Richard Clarke - Printable Version

Richard Clarke - Printable Version

+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Richard Clarke (/showthread.php?tid=8735)

Pages: 1 2

- Keyser Soze - 03-24-2004

Several days ago, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke revealed how the Bush administration systematically mishandled 9/11 and Iraq.

As you may have heard, Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush, and a registered Republican who has worked in every administration since Reagan, has exposed Bush's mishandling of 9/11 and the war on Iraq.1 In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke does an amazing job of presenting the facts and connecting the dots. Instead of refuting Clarke's claims, the Bush Administration has launched a campaign of character assassination, hoping that the story will just go away.

When the World Trade Center was hit on the morning of 9/11, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice dubbed Richard Clarke, the administration's top counter-terrorism official, "crisis manager."3 As the White House, which was thought to be the next target, was evacuated, Clarke heroically stayed on, coordinating the government's response from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

Clarke is viewed by colleagues as a hawk, a "true believer" who doesn't play partisan politics.5 So the shocking facts he revealed about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism before 9/11 and its response after must be taken seriously. On Sunday, Clarke told reporters that the President and Defense Secretary downgraded counter-terrorism and ignored repeated warnings about an al Qaeda attack prior to 9/11. And, perhaps even more explosive, Clarke revealed that President Bush and senior administration officials wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 even though they knew that it had no connection to al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.

Already, the White House spin machine is in overdrive. Since they can't rebut Clarke's facts -- which independent witnesses have confirmed -- they're trying to paint him as an angry partisan, even though he's a Republican. But Clarke's words remain a searing indictment of the Bush Administration's campaign against terrorism.

<a class="postlink" href="https://www.moveonpac.org/">https://www.moveonpac.org/</a>

In his own words, here are some of Clarke's revelations:

Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.

In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."

On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"

Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."

The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."

The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."

It's been well reported that President Bush intends to run on his record as a wartime President. Clarke's revelations show how deeply flawed that record is. But if we don't act fast, the public may not have a chance to evaluate the facts for themselves -- the story could go away quickly. With an ad, we can take Clarke's comments directly to the public. Can you help? Check out the script and donate whatever you can to get this story out there at:

<a class="postlink" href="https://www.moveonpac.org/">https://www.moveonpac.org/</a>

(By the way, if we're unable to use your contribution for the ad you specify, either because of oversubscription or for another unforeseen reason, it is our policy to use your contribution for other advertising, public relations, and advocacy activities.)

Richard Clarke had an intimate view -- perhaps the best view -- of how the Bush Administration responded to terrorism. So we should all listen carefully when he says:

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know. . . I think the way he has responded to al-Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe, absolutely. I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."15
Together, we can make sure every American knows what President Bush's true record on terrorism really is.

Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team
March 24th, 2004

- Mad - 03-24-2004

He's a real Dick.

- Galt - 03-24-2004

So Clinton was in office for 8 years, but Bush's 9 months of "ignoring" terrorism are what really set things off.

Clinton really took the bull by the horns in response to the first trade center bombing, the tanker off Syria, and the embassy.

- Keyser Soze - 03-24-2004

I think they're both responsible on some level.

- Kid Afrika - 03-24-2004

Quote:Since the WTC attacks the Wall Street Journal has reported (Sept. 28, 2001) that, "George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm." The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least twice in the last three years - 1998 and 2000 -- as a representative of Carlyle, seeking to expand business dealings with one of the wealthiest Saudi families, which some experts argue, has never fully severed its ties with black sheep Osama in spite of current reports in a mainstream press that is afraid of offending the current administration.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_carlyle.html">http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... rlyle.html</a>

I've said it before that there's so much shit going on behind the scenes in this country you should be glad you don't know most of it. The problem today is that there's no more control over the media and there's 24 hr news channels that'll put anything on the air. Imagine JFK on CNN everyday running around banging Marilyn and shit...

Edited By Kid Afrika on 1080168182

- Splatterpunk - 03-24-2004

Yeah... it doesn't appear that either Clinton or Bush single-handedly incited the terrorism campaign. Terrorism is the cross the USA bears, so to speak, because of the widespread hatred of not just America but democracy... & Clinton was reactionary where Bush seem to be working more from the offensive; that's something in Bush's favor, imo. But not necessarily in the case of al Qaeda.

The "message" to terrorism the current administration keeps talking about almost looks like a requirement. We have to defend ourselves. The war with Iraq might have been unnecessary when it came about, because of the lack of relationship to al Quaeda , but war with Iraq was probably inevitable.

There's been a lot of discussion about there having been intelligence about impending al Quaeda action before 9/11, but how much of this is just clearer now, in hindsight? Could anything have been predicted by what they knew? Or could they have been more careful from the beginning?

The airline business was so evilly and carefully orchestated, I almost think it would have happened anyway...

- The Jays - 03-25-2004

Quote:Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team
March 24th, 2004

Post your own damn thoughts.

Quote:The "message" to terrorism the current administration keeps talking about almost looks like a requirement. We have to defend ourselves.

Yes, oh it was so much better with the old administration. Their motto: We don't HAVE to defend ourselves.

Quote:The "message" to terrorism the current administration keeps talking about almost looks like a requirement. We have to defend ourselves.

- Splatterpunk - 03-25-2004

The Jays Wrote:
Quote:The "message" to terrorism the current administration keeps talking about almost looks like a requirement. We have to defend ourselves.

Yes, oh it was so much better with the old administration. Their motto: We don't HAVE to defend ourselves.

We do have to defend ourselves. You keep hearing the administration talking about "sending a message" to terrorists -- it's necessary to do just that.

9/11 World Encyclopedia

- The Jays - 03-25-2004

OMG Al Fraken and Michael Moore are going to suck Dick Clarke's dick!

- Sir O - 03-25-2004

What Richard Clarke is saying is nothing new. It has been known for a long time by those who get their information from sources other than right-wing propagandists that members of the Bush administration had dreams of invading Iraq as the first step towards a much greater goal. Do the words New American Century ring a bell to anyone? If they do, then you know what I'm talking about.

The war against Iraq was sold to the American public on a platform of baldfaced lies. It was never marketed as a humanitarian gesture, as Kosovo was, but as a case of self defense against an immediate and deadly threat. In September of 2002, Dubya actually claimed that the IAEA believed Iraq had nuclear weapons since 1999. Forged documents were presented as proof of the ominous menace of Saddam. The American public was threatened with the spectre of a "mushroom cloud" if they hesitated to invade.

Unfortunately for the Dubster, many people actually object to being lied to so openly and disdainfully. It's true! The Bush administration, wanting to invade Iraq, knew that mere pleas for humanitarian intervention wouldn't be sufficient to mobilize support and quash dissent, so they came up with fabricated tales of cooperation with al-Quaeda and a threat so horrific that we couldn't even wait the three extra months UN inspector Hans Blix claims would be needed to make a conprehensive assessement of Iraq's weapons capabilities. No, we had to go now! NOW! Terra! Mushroom cloud!

When someone is allowed to lie so openly and unashamedly, there needs to be repercussions, otherwise you can be assured that they will lie again whenever it is expedient. It is a triumph of propaganda and a testament to the ignorance and apathy of the American public that attempting to hold the Bush administration accountable for its myriad of open lies is considered tantamount to being pro-Saddam or treasonous in some circles. But here we are over a year later, 200 billion dollars drained from our treasury, over 500 of our finest men and women flown home at room temperature, our longtime allies wanting little or nothing to do with us, Osama bin Laden nowhere to be found, not to mention those phantom Weapons. There's no reason to believe we're any safer from terrorists than we were in the days preceding the war, and in fact a message has been sent to the Muslim world that we are a threat to their way of life, which can only increase the number of people willing to die to fight what they see as the Great Satan. And by changing the focus of our military action from the people who attacked us to a nonthreatening state, our president has trampled on the graves of the 3,000 who died on 9/11 and spit in the faces of the families and friends they left behind.

Fuck Dubya, he doesn't give a rat's ass about national security. His actions prove it. He's shown more concern for fighting gays, abortion, and stem cell research, than he ever has for making sure Americans are safe from all threats foreign and domestic. He's a disgrace.

- Keyser Soze - 03-25-2004

Preach on brother!

- GonzoStyle - 03-27-2004

I believe Clarke for one simple reason. I believe him because I view him as a woman just out of a relationship. You know the scenario while she was with her man she liked him a lot so she would console him that "it's a good size" and "it happens to a lot of guys"

The second she's liberated she can finally get it all off her chest and tell him that he indeed has a abnormally small dick and that it really doesn't happen to a lot of guys Mr. Quickie McCumstoofast.

In the end between Bush & Kerry, i'd have to choose Bush. Kerry is too allover the place on his stances, plus he's for major tax increases and gas increases. Kerry is also very shoddy on issues of national security and is more concerned about being liked by the french. I'd rather have neither but in this case bush is more stable (sad but true) than Kerry. You can't blame bush for 9/11 cause even if we did invade afghanistan and killed bin laden 9/11 woulda happened either way, it wouldnt have been called off due to Usama's death. Clinton dropped the ball but think of it this way, if he went for a large scale invasion to take down al qaeda people would have yelled "Wag the dog" and he'd have been under the microscope like Bush is over Iraq, it unfortunatly took 9/11 to make it happen. People don't take notice until it's on TV, just like they didn't make an uproar over somalia till they saw the soldiers dragged through the streets on TV, as if they thought people played monopoly over a cup of tea during war.

- Splatterpunk - 03-28-2004

GonzoStyle Wrote:You can't blame bush for 9/11 cause even if we did invade afghanistan and killed bin laden 9/11 woulda happened either way, it wouldnt have been called off due to Usama's death. Clinton dropped the ball but think of it this way, if he went for a large scale invasion to take down al qaeda people would have yelled "Wag the dog" and he'd have been under the microscope like Bush is over Iraq, it unfortunatly took 9/11 to make it happen.

I agree with this & almost never support any party completely. They're all partial to their own interests, which change with the economic winds.

This is fine, of itself. I think there has to be administrative focus on economics, it's important, but if financial interests doesn't have long-term prospects of ecological responsibility to back them, we may wind up just as indebted just from other directions as we would be thanks to tax anchorage in another twenty years.

Never mind the fact that it's just fucking irresponsible and evil and disgusting to continue to pullute ourselves into a single quivering, self-duplicating toxic fleshy mass spanning the continents with our own refuse and waste and poisons.

- GonzoStyle - 03-29-2004

I don't get your point.

- Goatweed - 03-29-2004

GonzoStyle Wrote:I don't get your point.

that's the beauty of her posts.

- Splatterpunk - 03-29-2004

Point: 1 - nobody's a real good guy. 2 - Bush has a better "defense-conscious" face in place than Kerry. 3- I consider that potential long-term views of economic interest (currently, Bush is seen to hold such interests) ought to be ecologically responsible to be valid, long-term AND feasible and 4 - Bush's administration doesn't support ecological responsiblity and never has. But, 5 - Democratics typically say they do. While I agree with the idea in principal, I'm "non-partisan", if you judge me by my own vote history. No conclusion reached; observation offered.

- Velociti - 03-29-2004

You will all soon see how clarke is a two-faced liar that cares not about the truth, but only about how many hardback copies of his book that he will sell. As soon as his old testimony is declassified you will see how this no good nothing changed his course completely on how each administration handled the threat of terror. Even if he says he changed his mind, he's nothing but an annoying "yes man".

Edited By Velociti on 1080583475

- GonzoStyle - 03-30-2004

And maybe 20 years from now Bush will have turned out to be a visionary.

- Kid Afrika - 03-30-2004

...and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

- Keyser Soze - 03-30-2004

kid makes a compelling arguement