anti-terrorism advisor on 9/11 and Iraq

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 22, 2004, 8:41 am

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/ ... 7356.shtml

Mak · Post by **Mak** » March 22, 2004, 10:36 am

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

miir · Post by **miir** » March 22, 2004, 12:03 pm

I hate threads that are just links without any commentary or opinion.

Don't even bother even posting it if it's just a random link to a random news site.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 22, 2004, 3:06 pm

Allow me to revamp.

A former security guy tied to Bush and Clinton writes a new book with his buddy from Harvard who happens to be Kerry's security advisor.

This new book tries to trash Bush.

Simon and Shewster(sp) owned by Viacom which in turn owns CBS, which in turn owns the 60-minutes news show.

60-minutes runs a 10 minute interview/informercial for this man and his book.

Drudge has a link describing this:
http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 22, 2004, 3:10 pm

He claims that Bush dropped the ball before 9/11. Bush claims that he was just following the previous administration's policies regarding Al Qaeda. There's little to no public evidence either way, but the book's causing a big hooplah because people are talking poorly of Bush in regards to 9/11.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 22, 2004, 3:28 pm

miir wrote:I hate threads that are just links without any commentary or opinion.

The title contained enough context to get you started.

Don't even bother even posting it if it's just a random link to a random news site.

Or you could always just not click the link and go on your merry way if not interested.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 22, 2004, 3:39 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Allow me to revamp.

A former security guy tied to Bush and Clinton writes a new book with his buddy from Harvard who happens to be Kerry's security advisor.

This new book tries to trash Bush.

Simon and Shewster(sp) owned by Viacom which in turn owns CBS, which in turn owns the 60-minutes news show.

60-minutes runs a 10 minute interview/informercial for this man and his book.

Drudge has a link describing this:
http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

Or you can look past the blind devotion to a man that doesn't deserve it and realize that he was the top man on terrorism for the three administrations prior to Dimwit Jr., including two republican presidents.

I think it's great, Bush is championing security as the only issue he can focus on because he did a shitty job at everything else and now it turns out he wasn't even doing a reasonable job on that. Fucking Beautiful

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 22, 2004, 3:50 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Allow me to revamp.

A former security guy tied to Bush and Clinton writes a new book with his buddy from Harvard who happens to be Kerry's security advisor.

This new book tries to trash Bush.

Simon and Shewster(sp) owned by Viacom which in turn owns CBS, which in turn owns the 60-minutes news show.

60-minutes runs a 10 minute interview/informercial for this man and his book.

Drudge has a link describing this:
http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm

well i can say, that never underestimate the power of dollar bills =)

i can say working for a major media company that is part of a massive media corporation, that 'cross promotion' is something that we do. HOWEVER, it is also something that a lot of people work very hard to do, and surprisingly a lot less goes on than really could be done to leverage the assets across the company.

that doesnt mean that Viacom has the same problem that Time Warner has, but i would not be surprised if '60 Minutes' operates with a tremendous amount of autonomy from the corporate culture of not only CBS, but Viacom as well. There was some incident about 5 years ago where CBS tried to get '60 Minutes' to not run a particular segment and there was a really big public 'hoo-ha' about it, if i recall correctly.

anyway, the book's charges have been published before in Al Franken's book, so it isn't like they are out of the blue here. That doesnt mean they are correct either.

Anyway to play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate Adex, it is widely postulated (and relatively established) that Matt Drudge will publish stories fed to him by the GOP irregardless of their factual basis.

But it is true that Simon and Schuster, the company that owns Free Press (this book's publisher), is part of the Viacom Entertainment group which also owns CBS.

So it is a no brainer that they would 'break' the story on Viacom programming. That doesn't mean that the book is true or not. I also do not think it is necessarily a breech of ethics to run a story in the fashion of this (i watched the segment). Editorial autonomy at '60 Minutes' is obviously an important part of the equation here, and we have to judge whether or not we feel they did the feature fairly. We all have to make this decision every time we get information from any source/

i will say something to Time Warner's credit, whenever we did a segment on "The Lord of the Rings" on CNN, we always said at the end that "New Line Entertainment was owned by Time Warner, which is the parent company of CNN."

If CBS neglected to mention that last night, then that showed poor judgement, especially in a matter as politically sensitive as this.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 22, 2004, 3:56 pm

There were news stories on this book on Fox a few days before 60 Minutes aired anything about it. It would have been in the media had it been on CBS or not.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 22, 2004, 3:56 pm

Cant delete posts in this forum anymore?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 22, 2004, 6:33 pm

just for context, this guy was a registered Republican in the 2000 election, and he worked in Ronald Reagan's, George H. W. Bush's, and Bill Clinton's cabinets before this recent position.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 23, 2004, 12:33 am

Voronwë wrote:just for context, this guy was a registered Republican in the 2000 election, and he worked in Ronald Reagan's, George H. W. Bush's, and Bill Clinton's cabinets before this recent position.

and THAT my friends, has the potential to fuck Bush over pretty badly if this continues to get out

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 23, 2004, 3:43 am

miir wrote:Cant delete posts in this forum anymore?

I think you can't delete once someone has replied to you.
Unless of course, you are the moderator.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 23, 2004, 11:18 am

Truant wrote:
miir wrote:Cant delete posts in this forum anymore?
I think you can't delete once someone has replied to you.
Unless of course, you are the moderator.

It was several hours after I posted before someone posted after me.
I tried to delete the post about 10 seconds after I made it.

Edit: Strange, I have the option to delete this post.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 23, 2004, 11:32 am

Never held a Cabinet post I heard from a White House spokesman(biased, yes - granted).

Whatever really. I know people here for the most part hate Bush, but so far Kerry's only strong point is that he is NOT BUSH, and that's just not enough to win my vote.

FFS, pick on Bush all you want, but don't the Dems have a GOOD candidate to run? Or is everyone a professional politcian? Can I just vote NO for President?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 23, 2004, 11:33 am

BTW I posted what I said *before* bumping into that drudge link. I came back later to add it.

Go ahead and take what you can from the guy's interview.

Just know that on the side he's trying to push his book and take a pot shot at Rice who demoted him.

His motives are less than pure.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 23, 2004, 11:38 am

Just know that on the side he's trying to push his book and take a pot shot at Rice who demoted him

Does that invalidate what's said in the book though?
Anyone read it yet?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 23, 2004, 1:39 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:BTW I posted what I said *before* bumping into that drudge link. I came back later to add it.

Go ahead and take what you can from the guy's interview.

Just know that on the side he's trying to push his book and take a pot shot at Rice who demoted him.

His motives are less than pure.

He never had a cabinet-level position, he was not demoted, and it was his own suggestion to divide to the work up between different people. That was a mistake on CBS's part.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 23, 2004, 1:52 pm

The Vice President mentioned that he was demoted by Rice when she took on her responsiblities from the previous administration.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 23, 2004, 1:57 pm

2 page article describing the good work and the bad work of Clarke's Career.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 23, 2004, 1:59 pm

The VP talking to Rush Yesterday

Q All right, let's get straight to what the news is all about now, before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cyber security side of things, that is he was given a new assignment at some point here. I don't recall the exact time frame.

Q Cyber security, meaning Internet security?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, worried about attacks on the computer systems and the sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try to the system against us.

Q Well, now that explains a lot, that answer right there explains -- (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn't -- he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn't --

Q He was demoted.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after the -- after we got here, there was communication, for example, with the President of Pakistan, laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and the importance of going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the al Qaeda. This was, say, within three weeks of our arrival here.

So I guess, the other thing I would say about Dick Clarke is that he was here throughout those eight years, going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center; and '98, when the embassies were hit in East Africa; in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit. And the question that ought to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 23, 2004, 2:00 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The Vice President mentioned that he was demoted by Rice when she took on her responsiblities from the previous administration.

actually i believe it was Rush Limbaugh who used the word "demoted", not Cheney in the radio interview yesterday. The portion i heard, Cheney did not respond to Rush - who basically interupted him gleefully - on this point. HOnestly, Limbaugh's tone was kind of sad. he was so happy to have Cheney on his show (think "OMG I'm back on the map"), that he was at times giddy like a schoolgirl. Cheney seemed to be almost embarrassed by it, and as such did not reply to the "Demoted" statement and the like.

Regardless, even if Rice did demote him, that may in fact give credence to his points, because it emphasizes his claim that terrorism from Al Queda was not prioritized within the Bush cabinet.

I agree with you Adex that lack of professional advancement could influence somebody to complain about a subject. It is certainly valid for conversation. Just like it is important to note, that Cheney, Rice, et al. are all out there trying to keep their jobs, and approaching the story from that angle.

But in this case, it may actually make his point more valid that his job level was lowered by the Bush White House. Nobody was appointed in that position in his place, the position was simply downgraded.

Also, is there a reason that Dick Cheney's terrorism task force never met prior to 9/11?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 23, 2004, 2:04 pm

I laid out both Cheney's interview, and the article from securityfocus.com

You can read the full context there.

Again, I'm not saying that you should ignore the guy, just consider where he's coming from when weighing his words.

He has side motives that might slant his words to the negative.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 23, 2004, 2:06 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote: He has side motives that might slant his words to the negative.

he MIGHT have side motives. apologies for being pedantic =)

#1 ulterior motive may have been to make a lot of money

it certainly wasnt to advance his 30 year career within the Executive Branch of our government =D

Hey , why won't Dr. Rice testify before the 9/11 commission?

Sandy Berger (Clinton's Nat'l Security Advisor) appeared before a Congressional Committee, so i am curious why the Bush White House views this as a Seperation of Powers case. Interesting!

miir · Post by **miir** » March 23, 2004, 2:28 pm

That guy who wrote that 'atricle' (be sure you dont mistake it for credible, factual and unbiased writing) on that 'securityfocus.com' is a complete idiot.... seriously.. where do you find this shit?
It's almost as bad as some of the shit Brotha links and tries to peddle off as credible journalism.

He tries to portray Clarke as a bumbling idiot who was reponsible for a number of US military gaffes in the past and that he was so obsessed with 'cyber security' that he neglected to see the real threat of terrorism, AlQaeda and 'Saddam'.

Eventhough CNN is not a paragon of virtue, the info in this link is far more informative and accurate than the moronic horseshit in the link you posted.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/time.history/

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 23, 2004, 6:06 pm

Just assume the motive of the Bush admin is to get in at all costs. They were called out on their only point they felt they had leverage on and will do and say anything to attempt to defame.

Again, I'm not saying that you should ignore the guy, just consider where he's coming from when weighing his words.

As well you should from every single person in the Bush admin trying to malign his name and his service in his feild that he was doing while GW was still in school getting drunk and more stupid.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 23, 2004, 6:10 pm

Go ahead and belive the book salesman if you want to Miir.

A liberal Time Magazine counter-opinion, I read it with the same grain of salt that I used on the article you so vehemently disdain.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 23, 2004, 6:49 pm

Hmmm... so you're suggesting that some geek hack writing on a little known internet site should be afforded similar credibility as Time magazine and CNN when it comes to political commentary?

The next thing you know, you'll be linking Anne Coulter 'articles'.

People are afforded more credibility when the speak/write about their field of expertise:

Richard Clarke is well versed and has decades of experience on the topic of his book.
George Smith is a computer security weenie who is using a computer related website to spew of some ignorant political drivel.
CNN is perhaps the biggest media outlet in the USA employing some of the best analysts and reporters in the business.
Time magazine is an American institution.

One of these things is not like the other.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 23, 2004, 10:08 pm

The popularity of a information source isn't a direct indicator of the source's quality.

BTW The opinion columnist might be a lightweight, but Security Focus seems well established.
http://www.securityfocus.com/corporate/ ... ndex.shtml

miir · Post by **miir** » March 24, 2004, 12:37 am

I am talking about credibility, not popularity.

Case in point : Anne Coulter is wildly popular amongst a certain segment of the population but her political commentary is far from credible.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » March 24, 2004, 7:42 am

dont forget that shes a fucking nutbag from another galaxy sent here to destroy mankind

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 24, 2004, 8:18 am

I love how the bush administration and these other fuckwads adex is fellating over spent all day attacking one of the country's most respected government worker's character instead of addressing what he had to say. Stewart ran a segment on the daily show tonight showing Condi Rice and Kellerman basically regurgitating the same character assassinations at multiple different interviews and press events. Cheney went on Rush Limbaugh and actually claimed that Clarke was purposely being kept out of the loop so he couldn't possibly have known what was going on..

The Bush admin is so desperate to pull their nuts out of the fire that Vice president Dick Cheney actually announced to the country that they were purposely keeping the country's head anti-terrorism official out of the loop. Yeah great PR Dick! What a bunch of fucking scoundrels. Christ Adex, even a partisan weasel like yourself should be ashamed of your government. Instead this just makes you and your cluster fuck of a party galvanize and come up with even more lies to cover up the old lies that were told to cover up the previous lies.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 24, 2004, 8:43 am

kyoukan wrote:I love how the bush administration and these other fuckwads adex is fellating over spent all day attacking one of the country's most respected government worker's character instead of addressing what he had to say. Stewart ran a segment on the daily show tonight showing Condi Rice and Kellerman basically regurgitating the same character assassinations at multiple different interviews and press events. Cheney went on Rush Limbaugh and actually claimed that Clarke was purposely being kept out of the loop so he couldn't possibly have known what was going on..

The Bush admin is so desperate to pull their nuts out of the fire that Vice president Dick Cheney actually announced to the country that they were purposely keeping the country's head anti-terrorism official out of the loop. Yeah great PR Dick! What a bunch of fucking scoundrels. Christ Adex, even a partisan weasel like yourself should be ashamed of your government. Instead this just makes you and your cluster fuck of a party galvanize and come up with even more lies to cover up the old lies that were told to cover up the previous lies.

unfortunately it works

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 24, 2004, 11:37 am

kyoukan wrote:The Bush admin is so desperate to pull their nuts out of the fire that Vice president Dick Cheney actually announced to the country that they were purposely keeping the country's head anti-terrorism official out of the loop. Yeah great PR Dick! What a bunch of fucking scoundrels. Christ Adex, even a partisan weasel like yourself should be ashamed of your government. Instead this just makes you and your cluster fuck of a party galvanize and come up with even more lies to cover up the old lies that were told to cover up the previous lies.

I heard that reported on the radio as I was going home yesterday. I had about the same reaction.

I caught part of the Bill O'Reilley discussion about Clark's book and while he did a fairly good job of shooting down some or most of the claims in the book, he had a powerful republican speaker and a dimwitted democrat on the program to defend Clark's points.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 24, 2004, 11:59 am

by the way, Clarke's reply to why the book came out now is because the White House stalled it.

All former White House staffers have to have their books reviewed by the white house before they are published. He said he submitted the book to the White House in the early fall of 2003.

So the White House had a hand in the timetable for those conspiracy theorists.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 24, 2004, 3:44 pm

Hahahahahaha (had to provide some commentary for miir)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. 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.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. 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. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 24, 2004, 4:31 pm

he's replying to the 2002 press briefing issue right now under oath.

he is clarifying the context.

he also characterized the Time magazine story (i think the one linked above) as "somewhat sensational". his press briefing was in response to the Time article in which the White House asked him to give a briefing that reflected positively on the administration in light of the 2001 attacks. He agreed to do so.

anyway, will wait for transcript and we'll post it. valid question!

for now this will be a decent soundbite type statement in regards to the 2002 briefing:

"when you are on the staff of the President of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible".

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 24, 2004, 5:45 pm

Voronwë wrote:"when you are on the staff of the President of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible".

"Don't make your boss look bad" = common sense for the workplace, but bosses, no matter what thier positions are not immune making to dumbass decisions or ones that you do not agree with. It is at these times you weigh your boss's displeasure versus your own desire to do what you feel is the correct thing.

Note: You are not immune to making dumbass decsions yourself.

P.S. Speaking in general, not at Voro

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 24, 2004, 5:53 pm

true.

he further elaborated when pressed on the issue that he had 3 choices of action:

1. to resign. he chose not to do so. when asked why not, he said he felt the work he was doing on cybersecurity was sufficiently important to the American public that to give these background statements to a reporter (it should be noted background briefings - if i understand correctly - are taken to be "off the record" remarks) in the tone requested, was not worth resigning.

2. to effectively "lie". Clarke did not feel like anybody in the Bush administration asked him to lie, and he did not feel his remarks were inconsistent with his book, with his 15 hrs of testimony both in public and private before the 9/11 commissin, as well as before other commissions.

3. to present the information in a 'positive light' that could be potentially embarrassing to the administration that employs you, whether that is because the administration did not do enough, acted incorrectly, or otherwise.

When pressed as to if he thought this was an immoral course of action, Clarke replied that anyone who had spent a sufficient time in Washington should understand that a person who works for the Executive Branch has limited freedom to comment fully on any issue.

he closed by saying something like "this is not a question of morality, it is a question of politics" - a statement that drew quite a bit of applause.

Regarding the 2002 memo linked above at FoxNews.com, at the time the background briefing was issued the White House issued it under condition of anonymity of the person giving the briefing. Today they changed that condition.

I think what was particularly concerning to me, was that neither administration responded to the Cole bombing. Typically, you hear from persons like Sean Hannity that that was "Clinton's watch", etc and the response was his to make. According to testimony today, the CIA did not issue a conclusion on who was responsible for the bombing until the Bush administration had taken office (a span of about 3 months from the bombing). So while Clarke was advocating the Clinton administration attack the Taliban in November, 2000 - neither administration really responded to the issue once the jury was truly in. Both can pass the buck, but both had the opportunity and the occassion to respond and chose not to, which is disappointing.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 24, 2004, 6:12 pm

Clarke just stepped down. Fascinating testimony.

Highlights:

Bob Kerrey bashes Fox News as "sometimes fair and balanced" and attacks them for betraying journalistic principles. Receives loud applause.

James Thomson launching unending personal attacks on Clarke. Finally shuts up when a particularly scathing Clarke response draws an ovation.

In regards to the 2002 briefing: The fact that some people honestly expect White House officials to lay down the unvarnished truth and criticize their superiors during press briefings is one of the very few most ludicrous claims I've ever heard someone make in regards to politics.

Now, if Clarke had lied during that briefing, that would be one thing. If he had specifically distorted or altered the facts, that would be another thing. If you'll notice, he did not.

Not like when Colin Powell claimed that trailers were being used to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Not like when Bush made that ridiculous claim about enriched uranium from Nigeria.

Any Bush supporter who would get up in arms about the fact that Clarke made statements that misrepresented his actual thoughts is absolutely contemptible to me. This administration has evaded answering tough questions, and outright lied when their evasion failed. Criticizing Clarke for this instance is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 24, 2004, 6:17 pm

Damn you Brotha... I was expecting some of your usual crap.

Interesting read.. I always take everything I read with a grain of salt and try to ignore the biased opinion commentary.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 25, 2004, 4:47 am

Kyo, are you on crack?

No where did I say that you shouldn't consider the man's words.

I suggested you consider his words with additional context.

You attack a figment of your imagination. Wake up.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 25, 2004, 5:41 am

You are a passive aggresive apologistic party line spewer. I know exactly what you were saying.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 25, 2004, 12:16 pm

I love you too Kyo.

My life is enriched by having your warm words encourage me through trying times of idle procrastination.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 26, 2004, 11:59 am

Reading Adex' posts make me wonder sometimes.. you honestly wouldn't think poorly of Bush or his administration even if they said straight out they had fucked up, would you?

That said, Clark has done good in the interviews I have seen. Calm, good arguments seemed to be based on facts etc. On the other hand, Condoleeza (sp) Rice's response made her seem extremely petty, stup-up and bitchy with very poor arguments.