In his very own words: Clarke discredits himself, over and over again:


Clarke's contradictions

"In hawking his book and testifying before the commission investigating the September 11 attacks, former counterterrorism boss Richard Clarke testified that the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda prior to the attacks. Under softball questioning from a Democratic member of the September 11 panel, former Rep. Tim Roemer, Mr. Clarke asserted that there was "no higher" priority than fighting terrorism under former President Clinton, but that the Bush administration "either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem."
But Mr. Clarke's assertions are contradicted by his own words. National Review editor Rich Lowry, for example, points out that, in his book, Mr. Clarke writes that forcing through a Middle East peace agreement was a higher priority for Mr. Clinton than retaliating for al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole.
Moreover, in a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail to National SecurityAdvisorCondoleezza Rice, Mr. Clarke outlined some of the major steps taken by the Bush administration in the summer of 2001 to put the nation on a higher alert footing in an effort to prevent a possible attack.
Mr. Clarke noted, for example, that on July 5, 2001, representatives of federal law enforcement agencies — including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service — were summoned to a meeting at which they were warned of a possible al Qaeda attack. "Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement (including FAA) knew" of the possibility "that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S. ... and did ask that special measures be taken," Mr. Clarke observed in his e-mail to Miss Rice. More (*)(*)(*)(*)ing to Mr. Clarke's credibility, in an August 2002 background briefing for journalists, reported Wednesday by Fox News, he explained in greater detail all the steps that the Bush administration took prior to September 11 to deal with the growing threat from al Qaeda (see facing page).
Just days after coming into office on Jan. 20, 2001, the Bush administration decided to "vigorously pursue" the Clinton policy of taking covert action, which could include killing Osama bin Laden. In the spring of 2001, Mr. Clarke noted in that background briefing, the new administration decided "to add to the existing Clinton strategy" by increasing five-fold CIA resources for covert action against al Qaeda. At that same briefing, Mr. Clarke also forcefully rebutted the assertion that the Bush administration's approach to the problem was motivated by a general animus toward the Clinton administration. "This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place," Mr. Clarke said. "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me."
Mr. Clarke said that from Oct. 1998 until Dec. 2000, the National Security Council in the Clinton administration failed to make any new recommendations on how to deal with the burgeoning al Qaeda threat. By contrast, in the summer of 2001, Mr. Clarke said, the Bush administration changed U.S. policy from the "rollback of al Qaeda over the course of five years" to its elimination. All of these points, however, are ignored or glossed over in his new book — which depicts the administration as laggards in dealing with the al Qaeda terrorist threat.
The emerging picture of Dick Clarke is one of a political chameleon and an impetuous man who is starved for attention after years of toiling anonymously in government bureaucracies. He points to his service in Republican administrations, and says he was a registered Republican in 2000 (credentials that make it easier to peddle a book bashing a Republican president). But a survey by Insight magazine, a sister publication of the Washington Times, found that his only political contributions in the last decade went to Democrats. T. Irene Sanders, executive director of a research group called the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, described an odd encounter with Mr. Clarke several months ago, after he spoke at a luncheon on cyberspace security (see adjacent letter to the editor,). When she asked him a technical question he could not answer, he responded that they should write a book together, boasting that his publisher, Free Press, does a good job of obtaining publicity for authors.
But Mr. Clarke's enormous capacity for self-promotion and taking liberties with the facts may be catching up with him. Time magazine's online edition yesterday published a blistering review of his book and his endless television appearances. Mr. Clarke, the magazine concluded, has become so shrill in disparaging President Bush that he "undermines a serious conversation about 9/11." Time also criticized "the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it." We wholeheartedly agree. "



http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...1450-2193r.htm

Aren't you done yet??

A Moonie Times Op-Ed piece..

GET OVER IT

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Here we go again. Here's something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is obviously a duck. If something goes against the mantra, the facade, don't discuss it in an honest, logical manner...just insult the bearer of the info. Truebrit, I'm betting you are a real nice fellow, but your own credibility takes a gigantic hit by responding in such a way.

Really, we get the point by now. You don't need to start 5 threads on the same man and topic. You can just keep updating on one or two threads.

Thank you, carry on.

"You're country failed you"

that is all

Big whoop, he was told to write a brief for the media listing the positive things the Bush admistration had done for counter-terrorism, which must not have been an easy thing to do. Now the same people that made him write it are trying to hang him with it, but the fact is no one cares.

Instead of attacking the messanger attack the message, but they cant.

if clarke is not to be trusted then what does that say about the other
presidents who employed him ?
surely they did not all fail to notice that he was untrustworthy

ha ha

Keep peddling JP5, but you're not getting anywhere. Much obfuscation, but nothing that refutes what Clarke testified to.

Colin Powell was asked about Clarke yesterday and he responded that he has known him for many years, that he is an expert in his field, and that he is a very bright guy. He went on to say that there is a lot more to what happened pre-9/11 than what Clarke has discussed, but most pointedly did not refute anything Clarke has said. If it comes to believing Colin Powell or you, I'd say your credibility has a whole big enough for Limbaugh to stagger through.

BTW, speaking of the dancing pig talk show hosts, it's really classy the way they have gone on the attack with regard to the 9/11 victims families. I was wondering if they wear vinyl bibs so that when they foam at the mouth, some of that vitriolic dribble doesn't get on enormous bellies or their white loafers.

oc

Are you kidding? Colin Powell dicredited Clarke under oath. Clarke has claimed that Bush didn't treat the threat of terrorism as "urgent." But Powell read a letter that Bush wrote to Musharaff just 2 weeks into his administration starting the dialogue about terorrism and specifially addressing al Qaeda. Even Clarke in his Aug 2002 briefing, said that Bush began right away to put those carrots out there in front of Musharaff....something that Clarke said he believed led to Musharaff's ultimate cooperation with us.

Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice are all al lot more professional than Clarke is. Of course Clarke is a bright guy. Clarke WAS an expert in terrorism. And of course, as professionals, they would say so. That's why the Bush administration kept him on. But he also did NOT attend Rice's morning STAFF meetings. She has an e-mail that was sent to him by her where she admonishes him for missing so many of those meetings. And Clarke's application for Deputy of Homeland Security was rejected. So, I don't know exactly why he got his nose out of joint....but he obviously has an ax to grind.

Do you think the 9/11 families who are politicizing this....or trying to....should be exempt from any criticism themselves? Remember, not ALL the 9/11 families feel as these partisan, Bush haters do. In fact, a very small percentage feel as they do. In fact, the other day, the wife of one of the pilots who was killed on 9/11, appeared with Bush at a function. Of course, THOSE particular 9/11 families are getting NO PRESS. The partisan families....the ones who insist this must all be Bush's fault and seek only to blame him, defend Clarke and do not even question his inconsistencies. They aren't seeking the TRUTH as they claim. Many of them are members of MoveOn.org. And they had their minds made up BEFORE this commission ever met. They will settle for nothing less than for 9/11 to be blamed on Pres. Bush. It's all about blame; not about fixes.

Since Richard Clarke is the star of the liberal press and media right now....I thought you guys would be interested. Apparently, even some of YOU are getting sick of the man and his inconsistencies.

BTW, why is it we can have more than one thread about Rice....or Bush? How come that seems to be okay with you?