Cool, except for the part where you say it flies in the face of his claims.

How does that excerpt get the administration, particularly Rumsfeld, off the hook for using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq?

Unilaterally invading Iraq did have nothing to do with the so-called war on terror and did, in fact take scarce resources from that war, not to mention all the harm it has done.

(I don't believe that the current administration could have necessarily prevented 9/11, though, as some seem to be saying.)

How does that excerpt get the administration, particularly Rumsfeld, off the hook for using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq?

Clinton Administration officials, as far as I know, did not address the removal of Saddam in their remarks to the 9/11 commission yesterday. I could be wrong on this, but the basic tone of their comments, as leaked to the NY Times and reported on by the media yesterday, was to point the finger at the Bush Administration for not heeding their warnings about the growing terror threat.

Richard Clarke's briefing in 2002 refutes this claim in that Clarke asserted that 1) the Bush administration took their suggestions seriously, 2) they kept the same anti-terrorism task force in place that had been in place during the Clinton administration and, 3) increased the intelligence budget five-fold in an attempt to get a better handle on the seriousness of the threat.

Thanks.

David

You're arguing a different issue than I am.

Using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq is still unconscionable, whatever else they may or may not have done.
Using the tragedy to advance their ideologically-driven goals instead of pursuing terrorist is despicable in my view.

And I do believe that besides having nothing to do with the war on terrorism, invading Iraq did take resources away from that war, while increasing the level of danger in the world.

You liberals are totally idiotic. You say Bush should have known 9/11 was coming, and should have preemptively acted.

So he does act in a preemptive manner in regards to Iraq, and you scream bloody murder?

Wha' Happened?

Installing democracy in Iraq, the heart of Islamofacism, will in the long run make the whole middle east a safer place.

David

This briefing does not change the fact that some of Clarke's claims have been confirmed through other sources. It certainly casts some doubt on his judgement against the Bush White House's handling of Afghanistan and Al Quaeda.

You liberals are totally idiotic

didn't anybody ever tell you that if you make a face like that it might get stuck that way forever?

"You say Bush should have known 9/11 was coming, and should have preemptively acted."

Who here said that? C'mon, let me at 'im!

Hey, you - quit hiding and get out here now, damn it!

The guy was working for the Bush administration back then and I'm sure there were Bush flacks in the room with him. He wasn't going to say, "Yes, they fueked up."

Same thing with his resignation letter. It is standard protocol to praise your boss on the way out.

Seems to me the book is closer to the truth than spin for reporters or a resignation letter.


Clarke also said he is a Republican. He worked for Reagan and both Bushs and says he won't work for Kerry.

And at least he appeared in public under oath which is more than you can say for Rice or Bush.

This just shows how the Clarke thing has the White House firing desperately on all fronts. If you need a lame rationale for Bush behavior, just call Flanagan. He's your man.

The effect of the 9/11 commission will most likely be a wash. Both parties will be blamed, and then everyone will go home.

I don't normally watch CNN's Larry King show, but will in 45 minutes tonight.

It's going to have right-wing anchor Bob Schieffer and Richard Clarke on tonight.

Should be fun.

Schieffer didn't make it. Too bad.

To Steve:

"The guy was working for the Bush administration back then and I'm sure there were Bush flacks in the room with him. He wasn't going to say, "Yes, they fueked up."

If he really thought that, he should have resigned.

"Same thing with his resignation letter. It is standard protocol to praise your boss on the way out."

Yep. Lie in order to get a letter of recommendation. Sounds ethical to me...

"Seems to me the book is closer to the truth than spin for reporters or a resignation letter."

If by "truth" you mean "what I wanna hear."

"Clarke also said he is a Republican. He worked for Reagan and both Bushs and says he won't work for Kerry."

That's nice. Not that Kerry would have him...

"And at least he appeared in public under oath which is more than you can say for Rice or Bush."

Rice testified for the Commission, just not in public. The public stuff we just watched on CNN or FOXNEWS was merely for grandstanding purposes. The real info came during closed-door meetings.

As for Bush not testifying, I don't recall either Clinton testifying in public. Why should Bush?

So Dick Cheney is making the rounds claiming that Clarke was "out of the loop" in the administration's
counter-terror efforts. Therefore, Clarke doesn't know what he's talking about and anything he says
should be instantly discounted.
It's amazing that Cheney does not seem to realize what he is actually saying: That the Bush administration's top expert on terrorism was not
consulted about their counter-terrorism efforts. This presents several unpalatable choices:
1. Cheney is lying for political gain. If the public picks up on this, the backlash could be out of all
proportion to the damage Cheney is trying to
control.
2. The administration deliberately ignored its in-house expert, with September 11 being the result.
This eliminates one more scapegoat, since the White House cannot simultaneously blame Clarke for
failing to stop 9/11 while claiming he was "out of the loop" on counter-terrorism.
3. Assuming Cheney speaks the truth, it actually bolsters Clarke's claim to to have been a voice in the neo-con wilderness of Saddam obsession, not 9-11 terrorist obsession. Cut out of the loop, his warnings went nowhere and were
ignored. That, too, is pretty damning of the administration.
There is one overriding fact that is inescapable for Bush: Clarke's counter-terrorism office was a cabinet-level position until Bush became president. The fact that the position was downgraded by Bush tells any thinking person all they need to know about where terrorism stood on the Bush priority list prior to 9/11. This can't be denied, spun, twisted, or wished away.

MORE LIES:

The White House claimed it was applying pressure to the Taliban in 2001.

In May of 2001, the Administration pushed for $43 million in aid to the Taliban because of their announced campaign against poppy growers.

IN MAY OF 2001!

[the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan] "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden." ---Newsday, 5/29/01

BUSH ADMINISTRATION = PATHOLOGICAL LIARS

PRESIDENT LIAR: "Had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September the 11th, we would have acted."

Even though there was no information as to an exact time or locale, Bush's statement tries to cover over the fact that he received repeated warnings before 9/11 that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent.

The President received a CIA warning on August 6th, 2001, headlined, " Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." noting the "plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."

The White House was warned in July of 2001 that Al Qaeda had considered using hijacked airliners as missiles.

Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that "there had been information coming in that a big operation was planned".

Meanwhile PRIOR TO 9/11, the Administration never once convened its own counterterrorism task force.

The Administration threatened to veto bills diverting national missile defense funds into counterterrorism.

The Administration delayed arming the unmanned Predator drone flying over Afghanistan.

The Administration terminated "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States."

And as if that wasn't enough, the Administration downgraded Clarke's counterterrorism office within the White House.

Scott McClellan, when asked about Clarke's charges that "the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq," responded:

"That's part of his revisionist history."

The reporter then asked, "Are you saying it's not true?"

McClellan: "Yes, that's right. I am. That's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that."

SO WHO IS DOING REVISIONIST HISTORY? The pathological liars, of course.

According to the 1/12/03 Washington Post (quotes senior Administration officials) "...six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document
marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."

CBS News also reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, and it is consistent with the President's thinking."


Scott McClellan, when asked about Clarke's charges that "the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq," responded:

"That's part of his revisionist history."

The reporter then asked, "Are you saying it's not true?"

McClellan: "Yes, that's right. I am. That's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that."

According to the 1/12/03 Washington Post (quotes senior Administration officials) "...six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document
marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."

CBS News also reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, and it is consistent with the President's thinking."

"Rice testified for the Commission, just not in public. The public stuff we just watched on CNN or FOXNEWS was merely for grandstanding purposes. The real info came during closed-door meetings."

That "merely" reminds me of the reporter who asked Mrs. Lincoln: "Aside from that, what did you think of the play?"

Condi appears afraid of being forced into a choice between telling the truth and perjuring herself because she would be testifying under oath.

Dance, Condi, dance ...

The closed door stuff is by definition closed door. We have no idea what was said. It would seem though, at least according to Bob Kerrey, that the plan that Rice and Company came up with was inadequate. He ridiculed the plan in open session, stating something like "they are lucky that the plan remains confidential. There's nothing in it." This is a remarkable claim.

I don't think that Rice would testify to anything new. From watching a number of her extemporaneous encounters with questioners, my impression is that she is a serious PR liability.