What Clarke had to say in 2002

[shiner]

about the Bush Administration's anti terrorism efforts...

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Wednesday, March 24, 2004



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.


Gee....wonder why he changed his tune? Could it be because he was passed over for the Assistant Director of Homeland Security position?

 

[ThePresence]

Shhhhhhhhh....Nobody wants to hear stuff like this.

 

[conjur]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080850/entry/2080855/

From: Edward Jay Epstein
To: Daniel Benjamin
Subject: Saddam and Osama
Monday, March 31, 2003, at 8:59 AM PT
Let me make the case that the government of Iraq has been involved in state-sponsored terrorism, as it is defined by the U.S. government, for over a decade. As director of counterterrorism for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, you know that Secretary of State Albright had good reason for including Iraq among the seven countries designated as state sponsors of international terrorism in 2000.

Iraq, through its intelligence service, has attempted to sponsor or facilitate a number of covert attacks against U.S. interests. There were, for example, Iraq's sponsorship of a car-bombing attempt in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait City, Iraq's sponsorship in 1998 of the attempted recruitment of car bombers to destroy the headquarters building of Radio Free Europe in Wenceslas Square in the historic center of Prague, and Iraq's provision of fake identity papers and safe haven to two of the key figures in the 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.

Since one purpose of covert sponsorship of terrorism is to remain hidden, there may have been other Iraq operations that better succeeded in concealing their sponsorship. Let's consider Iraq's relationship with al-Qaida. In your excellent book The Age of Sacred Terrorism (which should be required reading on 9/11), you report that Osama Bin Laden had contempt for Saddam and vice versa. OK, but even if they are ideological enemies, didn't U.S. (and U.N.) intelligence indicate that Saddam's scientists provided the technology for the VX chemical weapons facility for which Osama supplied the funds in the Sudan? Why wouldn't Saddam similarly use Osama's al-Qaida as cover to conceal his own covert actions? Or Osama use Saddam's embassy bases to facilitate his own operations? I submit expediency, not affinity, often governs such temporary alliances.

It is in this context that the Czech intelligence report of a meeting between an Iraq embassy official and an al-Qaida trained hijacker must be viewed. This report asserts that Mohamed Atta, who had previously visited Prague in June 2000, met with Iraq consul Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani at an undisclosed location in Prague in April 2001. Subsequently, on April 22, Hynek Kmonicek, who was then deputy foreign minister of the Czech Republic, ordered al-Ani expelled from Prague. According to Kmonicek, who is now the ambassador to the United Nations in New York, "the Czech government collected detailed evidence of the al-Ani/Atta meeting." The other Czech officials directly involved in this unprecedented expulsion, namely Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman, Foreign Minister Jan Kavan, Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, and intelligence chief Jiri Ruzek, have all confirmed receiving the report of this meeting.

So, Daniel, before pre-emptively dismissing the possibility of an al-Qaida/Iraq liaison, wouldn't you want to hear from al-Ani, who is presumably in Baghdad?

Regards,
Ed Epstein



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Benjamin
To: Edward Jay Epstein
Subject: Saddam, Sudan, and VX
Monday, March 31, 2003, at 3:41 PM PT
Ed,

Let's start by stipulating the incontrovertible: Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. You mention the State Department's 2000 terrorism report; in fact, Iraq has been pretty much a regular on the annual list since it was first created almost 25 years ago. (The Reagan administration took Iraq off the list in 1982 because Washington saw Saddam Hussein as a valuable ally in containing and undermining the Khomeini regime in Iran. Iraq was put back on the list in 1990 after invading Kuwait.) And you're right to mention the attempt to assassinate the first President Bush in 1993 and the plotting to attack the office in Prague that produces Radio Free Iraq programming.

You could have added the many killings of Iraqi dissidents abroad; support for the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, which seeks to topple the Tehran government; the subsidies for Palestinian suicide bombers; the safe haven and support given for many years to radical Palestinian groups, including the one led by Abu Nidal, who died in Baghdad last summer after reportedly committing suicide by shooting himself four times. (Talented fellow.) No question, Saddam Hussein uses terror as a tool of policy. Iraq is a distant third behind Iran and Syria on the terror list because Saddam mostly relies on his broken-down intelligence service?who my former boss Richard Clarke recently referred to as the Marx Brothers of international terror?to do the work and because he has not tried anything ambitious since the botched attempt on Bush. But Saddam is still in the business.

Making the case that he and the radical Islamists of al-Qaida are working together is entirely another matter. Obviously, we need to ask whether different enemies are working together against us. But before looking more deeply into motives, let's look at the facts. The allegation of Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing has never been substantiated. True, a conspirator named Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Baghdad, and Ramzi Yousef had an Iraqi passport. But Iraqi papers could be procured on the black market, and the fact that Yasin was allowed to stay in Baghdad only means that the Iraqis found him useful?a potential chip to be played later. That's where the trail ends. I don't know of any FBI or Justice Department investigators or intelligence experts who believe there was more Iraqi involvement in WTC I. The main proponent of a link, as you note on your Web site, is Laurie Mylroie. She's popular with the neocons who pushed for the invasion of Iraq?aka "The Cakewalkers"?but U.S. counterterrorism experts have never been able to corroborate her claims.

High points for the close reading of The Age of Sacred Terror, and I very much appreciate the compliment. You found the one datum that has, for some time, given me second thoughts about Iraqi complicity in Islamist terror. The Sudanese method of producing VX was indeed of Iraqi provenance. But remember, the plant belonged to Sudan. Osama Bin Laden invested in the regime's Military Industrial Company, as he did in many, many other companies, farms, real estate, trading firms, etc. I've never been able to find evidence of contact between Bin Laden and the Iraqis or to demonstrate that Baghdad knew of al-Qaida's involvement in the VX project. I'm guessing that no one in the Bush administration has either, or, given their desperation to show a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida, we would have heard about it. (I find it amazing that they never even point to the VX issue to support their case. They know the intelligence is solid. Perhaps they don't want to revisit the missile attack against Khartoum in August 1998 and credit Bill Clinton with carrying out the first U.S. counterterrorism/counterproliferation strike and sounding the alert on al-Qaida. If it is the ABC syndrome?not Atomic, Biological, and Chemical, but rather Anything but Clinton?at work, that tells us a lot.)

Which leads us to the issue of the Iraqi intelligence agent al-Ani and the purported meeting with Mohamed Atta in Prague. The story, as I understand it from intelligence community sources, goes like this: After 9/11, Washington sent out an all-points bulletin to intelligence services around the world asking about the hijackers. Among the informants whom the Czechs spoke with was one who knew al-Ani and said that he had seen him with Atta. This lit up the U.S. intelligence community and the White House. But when the Czechs double-checked, the source recanted. By that time, plenty of officials in Prague had spoken about the connection, and the matter was becoming embarrassing. President Vaclav Havel, no less, had to walk it back. Jim Risen has written about this in the New York Times, and, although senior U.S. officials continued for a time to cite the report as if it were true (any wonder so many Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11?), it is now completely discredited. Do you know any reason to think otherwise?

I would like to hear from al-Ani, as you suggest, but I wouldn't expect to hear much. I also have not pre-emptively dismissed the possibility of an al-Qaida-Iraq liaison. On the contrary, as you know from Sacred Terror, after the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa, Dick Clarke insisted that we conduct a review of the intelligence involving al-Qaida, Iraq, and Iran to see if the CIA was missing something regarding state sponsorship of Bin Laden's organization. Interestingly, the connections to Iran were more numerous. But in both countries, we saw that there had been cases of operatives transiting through these countries, sometimes even living for a time in them, and there were indications of passing contacts with Iranian or Iraqi officials. Still, we could not find anything that hinted at broader cooperation.

Let me just list a few other reasons why I'm skeptical about a serious connection between Iraq and al-Qaida:

I mentioned Saddam's reliance on his intelligence service to carry out his conspiracies. He doesn't trust outside groups. He would be extremely wary of trusting one that was determined, like all jihadist groups, to topple secular regimes like his own.
After the effort to assassinate former President Bush was uncovered, Saddam learned the same lesson that Libya's Qaddafi did after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and that the Iranian mullahs would in the late 1990s after the attack on Khobar Towers: It is all but impossible to hide state sponsorship of a terrorist attack. I suspect that explains, in part, why he hasn't targeted anything big since 1993.
Saddam's goal is regional domination. Supporting al-Qaida in its attacks against the United States would not help him achieve that. I believe Saddam wanted to continue working on a nuclear program until he had a bomb to blackmail his neighbors and deter the United States. He is certainly capable of miscalculating. But I think he would have seen attacking America as a gamble that would have risked bringing the wrath of the United States down on him before he had the bomb.
Finally, Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction for decades. If he had wanted to cause America grievous harm, wouldn't he have given al-Qaida or another group a chemical or biological weapon already? He has not done so because he wants to achieve mastery of the Persian Gulf, not provoke a premature fight with the United States.
Of course, now that he has that fight on his hands, and his back is to the wall, all that could change?wouldn't you agree?

Bests,
Dan

 

[digitalsm]

Face it dude, your boy Clarke has NO credibility, and its funny you side step his past comments. He has said one thing in 2001/2002, and has said totally opposite in his book, even taking Bush's word out of context, and misqouting people. This is the same guy that praised Bush, Condi Rice and Rummy post Sept 11 and all through out 2002, and into 2003. His tune did NOT change until after he retired(forced out after being demoted to Cybersecurity, and then not getting a high level spot in Homeland Security). And his whole attack on Condi Rice is just nonsense. It has been said, by him and others that Condi Rice and Tom Ridge were his main allies in the White House. Not to mention he PRAISED her several times in the past.

 

[LordJezo]

I just heard this all on the radio. Makes me happy. Glad he is getting exposed.

 

[conjur]

$20 Clarke was directed by the Bush Administration to make those statements, which would mean he sold out.

I must admit I did harbor some reservations about him that I kept to myself.

However, Paul O'Neill and Daniel Benjamin still offer rather scathing reviews of Bush.

 

[TekChik]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Face it dude, your boy Clarke has NO credibility, and its funny you side step his past comments. He has said one thing in 2001/2002, and has said totally opposite in his book, even taking Bush's word out of context, and misqouting people. This is the same guy that praised Bush, Condi Rice and Rummy post Sept 11 and all through out 2002, and into 2003. His tune did NOT change until after he retired. And his whole attack on Condi Rice. It has been said, by him and others that Condi Rice and Tom Ridge were his main allies in the White House. Not to mention he PRAISED her several times in the past. All this changed after others in the Bush admin prevented him from getting a high level role in Homeland Security.

exactly. what makes it even worse is that (and i'm not trying to get into another liberal media discussion here) all that was ever said in the media (who probably didnt even READ the book or try to gather this information on previous statements made by Clarke) was his NOW derogatory statements against the current administration. talk about taken out of context...

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: conjur
$20 Clarke was directed by the Bush Administration to make those statements, which would mean he sold out.

I must admit I did harbor some reservations about him that I kept to myself.

However, Paul O'Neill and Daniel Benjamin still offer rather scathing reviews of Bush.

Uh huh, exactly what I was expecting you and other people to say.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: conjur
$20 Clarke was directed by the Bush Administration to make those statements, which would mean he sold out.

I must admit I did harbor some reservations about him that I kept to myself.

However, Paul O'Neill and Daniel Benjamin still offer rather scathing reviews of Bush.

George Tenent says quite the opposite of O'Neill, Benjamin, and Clarke, and he had DAILY meetings with Bush in 2001. I guess hes being told to say it too? Even though hes practically been blamed by the Admin for intellegiance failures regarding Sept 11, and intel regarding Iraq.

 

[conjur]

Hey...I did mention in another thread somewhere that Clarke may eventually be born out to be contradicting himself. Not sure where I said it and it might have even been another forum.

Fact remains, though, that no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was ever established and Bush misled us into war.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TekChik

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Face it dude, your boy Clarke has NO credibility, and its funny you side step his past comments. He has said one thing in 2001/2002, and has said totally opposite in his book, even taking Bush's word out of context, and misqouting people. This is the same guy that praised Bush, Condi Rice and Rummy post Sept 11 and all through out 2002, and into 2003. His tune did NOT change until after he retired. And his whole attack on Condi Rice. It has been said, by him and others that Condi Rice and Tom Ridge were his main allies in the White House. Not to mention he PRAISED her several times in the past. All this changed after others in the Bush admin prevented him from getting a high level role in Homeland Security.

exactly. what makes it even worse is that (and i'm not trying to get into another liberal media discussion here) all that was ever said in the media (who probably didnt even READ the book or try to gather this information on previous statements made by Clarke) was his NOW derogatory statements against the current administration. talk about taken out of context...

You read the book already? Wow you are a fast reader!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: conjur
$20 Clarke was directed by the Bush Administration to make those statements, which would mean he sold out.

I must admit I did harbor some reservations about him that I kept to myself.

However, Paul O'Neill and Daniel Benjamin still offer rather scathing reviews of Bush.

George Tenent says quite the opposite of O'Neill, Benjamin, and Clarke, and he had DAILY meetings with Bush in 2001. I guess hes being told to say it too? Even though hes practically been blamed by the Admin for intellegiance failures regarding Sept 11, and intel regarding Iraq.

Check this out:

http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/archives/000073.html

The Bush Files : Spin


How to Beat the Press (3 Pages)
Before a January, 2002, appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Treasury Department public relations chief Michele Davis sent Secretary O'Neill a 3-page memo explaining how he should deal with host Tim Russert. The memo, which coaches O'Neill on how to avoid the substance of Russert's questions, is a classic of political spin. O'Neill was told to answer the first question by praising the President's economic stimulus proposals, "no matter the question." "You need to interject the President's message," Davis coached O'Neill, "even if the question has nothing to do with that."

Plus, an image of the memo from Michele Davis.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: conjur
$20 Clarke was directed by the Bush Administration to make those statements, which would mean he sold out.

I must admit I did harbor some reservations about him that I kept to myself.

However, Paul O'Neill and Daniel Benjamin still offer rather scathing reviews of Bush.

George Tenent says quite the opposite of O'Neill, Benjamin, and Clarke, and he had DAILY meetings with Bush in 2001. I guess hes being told to say it too? Even though hes practically been blamed by the Admin for intellegiance failures regarding Sept 11, and intel regarding Iraq.

Check this out:

http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/archives/000073.html

The Bush Files : Spin


How to Beat the Press (3 Pages)
Before a January, 2002, appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Treasury Department public relations chief Michele Davis sent Secretary O'Neill a 3-page memo explaining how he should deal with host Tim Russert. The memo, which coaches O'Neill on how to avoid the substance of Russert's questions, is a classic of political spin. O'Neill was told to answer the first question by praising the President's economic stimulus proposals, "no matter the question." "You need to interject the President's message," Davis coached O'Neill, "even if the question has nothing to do with that."

Plus, an image of the memo from Michele Davis.

So basically you are calling Clarke and O'Neill liars? Of course people are prep'ed for interviews. Anyone that does an interview is well preped before hand so they don't make serious gaffs. Politicians, celebs, lawyers, anyone. Everyone is well prep'ed. Being well prep'ed doesn't mean telling lies. And well O'Niells statements on Russertts shows weren't lies IIRC. So, what exactly does this have to do with Sept 11 and the Iraq war?

 

[conjur]

O'Neill's book claims Bush was headstrong to going to war with Iraq as soon as his foot entered the White House. He was desperately looking for a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that connection has never surfaced.

He was forced to finagle some legal justification for the war on Iraq claiming Saddam was an immediate threat. We know that was not the case. This war on Iraq diverted the administration from the real war on terror in Afghanistan.

I will say this, though, I will no longer use Clarke as any sort of resource to back up my opinions until I can read his book, myself. I just have a feeling we've been seeing bits and pieces of his book used to fit certain people's agenda and maybe even that transcript with Jim Angle has some other portions to it.


One more thing, the passage:

"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. "

That appears to be referring to the Sept. 4 meeting. That would mean he's not contradicting himself.

 

[TekChik]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TekChik

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Face it dude, your boy Clarke has NO credibility, and its funny you side step his past comments. He has said one thing in 2001/2002, and has said totally opposite in his book, even taking Bush's word out of context, and misqouting people. This is the same guy that praised Bush, Condi Rice and Rummy post Sept 11 and all through out 2002, and into 2003. His tune did NOT change until after he retired. And his whole attack on Condi Rice. It has been said, by him and others that Condi Rice and Tom Ridge were his main allies in the White House. Not to mention he PRAISED her several times in the past. All this changed after others in the Bush admin prevented him from getting a high level role in Homeland Security.

exactly. what makes it even worse is that (and i'm not trying to get into another liberal media discussion here) all that was ever said in the media (who probably didnt even READ the book or try to gather this information on previous statements made by Clarke) was his NOW derogatory statements against the current administration. talk about taken out of context...

You read the book already? Wow you are a fast reader!

You read something I didn't even type?? Wow, you are a mind reader!

What I will do, though, is listen more attentively to people that HAVE read it...

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: conjur
O'Neill's book claims Bush was headstrong to going to war with Iraq as soon as his foot entered the White House. He was desperately looking for a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that connection has never surfaced.

He was forced to finagle some legal justification for the war on Iraq claiming Saddam was an immediate threat. We know that was not the case. This war on Iraq diverted the administration from the real war on terror in Afghanistan.

I will say this, though, I will no longer use Clarke as any sort of resource to back up my opinions until I can read his book, myself. I just have a feeling we've been seeing bits and pieces of his book used to fit certain people's agenda and maybe even that transcript with Jim Angle has some other portions to it.


One more thing, the passage:

"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. "

That appears to be referring to the Sept. 4 meeting. That would mean he's not contradicting himself.

You need to take a reading class.

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.

 

[conjur]

Bush told them to stop swatting at flies in March. Seems Clarke is not a good speaker. The policy wasn't decided until the Sept. 4 meeting.

 

[conjur]

"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."

That last part implies the strategy changed after summer...at that Sept. 4 meeting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TekChik

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TekChik

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Face it dude, your boy Clarke has NO credibility, and its funny you side step his past comments. He has said one thing in 2001/2002, and has said totally opposite in his book, even taking Bush's word out of context, and misqouting people. This is the same guy that praised Bush, Condi Rice and Rummy post Sept 11 and all through out 2002, and into 2003. His tune did NOT change until after he retired. And his whole attack on Condi Rice. It has been said, by him and others that Condi Rice and Tom Ridge were his main allies in the White House. Not to mention he PRAISED her several times in the past. All this changed after others in the Bush admin prevented him from getting a high level role in Homeland Security.

exactly. what makes it even worse is that (and i'm not trying to get into another liberal media discussion here) all that was ever said in the media (who probably didnt even READ the book or try to gather this information on previous statements made by Clarke) was his NOW derogatory statements against the current administration. talk about taken out of context...

You read the book already? Wow you are a fast reader!

You read something I didn't even type?? Wow, you are a mind reader!

What I will do, though, is listen more attentively to people that HAVE read it...

What I am is a fast anticipator. People who are sniping at Clarke who have not read the book seem to abound. It's not just limited to reporters.

Frankly I don't know if Clarke is correct or not. I haven't read the book. I am somewhat amused of those who instantly support or discredit Clarke.

More to the point is how one side (mostly Bush supporters but this is not required to be just one way) spring to defend their guy why trying to slam the other side for doing the exact same thing.

Truthfully, I doubt much could have been done to prevent 9/11, and if Clinton had started attacking people based on hypotheticals, you can bet just about every Bush supporter here would have decried him as insane.

Clinton acted responsibly in NOT going off half cocked based on the context of the time, and Bush (prior to 9/11) seemed to be doing the same. What I am interested in is how things developed after 9/11. Most of the effort expended since then has been in the war on Iraq after the Taliban was removed.

I believe Bush fails miserably in his justification of the Iraq war, however this has nothing to do with Clarke except that IF Clarke is correct then the war took precidence over those who attacked us. Again, one knows yet if his claims are valid. I will withold judgement until more comes to light.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Clarke is talking about this memo right now.

 

[Phokus]

Considering the threats the Bush administration had against O'Neil, Clarke, his economic policy advisors, etc. it's no surprised that he'd feel pressured to say nice things about the Bush administration after 9/11

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Clarke is talking about this memo right now.

Keep us updated.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Considering the threats the Bush administration had against O'Neil, Clarke, his economic policy advisors, etc. it's no surprised that he'd feel pressured to say nice things about the Bush administration after 9/11

The chronology is actually a little different. The August 2002 statements by Clarke occurred before O'Neill's cluster bomb written by Ron Suskind.

On the otherhand, Clarke is characterizing his comments as putting the best possible face on Bush policy.

 

[burnedout]

So basically you are calling Clarke and O'Neill liars?

Depends upon the position one takes.

At any rate, one finds considerable evidence of "flip-flopping" when comparing prior statements. Must the propagandists be critically read in order to be decoded? Perhaps.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

At any rate, one finds considerable evidence of "flip-flopping" when comparing prior statements. Must the propagandists be critically read in order to be decoded? Perhaps.

Curiously, flip-flop only applies to critics of the Bush administration.

The fact that Clarke wrote a rose-colored lens assessment of Bush administration policy is not surprising in 2002 . . . considering he was a staffer in the Bush administration. After replacing the rose-colored lenses with a magnifying glass, it is not surprising that the tone and content changed.