 |
| |
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
How is he "the man responsible"? He can only advice and inform the president and the cabinet members in charge of actual departments-he has no power to make decisions-he only has the ear of the leaders. What ever happened to "the buck stops here"?
Now if you can show he gave poor advince, or did not warn of the dangers, fine, but if he warned-and was ignored, he did his job-and fault lies up the chain. |
The president is clearly where the buck stops. Obviously, if Mr Clarkes advice was not heeded then he would have a point. Unfortunately, his advice was heeded during (at least) the 8 years of the Clinton administration. Pretending otherwise is nonsense.
Bad advice
"Clarke's comments have brought one of the most liberal Republicans in the House of Representatives to the president's side. Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said Monday, "Mr. Clarke is engaging in revisionist history, apparently for personal partisan reasons. The fact is, when he had the authority and responsibility to craft U.S. counterterrorism policies, he consistently failed to articulate a cogent strategy or plan to Congress."
Shays notes that at a briefing on June 28, 2000, he asked Clarke, then serving as President Clinton's Special Assistant and National Coordinator, Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism, when an all-source threat assessment and strategy would be completed. His answer: "No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment, I know the threat." "
Some cogent questions to Mr Clarke about his advice
"Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?
Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?
Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?
Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exactly advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?
Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?
Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?
Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?
Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?
Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?
Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic? "
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
 To the list of rush's sad sad questions.
On the actual valid point of your post:
Lets note the date of Shay's question-June 2000...OK, so in June 2000 the man did not mention AQ as a sgnificant threat-
2. Points:
a. By January 2001 he could very well have changed his mind on the issue.
b. EVEN if we follow this line of thinking and say Clarcke did not have his eye on the ball-the Bush amdin. KEPT him in his position, which would scream to me the incoming admin. believed he was doing a fine job at it-so if Clarcke was ignorant of the real threat-the Bush admin. coming in shared this deficiency-after all, amdins. are responsible for the people they hire and keep. They , that is, Bush and Condi and so ofrht, msut ahev believed he was doing a good enough job on the issue-so badmouth Clarcke all you want, assasinate his character-just remember it was the Bush amdin. that decided he was their guy to run counterterrorism as well, when they very well had the power to replace him:
so which is it?
Clarcke did warn them, they ignored him
Clarcke did not warn them, and they did no care anyway?
Cause obviously it is NOT Clarcke did not warn them but other people in the admin. knew AQ was a threat (hell, they can read the paper, no?) and even though they saw this guy NOT acting, they kept him...come to think about it, that is yet another bad possiuble decission.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh? |
Nope. If the Bush admin. was dissatisfied with his action on terrorism, they could very well have replaced the guy. So again, if he and the Clintonites were so easy on terror, as pro-Bush people are fond of saying, obviously the Bushies shared their laxness before 9/11, no?
quote:
Look, I want Bush gone as much as the next guy (ok, prolly not as bad as Che wants him gone  ), but it seems to me that Mr. Clarke is throwing stones from the balcony of his glass house. |
IF he can show that he was giving urgent warining in the spring and summer of 2001, then, for all his previous failures, at the end he was seeing the error of his ways and trying tor ectify the issue. More interesting of course are his allegations post 9/11, which are in line with some of what O'Neill has also said.
quote:
9/11 was the culmination of laspes in intelligence & security throughout the US government, going back years before the event. That most certainly includes Mr. Clarke, just as it includes Dubya, and Clinton before him.
-Arrian |
Fine with me-except of course, that according to some, Bush can do no wrong, EVER.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
|
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
To the list of rush's sad sad questions.
On the actual valid point of your post:
Lets note the date of Shay's question-June 2000...OK, so in June 2000 the man did not mention AQ as a sgnificant threat-
2. Points:
a. By January 2001 he could very well have changed his mind on the issue.
b. EVEN if we follow this line of thinking and say Clarcke did not have his eye on the ball-the Bush amdin. KEPT him in his position, which would scream to me the incoming admin. believed he was doing a fine job at it-so if Clarcke was ignorant of the real threat-the Bush admin. coming in shared this deficiency-after all, amdins. are responsible for the people they hire and keep. They , that is, Bush and Condi and so ofrht, msut ahev believed he was doing a good enough job on the issue-so badmouth Clarcke all you want, assasinate his character-just remember it was the Bush amdin. that decided he was their guy to run counterterrorism as well, when they very well had the power to replace him:
so which is it?
Clarcke did warn them, they ignored him
Clarcke did not warn them, and they did no care anyway?
Cause obviously it is NOT Clarcke did not warn them but other people in the admin. knew AQ was a threat (hell, they can read the paper, no?) and even though they saw this guy NOT acting, they kept him...come to think about it, that is yet another bad possiuble decission. |
Please feel free to quote where I badmouthed Clarke or assasinated his character.
While the Bush administration didnt replace him they did reduce his position from 'cabinet level'. That suggests to me that he might have been on his way out, but that they wanted to retain the continuity of the office (which would have been especially important after 9/11) .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Did any of the Bush defenders addressed Clarke's point on Iraq? |
Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.
The Facts:
· The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.
· When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan.
· Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
I found this interesting:
quote:
WASHINGTON - The Clinton and Bush administrations' decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaida allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.
The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.
Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.
"We found that the CIA (news - web sites) and the FBI (news - web sites) tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks," the bipartisan report said. "The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled."
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, appearing on CBS's "The Early Show" Tuesday, said, however, the commission will not make any final judgments about the Clarke allegations or other assertions until it has reviewed all the evidence.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (news - web sites) told the commission that "President Clinton (news - web sites) and his team did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."
The preliminary report said the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan (news - web sites) without resistance.
In spring 1998, the commission found, the Saudi government successfully thwarted a bin Laden-backed effort to launch attacks on U.S. forces in that country.
The Clinton administration turned to the Saudis for help. Clinton designated CIA Director George Tenet as his representative to work with the Saudis, who agreed to make an "all-out secret effort" to persuade Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to expel Bin Laden.
Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, using "a mixture of possible bribes and threats," received a commitment from Taliban leader Mullah Omar that bin Laden would be handed over.
But Omar reneged on the agreement during a September 1998 meeting with Turki and Pakistan's intelligence chief.
"When Turki angrily confronted him Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi government. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out," the report said.
In conclusion, the report said "from the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice," the report said. "The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."
The report was part of the commission's two-day hearing focusing on the two administration's failed responses to the threat from al-Qaida.
Scheduled to testify Tuesday were Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as well as their counterparts in the Clinton administration, William Cohen and Albright. They were appearing as part of the panel's review of failures in diplomatic and military strategy.
The hearing comes following explosive allegations in a book released Monday by Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration, who is expected to testify Wednesday.
He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before."
The commission's report Tuesday said Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time. The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11.
The 10-member commission had invited Rice to testify, but she has declined on the advice of the White House, which cited separation of power concerns involving its staff appearing before a legislative body.
Other potential diplomatic failures cited by the commission:
_ The United States in 1995 located Mohammed in Qatar. He was then a suspect in a 1995 plot to plant bombs on American airliners in Asia. FBI and CIA officials worked on his capture, but first sought a legal indictment and then help from the Qatari government, who they feared might tip Mohammed off. In 1996, Qatari officials reported Mohammed had suddenly disappeared.
_ The U.S. government pressed two successive Pakistani governments from the mid 1990s to pressure the Taliban by threatening to cut off support. But "before 9-11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives or pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship."
_ From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties, with little success.
Scheduled to testify Wednesday are CIA director George Tenet; Rice's predecessor, Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger; and a new witness added Tuesday to fill Rice's slot, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. On that day, the panel will review intelligence and national policy coordination. |
The bolded section is news to me.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-03-2004 19:43
|