(paraphrase) Clarke: I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Worked for Reagan campaign. Worked for the first President Bush administration. Randy Beers worked in the Reagan administration, the first President Bush, and this President Bush. He is now part of the Kerry campaign but that does not make me part of the Kerry campaign. I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one . . . under oath.
i love how these commissioners are So concerned about their job to investigate 9-11 that they make partisan attacks during their entire questioning period and ask No questions in reguards to the charter of the commission
Bob Kerry just dropped a bomblet . . . that the FOXNews release of a background briefing was a little bit of a no-no.
The White House, who has the authority, gave Fox News permission. So you and Bob Kerry are wrong. People, liberals, and the media, have been saying the White House had nothing to back their claims against Clarke, they did, they offered it up. And its been verified by other people other than the White House and Fox News.
The more I read that transcript of FOX News w/Jim Angle and Clarke, the more I don't see any contradictions.
On 60 Minutes, Clarke didn't give much in the way of specifics and timelines. The timeline given to Jim Angle isn't precise either but, to me, reads that the policy change from rollback to elimination didn't take place until after the summer - at the Sept. 4 meeting. All Bush had said prior was that he was tired of swatting flies.
2 months into a new administration is hardly enough time to completely revamp and issue a new policy, esp. considering some of the key players were brand new to the game.
On 60 Minutes, Clarke didn't give much in the way of specifics and timelines. The timeline given to Jim Angle isn't precise either but, to me, reads that the policy change from rollback to elimination didn't take place until after the summer - at the Sept. 4 meeting. All Bush had said prior was that he was tired of swatting flies.
2 months into a new administration is hardly enough time to completely revamp and issue a new policy, esp. considering some of the key players were brand new to the game.
The White House has the authority b/c Clarke was sent to FOX explicitly to deflect some of the post 9/11 criticism . . . and IIRC . . . Bush was opposing a 9/11 commission in Summer 2002.
The White House claims against Clarke:
1) In 2002 he was a great American, an indispensible resource for counter-terrorism, unmatched dedication and knowledge that spanned four administrations.
2) Anything Clarke says that it is critical of the Bush administration in 2004 is an absolute fabrication, he's a political hack for John Kerry, bitter b/c he was demoted (which occurred in 2001).
What the Bush/FOXNews operation demonstrates:
1) Unprecedented (in my short lifetime) duplicity of the press . . . acting as a vehicle of government propaganda instead of as an advocate for truth.
2) Political appointees go on TV and put the best possible face on administration policy . . . hmm is that newsworthy?
3) Clarke denied NOTHING in his briefing but he holds it as true . . . in a political sense.
4) As a function of #3, the Bush/FOX attempt to discredit Clarke merely confirms that political operatives talking to the press are not presenting truth for public digestion but progaganda for political cover.
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Ahem...
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.
Unless my reading comprehension sucks, it doesn't, what that says is:
1. It was decided in April to increase the budget 5 fold to go after Al Qaeda. It wouldn't go into effect until Oct due to the budget cycle. Same thing I deal with at work. I just finished our FY05 budget but it won't take effect until Oct 1st of this year.
2. The change in strategy to eliminate Al Qaeda took place in March after Bush made the swatting at flies comment.
This is quite hilarious. People want less govt seceracy, now they want more. The White House had the legal authority to release it, they did so, because it backs up their claims about Clarke. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. And besides, theres several other interviews from 2002 where he contradicts himself.
shinerburke is sort of right . . . Clarke has to do a lot of contortions to wed the political spin of the FOX transcript and the most provocative elements of his book. Admittedly, I'm not sure it's possible.
Rice is taking some seriously political flak for her absence. It is curious she can find time (and justification) for her media tour but the bright lights of this commission is too much to bear. Bushies claim it's a separation of powers issue but if she had nothing but good things to say . . . I wonder.
The only firm conclusions:
1) Clarke is at least a little bit bitter . . . whether it's secondary to his 2001 demotion or burden of the failures leading up to 9/11 . . . is actually irrelevant considering both are true.
2) Bushies (and the Clintonites) are covering their collective arses at every opportunity.
Rice is taking some seriously political flak for her absence. It is curious she can find time (and justification) for her media tour but the bright lights of this commission is too much to bear. Bushies claim it's a separation of powers issue but if she had nothing but good things to say . . . I wonder.
What's the truth you speak of? Clarke fulfilled his political duty to portray Bush policy in the best possible light. Clarke's perspective is that his briefing with FOX and his book are not mutually exclusive. I'm still on the fence. If you break it down to . . . (Bushies) we did everything possible as fast as possible versus (Clarke) we did some things well, some things poorly, and some things not at all . . . then both could be the truth . . . depending on how Bushies define possible or everything.
The only firm conclusions:
1) Clarke is at least a little bit bitter . . . whether it's secondary to his 2001 demotion or burden of the failures leading up to 9/11 . . . is actually irrelevant considering both are true.
2) Bushies (and the Clintonites) are covering their collective arses at every opportunity.
Actually it was more hilarious to listen to Fox being roasted on live tv by a member of the Commission.
Exactly my point.
What got started in April, shinerburke? It wasn't the policy. The funding was increased.
That portion you quoted there was a summary given by Clarke. I will say he wasn't as clear as he should have been. I can see where one could misconstrue his statements to thinking Bush gave the specific command to eliminate Al Qaeda back in March 2001 but that just did not happen.
How could a new strategy have been dictated by Bush when his own people weren't even working for him yet????
That final Sept. 4 document is what outlined the new strategy.
So Bush sent Clarke to lie to the press, just like he sent Powell to lie at the UN except anonymously, and now he is bashing Clarke for lying.
The world we live in. The question is, what did Bush do to prevent 9/11, prior to 9/11 as far as actions, and the answer is jack sh!t.
The world we live in. The question is, what did Bush do to prevent 9/11, prior to 9/11 as far as actions, and the answer is jack sh!t.
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
The same can be said about Clinton. Only he had longer to do something....Bush had only been in office since Jan 20 of 2001 so he had less than 9 months to do something. Clinton had 8 years. By all accounts the Bush Administration was doing something....they had increased funding to go after Al Qaeda and had decided to eliminate rather than contain the terrorist organization. Sounds to me like they were doing something....something more than what was done during Clinton's 8 years in office.
As for your assumption that Clarke was sent out to lie....hmmmm...why is it that what he said in 2002 is automatically a lie yet what he is saying now is not. He has a much longer track record of making statements like those he made in 2002 than he does of what he is saying now.
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Yes, but as early as March discussions about a new strategy were taking place. Hardly the sitting on of hands that Clarke is now trying to sell. Clarke is currently saying that the Bush Administration did not take Al Qaeda seriously...no wait...he changed that today to say that they took it as a serious threat, but not an urgent on....Anyway it is easy to see that in March of 2001 the President had already decided to increase funding to fight Al Qaeda and to stop taking half measure to deal with them and instead decided to eliminate them. Sure it didn't get put into effect immediately, but it was a new administration and the fact that by the end of summer they had a plan written and ready to go says to me that they were going after Al Qaeda's throat even before 9/11 happened
Oh, I don't know. One is a anonymous news briefing, the other is under oath testimony. One was speaking for the administration, which is already on record lying about WMD's, cost of medicare bill, etc, the other is speaking for himself. Which one to believe
So what if Bush changed the policy from containing AQ to eliminating it. Prior to 9/11nothing substantial was done to accomplish either. I want to see an accounting of that supposedly five fold increase of funding to fight AQ, and why it was so ineffective prior to 9/11. If the money was spent, where did it go, since the taxpayer paid 5 fold to see nothing done.
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Your name fits.Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh, I don't know. One is a anonymous news briefing, the other is under oath testimony. One was speaking for the administration, which is already on record lying about WMD's, cost of medicare bill, etc, the other is speaking for himself. Which one to believe
If you had bothered to read any of this you would have seen that the funding was increased BUT it would not been coming until the next budget cycle started in October of 01. The fiscal year for the govt starts in October...many companies are the same way...so even though funding was going to be increased there wasn't anything the administration could do to increase it before their first budget took effect in October. Anyway...how is it you can give Clinton an 8 year free pass but damn Bush for a 9 month period?
As for Clarke....I've said it before and I will say it again. He was passed over for a better job, became bitter, left the administration, and started saying things that contradicted what he had been saying until he was passed over for promotion.
dont'y you know it is perectly acceptable for clark to say good things about the administration while bucking for a high level job then directly contradict himself when he does not get it?
what is funny the libs are doing thier best to camoflouge the fact that bush actually did more in 10 MONTHS than clinton did in 8 YEARS
what is funny the libs are doing thier best to camoflouge the fact that bush actually did more in 10 MONTHS than clinton did in 8 YEARS
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter