Does the Richard Clark interview on 60 minutes change anyone's mind?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that both did so in conjunction with the release of the books they wrote. They both stand to make a lot of money from book sales, never mind speaking engagements, etc.

Clarke also has 20/20 hindsight. Having myself been involved in events which were thoroughly picked-apart after the fact by those who weren't there and didn't have to make decisions at the time, I know all too well how it works. It's so easy to make all the right moves and avoid all the mistakes after you know the outcome.

 

That's not so according to Clarke's testimony before the Congressional Committee yesterday. Clarke paints a picture of an aggressive Clinton agenda and a standing order to kill Bin Laden. From what I've read thus far the CIA was getting mixed signals from its leadership concerning the orders for Bin Laden but the White House was clear. Then again, its too early to really make sense of the different testimony yet and eliminate the contradictions. I was just suprised contradictions existed to this degree. Here's a link: Wednesday action

My earlier comment was more a rehashing of my confusion over how war in Iraq furthered our fight against terrorism. I never bought it and I still don't. Saddam was a bad guy and I'm sure we've made the world a better place by removing him from power. But I never saw how he was more than a peripheral influence to the terrorist players involved. Afganistan made perfect sense -- Iraq didn't. Clarke spoke of the Bush administrations concentration on Iraq and repeated attempts to draw a link to 9/11 despite evidence that none existed. Here's a quote from Clarke's 60 Minutes interview "Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. ". The link above is well worth reading since there is so much controversy about it: 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke

 

But Clarke was a player! He was demoted by the Bush staff from a cabinet level position to a staff position immediately so he was a bit distant from the actual decision making. I didn't realize how that worked before but apparently you don't automatically get face time with cabinet level officials when you at the staff level. But Clarke knows what he researched and knows what he sent up the line. He doesn't know if the President saw his memo's or how they were received which I think is very relevant to his claims.

 

The point is that in hindsight, it is easy to say which recommendations were right and which were wrong. Bush would not have had that advantage before the fact, I'm sure everyone offering him advice and recommendations was sure of their position also. The fact that he did not follow advice which turned out to be correct is not indicative of a failing on his part.

Concerning the Clinton administration's hunt for Bin Laden, read this editorial.

 

I don't see Clarke as a "Monday morning quarterback" and his opening remarks to the Congressional committee seem to reflect that he does not believe 9/11 could have been avoided. I'm reading his comments as indicating that the Bush administration dismissed terrorism as a priority until 9/11. That lets them off the hook for specifically allowing the events of 9/11 but it does not dismiss them from neglect toward a very real threat posed by terrorist. The revelation that Clarke was urging an aggressive approach toward Bin Laden and al Queda which was not pursued by the administration maybe a hindsight no brainer. However, the lack of continued action that was in place under the Clinton administration is atleast contrary to the party line if not more damning in my view.

The editorial in that link is wacky! He doesn't even have the facts correct that were presented to the commitee. This is kind of RAH! RAH! crap that worries me. But its an editorial so how seriously can you take it?

 

I've already seen quite a bit of evidence to show that Clarke's book is 100% bullshit.

I've already heard an audiotape (not sure if it was video or not; it was on the radio) of Clinton talking about Bin Laden and how they couldn't take him down and a bunch of other stuff. So Clarke's claim that Clinton was ready to take him out is a lie on it's face.

Condolezza Rice also looks to be ready to prove most everything else he's claimed as BS as well. She's got documentation proving that what Clarke claims in his book is directly contradicted by his own words from that time.

Clarke got demoted by Bush. This looks like nothing more than sour grapes to me.

 

Are you serious!? Bush may make you a head cheerleader for that one!

What Rice is trying to show is that action was taken that Clarke didn't know about due to his staff position. That may be true. Clarke also says that he was called upon to make statements to strengthen public opinion which he did. It certainly tears at his credibility a bit but the memo's and other corroberating statements seem to suggest that its < 100% bullshit.

 

I'd say it is you who are unfamiliar with the facts here.

Try reading pages 7-9 of this document ( Staff Statement #6 from the eighth hearing of the 9/11 commission) and then get back to me.
Actually, try reading the whole document, it's quite interesting.

 

Okey Dokey, I read the whole thing and your still wrong! <just kidding>

I don't see what evidence your looking for there. I see alot of action in the Clinton years and then a gap from the Bush inaguration until 9/11. WTF was Rumsfeld talking about with the Russian arms treaties!?!? That seems to be small potatoes compared to terrorist blowing up ships in port and embassies around the world. Again, hindsight I suppose but it does make me recall Clarke's quote:

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier.."

 

I was posting more to show that the editorial writer was actually speaking of facts revealed during the hearings. Clinton was working on issues but failed to pull the trigger. Of course, even there, hindsight is 20/20. I didn't like Bill, but he wasn't wrong all the time.

 

No need to be head cheerleader at all.

I've heard tapes of Clinton waffling on Bin Laden in 1998. That's after the first WTC attack and I believe Bin Laden had already been identified as being responsible for that. But Bill claimed we had no reason to hold him in the US. So, from the word "go" the Clinton administration had dropped the ball. I've also seen a good bit of stuff from Clarke that directly contradicts what he put in his book. That totally blows his credibility to me. They've caught him in several clear lies and the guy is a disgruntled former employee who got demoted.

 

OK, upon re-reading the editorial I kind of see where your coming from. However the editorial strikes out at Clinton for his failure to kill Bin Ladin while the commission report cites the CIA, most notably, as the desenter to each chance. The commission report read to me as though executive decisions placed the responsibility somewhere between CENTCOM and the CIA where there seemed to be plenty of waffling. I didn't think much of Clinton as a President but he did a much better job than I would have guessed. I was also suprised how many players in this saga carried over between administrations. I guess that makes sense though since few of these folks were in elected positions.

mtk, I wasn't aware we ever had Osama. Did I miss something? Here is a good link you might enjoy that summarizes the 1993 WTC bombing, other bombing plots of the period, etc. I think you and IYC will like the conclusion.

Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and Beyond

 

As to the original question...

nope.
I like Bush. Voted for him. Still prefer him to Kerry or anyone else out there at the moment.

But

I said before the war that if they don't find WMDs in Iraq when the dust settles the Bush Administration is fucked.

Looks like there will be alot of KY out this November...

 

We didn't have him, but the Sudan offered him on a silver platter.

Billy turned them down.

 

But it pales in comparison to the spin coming out of Chicago!

 

An interesting take on the results of Clarke's book.

 

Once again you fell for Washington's spin, hook line and sinker.

You complain about motives of Richard Clarke's book, but fail to find fault with subsequent White House media parade. You know, Connie Rice taking to the media at every chance she could get. She claims she has executive privilege, which isn't supported by case law.

If it wasn't for Clarke's book and it’s generated media coverage, Connie Rice would never testified under oath. This would have made 9/11 commission completely worthless. I just wish the media would do a little investigative journalism before posting an editorial, rather than rubber stamping what Washington says.

I suggest they should both quit playing the media for fools and let the 9/11 commission do there job.

NY Times Series of Articles

 

The 9/11 Commission is an utter and total waste of time. They long ago lost the "how to prevent a future attack" goal and now it's nothing but a Monday Morning Quarterback session that is completely worthless.

As for Clarke, it really doesn't surprise me that you believe all of his BS he put in his book. The fact that the rest of us don't doesn't mean that we've fallen for Washington spin, it's just that we actually have a brain and can connect the dots. Dickhead Clarke says that he determined that Condi Rice didn't know what Al Queda was "from her facial expressions." Meanwhile, she'd given two speeches on them the year before, once again showing that he's a fraud.

Unless you believe Clarke's book, that is. A book in which he bills himself as somewhere between the Lone Ranger and Superman, while everyone else in the White House (most of them higher on the Org Chart than he was) was lucky to be able to play Tonto. Meanwhile, he'd been in the previous Administration for eight years as The Man on Terrorism and that Administration did nothing after a half-dozen Al Queda attacks on US positions ('93 WTC, two US Embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc.) and yet he claims that Bush dropped the ball, not Clinton. Furthermore, he also conveniently ignores the fact that the Clinton Administration did NOT cooperate with the Bush Transition Team after the election, putting them several months behind schedule after the election. And best of all, he's not a disgruntled employee, even though it's clear that he was demoted by the Bush Administration, voted for Al Gore (by his own admission), and eventually was shown the door. Yet, he's "just trying to do the right thing" now.

 

Here's a great link which compares Rice / Clarkes testimony.

Clarke vs. Rice: Excerpts from testimony

 

Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States

Interesting PDB was uncovered at the 9/11 hearing. We learn of the title and its existence. I would like to read more. How about you guys??

A Defense Full of Holes