WTF is DICK so 2 faced

[BGBMAW]

So he says one thing..but writes another..

and WTF go...OUR GOV FAILED YOU!!!!!!!


IS that what they said after Pearl Harbor...


Way to play into the scum terrorists...


BiGB
666
xoxo

[AVRO1]

What the hell are you talking about?

[BGBMAW]

Dick..the "former" security guy in the White House....

[strk]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
So he says one thing..but writes another..

and WTF go...OUR GOV FAILED YOU!!!!!!!


IS that what they said after Pearl Harbor...


Way to play into the scum terrorists...


BiGB
666
xoxo

I think it was Bush* who played into the scum terrorists by going on a month long vacation in August 2001 when George Tenet of CIA was running around "with his hair on fire" about the impending terrorist strike.  Oh yeah, and Condisleezy did know that planes may be used to run into buildings, Tenet briefed her and Bush* on it, as did Clarke.  Also Ashcroft was flying everywhere on private jets, not commercial like most atty generals, including Janet Reno, because of the "heightened threat assesment"

Bush* and co. slept when they had indications of impending attack.  9-11 happened.

CLINTON had a better record on fighting terror - he met with cia/fbi/nsa every day when terror attacks were likely, and they managed to thwart several attacks, including a multination hijack schem and the millennium attacks.


Check the facts.  OUr government, and Bush* DID fail us on 9-11.  Clarke was the only person with the stones to say so.

[Ripsnort]

strk, are we supposed to believe Clarke now, or believe Clarke in 2002?

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, in late 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.

[Ripsnort]

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.

[strk]

he worked for Bush then, who ordered him to put a positive spin on their efforts.

why don't you edit your "data dump" to illustrate what you are trying to say?  

Clarke's testimony is sinking Bush* and you know it.  That is why you want to spin him as a liar and change the subject.  

Like I told Lazs, I am not trying to convert you Rip, I know you are going to pull the lever for the boy king even if he raped your mother and took a **** in your living room.  Your eyes are closed and noone can open them but you.

btw CLarke is a 30 year fed employee under Reagen, BushI, Clinton and Bush*.  He has a reputation for excelling among the sharks in DC.  He is not stupid enough to lie.  Im suprised you dont realize that.

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
strk, are we supposed to believe Clarke now, or believe Clarke in 2002?

Indeed they are the same Clarke.. One working under his president's cabinet fulfilling his duty to his president and one not working for the president fulfulling his duty to his country....

In 2002 he was instructed by his president to 'hilite' the strengths of the terrorist campaign.. Not be honest about it...

dude

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by strk
he worked for Bush then, who ordered him to put a positive spin on their efforts.
 

Do you have a link for these facts and data?

Some other interesting tidbits from his testimony -

First, Clarke agrees with the assessment of the Bush team that his proposals for action in Afghanistan — aiding the Northern Alliance, flying the Predator, etc. — would not have prevented 9/11.
...Clarke agrees with the argument — made repeatedly by conservatives over the years — that the CIA had been beaten into a defensive crouch by its critics.
...Clarke seems to agree with a point often made by Clinton critics: that it was foolish in the 1990s to make the FBI the lead agency in the fight against terrorism since, as an after-the-fact domestic law enforcement agency, it was manifestly not up to the task.
...Clarke emphasizes the need for preemption.
...Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the U.S., advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic intelligence agency.
...Clarke apparently agrees that law enforcement is an inappropriate paradigm for fighting.
...Clarke defends the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved.

[Ripsnort]

In response to Condi...
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett  chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel.

[lazs2]

voting for the guy who raped your mother and took a dump in your livingroom is still probly better than voting democrat.... course... they are usually the same thing.

but he strk... at least you will be able to have gay marriages and you won't have to smell cig smoke in bars.

lazs

[Ripsnort]

One thing is certain, hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it strk?

[TheDudeDVant]

Do you have a link for these facts and data?  Ripsnort

It seems pretty obvious that you didnt watch his testimony before congress?? He was drilled on the contrast of his testimony and the 2002 interview. He left no doubt that he was doing his duty as instructed at the time.

Was very interesting testimony to hear. He did not attempt to pass or place blame. He left blame to himself and his government. One should watch the testimony and understand the character behind the mic... Understand how brave, honest, and humble that man was before his questioners..  Something our government needs to practice in more often..

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
It seems pretty obvious that you didnt watch his testimony before congress?? He was drilled on the contrast of his testimony and the 2002 interview. He left no doubt that he was doing his duty as instructed at the time.

Was very interesting testimony to hear. He did not attempt to pass or place blame. He left blame to himself and his government. One should watch the testimony and understand the character behind the mic... Understand how brave, honest, and humble that man was before his questioners..  Something our government needs to practice in more often..

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do you have a link for these facts and data?

Some other interesting tidbits from his testimony -

First, Clarke agrees with the assessment of the Bush team that his proposals for action in Afghanistan — aiding the Northern Alliance, flying the Predator, etc. — would not have prevented 9/11.
...Clarke agrees with the argument — made repeatedly by conservatives over the years — that the CIA had been beaten into a defensive crouch by its critics.
...Clarke seems to agree with a point often made by Clinton critics: that it was foolish in the 1990s to make the FBI the lead agency in the fight against terrorism since, as an after-the-fact domestic law enforcement agency, it was manifestly not up to the task.
...Clarke emphasizes the need for preemption.
...Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the U.S., advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic intelligence agency.
...Clarke apparently agrees that law enforcement is an inappropriate paradigm for fighting.
...Clarke defends the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved.

Last sentence above, sounds like a good cause to invade Iraq, no?

[strk]

In reply to the wingnuts -

Clarke said it in his 9-11 commish testimony - dd you even watch it???

The WMD in Iraq was a lie - there was no new evidence, it was manufactured by Bush* and co to justify Iraq.  Men died.  INexcusable.  

BTW genius - North Korea, China has WMD - when are we going to invade them??  I dont see you enlisting for the job.  Arent you a stand up guy Rip

and yes, hindsight is 20/20 - except those of you with their head up their ass.  I supported the war in Iraq untill the proof came out that te WMDS were never there, and that the Bush* admin manufactured the evidence (state of the union, among others)

do you people actually THINK about what you post here????