60 Minutes

"My point about Saddam killing his own people is what should have been our reason, along with the simple, very simple fact that Iraq never even began to live up to our treaty requirements. That’s it. No WMD nescessary, nothing else necessary. "

–>Then why didn’t we initiate the invasion prior to 9/11? If that is the only thing necessary, why does everyone on the Rep. side DENY that Bush discussed invading Iraq from day one? Also, if you feel no WMD’s necessary, shouldn’t there be some repercussions toward GWB and friends for swearing up and down that they existed? They were so sure of themselves, and that’s what got the House to sign off on the war. Like I’ve said before, this misinformation holds some more consequences than “I did not have sexual relations…” - and that was supposedly IMPEACHABLE!!!

“Right Side Up - wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic, its hard to decipher via a forum.”

–>Kuri, you should know me by now!

“Your point is exactly why I stopped attending a state school…”

–>What?!?
Silverback, I enjoyed your post, save for the fairly unnecessary insults. That direction does usually doom otherwise nominally progressive threads. Though I disagree with some of what you had to say, I appreciated it.

–>I honestly don’t think the Bush supporters will take Clarke’s testimony (legal or otherwise) as anything more than libel and slander toward the untouchable GWB. All the WH has to do is what they currently are doing–saying “No, that’s not true! He was bitter! He didn’t know what he was talking about!” C’mon guys…

Just for laughs, my sis sent me this.

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude
and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can
you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I
don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied: “You’re in a hot air
balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,490 feet
above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and
100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”
She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I’m
still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been any help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, "you don’t know where you are or where you’re
going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot
air. You made a promise that you have no idea of how to keep, and you
expect ME to solve your problem. You’re in EXACTLY the same position
you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s MY fault.

disclaimer* This poster in no way shares the views of the above statement, nor in any way would try to influence any other reader in any way whatsoever. Actually this poster did not actually post anything… um yea it’s just your imagination or something… um. …

haha…good one.

Where’s BS, BB, and my other regular “rivals”? I’m curious what your thoughts are.

Anyone see Rummy testify today? Tougher questions could have been asked but much of what he did was to blame any pre-9/11 inaction on how slow the confirmation process is, and then use the “I don’t recall” for stickier jams.

Not a stellar performance - the panel was less than satisfied it seems. No surprise that Condi Rice refused to testify and GWB has agreed to only an hour of “visiting” with them.

Rummy from Face the nation:
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Clarke testifies tomorrow so will be interesting to see what light he sheds on the White House version.

Right Side Up, I’m not your “rival.”

Politicized intelligence . . .

By Mansoor Ijaz

LONDON. ? Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism czar for Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, testifies today before the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. He is well-qualified to do so because few individuals over the last decade, inside or outside government, better understood the Islamic extremism threat in all its dimensions. 
But rather than deliver a factual recounting and analysis of intelligence failures and politically charged antiterrorism policies that plagued his years as coordinator for counterterrorism operations, he has chosen to characterize the Bush White House as indifferent to the threat posed by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network prior to the September 11 attacks without consideration for the failures on his watch during the Clinton years. This is inaccurate and adds nothing to our understanding of how distant terrorists could plan and carry out such daring and effective attacks. 
Mr. Clarke's premise that Bush national security officials neither understood nor cared to know anything about al Qaeda is simply untrue. I know because on multiple occasions from June until late August 2001, I personally briefed Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security adviser to President Bush, and members of his South Asia, Near East and East Africa staff at the National Security Council on precisely what had gone wrong during the Clinton years to unearth the extent of the dangers posed by al Qaeda. Some of the briefings were in the presence of former members of the Clinton administration's national security team to ensure complete transparency. 
Far from being disinterested, the Bush White House was eager to avoid making the same mistakes of the previous administration and wanted creative new inputs for how to combat al Qaeda's growing threat. 
Mr. Clarke's role figured in two key areas of the debriefings ? Sudan's offer to share terrorism data on al Qaeda and bin Laden in 1997, and a serious effort by senior members of the Abu Dhabi royal family to gain bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan in early 2000. 
?  Fall 1997: Sudan's offer is accepted by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, then rejected by Mr. Clarke and Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger. 
Sudan's president, Omar Hasan El Bashir, made an unconditional offer of counterterrorism assistance to the vice chairman of the September 11 Commission, then Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, through my hands on April 19, 1997. Five months later on Sept. 28, 1997, after an exhaustive interagency review at the entrenched bureaucracy level of the U.S. government, Mrs. Albright announced the U.S. would send a high-level diplomatic team back to Khartoum to pressure its Islamic government to stop harboring Arab terrorists and to review Sudan data on terrorist groups operating from there. 
As the re-engagement policy took shape, Susan E. Rice, incoming assistant secretary of state for East Africa, went to Mr. Clarke, made her anti-Sudan case and asked him to jointly approach Mr. Berger about the wisdom of Mrs. Albright's decision. Together, they recommended its reversal.The decision was overturned on Oct. 1, 1997. 
Without Mr. Clarke's consent, Mr. Berger is unlikely to have gone along with such an early confrontation with the first woman to hold the highest post at Foggy Bottom. 
U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda 10 months later. Files with detailed data on three of the embassy bombers were among the casualties of Mr. Clarke's decision to recommend missile attacks on an empty Khartoum pharmaceutical plant rather than get Sudan's data out almost a year earlier to begin unraveling al Qaeda's network. 
To this day, neither Mr. Berger nor Mr. Clarke has explained to the American people why a deliberative decision of the U.S. government, made by interagency review, was overturned in such cavalier fashion by a small clique of Clinton advisers in the face of Sudan's unconditional April 1997 offer to cooperate on terrorism issues. If he was interested in facts, why did Mr. Clarke spurn the recommendations of his own intelligence and foreign policy institutions that the Sudanese offer be explored? Why did he not act on the Sudanese intelligence chief's direct approach to the FBI, of which he was aware, in early 1998 just prior to the final planning stages of the embassy bombings? 
?  Spring 2000: Abu Dhabi's offer to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan falls flat. 
In late 1999, after a barrage of threats from al Qaeda's senior leadership against the Abu Dhabi royal family, a senior family member approached the Taliban foreign minister and Mullah Omar to discuss mechanisms for getting bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Mr. Clarke, who enjoyed close relations with the Abu Dhabi family, was brought into the loop early to prevent separation between Washington and Abu Dhabi on such a sensitive matter. 
While Mr. Clarke was skeptical of the idea at first, he played ball long enough to understand the real intentions of the Taliban regime. Smart enough, except when the deal got real. 
As the strategy started taking shape in earnest ? a personal request from President Clinton to Sheikh Zayed, Abu Dhabi's ruler, seeking help to get bin Laden coupled with a $5 billion pan-Arab Afghan Development Fund that would be offered in return for bin Laden taking residence under house arrest in Abu Dhabi, with the possibility of extraditing him later to the United States ? Mr. Clarke again scuttled the deal by opting instead for the militaristic solution. He pushed for armed CIA predator drones to hunt bin Laden in the remote mountains of northeastern Afghanistan. 
Abu Dhabi was left with a black eye. The Taliban became even more aggressive in allowing al Qaeda to plan and carry out terrorist operations from Afghan soil. Another chance to capture the world's most notorious terrorist had been lost. 
Mr. Clarke's selective memory serves no interest but his own agenda. He personifies the politicizing of intelligence by pointing fingers during the political high season for failures that not only occurred on his watch but also were due partly to his grand vision he would one day personally authorize a drone operation to kill bin Laden. 
Mr. Clarke, as he testifies today, should remember he served at the pleasure of the American people. He was appointed to defend us against the very terrorists he repeatedly assessed inaccurately. A grateful nation recognizes the difficulty of his task but we ask that he stick to facts rather than inject vitriol and untruths into a debate that must yield answers to help protect our children in the future. 

Just something to add to the mix…

If it is controversial it will sell, so it will be published. Doesn’t metter if it is fact or not. Presidents don’t sue for libel or slander.

Good point - I wonder why he’d hang so much strong credibility out there to dry to sell a few (million) books a make a few (million) bucks. Tough call, and I think all we can do is speculate. I suppose it is possible, but it also seems possible that he was quite fed up with how things went under GWB and thinks a change is necessary.

BS - I meant no offense, if that’s how it was taken. You’ve been curiously quiet on this thread, that’s all.

Right Side Up,
That’s because I’m still curious about the thread. I honestly didn’t think Clarke has said anything relevatory or damning, or anything that makes Bush’s prescience worse than Clinton’s. He also seemed to have ridiculously inflated his prediction of a plane being hijacked so as to make it like he predicted 9-11.

I don’t know about the book deal. If it’s a factor at all in his motivations, it’s probably a secondary one.

I’m surprised you could brush it off that easily. Seems like a topic you’d have an opinion on one way or another.

I think he’s said, repeatedly, that no one could’ve predicted 9/11, but he has said that the Admin. didn’t give terrorism the attention that it should have, and for that same Admin. to be running on a platform that it is concerned with terrorism seems somewhat hypocritical.

Kuri,

You wrote, “No surprise that Condi Rice refused to testify”

Please read this. Read the whole thing.

HeadlineAlley

She has testified for FOUR HOURS already. There is a White House rule that she CANNOT TESTIFY BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT CONFIRMED.

I agree with Silverback. I am getting tired of the Democrat’s (like Kuri) making inflammatory comments based on feelings and innuendo. Kuri and others make comments that I take as an insult to my intelligence. Instead of researching a topic, they just make some sort of comment and pass it off as fact. Worse, they do not acknowledge their errors. Instead of learning from their mistakes, they just make another ridiculous comment.

Kuri, please prove me wrong. Please read the article and admit that you are in error. I would be pleasantly surprised.

That Ijaz piece greatly overstates and distorts what I’ve heard and read of Clarke. Not surprising coming from someone on Faux News.

Republican Tom Lehman today was remarking that it was a political mistake for Condi Rice not to testify and defend Clarkes statements that she denied him meetings with administration principals early on in 2001.
That is it was a mistake unless Clarke IS absolutely right and the Bushies didn’t consider it an urgent matter.

Other insiders such as Paul O’Neill and Bob Woodard have said the same. In fact Woodard quotes Bush in an interview saying the he didn’t consider it urgent.
Now they are trying to claim it was?
C’mon.

In his testimony, Clarke said terrorism wasn’t “urgent” for Bush in exactly the same way it wasn’t for Clinton. Then, he gave the commission evidence that Bush moved on Clarke’s terrorism proposals faster than Clinton did, and was going to be more aggressive about eliminating Al-Quaeda. Damning, indeed.

As to if Bush or Rumsfeld asked Clarke to work extra hard to see whether there was an Iraq connection to 9-11: So what? But I understand how Clarke was hurt by this. He was the point-man for terrorism who had been talking about Al-Quaeda since the U.S.S. Cole bombing. 9-11 occurs on his watch before his proactive policy recommendations were initiated. He feels sick with the desire to do something to actually better the situation now that all his hypotheticals seem useless next to the grim reality of the Trade Center attack. He rushes to Bush with the info of who he thinks are the most likely targets, and gets in return a strong note about the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush Jr. paranoia about Saddam. Of course, he would be pissed! But note, the administration used Clarke’s information in a timely fashion and ATTACKED AFGHANISTAN. Remember, that’s what we did.

Yes, the administration is running on terrorism. Obviously, it’s running on the paradigm shift in our policy that took place AFTER 9-11, not the fact that Bush was just a smidgeon more proactive then Clinton before the tragedy. So far, from his current statements and his voting record, It seems that John Kerry would like to go back to the old policy, which Clarke was lambasting for 15 hours.

Right Side Up, I have to take a road trip for a couple days so I won’t be able to post. But I look forward to investigating Clarke’s testimony more fully and discussing this with you if the thread is still alive (I assume it will be). Take care.

Most of us military guys I know trust the republicans as much as you can trust any political group. The democrats however are a joke. And WE are the ones who do the fighting and dying.

Kuri,

I read your post. Sorry you couldn’t admit your error. I’m not surprised.
I’ll bet you didn’t even read the article.

Condi Rice has been on television the past 48 hours telling everyone in no uncertain terms her reasons for not testifying. It’s called Executive Priviledge. Again she has testified for over four hours and offered to talk to the commission at any time. She said that reporters can ask her questions any time. If you are a reasonable person, you can infer that means that she is not hiding from anything.

Hardcore Democratic partisans are making me into a solid George W. Bush supporter.

“I am getting tired of the Democrat’s (like Kuri) making inflammatory comments based on feelings and innuendo. Kuri and others make comments that I take as an insult to my intelligence. Instead of researching a topic, they just make some sort of comment and pass it off as fact. Worse, they do not acknowledge their errors. Instead of learning from their mistakes, they just make another ridiculous comment.”

–>To be fair, I got into these political debates by announcing that I was only voicing my opinion and sharing my thoughts and ideas and was criticized for this very same thing-shouts of “useless innuendo” and “baseless opinion” were coming from everywhere. I responded by including links to articles that support my claims, and I’ve since gotten a lot less attention. Hardly anyone acknowledges the links and the increased level of argument…so if you’re going to criticize someone like Kuri for not writing a research paper every time he wants to share an opinion, at least respond to the articles that are presented that take your convictions to task.

And why is it that you only point to Democrats contributing ridiculous comments (if they are even that)? Have you read the ridiculous comments on this board by conservatives? You don’t criticize the guys who come on hear and shout “Bomb 'em all! America rules!”??? C’mon, why don’t YOU be objective and see both sides?

“she denied him meetings with administration principals early on in 2001.” Accept He never requested to met with the President on Al Queda. Clarke’s biggest concern was cyber terrorrism not Al queda

KURI: And as for the Woman in the military who is supposedly coming clean about the white house, Have you even looked at her credentials or background. During most of her military career she wrote for very fringe leftist magazines. Including claiming such things as 9-11 was planned by the President. As most Americans, I understand she is a wack job and take her ideas as political and somewhat conspiratorial.

"Myth: The President didn’t treat al-Qa’ida as a serious threat before September 11.

The Facts:

The President recognized the threat posed by al-Qa’ida, and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al-Qa’ida.

The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was “tired of swatting flies” and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qa’ida, rather than simply waiting to respond.

The President’s national security team worked aggressively and rapidly to develop a new strategy that would employ all elements of our national power: military, intelligence, diplomatic actions, and financial pressure. The new strategy called for military options to attack al-Qa’ida and Taliban leadership, command-and-control, ground forces, and other targets. It focused on the crucial link between al-Qa’ida and the Taliban, recognizing that the two were ultimately inseparable. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al-Qa’ida sanctuary, and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. Our strategy focused on the crucial role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to stop its support to the Taliban, understanding the implications for the stability of Pakistan and its relations with India.

NSC Deputies, the second-ranking officials in the NSC departments, met frequently between March and September 2001 to decide the many complex issues involved in the development of the comprehensive strategy against al-Qa’ida, and also oversaw the work by their staffs on these issues. Contrary to Dick Clarke’s assertion that he was not able to brief senior officials until April 30, the first Deputies-level meeting on al-Qa’ida was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke conducted the briefing. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al-Qa’ida should be prepared.

Although the issues involved were complex, the President’s team completed the new strategy in less than six months and had the strategy ready to go to the President on September 4.

Myth: We didn’t listen to Dick Clarke. Clarke had proposed ideas against al-Qa’ida, such as launching missiles from an armed Predator or modestly increasing assistance to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, that would have prevented 9-11 but these plans were not acted upon.

The Facts:

At Dr. Rice’s request, in January 2001, Dick Clarke presented her with a number of ideas to address the al-Qa’ida threat. The Administration acted upon the ideas that made sense. For example, the Administration approved increased assistance to Uzbekistan, a frontline state in opposing al-Qa’ida, and pushed hard to develop a weaponized Predator unmanned aerial vehicle.

Although the Administration pushed development of the Predator, the Predator was not available to be used against bin-Ladin before September 11. Extensive work and testing was required to develop a warhead that would be effective, and NSC Deputies were told that testing would not be completed until August at the earliest. Even if the Predator had been available, the Intelligence Community never presented senior officials with specific intelligence regarding bin Ladin’s location. At the same time, the Intelligence Community also told senior Administration officials that killing bin Ladin would not destroy al-Qa’ida. Moreover, we know now that, according to the FBI, 16 of the 19 hijackers were in the United States by June 2001; there is no reason to believe that killing bin Ladin would have affected their plan.

Increasing assistance to the Northern Alliance also would not have prevented 9-11. By 2001, the Northern Alliance had been beaten down by military defeats and controlled less than 10 percent of Afghanistan. Providing a small additional amount of money to the Northern Alliance, as Clarke suggested, would not have enabled them to sweep across Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. Moreover, providing such assistance likely would have damaged U.S. efforts later to reach out to other tribes in Afghanistan. NSC Deputies developed a more comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qa’ida that included assisting tribal groups throughout the country, as well as providing significantly more assistance to the Northern Alliance. But such assistance, even if provided earlier, would not have disrupted the 9-11 hijackers, who were not in Afghanistan, but were assembling in the United States.

Although Clarke suggested some ideas to address al-Qa’ida outside the United States, he did not advocate to the Bush Administration any plan of action to address al-Qa’ida’s presence in the United States, such as the need to improve collection of intelligence information by the FBI and to reverse longstanding statutory restrictions and DoJ policies limiting sharing of domestic intelligence on terrorism between the CIA and FBI; or to take actions to root out al-Qa’ida cells in the United States and to make our borders less porous for al-Qa’ida and other terrorists. He also never made us aware of any intelligence assessments from the preceding Administration concerning the use of aircraft as weapons to attack the homeland.

Myth: Dick Clarke was never allowed to brief the President on the threat posed by al-Qa’ida.

The Facts:

Dick Clarke was the President’s principal counterterrorism expert. If he had asked to brief the President on any counterterrorism issue, Clarke could have done so. He never did.

Instead, the only time Dick Clarke asked to brief the President was during the height of the terrorism threat spike in June 2001, when he asked to brief the President - not on al-Qa’ida, but on cybersecurity. He did so.

Myth: The Administration did not treat the intelligence chatter about an imminent attack during the spring and summer of 2001 with sufficient urgency; Principals did not “go to battle stations.”

The Facts:

The President and senior Administration officials were very concerned about the threat spike during the spring and summer of 2001

The President and his NSC Principals received intelligence reports about the intelligence “chatter” during this period, but none of the intelligence was specific as to time, place, or manner, and was focused overseas.

The Government’s interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or “CSG”), chaired by Dick Clarke, met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period. The CSG was at “battle stations.” If Dick Clarke or other members of this group needed anything, they had immediate and daily access to their superiors. Dick Clarke never suggested that the President or the Principals needed to intervene to take any immediate action on these threats.

Dick did not ask to brief the President on the al-Qa’ida threat during this period - or at any other time. Instead, in the middle of the al-Qa’ida threat period, Clarke asked to brief the President, but on cybersecurity, not al-Qaida. He did so.

Formal, in-person meetings among Principals were not required; unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet for an intelligence briefing. Secretary Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qa’ida and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet. Dr. Rice and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld also have a 7:15 am phone call every morning and talk frequently during the day, and in this period they discussed actions to respond to the threat during these calls.

Although the threats were focused overseas, in July, Dr. Rice specifically directed Dick Clarke and his CSG to meet to consider possible threats to the homeland and to coordinate actions by domestic agencies, including the FAA, FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration, to increase security and surveillance. During the Summer of 2001, FAA and FBI issued numerous terrorist threat warnings, including a warning about “the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States.” Security at federal buildings also were reviewed for vulnerabilities. Overseas, we also disrupted terrorist cells worldwide, significantly increased security at our embassies, and directed US Naval vessels to leave high-risk ports in the Middle East and heighten security at military facilities.

Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.

The Facts:

The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq’s past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.

When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qa’ida and Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to “please update and resubmit,” to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it.

Myth: The Administration didn’t act on Dick Clarke’s advice to hold a Cabinet meeting early in the Administration to discuss the threat posed by al-Qa’ida.

The Facts:

NSC Principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat because the threat was already well understood by the Principals and because Dr. Rice had already asked that a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al-Qa’ida be prepared.

In addition, unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, for an intelligence briefing. Secretary Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qa’ida and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet.

Moreover, NSC Deputies, the second-ranking officials in the NSC departments, met frequently between March and September 2001 to decide the many complex issues involved in the development of the comprehensive strategy against al-Qa’ida, and also oversaw the work by their staffs on these issues. Contrary to Dick Clarke’s assertion that he did not brief senior officials until April 30, the first meeting of Deputies was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke briefed the group on al-Qa’ida. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al-Qa’ida should be prepared.

Myth: Before 9/11 the Administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al-Qa’ida.

The Facts:

? The President and the Administration were legitimately concerned about the threat posed by Iraq. Iraq had sponsored terrorism, attacked its neighbors, used chemical weapons, violated 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions, kicked out UN weapons inspectors, was circumventing sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal activities, and continued to try to shoot down U.S. and U.K aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zones.

? But the Administration completed a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qa’ida well before it completed a strategy to address Iraq. In fact, the directive to eliminate al-Qa’ida, approved by the Principals on September 4, 2001, was President Bush’s first major foreign policy directive.

Myth: Dick Clarke was demoted and “stripped of his Cabinet rank” by President Bush.

The Facts:

Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank.

Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President’s principal counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did.

During the Clinton Administration, Dick Clarke regularly briefed President Clinton because President Clinton did not meet regularly with his DCI. Since the beginning of his Administration, President Bush has met daily with his DCI for his intelligence briefing. President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence. "

Bilt…That was quite a soliloquy, but where did you find so many facts???

Moisture, should we not be knocking on Bilt’s door?

Its the official White House Press Release on the issue.

Nice to have both sides of the story

:slight_smile:

Want a fact? Special Forces hunting for Bin Laden and resources such as satellite surveillance was pulled from Afghanistan to hunt for Saddam. Thats a fact.

And why would the White House try and smear Clarke so hard?

Reminds of the Nixon Admin smearing the Watergate whistleblowers - and we all know how that one turned out.

The Bushies want to stop any and all potential cracks in their facade on this issue.

They can’t afford anymore Paul O’Neills, Clarkes, General Shinsekis but they will keep coming.

"A year ago Saturday Lt. John Oliveira was aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Mediterranean Sea. He was serving as public affairs officer for the 5,000-troop aircraft carrier. He was overseeing embedded reporters. He was speaking to the national and international media defending the U.S. invasion.
To mark the first anniversary of the invasion, Oliveira was far from the battlefront – he was taking part in his first peace rally. Two months after being honorably discharged, Oliveira decided to speak out against the invasion of Iraq for the first time. Today this decorated 16-year Navy veteran talks with Democracy Now! in his first national interview to criticize the U.S. invasion of Iraq and President Bush.

Lt. John Oliveira (Ret.), served as public affairs officer for the USS Theodore Roosevelt and was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In September of 2001 he was part of the first battle group to deploy following the attacks of Sept 11th. He spent six and a half months overseas mostly in the northern Indian Ocean managing the public relations effort of a 102 ship international force during the U.S attack on Afghanistan. Last year he was stationed near Iraq."

As more pissed off soldiers come home and officials leave service they will speak.