Consider the dogs "launched" -- Republicans Want Clarke Testimony Declassified

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
You and the others like you don't want to see the contradictions.

That is all.

Then why am I clamoring for you to post them.

You keep replying but I don't see anything.

Want to know why? Because you're full of it and you know it.


Again, put up or shut up.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: etech
You and the others like you don't want to see the contradictions.

That is all.

Etech, why don't you just BOLD the part where Clarke has "contradicted" himself, so you can prove it once and for all? Can you? Not that hard is it? If such contradiction existed. Conjur's request wasn't that hard to fulfill if you actually have the evidence to back up your opinion. All you have to do is just BOLD the statement within the part of transcript, or just do what Conjur had suggested, the contradictory quote side-by-side. If you can do that, THEN you have the respect from others for accomplishing the task of countering an opinion with valid evidence/proof.

 

[burnedout]

Haven't seen this one posted yet. Of course, I haven't really looked either.

"Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction"

Just so. In the 1990s when al-Qa'eda blew up American targets abroad, the FBI would fly in and work it as a "crime scene" - like a liquor-store hold-up in Cleveland. It doesn't address the problem. Sure, there are millions of disaffected young Muslim men, but, if they get the urge to blow up infidels, they need training and organisation. Somehow all those British Taliban knew that if you wanted a quick course in jihad studies Afghanistan was the place to go. Bush got it right: go to where the terrorists are, overthrow their sponsoring regimes, destroy their camps, kill their leaders.

Instead, all the Islamists who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s graduated from Camp Osama and were dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, where they lurk to this day. That's the Clarke-Clinton legacy. And, if it were mine, I wouldn't be going around boasting about it.

Now let's examine one of old Dick's lies:

On p.95 of his "Against All Enemies", Clarke states that author Laurie Mylroie had asserted "Ramzi Yousef was not in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Manhattan but lounging at the right hand of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad." He then debunks this "thesis" by stating that, in fact, Ramzi Yousef "had been in a U.S. jail for years," which was true.

Obviously, if Yousef had been in prison in America, he could not be in Baghdad at the right hand of Saddam, and Mylroie's theory was demonstratively untrue-- a discreditation he considers important enough to feature on the back dust jacket of his book.
The problem here is that the straw man Clarke demolishes is an invention entirely of his own creation. Mylroie did not write anything remotely like it. On the contrary, she explicitly states on p. 212 of her book "Study Of Revenge", "Ramzi Yousef was arrested and returned to the U.S. on February 7, 1995." While she questions the provenance of documents he used prior to his capture in 1995, she does not claim in her book that Yousef resides anywhere but a maximum security federal prison.
Clarke simply himself makes up the absurd assertion Yousef was in Baghdad with Saddam, falsely attributes it to Mylroie, then uses it to discredit Mylroie.

More on the way in coming days. Stay tuned.

 

[etech]

Conjur,

If fighting terrorism was such an important item in the Clinton administration than why did he have no plan? Why did Pres. Bush have to increase funding five-fold for covert operations? Why was it left to the Bush administration to come up with a plan to eliminate the threat instead of just contain it? Why did the Clinton administration do nothing to get Pakistan involved?

Clarke 2002

"There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration ..."

"In their first meeting [the principles] changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding [for covert action against al Qaeda] five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [They] then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda ... to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.

" In the spring [of 2001], the Bush administration ... began to change Pakistani policy. We began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis ... [to] join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started. "

You got it ...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 [policy] from one of rollback to one of elimination.
"

 

[conjur]

Because, etech, Clinton DID try to get Pakistan involved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,562434,00.html


First quote: It's true no specific plan was passed from the Clinton admin to the Bush admin.

Remaining quotes: the increase in funding was for the entire intelligence community, not just for dealing with Al Qaeda as you allude to in your quote. Also, Clarke, in that Aug. 2002 press backgrounder, doesn't give specific timelines. The strategy did eventually get around to being one of elimination but not until Sept. 4 at the earliest.

You see, the Bush admin changed Clarke's position from one of reporting to a Cabinet-level Principals' Committee to that of a sub-Cabinet-level Deputies Committee. The new deputies didn't come on board until March/April so meetings could not have made much progress until at least the end of April/early May. That slowed the whole process down. Here...read this excerpt from Clarke's testimony at the 9/11 hearings:

ROEMER: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February.

Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues.

CLARKE: That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

You see, that Aug. 2002 interview was intentionally meant to paint a postive picture of the Bush administration's handling of dealing with terrorism in the light of post-9/11 criticisms that were being leveled against the administration. Clarke was sent to FOX News to give the press backgrounder as an anonymous source. In that interview, Clarke doesn't mention the details behind the timeline as he did in his 9/11 hearing testimony.

There is no contradiction. It differs, yes, because it's a higher-level view of what was going on. Leaving out the details leaves out the Bush admin's delays and failures.

Get it yet?

 

[etech]

No, I don't get your viewpoint. You say there are no contradictions in Clarkes testimony but you prove one yourself.

Clarke
" In the spring [of 2001], the Bush administration ... began to change Pakistani policy. We began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis ... [to] join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started. "

Because, etech, Clinton DID try to get Pakistan involved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,562434,00.html


So, did Clarke lie?

 

[conjur]

No...that is NOT a contradiction.

Your reading comprehension SUCKS!

"In 1999, the CIA secretly trained and equipped approximately 60 commandos from the Pakistani intelligence agency to enter Afghanistan for the purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, according to people familiar with the operation.
It was arranged by the then-Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, and his chief of intelligence with the Clinton administration, which in turn promised to lift sanctions on Pakistan and provide an economic aid package. The plan was aborted later that year when Mr Sharif was ousted in a military coup.
:
:
The plan was aborted on October 12, 1999, however, when Mr Sharif was overthrown in a military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf, who refused to continue the operation, despite substantial efforts by the Clinton administration to revive it. "


So, you see, the Bush administration was offering carrots to the new Pakistani government - the one that refused to work with Clinton. It was a different administration in charge in Pakistan.

 

[Gaard]

"Liar! Liar! Liar!"

"Prove it."

"Why? You wouldn't believe me anyways."

 

[etech]

Conjur,

You left out the aftermath of Clinton's failed attack on OBL. From your link.

"In the aftermath of last month's attacks on the US, Clinton officials said their decision not to take stronger and riskier action has taken on added relevance. "I wish we'd recognised it then", that the US was at war with Bin Laden, said a senior defence official, "and started the campaign then that we've started now. That's my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war."

Outside experts are even more pointed. "I think that raid really helped elevate Bin Laden's reputation in a big way, building him up in the Muslim world," said Harlan Ullman, a defence analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington thinktank. "My sense is that because the attack was so limited and incompetent, we turned this guy into a folk hero."
"

As for the funding increase.

"Clarke also said in 2002 that, in addition to quintupling the budget for going after Al Qaeda, Bush demanded a significant change in strategy. "

You say.

Remaining quotes: the increase in funding was for the entire intelligence community, not just for dealing with Al Qaeda as you allude to in your quote.

Was Clarke lying?


Clarke said the terrorism was a top priority for the Clinton administration,

Clarke stated in 2002 that in the two years after Al Qaeda attacked two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the Clinton administration had not made decisions about a number of proposals that he had put forward, including the need to have closer relations with Pakistan, which shares a border with Afghanistan and was backing the Taliban regime.

But you say that Clinton was working with Pakistan,

Was Clarke lying?


Long article, I'll just let you read it.

Richard Clarke, at War With Himself

 

[Shuxclams]

Clarke asks for all his testamony to be de-classified (Sounds like he is hiding something.... LoL)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On to the Conie problem... if she takes oath she'll have to lie....?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks feels unanimously that White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) should testify in public and under oath when she appears before the panel a second time, the chairman said on Sunday.

Rice has refused to appear before the independent panel in public and under oath to answer allegations from former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke that the Bush administration neglected the threat from al Qaeda. The White House has asked for a second private session for Rice.

The commission's Republican chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, told "Fox News Sunday" his panel would continue to press for Rice to appear publicly but would not try to force her to do so under a court order.

"To get into a court battle over a subpoena we don't think is really appropriate right now, nor will it help us," Kean said.

"We are still going to press and still believe unanimously as a commission that we should hear from her in public."

Asked on CNN's "Late Edition" whether they believed the White House might relent, commission vice chairman, former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, said, "We're going to keep trying."

"We would like it under oath, because we ask witnesses to appear under oath," Kean added. "That's up to her. We will ask her to take the oath."

Rice, once Clarke's White House superior, has led furious administration denials of his charges and was slated to appear on CBS' "60 Minutes" later on Sunday.

The administration says Rice testifying publicly would set a precedent that other presidential advisers could be compelled to testify about advice they have given the president.

"We think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably overridden," Kean said.

U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said, "It's been one of the stupidest things this White House has done. ... She has to testify."

'PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY PROBLEM'

But on CBS' "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said a legitimate "presidential authority problem" was involved.

"I wouldn't have done it during the time I was there working for President Reagan," Powell said of his own tenure as national security adviser. "The president has to have a unique and confidential and private relationship with his immediate staff."

Powell also said he believed Rice was being unfairly criticized by Clarke for the administration's response to the threat from al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 in New York and outside Washington.

"I think Dr. Rice is getting a bit of a bum rap. It's being set up as 'Condi, I told you everything that you needed to do,' and she ignored it all. That's not accurate," he said.

Both Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld noted that none of Clarke's recommendations for combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan (news - web sites) could have prevented the domestic attacks.



"The terrorists were in the United States. They used a U.S. airplane, and they attacked a U.S. target," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) has challenged Rice to appear publicly, accusing President Bush (news - web sites)'s White House of stonewalling the commission and of attempting "character assassination" against Clarke, who has served four U.S. presidents.

To buttress his contentions, Clarke on Sunday urged that all related information be made public, including previous testimony of his on Capitol Hill, which Republicans are challenging, as well as Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission and all memos and e-mail between them.

"Let's declassify all of it," Clarke said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The White House said it has asked the CIA (news - web sites) to review whether Clarke's 2002 testimony should be declassified.

Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, said they did not yet have a date for interviewing Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites). Bush is insisting on testifying privately before only Kean and Hamilton, though he has relented on appearing for only an hour.

So the spin goes on and on.................











SHUX

 

[Napalm]

LOL @ etech getting his arse kicked all over the place - again...

Conjur, don't waste your time with this guy. He still thinks that the Iraqi invasion was about combatting terrorism, getting rid of WMDs, and imminent threats to the US...

N

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams
Clarke asks for all his testamony to be de-classified (Sounds like he is hiding something.... LoL)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On to the Conie problem... if she takes oath she'll have to lie....?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks feels unanimously that White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) should testify in public and under oath when she appears before the panel a second time, the chairman said on Sunday.

Rice has refused to appear before the independent panel in public and under oath to answer allegations from former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke that the Bush administration neglected the threat from al Qaeda. The White House has asked for a second private session for Rice.

The commission's Republican chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, told "Fox News Sunday" his panel would continue to press for Rice to appear publicly but would not try to force her to do so under a court order.

"To get into a court battle over a subpoena we don't think is really appropriate right now, nor will it help us," Kean said.

"We are still going to press and still believe unanimously as a commission that we should hear from her in public."

Asked on CNN's "Late Edition" whether they believed the White House might relent, commission vice chairman, former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, said, "We're going to keep trying."

"We would like it under oath, because we ask witnesses to appear under oath," Kean added. "That's up to her. We will ask her to take the oath."

Rice, once Clarke's White House superior, has led furious administration denials of his charges and was slated to appear on CBS' "60 Minutes" later on Sunday.

The administration says Rice testifying publicly would set a precedent that other presidential advisers could be compelled to testify about advice they have given the president.

"We think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably overridden," Kean said.

U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said, "It's been one of the stupidest things this White House has done. ... She has to testify."

'PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY PROBLEM'

But on CBS' "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said a legitimate "presidential authority problem" was involved.

"I wouldn't have done it during the time I was there working for President Reagan," Powell said of his own tenure as national security adviser. "The president has to have a unique and confidential and private relationship with his immediate staff."

Powell also said he believed Rice was being unfairly criticized by Clarke for the administration's response to the threat from al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 in New York and outside Washington.

"I think Dr. Rice is getting a bit of a bum rap. It's being set up as 'Condi, I told you everything that you needed to do,' and she ignored it all. That's not accurate," he said.

Both Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld noted that none of Clarke's recommendations for combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan (news - web sites) could have prevented the domestic attacks.



"The terrorists were in the United States. They used a U.S. airplane, and they attacked a U.S. target," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) has challenged Rice to appear publicly, accusing President Bush (news - web sites)'s White House of stonewalling the commission and of attempting "character assassination" against Clarke, who has served four U.S. presidents.

To buttress his contentions, Clarke on Sunday urged that all related information be made public, including previous testimony of his on Capitol Hill, which Republicans are challenging, as well as Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission and all memos and e-mail between them.

"Let's declassify all of it," Clarke said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The White House said it has asked the CIA (news - web sites) to review whether Clarke's 2002 testimony should be declassified.

Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, said they did not yet have a date for interviewing Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites). Bush is insisting on testifying privately before only Kean and Hamilton, though he has relented on appearing for only an hour.

So the spin goes on and on.................











SHUX

So even Clark wants the testimony declassified. The old "I have Nothing to hide defense" . It doesn't matter. It will take months to get that stuff declassified if the administration decides to do it.

 

[chess9]

What Powell and the rest of the White House staff aren't saying is that the Commission would be more than happy to work out some "out of bounds" areas, such as Rice's conversations with the President. They could agree on some very specific guidelines for her testimony. But, NO, the country is less important than Executive Privilege.

What are they hiding? My guess, is it must be a big bomb because the downside to Rice NOT testifying is enormous. Shays is right.

The American people-at least those who are paying attention-will not be amused.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
Conjur,

You left out the aftermath of Clinton's failed attack on OBL. From your link.

"In the aftermath of last month's attacks on the US, Clinton officials said their decision not to take stronger and riskier action has taken on added relevance. "I wish we'd recognised it then", that the US was at war with Bin Laden, said a senior defence official, "and started the campaign then that we've started now. That's my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war."

Outside experts are even more pointed. "I think that raid really helped elevate Bin Laden's reputation in a big way, building him up in the Muslim world," said Harlan Ullman, a defence analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington thinktank. "My sense is that because the attack was so limited and incompetent, we turned this guy into a folk hero."

And? That's nothing knew. In hindsight, many things should have been done.

As for the funding increase.

"Clarke also said in 2002 that, in addition to quintupling the budget for going after Al Qaeda, Bush demanded a significant change in strategy. "

You say.

Remaining quotes: the increase in funding was for the entire intelligence community, not just for dealing with Al Qaeda as you allude to in your quote.

Was Clarke lying?

No. Because never said in 2002 that Bush quintupled the budget for going after Al Qaeda. Your quote there is not a quote of Clarke, looks like your subject review of what Clarke said.

Clarke said the terrorism was a top priority for the Clinton administration,

Clarke stated in 2002 that in the two years after Al Qaeda attacked two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the Clinton administration had not made decisions about a number of proposals that he had put forward, including the need to have closer relations with Pakistan, which shares a border with Afghanistan and was backing the Taliban regime.

But you say that Clinton was working with Pakistan,

Was Clarke lying?

No, according to you, proposals were on the table but no decisions made yet on how to act. How does that contradict Clarke? You are quite confused here.

You keep trying to compare Clarke's words with other people's including people up here!

If you are going to prove Clarke contradicted himself, you need to compare Clarke's words against Clarke's words.

How difficult is that for you to understand?

Long article, I'll just let you read it.

Richard Clarke, at War With Himself

I got about halfway and found nothing. Not one contradiction. There was some conjecture and subjective analysis thrown in but no contradictions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Families of 9/11 victims accuse Clarke of "profiteering" and trying to divide the country.

CkG

 

[etech]

And? That's nothing knew. In hindsight, many things should have been done.

At the end of it all, isn't that the crux of Clarke's entire argument?

Well, that and a few hundred thousand for a best selling book.

 

[chess9]

CAD:

36 people signed the letter? What about the rest?

The folks at the hearing seemed pretty impressed with Clarke. Of course, they saw and heard him in person.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Families of 9/11 victims accuse Clarke of "profiteering" and trying to divide the country.

CkG

Took Bush a week to round up enough people to make a press release about it?

I saw a couple of 9/11 victim families on Good Morning America last week PRAISING Clarke.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

36 people signed the letter? What about the rest?

The folks at the hearing seemed pretty impressed with Clarke. Of course, they saw and heard him in person.

-Robert

I'mn wondering if
'The amount of spin needed to make a couple of the fleece jackets = "Bush campaign gear made in Burma" is HUGE.'

somehow mirrors
'Families of 9/11 victims accuse Clarke of "profiteering" and trying to divide the country.'

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Families of 9/11 victims accuse Clarke of "profiteering" and trying to divide the country.

CkG

Took Bush a week to round up enough people to make a press release about it?

I saw a couple of 9/11 victim families on Good Morning America last week PRAISING Clarke.

And people here were bleating about it no? So I'm just posting a story about some "other" 9/11 families who think otherwise. So anyway - are you trying to say one is more believable than the other? Hmm...

CkG

 

[Shuxclams]

Rice Rejects Public Testimony to 9/11 Panel

The head of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks urged Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on Sunday to testify before it in public but the White House national security adviser repeated her refusal to do so.

Rice has refused to appear before the independent panel in public and under oath to answer charges from former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke that the Bush administration neglected the threat from al Qaeda. The White House has asked for a second private session for Rice.

The commission's Republican chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, told "Fox News Sunday" his panel would continue to press for Rice to appear publicly but would not try to force her to do so under a court order.

"To get into a court battle over a subpoena we don't think is really appropriate right now, nor will it help us," Kean said.

"We are still going to press and still believe unanimously as a commission that we should hear from her in public."

But Rice, in an interview on the CBS program "60 Minutes," said there was "an important principle ... that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."

"Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify," she said, according to a transcript of the interview provided by the network ahead of broadcast.

"I would really like to do that. But ...This is a matter of policy."

Clarke, who served under Rice at the White House, has accused President Bush (news - web sites) of being determined to go to war against Iraq (news - web sites) and of undermining the war on terror by doing so.

Clarke said the invasion a year ago had fueled anger at the United States and helped the cause of al Qaeda, blamed for carrying out the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America in which 3,000 people were killed.

The Bush administration has launched a fierce counter offensive against Clarke, whose comments are seen as damaging Bush's attempts to portray himself as a tough anti-terror leader going into presidential elections in November.

Rice told CBS it was "perfectly logical" for Bush to ask his aides on the day after Sept. 11, as Clarke said he did, if Iraq could have been responsible.

But she added: "The president focused our energies and our attention on winning in Afghanistan (news - web sites), and expelling the Taliban and thereby, expelling al Qaeda."

Rice rejected the suggestion that before Sept. 11 the administration failed to regard terrorism as an urgent problem.

"I would like very much to know what more could have been done ... We were looking for a more comprehensive plan to eliminate al Qaeda. But we weren't sitting still while that plan was developing," she said.

Asked about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- Saddam's alleged possession of which Bush gave as his main justification for the invasion -- Rice said the war on terrorism was "well served by the victory in Iraq."

"Iraq ... I think the most dangerous regime in the world's most dangerous region, in the Middle East ... was under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) a big reason for instability in the region, for threats to the United States."



Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) has challenged Rice to appear publicly, accusing the White House of stonewalling the commission and of attempting "character assassination" against Clarke, who has served four U.S. presidents.

Kean, referring to the White House's arguments against Rice testifying, said: "We think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably overridden."

On CBS' "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said he believed Rice had been being unfairly criticized by Clarke.

"I think Dr. Rice is getting a bit of a bum rap. It's being set up as 'Condi, I told you everything that you needed to do,' and she ignored it all. That's not accurate," he said.

Both Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said none of Clarke's recommendations for combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan could have prevented the domestic attacks.

"The terrorists were in the United States. They used a U.S. airplane, and they attacked a U.S. target," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday."

Wow Rumsfeld really sumed it up... as usual. I think Ashcroft would be even more amusing... but I will settle for Rumsfeld for tonights comedy.







SHUX

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Families of 9/11 victims accuse Clarke of "profiteering" and trying to divide the country.

CkG

Took Bush a week to round up enough people to make a press release about it?

I saw a couple of 9/11 victim families on Good Morning America last week PRAISING Clarke.

It was hilarious.

The people who lost family members CRY about anyone using 9/11 for political purposes, guess thay have the market cornered.

 

[SuperTool]

Let me guess, by families of 9/11 victims, they mean Ted Olson?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Families of 9/11 victims accuse Clarke of "profiteering" and trying to divide the country.

CkG

Took Bush a week to round up enough people to make a press release about it?

I saw a couple of 9/11 victim families on Good Morning America last week PRAISING Clarke.

And people here were bleating about it no? So I'm just posting a story about some "other" 9/11 families who think otherwise. So anyway - are you trying to say one is more believable than the other? Hmm...

CkG

Why did it take week to find someone?

FOX and Friends (the most pro-Bush/anti-Kerry show on TV these days) had some woman on this morning bleating the GOP talking points and sounding amazingly unbelievable. Her son was a firefighter...2nd Ave. and 29th St.

I guess she forgot that Bush won't properly fund first-line defense (police, firefighters, etc.) and the International Association of Fire Fighters will support Kerry?

 

[Fern]

There is much confusion with regard to facts here. Rice HAS testified under oath. And the Commitee said she was very forthcoming. The refusal has been to PUBLICLY testify.

More information is better. If his testimony can be declassified without harming our national security interests: So much the better. I've already "seen" the news broadcast, where in his owns words he does seem to contradict himself. At the time he says he was "pressured" to say those remarks.

If earilier sworn testimony indicates he "contracdicted" or purjured himself, well I for one have no pity at all for anybody in government (or elsewhere) who perjures and gets in trouble.

Anyway, I'd rather read the transcripts for myself then be fed the 'truth' by others.