Unbelievable!

[Ranger Ray]

Why would you let Richard Clarke even testify before a committee? They have him on tape and transcript stating 1 ½ years ago the total opposite things. Everyone on that committee has to know this but chooses to look the other way for self grandstanding or political gain. It is beyond belief that lying is no longer contempt but standard practice for both parties. I’m not sure who I loathe most, the one that lies or the one that lets him lie so he himself might gain. Time to bring back contempt as a punishable offense. If you need proof of the blatant lie, read what this man said 1 ½ years ago on the following link and then turn to any news channel to see him tell a total opposite story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

[The Mutt]

They have him on tape and transcript stating 1 ½ years ago the total opposite thingsMaybe he's running to be SKerry's VP?

[Moron]

More than likely his publisher told him the publicity would be good for his book sales.;)

[TC-fisherman]

Back at the hearing, former Illinois governor James R. Thompson, a Republican member of the commission, took up the cause, waving the Fox News transcript with one hand and Clarke's critical book in the other. "Which is true?" Thompson demanded, folding his arms and glowering down at the witness.

Clarke, appearing unfazed by the apparent contradiction between his current criticism and previous praise, spoke to Thompson as if addressing a slow student.

"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he explained. "I've done it for several presidents."


Let the smear campaign begin!
Here's a guy who worked for Reagan, Bush, Clinton and then Bush comes out and from an insiders perspective says someting negative about the current administration. He must be scum!

He's also been critical of the clinton admin. :eek:

We all know that the Bush Administration walks on water and has never made a single mistake. So lets support the president!:rolleyes:

[TimT]

This isn't verbatim, but when asked if Bush had followed any of his (Clarkes) info or recommendations from the previous administration, would it have prevented 9/11, his answer was no or probably not.

Aside from that, the rest is fluff and selling. Not taking sides, here, but it's kind of like algebra. You eliminate the numbers on both sides of the equation, and your resulting answer is the solution. In clarkes case, x=0.

[Swamp Ghost]

He's also been critical of the clinton admin

Under questioning, Clarke said the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists while the Bush administration made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

If he gets anymore critical of Clinton I may gag.

The fact of the matter is that Bin Laden bombed the WTC in '93, hit the USS Cole, bombed our foreign embassy's and Clinton did nothing. He could have sent in troops to hunt him down or started his own war on terror 8 years earlier but he didn't. 9/11 was planned and implemented under Clinton's and Clarke's watch. If action had been taken in '93, on the scale that it is occurring now, 9/11 may have never happened. Could that be why they sent Clarke packing?

And they expected a new administration to take care of their problem after 8 months?

Just the way I see it........

[Neal]

"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he explained. "I've done it for several presidents."

So what you are saying is that he (Clarke) mis-led the American people?

Basically what Clarke said was, in January of 01', shortly after taking office the Bush administration stepped up pressure on Al-Qaeda, by increasing funding for such operations by five times. Bush's statement to Clarke was something like. "Let's change our policy from swatting flies to eliminating Al-Qaeda.

It looks to me that Bush took immediate steps toward the counter terrorism of Al-Qaeda. Personally at this point I don't care about the would have, could have should haves. I don't think either president could have necessarily forecasted the events of 9-11.

This business of suggesting Bush let this happen, is simply slanderous.

Neal

BTW~ I'll bet in the made for T.V. movie, Clarkes charactor will be played by Joe Pesci;)

[AceMcbanon]

Well since Clarke worked for the Bush Administration at the time I don't see him bashing it beyond all belief. I'm sure those of us who have bosses don't often let them know what we really think.

It's pretty alarming how many former goverment officials who served under Bush are coming out against him.

[TC-fisherman]

The drama of Clarke's appearance nearly overshadowed a series of notable disclosures at yesterday's hearing. Among them:

• The CIA now says that a controversial August 2001 briefing summarizing potential attacks on the United States by al Qaeda was not requested by President Bush, as Rice and others had long claimed. The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

• In the summer of 2001, veteran counterterrorism officers privy to reports on al Qaeda threats "were so worried about an impending disaster that one of them told us that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns," according to one of two staff reports issued by the commission yesterday. Senior CIA officials were also frustrated by some Bush appointees who were not familiar with surges in terrorist threat information and questioned their veracity, the report said.

I didn't know that the truth could be considered slanderous.

[Neal]

Then just be fair about it TC. If you believe that Bush ignored the threat of al Qaeda in his first 8 month, then you must admit that 8 years of Clinton did too.

I just want to see if you are capable of doing that

Also, where did you get the info posted above, I would like to check out the entire content.

Neal

[Sib]

It’s almost interesting to me (the investigation, not editorializing this thread), too bad it’s turned into witch hunt, rather than look for how we can prevent things like this in the future.

The intriguing part of the investigation to me is that the one thing that seems to come screaming out of this investigation is that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against hostile groups has been embraced by the commission.

In the commissions investigation both Clinton and Bush were criticized for not taking action against impending threats.

Hmm, seems you can’t have it both ways, if you look at one of the largest criticism of Bush, it’s his pre-emptive action he’s taken against Iraq. There was no way this country would have accepted going to war in Afghanistan prior to 911. We would have heard the critics compare how the Soviets got caught in a quagmire and how that war would have been unwinable. How we the United States weren’t attacked and it was our hostile foreign policy that brought the attacks on our embassy. We would have differentiated between American soil and an embassy, even though an embassy is American soil.

There is no way this country would have supported a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan prior to 911, yet the commission and Clarke himself suggest that using pre-emptive action may have disrupted the terrorist enough to avoid a 911.

Listening to folks cry about US policy and our aggressive actions overseas, inferring that we somehow brought 911 on ourselves, now switch to Bush should have done something to prevent 911 is ironic to say the least. You can't have it both ways.

[Ranger Ray]

I didn't know that the truth could be considered slanderous
Ok TC which story is the truth? Lets flip a coin to figure it out.
"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he explained. "I've done it for several presidents."
Is he telling us that he wasnt beyond lying when asked? With that integrity I am going to believe everything he said. Not.
Let the smear campaign begin!
Here's a guy who worked for Reagan, Bush, Clinton and then Bush comes out and from an insiders perspective says someting negative about the current administration. He must be scum!
I dont understand how I am smearing him. He is the one that made the contradicting statements. They are on record and fact.
We all know that the Bush Administration walks on water and has never made a single mistake. So lets support the president!
You missed what I was stating. Never said anything in what I wrote that should give you that idea. I don’t care what party line is telling the lie. I am pointing out how blatant two faced this man is and everyone just takes it in stride. I guess that lying is so injected into society today that we find ourselves defending it. Unbelievable!

[Neal]

Well since Clarke worked for the Bush Administration at the time I don't see him bashing it beyond all belief. I'm sure those of us who have bosses don't often let them know what we really think.

So you understand that Clarke might stretch the truth about his boss, but you don't think he would stretch it for a very large book deal?

It's pretty alarming how many former goverment officials who served under Bush are coming out against him

Would you care to list all of them.....it won't take long.;)

Neal

[Buddy Lee]

You people crack me up. Some of you will blame/defend Bush no matter what, and some of you will blame/defend Clinton no matter what.

Nobody REALLY wants to look at this objectively and admit that BOTH the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration are to blame for 9/11. There were competent people in both Administrations who deeply cared about the safety of the American people, and would give anything to go back and correct their mistakes...But, the bottom line is that our government just wasn't prepared for an attack of this style and magnitude on our home soil. They tried to be prepared, but they failed. This whole commission has disappointed me deeply. We seem more interested in pointing fingers and placing blame rather than using this commission to analyze what happened, and take steps to prevent another attack in the future. :rolleyes:

[Neal]

I'm not blaming anybody, but Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Ladin, and those who support them.

Neal

[TC-fisherman]

[Then just be fair about it TC. If you believe that Bush ignored the threat of al Qaeda in his first 8 month, then you must admit that 8 years of Clinton did too.
I just want to see if you are capable of doing that

No problem. Clinton royally screwed up.

Please don't confuse me with a Clinton apologist. Living in northern michigan its almost impossible not to be a republican. I voted for bush (and dole before that) and thought he would make a great change. When vermont senator jeffords switched from being a republican to an independant causing the republicans to lose control of the senate at the begining of Bush's term i was so ticked off i wrote him a letter calling him a traitor. I consider myself a republican.

Other than 100% supporting the president invading afghanistan i believe he has been a miserable failure in all other aspects.

Also, where did you get the info posted above, I would like to check out the entire content
Sorry I didn't originally post a link because it required registration. here somewhere else
article (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/8271883.htm)

[AceMcbanon]

Same here Clinton did a terrible job, to believe you could lob a few missles at "terrorist camps" every now and then is no way to combat terrorism. But Clinton isin't in power anymore and Bush had just continued the former policy of not doing much at all. Then to make it worse instead of focusing on terrorism he goes off and attacks Iraq! Think of how much more money and man power we could have spent on the real problem terrorism.

[Neal]

If you read the entire article, it is all alleged. There are certainly allegations being thrown, but little, if any, of this is fact.

And one other thing, if Clarke blew smoke up everyone behinds in January of 01' to appease his boss, isn't HE somewhat responsible for the attacks?

Neal

[Buddy Lee]

Neal???


I'm not blaming anybody, but Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Ladin, and those who support them.


And one other thing, if Clarke blew smoke up everyone behinds in January of 01' to appease his boss, isn't HE somewhat responsible for the attacks?

:confused:

[TC-fisherman]

And one other thing, if Clarke blew smoke up everyone behinds in January of 01' to appease his boss, isn't HE somewhat responsible for the attacks?

Yes saying nice things in a off the record backround briefing to members of the press makes him somewhat responsible for the attacks:rolleyes:


If you read the entire article, it is all alleged.

I had to recheck the link to make sure it was the right article. Just what was alleged? The bipartisan commision released two staff reports.

The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

Funny how no one in the adminstration is saying that it is alleged.

but little, if any, of this is fact.
What were you there? Please find a source saying otherwise.

[Neal]

Neal???




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not blaming anybody, but Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Ladin, and those who support them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And one other thing, if Clarke blew smoke up everyone behinds in January of 01' to appease his boss, isn't HE somewhat responsible for the attacks?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






I thought that one might come back to bit me....LOL

It was just a second hand thought. basically if we HAVE to blame someone, why not him.

As I stated above, both past and current administrations, IN HINDSITE, made some errors........This investigation will provide nothing, but election year rhetoric. when it's all over, the future of terrorist attacks will still be in front of us......Hopefully we will have a President that will take the fight to them.

Neal

[Neal]

Yes saying nice things in a off the record backround briefing to members of the press makes him somewhat responsible for the attacks

Clarks basic platform has been "I told you so", yet when he had a chance to reveal the alleged chink in our armour, he chose to paint a pretty picture. Right?? Anyway that was just a second hand thought....since the nation is playing the blame game

The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

"After the highly classified document's existence was first revealed in news reports in May 2002, Rice held a news conference in which she suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer. But Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commission member, disclosed at the hearing Wednesday that the CIA informed the panel last week that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA.

But a White House official who demanded anonymity replied: ``We did request such a document. It's not out of the question that the CIA and others had the same idea.''

So, If I read this right, the CIA has one recollection and the White house has another......Where's the facts?

But Clinton isin't in power anymore and Bush had just continued the former policy of not doing much at all.

Wrong.....According to Clarke, in January of 01', shortly after taking office the Bush administration stepped up pressure on Al-Qaeda, by increasing funding for such operations by five times. Bush's statement to Clarke was something like. "Let's stop swatting flies and change our policy from roll back to eliminating Al-Qaeda."

[TC-fisherman]

So, If I read this right, the CIA has one recollection and the White house has another......Where's the facts?

The fact is this:
The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

On August 6 Bush was informed there were terrorits in the US planning attacks. What was done?

[WILDCATWICK]

So you understand that Clarke might stretch the truth about his boss, but you don't think he would stretch it for a very large book deal?
Now that it is published that would be considered libel, punishable by law and also lying under oath.

I watched quite a few hours of his testimonial yesterday and I would say I beleive what he is saying now. I don't think he lied previously either. He played the game that every administrative member plays. He did then as he claims n0w state that there was a serious threat.

I was also impressed, unlike most of you how everyone there agreed that the hearing should be more about what can be done now, instead of finger pointing. And Clark kept stating about what measures should be taken now. Such as creating another division of the CIA for stricltly homeland terrorism watch. Also touched on other points.

I saw lots of good comments out there by you all, but I must admit it appeared that many of you were pointing fingers before the testimony's were done?:confused:

[Neal]

I saw lots of good comments out there by you all, but I must admit it appeared that many of you were pointing fingers before the testimony's were done?

That's a good point Wildcatwick, I guess were all just armchair commission members. It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric. I guess will just have to wait for the commissions report.

Neal

[Ranger Ray]

I watched quite a few hours of his testimonial yesterday and I would say I beleive what he is saying now. I don't think he lied previously either. He played the game that every administrative member plays. He did then as he claims n0w state that there was a serious threat.
Using your logic, the heads of Enron, Tyco, etc... Are not guilty and should not be punished for ruining 1000's of people’s retirement plans. Hey they were just playing the CEO game. They will get up and lie in front of the grand jury. Why? Because society no longer cares if you lie. We have become so hardened that we tolerate it under the principle that its part of the game. Unbelievable. The man stated 2 complete statements that were totally opposite. What is he saying in his scenario today that could give concrete evidence that this is the truth now but it wasn’t before? A hunch?
I don’t care for what reason he changed his statement doesn’t matter. A lie is a lie. And we need to start calling people out on them. Especially when they are supposed to be looking out for us. And this includes both parties.

[TrailFndr]

with the history of Bush's Lies to the american people...I can easily see how his staff would do the same in order to keep thier jobs...

Its not unheard of, whether right or wrong, Most Americans don't want to hear that we are prone to attack, we never have, We always wanted to feel safe and secure as the big dog in the world, that changed after 9-11, but it was very prevailent at the time..

[snakebit67]

I watched a program last year on FRONTLINE, a program on pbs that is usually thursday night after the outdoor shows. It has been a year so I don't remember names. An FBI agent, who I believe is now deceased, gave an indepth report of ALQUEDA activities. This was during the last years of the Clinton administration. Now wait and read the rest this is not a Clinton bashing post. He reported to his superior who was the head of his section or something like that, not the big cheese but some one above with alot higher authority none the less. Anyway, this guy had the facts. He had been in the middle east and had very credible contacts. He warned his boss that something BIG was going to happen. Well because of politics (his boss didn't like him) he buried it. According to the program this probably could of been prevented, but because of political "IN" fighting it was never brought to light. I wish I could be more specific but it has been a year. Burocracy (I know I didn't spell that right) is the biggest problem we face. Everybody has there own agenda. Not always in the interest of the American public

[lostmale]

Former FAA security officials say the Massachusetts senator had the power to prevent at least the Boston hijackings and save the World Trade Center and thousands of lives, yet he failed to take effective action after they gave him a prophetic warning that his state's main airport was vulnerable to multiple hijackings

Rewind to May 6, 2001. That night, a Boston TV station (Fox-25) aired reporter Deborah Sherman's story on an undercover investigation at Logan that Sullivan and another retired agent helped set up. In nine of 10 tries, a crew got knives and other weapons through security checkpoints - including the very ones the 9/11 hijackers would later exploit.

The next day, Sullivan fired off a two-page letter to Kerry highlighting the systemic failures.

"With the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers?" he warned. "Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. With our current screening, this is more than possible. It is almost likely." The toll from such an attack would be economic, as well as human, he predicted with chilling accuracy.



Full article here http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20808.htm

[WILDCATWICK]

The man stated 2 complete statements that were totally opposite. What is he saying in his scenario today that could give concrete evidence that this is the truth now but it wasn’t before?

RangerRay, please let me know exactly what those two things were in both instances. At this point, I'm not convinced that what was done and said even remotely compares to what the CEO's did. But go ahead and let me know and maybe I'll see the light.

Maybe I got the whole thing wrong, but I thought he didn't lie. I thought he was basicly told that the adminstartion did not want to hear his ideas and they told him to keep his mouth shut. On capital hill if you don't do that when told by the President or indirectly by the President you lose your job and possibely more. I also thought that this is one of the main reason Clark left the posistion. He didn't want to play the game. I think the finger pointing is going in the wrong direction. He gave an honest report, it was rejected, they told him go and do it again...he did, he leaves his post because of this, writes a book to get his version of what happens out there and everyone calls him two faced. I didn't see him as being two faced. But as I said, point out exactly what he contradicted himself with in a article so I can see it word for word.

One last point, If he gave an honest report and was told to change it. Then whoever told him to change it is the one that should take the most blame. Everyone though has a little blood on their hands.

[Ranger Ray]

I'm not convinced that what was done and said even remotely compares to what the CEO's did
It doesn’t. I threw that out to make a point. The point being
"Played the game that every administrative member plays" is not an excuse for telling a lie. Unless you think destroying ones character by lying is ok versus stealing ones money by lying is not. To me they are the same crime in stature just drastically different results.

Clark in interview in 2002:

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.

Clark now

But testifying in front of the Sept. 11 commission on Wednesday, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had made terrorism its top priority, the Bush administration did not consider the issue to be as critical.
"I feel the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Clarke said.

This doesn’t do it justice but I can’t and don’t want to do a bunch of cut and pastes. I suggest if you didn’t read the link that I posted first to start this thread you do.

I will go under the premise that you know what he stated in 2002 and what he is stating now. Lets say he did lie in 2002 but now he is telling the truth. Why if Clinton and he were so diligently going against terrorists they passed on getting Bin when he was offered to them twice? Why when terrorism is so important is Clinton reducing the CIA? That just doesn’t add up. His answers are not logical to the scenario. Which by the way is a consistent pattern displayed amongst liars.

I see today that even the Democrats are doing the I can’t distance myself fast enough from this guy routine. Another sign today is how fast the media has dropped it as a main story. They know he has done such a poor job of lying he can no longer be used as a credible critic of Bush’s. They are out trying to dig up the next liar.

There it is, my point of view. I guess at this point if you don’t understand where I am coming from you never will. And such is life! And life is good! :D

[dogjaw]

Originally posted by Ranger Ray
Why would you let Richard Clarke even testify before a committee? They have him on tape and transcript stating 1 ½ years ago the total opposite things. Everyone on that committee has to know this but chooses to look the other way for self grandstanding or political gain. It is beyond belief that lying is no longer contempt but standard practice for both parties. I’m not sure who I loathe most, the one that lies or the one that lets him lie so he himself might gain. Time to bring back contempt as a punishable offense. If you need proof of the blatant lie, read what this man said 1 ½ years ago on the following link and then turn to any news channel to see him tell a total opposite story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
I'd let him testify under oath. Now that he has, it is completely opposite what he testified under oath in 2002. Is he lying then, or now? Either way, he purgered himself. The Dems seem to be running a book of the month club. :rolleyes:

Let's see, the Dems and Kerry are jumping up and down peeing their pants because Bush didn't pre-empt in Afganastan, and did in Iraq. The same Kerry who tried getting his amendment passed to gut 6 billon dollars from our intelligence agencies.

[jdt]

everyone knows that fox is part of the vast right wing conspiracy!
the truth can be found on c-span!!!!

[dogjaw]

The jokes are posted in another area.... :rolleyes:

[jdt]

bush-court appointed!
he gave rice a nice kiss on national t.v.the other day,time to start inquest!!

[Hamilton Reef]

Richard Clark was a 110% career climbing government bureaucrat. That means he will say what ever the immediate administration he is working for wants him to say and what he thinks they want him to say. That is how the Federal government operates to promote the most qualified lying hypocrites to the highest GS-grade levels. This was absolutely true for USFW Service operations when I worked for the Feds. The only time this changes is after retirement when the retirees are assured of their retirement benefits. Only then for the first time can they ever consider telling the truth of their careers. They can also then go back to church and confess to their sins of past government proportional to their GS-grade level. God can sort out the hypocrites on a case by case.

[Ranger Ray]

WOW! We have an Unbelivable! Unbelivable!

First: HR has something bad to say about a Dem. :D

Second: I agree with what he said. :eek:

Theres hope for you yet HR! ;)

[Hamilton Reef]

That's only the national level comments which really don't matter that much. You should hear the uproar and flack I got over my recent differences with some local Muskegon County Democrats. As an independent I manage to get kicked from both parties. I'm scheduled to be in Lansing for two days next week meeting with politicians. I'll check the local obits to see if my name is listed on Thursday.