Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 26, 2004 23:57:47 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2004 23:57:47 GMT -5
I'd be interested to hear some people's take on all of this.
I, for one, don't find the Bushies at all responsible for failing to stop 9/11. But I do believe their focus has always been on Iraq. And the world is a more dangerous place now because of this misplaced focus.
I also can't stand how this Administration releases their dogs on anyone who dares to criticize them.
They are not being honest. Plain and simple. (And this Medicare scandal is going to bite them in the ass.)
|
|
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 0:36:36 GMT -5
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 27, 2004 0:36:36 GMT -5
Clarke should tell the truth. Not only is he trying to sell his book but he's also looking for a Position in a Kerry administration by attacking the Bush administration. Clarke is still bitter he wasn't given a promotion by Bush. Let Condi Rice testify!
There's a lot of blame to go around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 0:42:44 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 0:42:44 GMT -5
Clarke should tell the truth. Not only is he trying to sell his book but he's also looking for a Position in a Kerry administration by attacking the Bush administration. Clarke is still bitter he wasn't given a promotion by Bush. Let Condi Rice testify! There's a lot of blame to go around. C'mon, BiK. None of that stuff is true. Bush, himself, in Woodward's book, said he wasn't focused on al Qaida. Again, to me, the important thing that is being said is not that they didn't prevent 9/11, it's how they have reacted to it. Trashing Clarke isn't going to get to the truth.
|
|
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 0:54:56 GMT -5
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 27, 2004 0:54:56 GMT -5
C'mon, BiK. None of that stuff is true. Bush, himself, in Woodward's book, said he wasn't focused on al Qaida. Again, to me, the important thing that is being said is not that they didn't prevent 9/11, it's how they have reacted to it. Trashing Clarke isn't going to get to the truth. Clinton wasn't focused on Al Qaida either. Again there is enough blame to go around. His focus on the Bush administration is questionable. How can we trust him when 2 years ago he sang a different tune?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 0:58:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 0:58:38 GMT -5
Remember this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:07:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 1:07:15 GMT -5
Clinton wasn't focused on Al Qaida either. Again there is enough blame to go around. His focus on the Bush administration is questionable. How can we trust him when 2 years ago he sang a different tune? I'm not going to defend Clinton. 2 years ago he was asked to present a favorable view of his employer. I think he explains it better: THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true? CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading. The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office. Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern. So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did. Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing. THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy? CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect. THOMPSON: OK. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption? CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case. THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case? CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make. THOMPSON: Are you saying to be you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public, and that you went ahead and did it? CLARKE: No, sir. Not untrue. Not an untrue case. I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents.
|
|
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:07:48 GMT -5
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 27, 2004 1:07:48 GMT -5
May 2001, Sept 2001. Doesn't seem like much time to me. Clinton is ultimately to blame. Clinton was a great politician but a poor President. His lack of a response to the terrorist attack on the USS Cole gave Al Qaida a green light. It didn't help that he didn't care too much for the CIA. His actions during his Presidency could've kept GW from having to react during his.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:09:58 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 1:09:58 GMT -5
And this:
"I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance.
I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.
To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.
And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to take your questions. "
|
|
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:10:58 GMT -5
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 27, 2004 1:10:58 GMT -5
I'm not going to defend Clinton. 2 years ago he was asked to present a favorable view of his employer. I think he explains it better: THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true? CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading. The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office. Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern. So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did. Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing. THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy? CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect. THOMPSON: OK. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption? CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case. THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case? CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make. THOMPSON: Are you saying to be you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public, and that you went ahead and did it? CLARKE: No, sir. Not untrue. Not an untrue case. I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents. Clarke will have A LOT to answer for. Don't expect the GOP leadership to be cordial to that opportunist. He can only speak out of both sides of his mouth for so long.
|
|
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:13:58 GMT -5
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 27, 2004 1:13:58 GMT -5
And this: "I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance. I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to take your questions. " What hypocrisy! how dare he play on the emotions of those people. Has he no shame? Fwiw I saw his act, he's full of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:17:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 1:17:02 GMT -5
And then later in the testimony:
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story.
The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them.
In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did.
I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America.
CLARKE: I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:20:59 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 1:20:59 GMT -5
What hypocrisy! how dare he play on the emotions of those people. Has he no shame? But the Bush campaign ads are OK, right? Why can't you accept the fact that the man certainly appears to be sincere? Why can't he apologize to the families? No one else in the Bush Administration has, that's for sure. And for you to blame 9/11 on Clinton is even more absurd than blaming it on Bush. All I know is that I would have rather had Clinton (or Gore) in office when it happened. Bush's reaction was simply wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:22:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 1:22:19 GMT -5
Oh. By the way, Cheney's Commission NEVER EVEN MET.
And he has the gall to say Clarke was "out of the loop."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 1:25:45 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2004 1:25:45 GMT -5
Clarke will have A LOT to answer for. Don't expect the GOP leadership to be cordial to that opportunist. Why would I expect that? I have seen very little indication that Hastert (especially) and Frist even know what "cordial" means. The Republican Leadership has one mode: Search and Destroy. Cheney, Hastert, Frist, Delay--God help us.
|
|
|
Clarke
Mar 27, 2004 2:03:35 GMT -5
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 27, 2004 2:03:35 GMT -5
Why can't you accept the fact that the man certainly appears to be sincere? Why can't he apologize to the families? And for you to blame 9/11 on Clinton is even more absurd than blaming it on Bush. All I know is that I would have rather had Clinton (or Gore) in office when it happened. Bush's reaction was simply wrong. Appears to be sincere? Lol ! It's all an act. If he was sincere he would have made the apology a long time. Face it (R)uffda, Clarke is an opportunist. He is interested in 2 things..... Promoting his book, and a position in a Kerry administration. And as far as Gore and Clinton is concerned, had they been in office, The Taliban would still be in control of Afghanistan and Al Qaida would still be actively training terrorist. Democrats lack the testicular fortitude to protect America, they are WEAK!
|
|