timer mechanisms. The questioning of this suspect broke the LAX case.

Now unless this particular Border Guard had been going to the White House every day for a briefing, I don't know how Clinton can claim credit for the fact that she did her job so well that day.

[ZULU]

Clark was a Clinton appointee and is also tied in with Kerry. The jerk who interviewd him on 60 minutes last night did a knife job on Nixon and helped Hillary.

The whole thing is a set-up.

[Eva]

I have posted this so many times that I am getting tired of it.

Clarke would not be able the disclose the truth about classified information. He would on the other hand be able to publish lies which the Bush administration would be constrained from refuting except before the partisan 9/11 committee where their testimony would be twisted to use against them. Since the administration has declined to give anything but limited testimony, the Democrats have produced this book to spin their version of events. This was a technique used often during the Clinton impeachment to make accusations against the Star team.

[PogySailor]

Well I sure hope the Bush administration has learned it's lesson and finally cleans out the remaining Clinton holdovers. Just turn them out. Now.

(not holding my breath)

How long before Tenent decides to cash in and get a book deal?

[wjcsux]

The best thing Clarke could do at this time is keep his mouth shut. Wvery time he says something, he looks even more like a moron.

[petercooper]

Doubt it. I think Bubba had other things on his mind..

[weegee]

He would have prevent 9/11? Just like he prevented the embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, et al?

Lying liar using the DNC talking points.

President Clinton told America that the greatest threat to national security was the extreme right wing. The ones who listened to "talk radio" and were "behind" the Oklahoma City bombing and a "rash" of church fires that he had the FBI investigate.

Bubba got hummers while deploying troops and sold technology secrets to Communist China. As long as 9/11 did not happen on his watch he could be a good armchair quartback. The 1993 WTC bombing did occur on his watch and we have 8 years of policy to see how he dealt with international terrorism.

Clarke is a lying scumbag.

[sport]

Like he prevented the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

I hate to confuse clark with facts but the planning for the WTC and Pentagon attacks begin in 1996.

Guess who was President then?

Hint: It was not George W. Bush.

Another thought. By studying the patterns of Presidential elections one could reasonably deduce that in good times, the Party that was in power could reasonable expect its nominee to be voted in on election day. The democrats were in power.Their nominee was al gore. The part[ies] planning the attack would have expected al gore to be President.

The party of parties planning the attack knew:
1. They had attacked U.S. Embassies [an act of war in and of itself] without reprisal.
2. They had attacked, and almost sunk, a United States Naval Man o' War and no reprisal was taken.
3. They had previously attacked the WTC without reprisal.

They read in every major newspaper and heard on the Alphabet news organizations:
1. President Bush is a dunce.
2. President Bush does not have enough sense to get out of the rain.

They thought:
We will attack them again and they will not respond.

They were wrong.

Their allies, the democrats have been aiding and abetting them ever since.

The blood of every service man and woman killed since the organized resistance stopped rests squarely on the heads of the democrat political party.
Why should th