Home / Richard Clarke: True or False?

Richard Clarke: True or False?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

First, it was Paul O’Neill; besides being a turncoat, a liar, unpatriotic, and a disgruntled employee, he:

* served as a computer systems analyst with the US Veterans Administration from 1961 to 1966;
* joined the OMB in 1967, and was deputy director of OMB from 1974 to 1977
* was president of International Paper Company from 1985 to 1987, where he was vice president from 1977 to 1985.
* was chairman and CEO of Alcoa from 1987 to 1999.
* understands international finance, the global economy, and was head of a corporation with 140, 000 employees in 36 nations.
* joined the Bush Administration as Secretary of Treasury in 2001

But forget what he says.

And forget Scott Ritter, who said that there were NO WMDs in Iraq in the nine months leading up to Bush’s invasion. He’s an unpatriotic appeaser to terrorists. Besides that he also:

* began his military career as an intelligence office for the United States Marine Corps
* served in the Office of Special Commission at the United Nations (UN)
* coordinated international efforts to implement United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions mandating the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
* provided expertise on information collection, management and assessment issues in UN inspection activities inside Iraq
* served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War

But still, forget him, okay?

And I hope you don’t remember Ambassador Wilson, who exposed Bush lies about uranium acquisition attempts by Iraq; Forget that the super-patriot criminal Robert Novak outed Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, endangering her life and the lives of many covert CIA agents overseas as part of an orchestrated revenge policy formed in the White House.

Forget them.

And now it’s time to forget Richard Clarke, A REPUBLICAN HAWK who — after a long career serving under a number of Democratic and Republican administrations — who is considered by virtually all of his contemporaries as an honest, intelligent, and honorable man — recently succumbed to alien body snatchers and turned on President Bush and his band of Immaculate Saints.

Forget what he says. He’s a liar. There’s no evidence. He has an agenda.

And keep your eye on the swinging pocketwatch, America.


LIE: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” — National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

TRUTH: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.” No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11.

* * *

WHA???: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I’ve learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” — National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

THEN WHY…?: Then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/04 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection.

* * *

LIE: “[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things.” — Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

TRUTH: “Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President’s principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did.” — White House Press Release, 3/21/04

* * *

FROM THE SCRIPT: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high… we were at battle stations… The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” — Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

OH, WE FORGOT…: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft’s ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department’s seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft’s predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'” — Washington Post, 3/22/04

* * *

STATEMENT: “The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.” — Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

OKAY, BUT…: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” — Washington Post, 3/22/04

* * *

LIE: “Well, Clarke wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” — Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

TRUTH:“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.” — White House Press Release, 3/22/04

* * *

STATEMENT: “[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring.” — Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

TOO BUSY WITH KENNY-BOY LAY: “Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and ‘I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.’ Neither Cheney’s review nor Bush’s took place.” By comparison, Cheney in 2001 formally convened his Energy Task Force at least 10 separate times, meeting at least 6 times with Enron energy executives. — Washington Post, 1/20/04, GAO Report, 8/22/04, Assoc. Press, 1/8/02

* * *

LIE: “All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas.” — Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, 3/22/04

TRUTH: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that “In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States” to “carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives.” The report “was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001].” In the same month, the Pentagon “acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” [Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]

* * *

Some Data from by Center for American Progress, and White House web site press release archives

Powered by

About Mark Shark

  • So, Bush is inept and killed 3,000 people. Is that your claim?

  • something tells me that flanagan & company will manage to interpret this as “it was clinton’s fault”

    remember mr. shark, facts are stupid things.


  • Shark

    So, Bush is inept and killed 3,000 people. Is that your claim?

    Yah, sure, that’s my claim.

    And you’re getting sleepy… sleepy…

  • Right.

    Bush, unlike Clinton, responded to a direct terrorist attack by doing his best to destroy the lunatics. No cruise missiles. No tactical bombings. All out WAR.

    But, hey, I guess he’s soft on terror. And directly responsible for 9/11.

    Yep. I’ll bet John F-ing Kerry will make great hay outta this…

  • "Bush, unlike Clinton, responded to a direct terrorist attack by doing his best to destroy the lunatics."

    No, he didn’t.

    He invaded a country that had nothing to do with the “direct terrorist attack.”

    Because the tragedy was good excuse (according to Rumsfeld).

  • Tina

    Thank you! I’m pleased to see that some in the media is connecting the dots (and especially including in this the declarations/warnings by Mr. Ritter long ago) regarding first, former Ambassador, Mr. Wilson and his wife then drawing the line to Mr. O’Neill (they certainly rattled this elderly gentleman into submission) and now at this juncture, the “Czar” himself on Terrorism. Whew! Who could possibly be next? (Tell the truth and shame the devil, Mr. Powell!).

  • Roger

    Richard Clarke can’t even tell us where he shit last. He can’t figure what side of the fence he wants to be on. He is another opportunist (who has a new book $$$)playing off of the emotions of the 9/11 victims and families. He’s such a stand up guy maybe he should donate all proceeds of the book to the 9/11 fund.

  • Shark

    Roger, at least yall are consistent; like this administration, you CAN’T DEBATE or NEGATE ONE THING Clarke has said; instead, you choose to attack his ‘credibility.’

    And now the hounds are pulling out all the stops:

    Ann Coulter disparaged Clarke, saying he was just “…upset a black woman took his job”.

    Robert Novak (indisputably a criminal and a traitor) asked a guest “Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman, Condoleezza Rice?”

    These people have no shame. Of course, we already knew that, but it’s amazing how low they’ll go to preserve The Reich.

    Forget that neither Roger nor one Bush official (or right-wing pundit) has addressed the fundamental question: why did the Bush Administration virtually ignore terrorism and Al Queda before 9/11?

    C’mon, Rog’, show us a case where the Bushies actually TOLD THE TRUTH.

    For MORE LIES from the Bush Administration’s “CONDI” RICE

  • Dan

    “Forget that neither Roger nor one Bush official (or right-wing pundit) has addressed the fundamental question: why did the Bush Administration virtually ignore terrorism and Al Queda before 9/11?”

    um, because it worked so well for Clinton?

  • JR

    The Bush administration religiously avoided doing anything the Clinton administration did, let alone the stuff that worked.

  • Shark

    This just in: In a CNN/USA Today poll asking, “Do you think the Bush adminstration is covering up something from the 9/11 Investigation Committee?”

    53% said “YES”

    A “cover-up”?

    Maybe Condi should talk to Martha Stewart.

  • Roger

    Clinton my ass. The attacks were seven months in to the new administration. The fucking terrorist had long been in the States learning to fly. Why couldn’t Clinton and his cronies get the job done right here on US soil. God only knows how long the bastards were here learning to fly while Bill was getting his dick sucked by some chubby whore.

    Actually Clarke is being disloyal to both parties to sell his damn book. Honestly, do you think he would be sticking his head into the spot-light if he didn’t have a book?

    Maybe it’s a cop-out, but I don’t blame either adminisration more than the other. There was obviously a hell of a lot going on during both. Clarke is selling out Clinton and Bush in a tearful apology to get his fifteen minutes. What a pussy.

  • JR

    Why couldn’t Clinton and his cronies get the job done right here on US soil.

    Actually they could; they foiled the millenium plot to bomb LAX in December 1999. So why couldn’t Bush get the job done? Oh that’s right, he’s off the clock in August.