Here is a little challenge. How many of Clarke's current accusations against the Bush Administration are debunked by Clarke right here?
Transcript from August 2002 Briefing:
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.
So?
Wealth with a web doesn't sound so bad!
C'mon. This guy is trashing the administration in his book with shit he MADE UP!
What is his purpose? After all, he was a Reagan appointee, and I presume a lifelong Republican. I've not read the book, but if, as you say, he is just making up shit, then why?
He's a lifelong Republican? I have no idea if that is true.
I've not read the book, but if, as you say, he is just making up shit, then why?
MONEY. FAME. Self-aggrandizement...
I just wish someone would confront him directly with this. I'd love to hear his reaction.
Mort Kondracke, on FoxNews last night, said Clarke was livid that he (Clarke) was turned down for the No. 2 job in Homeland Security.
I get the feeling Clarke he thinks he's smarter than all the rest us. Anyone that doesn't take is advice is an idiot.
You heard it hear first folks: Only trust administration sources while they're actually in the administration - once they're out of politics, they simply can't be trusted.
Now you're cracking me up, Rosemary :-)
Shep,
How can one conclude Clarke is out of politics? I don't see how it logically follows that because he has left the current administration, he is out of politics.
Nice one, Shep!
IMHO, being in the Administration has nothing to do with it. Completely changing your story and presentation of the facts makes you unreliable and a liar.
Republican, Democrat or Martian. I don't care. The definition of a liar doesn't change.
The main issue is not whether Bush had a plan, or whether his administration has tried to deal effectively with terror. The issue is one of judgment. In Clarke's view, going into Iraq was a distraction from fighting terror rather than intrinsic to the fight on terror. Bush disagreed. And, as President, Bush got his way.
Bush sees the issue of terror in context with despotic regimes who oppress their people and form a breeding ground for terror. Clarke sees the issue of terror as isolated from the cultures they predominantly spring from. This is not a question of honesty, on Bush or Clarke's part, but of judgment.
You can believe that both Bush and Clarke are being honest, and that doesn't change the conflict.
To make an analogy: We have a mosquito (terrorist) problem. Clarke wants to spray DDT on the swamp, and Bush wants to drain the swamp and turn it into farm land. But Bush also supports Clarke's idea of spraying DDT while draining the swamp. At issue is Clarke thinks draining the swamp is not only pointless, but counterproductive. Bush is not refusing to spray DDT. But he wants to solve the mosquito problem with finality. Clarke wants to simply treat the swamp over and over again.
Also Clarke thinks that the international cooperation we get in other areas such as cyperterrorism are eroded because of lack of support. So in Clarke's view, Bush's actions have actually increased the risk of terrorism, not decreased them. Bush believes these issues can be overcome, or at the minimum are of much less significance than the fight against violent Islamic terrorism.
Clarke is not angry because Bush refused to accept his recommendations. He is angry because Bush has not limited himself to Clarke's recommendations. Clarke simply does not see the tie in with Iraq and terrorism. That is because the tie in is not direct, as the Bush administration has constantly and repeatedly admitted.
Clarke had what he considered a good strategy to fight and defeat terrorism when it raised its ugly head. Bush wants to eliminate the rationale for terrorism while simultaneously doing everything Clarke suggested. Bottom line: Clarke believes Bush is overreaching. Only history will tell.
But here is the important point. Bush was elected President. Clarke was not. Clarke thinks Clinton didn't do enough, and the Bush is doing too much. But Clarke doesn't get to make those decisions - Presidents do.
Back to politics. This issue is a trap for Democrats. In the short run, this seems damaging to Bush. But if it comes out that in Clarke's view, Clinton wasn't doing enough, where is the complaint with Bush? For Democrats who wanted to do nothing, Clarke is hardly an ally. And if this gives Bush the opportunity to make his case to the public once again, and if he is able to make his case, where does that leave the Democrats?
They can't complain that Bush did not take terrorism seriously when the advisor they are pushing to impeach his judgment willingly testifies that Bush quintupled the budget to fight Al Queda PRIOR TO 9/11. The only semi-legitimate complaint that Democrats can have is not that Bush did too little, but that he is doing to much. They must argue that Iraq was a waste of time.
But at the same time they are making this argument, Iraq has adopted a new constitution, and this summer, a transfer of sovereignty will take place. Also, Saddam Hussein might be on trial in front of the world while Democrats are trying to make the case that removing him was wrong. Finally, the terrorist will be bombing and killing in Iraq now, which will make the argument that terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq look rather silly - even if the Democrats are right.
The last issue is "What is the point?" These are all decisions that have already been made. They cannot be unmade. So what would John Kerry do? Would he restore Hussein to power? No. Will he pull the troops out of Iraq? No. Will he reward supposed allies who opposed us? Maybe. How is that a winning proposition?
John Kerry cannot be President from 2001-2005. If he is elected, he must be President from 2005-2009. He cannot undue what has already been done. So what would he do going forward? The only thing I have heard is that he will be able to get the Germans and the French, and other Europeans to think more kindly of America. My question is how? How, short of capitulation and adopting the posture of submission, will he ameliorate the bruised feelings of dying Europe?
Americans appreciate the fact that there has not been another attack on American soil since 9/11. They appreciate that the President has taken decisive action even in the face of opposition from around the world. They believe that he puts America first. And they are willing to cut him some slack for overreacting - if he has done so.
Does John Kerry put America first? or Europe? or the United Nations? If Kerry wants to be President, he better come up with better answers than the hurt feelings of idealistic pacifists. He better be able to make a strong case for why playing nice with the UN (oil-for-food scam), and Europe (appeasment central) is in the best interest of Americans.
In the final analysis, Americans care about Americans first, and everyone else second. We do not elect the President of the United Nations, or the President of Europe, or the President of the world. We elect the President of the United States. And he damn well better put Americans first, or he is not fit to be President.
Let's see:
1. There was no plan passed on
2. There was a strategy in place
5. The Bush administration amplified the Clinton strategy mentioned in #2 above.
6. Deputies were told to translate strategy into actual detailed plan.
7. Deputies created detailed plan.
In other words the Clinton administration had an overall strategy but had not translated said strategy into actionable plan(s).
Maybe this will help the 'NASCAR dads' in your readership:
Strategy: Look for opportunities to use trips to NASCAR races as cover to go to bars and try to get lucky.
Actionable Plan: When we go to the next Daytona 500 we tell the wives that we have to leave a day early to be sure to get a good seat at the track. That night, hit Billy Bob's Goodtime Bar and check out the action.
Some of us, Shep, do not trust an official just because they are an official. You yourself pointed out that some of those that objected to how the Iraq situation was handled were Republicans, did you not?
There are plenty of adminstration sources, as you call them, that I do not trust. I try to take them one at a time. Whether it be Clinton quibbling over the definition of "is" or the "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" of our current administration, I lose confidence in someone quickly when an official places defending his or her own sense of inerrency over finding out and admitting any errors, whoever might have made them.
I doubt if Her Majesty is the type of person to just believe an administration official whose only line really is "Trust me, I am an expert with the government". We are talking about someone as libertarian as myself, are we not?:)
One more comment: Saddam Hussein bragged about giving rewards to suicide bombers in Israel. So the argument that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in nonsensical. But some may insist on differentiating between terrorism directed at Israel, and terrorism directed at the USA. Opponents of the Iraq war on both the left and the right do so differentiate. Bush doesn't.
Regardless of whether Iraq had any provable tie in to terrorism directed at the United States prior to the War in Iraq, it is now rather obviously central to that struggle against terrorism. So at the very least, Bush defeated an annoying enemy, freed millions of oppressed Iraqi's from a brutal dictator, AND...AND erected another target for terrorism to divert the attention of terrorists from attacks on the USA.
And this is a bad thing???
Scott,
Well said!
this is just a dog and pony show orchestrated by that vast left wing conspiracy. Hindsight being 20-20, it is obvious that no one in America took terrorism all that seriously. It goes back to the Carter administration all the way to 9/11 8:30 am. We did not think that they were capable of operating here so the people in intelligence areas in FBI and CIA (besides the fact they could and would not cooperate) connected the dots. It was a political failure of will on Clinton's part not to get UBL and the Taliban, but it was also a failure of American's. we are ultimately responsible, its our government. We snoozed through the 90's, no Russia to worry about. Wow do I wish we had taken care of Saddam in 91 and the taliban in 96 (not to mention all the other atrocities in Rawanda, serbia etc) but we did not becuase we did not want to and we elected a man twice whose idea of foriegn policy was photo ops and handshakes and wink wink. We knew Clinton was a weak man, a liar and we elected him anyway. We elected Bush in 2000, not becuase he would be brilliant or some kind of foriegn policy genius, but he generally said what he meant and meant what he said (syntax non withstanding). What democrats and the left leaning media fail to understand, is that most Americans know we screwed the pooch from 93-2001. But Bush to his everlasting credit, changed the equation. Show these cowards what facing the US is really all about, no better friend, no worse enemy. I have no evidence of this, but my gut tells me that Gore and Kerry would not have been as forceful as Bush, and going forward Kerry would not be as forceful, would not take the risk that Bush has done. But Playing it safe did not make us safer, 3000 dead in one day proved that. Taking the war to our enemies was a risk but it was acceptable. Half measures, nuance, caring a whit about the UN and world opinion will not make us safer. Knocking the snot out of terrorists and the states that support them will. Bush grasps this, Kerry does not seem to. I am voting for Bush.
The terrorists are now confronted with some unpleasant realities.
1) They have limited resources, and we are working through financial and diplomatic means to further limit their resources every day. So a much more effort and attention must be given to the simple logistic necessities of their continued existence than before we invaded Iraq.
2) Regimes that might have openly supported them in the past fear to do so now that America has demonstrated its willingness to invade and conquer those who openly oppose us. So at the most, terrorist organizations can only get marginal covert support. This drastically limits their mobility.
3) If they focus their limited resources and attention on attacking the USA directly, then they cannot effectively oppose the liberalization of Iraq. To so ignore Iraq would be to admit ultimate defeat - because this is a war of ideology to them. To allow the ideology of liberal democracy, freedom for women, and tolerance of religious freedom to flourish in Iraq is not an option for them. If it becomes known that Americans do not wish to conquer, and that Americans provide unheard of freedoms, and that those freedoms lead to better lives for Arabs, then it exposes the lie of the Islamofascist ideology. This is something they simply cannot allow.
4) If they focus their attention on Iraq where they share a language, a religion and a culture with the citizens of Iraq, then they can blend in well. Also, logistically, it is easier to get to Iraq, and costs less money to operate there. But by focusing on Iraq, the terrorists lose the initiative. Rather than fighting an offensive war, they are forced to fight a defensive war. Also, as sovereignty is turned over to Iraqi's, and as more and more Iraqi's take responsibility for their own security, and their own prosperity, the attacks in Iraq become more of an Arab civil war, rather than a war on the Great Satan - the USA. This exposes the lie of the "Arab Street." There is no Arab unity. At best, they are still simply a collective of warring tribes who only coexis under the oppressive hand of tyrants.
In all these cases, the terrorists lose. Currently, the only available winning strategy they have is to attack in Europe - where the people of Europe have demonstrated cowardice and a willingness to capitulate. But how long will this last?
It makes you wonder though how gaining the support of Europeans should even be a priority for Americans. In the not too distant future, the call in Europe will be for Americans to come to their aid. Will we do so? Yes.
It is becoming ever more clear that this administration is about to take the leash off of Israel and let them take out the PA, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. The only way this can be accomplished is by taking out Syria. After Iraqi's have their own sovereignty, we can redeploy our troops to form an anvil on which the hammer of Israel can crush Syria. Then perhaps we will find out what happened to all those WMD.
That will leave only Iran. Jordan and Egypt will fall into line a la Lybia. Saudi Arabia must undergo a revolution, but without places to divert the animus of their citizenry, the Saudi's will be living on borrowed time.
Its too bad Clarke cannot see these things clearly, but sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees. Some say Bush is not detail oriented enough to meet their criteria. I wonder if his grand vision isn't just what this country needed at this time.
Rosemary:
"IMHO, being in the Administration has nothing to do with it. Completely changing your story and presentation of the facts makes you unreliable and a liar.
Republican, Democrat or Martian. I don't care. The definition of a liar doesn't change."
I agree, Rosemary. So why don’t you apply the same rigorous logic and eye for moral turpitude to the incumbent president?
And any chance we could get over this silly debate about who was the blame for 9-11. It seems to me that Clark makes the same case that all of those who know something about the circumstances have made: there were plenty of failures to go around. He also makes clear that the lion’s share of any blame for failing to prevent 9-11 should go to Bill Clinton’s FBI. Only people who think Bush’s shit doesn’t stink, would read the public record and conclude that the administration had its eye on the right ball. So what. He didn’t fly those planes into the towers and it’s unlikely that anything he could have done, including killing Bin Laden, would have prevented it anyway.
Shep,
I also wish we could get over the 9-11 blame game.
So why dont you apply the same rigorous logic and eye for moral turpitude to the incumbent president?
I do. I know you are trying hard to swallow your laughter. It's true.
For me, I wish that people could see/admit the difference between actual lying, which I concede has been done by some administration officials, and just being WRONG.
There is a difference.
Shep,
I'm with you that the ones to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists, not Bush or Clinton. Sandy Berger from Clinton's administration was being grilled this morning by the 9/11 commission, and he asked a simple question. What would have had us do? Could we have invaded Iraq and overturned the Taliban prior to 9/11?
Everyone knows this simply just wasn't politically possible. Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry tried to say that the Clinton administration should have tried to make a case for War in Afghanistan in the '98. No one with an ounce of honesty can actually believe we would have consented, as a nation, to go to war in Central Asia at the height of the 90's boom. There is no way either the pacifist Democrats, or the Republicans embroiled in the impeachment of Clinton would have agreed to such a war. To suggest it could have been sold in America, much less the rest of the world, prior to 9/11 is simply intellectually dishonest.
It was also impossible for Bush not to respond after 9/11. Do you remember the signs in New York City - "Bush, bomb Afghanistan today!" There is simply no way Americans would take an attack like the the Spaniards have - by laying down. This was the fundamental miscalculation of the terrorists to assume that we were as morally bankrupt as the Europeans. We didn't fail to respond to previous attacks out of fear, but out of indifference. 9/11 destroyed our indifference.
I've said many times that the blame for 9/11 belongs to Bin Laden.
We couldn't have prevented 9/11. Can you imagine the uproar if we attacked Afghanistan before 9/11? We could have had all kinds of intell and still people would be screaming.
We'd hear all the same crap we are hearing about Iraq?
Shep
but that is not what clark is saying, he is sating that Clinton was doing all he could and Bush screwed the pooch (at least that is how the VLWC is spinning the story for all they are worth). Its obvious it was a governemntal failure at all levels, the Bush team has put thier eye on the ball and decided to change the ME and its working. The Invasion if Iraq is providing so many benefits. Libya has turned tail and run, syrian kurds are demonstrating, Israel has now abandoned the corrupt oslo accords, the region is losing stability and we are pushing it, maybe we can put back the pieces in a more humane way that will allow muslim societies to grow and join the 20th century. Pushing back, hitting the margins, arresting people ala clinton and now Kerry would never do this.
Shep,
Are there any conditions under which we could raise the language of this debate?
I agree with several posters that, while in hindsight it would have been beneficial to use the military in Afghanistan prior to 2000, it was politically impossible. I don't even fault Clinton for treating WTC1 as simply a crime. Problem is, Bush made a (according to some, consious) decision not to blame his predecessors. This was the right thing all around and I say this as a charter ClintonHater. But the Democrats have no interest in playing nice and have taken this position (as always) as a surrender of tactically advantageous ground; moved into same and launched a program of disinformation against old Junior. That's right, I call him Junior and he DOES have a chimpy little mug. But I'll be voting for him. Oh yes.
Scott,
Good points all.
Rosemary [still laughing],
I didn’t say we couldn’t have prevented 9-11. What if Clinton hadn't been under perpetual assault from the right. What if the FBI had decent computers and wasn’t setting up stings on pot farmers and Tommy Chong? Perhaps we might have had the right resources in the right places. Did you know that even after 9-11, the FBI had no way to receive e-mails from the public? Anyway, we’ll never really know.
Ted,
I’d like to think so but I’m afraid partisanship is so strong that we literally don’t even see the same world. I don’t know how you have a useful debate if you can’t even agree on the facts on the ground. You’ll notice that doesn’t keep me from trying ;-)
I have to agree with Shep that this is all irrelevant, that nothing DID stop Bin Laden from sending those devils to do their bidding on 9/11, and more than likely nothing COULD stop them.
I think the most pathetic thing I saw today was after Clarke was finished and the room broke up for a break, many people there, who I have to assume were family members of 9/11 casuaties (and I think they should be called casualties because that's what they are, God rest their souls) standing up and applauding and patting the back of a man who was a huge part of the shortcomings - he was no detached observer. He is now making money and acquiring fame, and he is taking cover behind the emotions and feelings of those good people...I think it's disgusting and pathetic...I pray for those people and their continued pain...I hold no such good feelings toward Mr. Clarke. That book isn't about 9/11, it isn't about those good people. It's about Richard Clarke. Narcissism, not baseball, is the National Pastime.
Shep,
If agreement impossible on EVERYTHING, then debate is an unconscionable waste of our precious cyberspace.
IF, however, some agreement is possible, then start with those areas of agreement, move to one area of disagreement and discern why there is disagreement. It is a slow diliberate process.
But what is the goal of the debate?
I believe there are people that, given the chance, would detonate a nuke in every major city of this country and consider that good start. And all we can do is just scream at each other? Is there no comity?
Sorry, I got off subject. Carry on.
Rosemary, isn't Bush a liar? Remember WMD?
Scott, true we elect our U.S. president, but remember that Bush was not really elected.
marko, Michael Moore just called...he wants his lame-ass punchlines back.
Let's say that Clarke is just putting the "best spin" on it in 2002 and that's all (which is rather preposterous to begin with as he's making statements of fact). Who's to say he isn't putting the "worst spin" on things for the left-wing media and the Michael Moore/Al Franken fans? Despite the plaudits from the likes of Kaplan, Clarke irreperably damaged his credibility today. Now he's not a "truth teller," he's a spinner. One cannot say that one suddenly stopped spinning when they got a big book deal.
Chris, I actually heard that comment from actress Janeane Garofalo.
Rosemary, isn't Bush a liar? Remember WMD?
No. I don't agree that being wrong = lying.
Scott, true we elect our U.S. president, but remember that Bush was not really elected.
Great Line!!! If you really believe that Bush wasn't elected, then you'll love this:
8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!8 more years!!!
Some general notes:
-Clarke started (IIRC) as a Reagan appointee, but during the eight years of the Clinton administration gained near-Cabinet level access to the President. (an aside: just found out: in eight years, Clinton never got a briefing from his intelligence chief. Ever. Do you fucking believe that!? He insisted on being handed a printed summary that he could read.)
-Until fairly recently, Clarke was on record with the belief that cyber-terrorism, not physical terrorism, would be the motif of the 21st Century.
-Clark once espoused the idea of using low-flying SR-71s over Libya to generate sonic booms in order to intimidate Gaddafi, and make him think an invasion was imminent.
-After Bush took office, Clarke was put on the back burner, since Bush wanted to interact directly with his National Security advisor, head of the CIA, and so on. In other words, Clarke lost most of his "access," truly one of the worst things that can happen to any D.C. wonk.
Most especially: Clarke had eight years during the Clinton administration to develop an anti-terror policy and did nothing!!
Eight fucking years. And now he's going to publish a book criticising Bush for not doing in eight months what Clinton didn't do in eight years?
Give me a break.
Put Bush in office for 8 more years and it can only mean 8 more years of murder.
Check this out:
http://cafeshops.com/bettybowers/52353
My favorite is the one that says:
"My popularity is slipping, it's time to start killing some folks!" So true...it seems to be the only fact that made him popular.
...besides being a liar. :)
Read this letter by Chris Shays
http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf
puts that harpoon in Clarke where it belongs. ;)
Marko
I want to see Bush in so it pisses you off.
Gee, marko can quote t-shirts! That's really freaking impressive. Can you tie your own shoelaces, too? Sheesh.
Actually, capt joe, this is a good example of syncronicity, wherein marko gives an excellent example of how the liberal/Democratic left has adopted the Rebecca-ite doctrine of complete fantasy...
"But some may insist on differentiating between terrorism directed at Israel, and terrorism directed at the USA. Opponents of the Iraq war on both the left and the right do so differentiate. Bush doesn't."
I wish.
BTW, is marko serious or is this all a joke?
Even if he's serious, it's still a joke.
"-Until fairly recently, Clarke was on record with the belief that cyber-terrorism, not physical terrorism, would be the motif of the 21st Century."
Casey, I think that Clarke's point was that, if we didn't establish certain security measures as the internet was developing as an important economic tool, we were vulnerable to attack. Also, that a successful attack on the net would be economically devastating to the west. He actually was able to have a number of his recommendations implemented and, as far as any of us know, succeeded in preventing such an attack. BTW, check your watch. You'll notice that it's still pretty early in the 21st Century.
It worked, it really worked! I love pissing off one-dimensional Republicans.
No, marko, you're just showing everyone what a complete 'tard you are.
I'll go 'round & 'round with shep because he has a brain.
You, on the other hand, are a twit. [PLONK]
shep, I will 100% agree that we need to keep defenses fresh against cyberterrorism. Me, I think the most likely agressor will be the Chinese, but I could be wrong.
My original point was that other readings tended to show Clarke as someone focused more on the cyber stuff than on flesh & blood operations.
I think it's moot, now, after reading the transcript that Rose (and many others) have linked by now.
I just watched Clarke on Meet the Press and I came away with the impression that he was hurt that he was marginalized in the new administration.
He seems to have more of an axe to grind with the people that worked for the President than the President, himself. I found it interesting how proud he was of the personal note that GWB sent him, and that he took so much pride in his Cybersecurity initiative.
I also think that it is sad that he uses the families of the attack to boost his stature..