60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview
 

I watched this last night and I think both Clarke and Hadley are full of shit. Clarke said 9/11 happened because Bush's (43) foreign policy caused it, when we all know that the attacks were 3 years in the making. And both of them made up lies when confronted with questions proving them wrong. My opinion is that the whole program was a promo for Clarke's book. The whole interview was to sell books.

I was thinking that if we were to have attacked Iraq right after 9/11 happened and claimed they assisted, and then went on to attack Afghanistan, Bush would be more justified in doing so than he is now. Of course it would all be one big misleading lie, but who would know until, well, a book was written about it?

What the Hell? I didn't see Clinton rushing to battle stations.

Plus, this guy was relieved of his position by Bush. I'm smelling sour grapes.

About the bad intelligence. Both the CIA and FBI have had problems sharing intelligence, and they probably will always have problems. I think that the first thing Bush should've done when he found that he was given falty info was come out strong against these guys and ask them "what the fuck was that?" Maybe firing a few people would help too.

The Interview

I'll also include the White House's reaction.

you sure you’re not confusing Richard Clarke with Wesley Clarke? Wesley Clark was the guy who was 'fired' by Clinton and ran for this years dem primary.

the "Blame Bush for 9/11" crowd are a bunch of fringe wackos. They are just one particular segment of the "Blame Bush for X" crowd. Howard Dean was actually back on TV last week blaming Bush for the attacks in Madrid, too.

Its pathetic that these people say this stuff. I mean, even if you believe that more should have been done before 9/11, and that it was possible to stop it, there are three important considerations you have to take into account:
1) of the things that had to be done to stop 9/11, how many of them we possible in the few months Bush was in office? Bush didn't have a clear opportunity to capture head honchos of Al Quada in his time in Office. Hell, its been 3 years, and we STILL haven’t caught many of them. But Bush was supposed to have stopped all of them with out any provocation?

2) If Bush wasn't in power, would the attack shave happened anyway? The answer is yes. the plans were formed and carried out for years. Any attempt to say "Bush's foreign policy ANGERED them into attacking!" is bunk. The "Bush Doctrine was strictly a post 9/11 affair. Bush hadn't planned to do any of the nation building or military gallivanting that Clinton had done the 8 years previous. It was only AFTER 9/11 that Bush instituted the policy that we were going to hunt down terrorists and the countries that harbor them.

3) What has Bush done SINCE then on the matter? Terrorist plots have been foiled, arms runners have been stopped, nations that have supported terrorists have turned against them, terrorist leaders have been captured or killed, security measures have been boosted, and or national intelligence community has been geared up to meat the threat better.

another, secondary type of question should also be asked. Its clear that the "Blame Bush for anything!" crowd has an agenda: Get Bush out of power, and their guy into power. so you have to ask: If Terrorism IS an important issue, who would be better at meeting future threats, Bush, or Kerry?

The Democrat Attack Machine is so busy Blaming Bush for terrorism that they forget to blame the terrorists. I say, let them look like fools and keep on Blaming Bush. Bush is what will resonate with the American people: Blaming the terrorists for terrorism. Bush is actually going after those who are responsible, while the democrats are putting up a smoke and mirrors show in an desperate attempt to win in November.

Uhh, that Richard Clarke quote sounded like all he was saying was that Bush was being lax in security up until 9/11.

Well, you can blame bush for the attacks on Madrid, indirectly, that is. I mean, honestly, the real people to blame is the terrorists, which means we should be pissing them off more until they all die. That seems to be the general plan.

Personally, I'd rather blame Bush for the economical disaster that is our debt. That has much more basis.

And Zeth: Bush and his administration have been doing a lot of smoke and mirrors with a lot of things.

Naw, I'm sure it was Richard. It was a different guy. Read the article I attached.

Oh, and sorry, my mistake. This interview was on 60 Minutes. I typed CNN by mistake. Changing title.

Edit: Part 2

Uh oh. CBS should've tried to cover this up a little harder. See, I told you it was a book sale.

oh, sorry Bob. i thought you said something about a clark that ran for president. msu thave read it wrong or something

Listen to Vice President Cheney respond to Clarke

go here to read the white house's response.

also, check back to read a post by my favorite blog that has links to other writings.

I dunno, perhaps some of his claims are valid, but this thing stinks of political motivation and bias. He had years to act under clinton, and now, during the election, he's blaming Bush for it? The fact is he was demoted when Bush came into office. He wasnt "in the loop" he was demoted to cyber-terrorism.

going to bump this to add this little quote I saw:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.blogspo...07989194040270

I'm not sure whether to remarck at the irony of Democratic smokes and mirrors while you defend the Republican policies that enchourage the same, or to mention that Bush would never have gone after Al Qaeda had 9/11 never happened. It's surprising that you didn't pick up on his foreign policy beforehand -- very similar to Clinton's. Ah yes, that cretin, the bastard who didn't have the sense to use national disasters to support his military transactions.

It's pathetic that people still resort to belittling the other person's argument. :/

A lot can happen in 7 months. I recall a certain dictator being overthrown in that time period recently. Alright, it should've been Clinton's job to search for these Muslim extremists, and he muddled around with it. Bush gets put in the big chair; instead of taking foreign policy in any new direction, he does the same. Why? Charts!

The Al Sa'ud Royal Family (a corrupt bunch of bastards, as we'd have them) make a shitload of profit by stealing 30% of the revenue going into Saudi Arabia. The rest goes towards defence. SA has tons of oil, of course. The US is sold oil cheaper from Saudi Arabia than anywhere else. Of course, along come the Islamic Fundamentalists, preaching about the evil-doings of the infidel Al Sa'uds. These guys stay in shape by bribing Terrorist organizations to leave them alone, and our politicians, who enter the private sector after their terms, can get rich off of them by having Al Sa'uds invest billions in their companies. We musn't then attack the Terrorist organizations, because since these Saudis are seen as 'allies' of us, these terrorists would come back to break up the influence of the Al Sa'uds in return, cutting off a corrupt economic ally useful for campaign finance, and causing even worse hell to break loose in their country.

If we'd used operations to go after Al Qaeda, we would've dismantled their organization long enough to halt September 11th. When you know where they are, and you know what they want to do, it seems kind of silly to sit around, unless there's some benefit to be gained from it.

They'd already attacked, so they knew we'd come. There's a lot of difference that can be made from arrogantly marching through the front wall, than sneaking into the back window.

you know what i find amusing? the Democrats expect us to believe they would have supported anti-terrorist military operations (or even non-military operations) before 9/11?

Being as they aren't in power, they do get to take both sides of the fence, to a certain respect. But lets not get ridiculous here. If Bush had gone around and started blowing up terrorist in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Africa, the Philippines, and Indonesia, you think the democrats would have SUPPORTED him? bullllllshit. And if Bush's efforts HADN'T stopped 9/11? oooh, well then they'd be saying "Bush CAUSE 9/11! he pissed them off!"

I could write the rhetoric for these guys. Just take whatever Bush did, and take the opposition. If he invades, say you wouldn’t have invade. If he didn't invade, say you would have. If he passes Medicare spending, say its bad. If he passes an education bill, say it sucks. If Terrorists attack trains in Spain, blame Bush. If the fan belt on you '97 Jeep Grand Cherokee breaks, blame Bush.

The smoke and mirrors part is that, in reality, Democrats WOULD NOT HAVE DONE ANYTHING before 9/11. The fact that the Democrats are criticizing Bush for 'not doing anything' is laughable, since it implies (falsely) that they would have been able to stop 9/11.

Well, obviously Republicans won't believe it because they interpret the discretions about Iraq as a plea to halt all militancy as it is, rather than technicalities behind a single war. What I'm trying to say is that Democrats and Republicans were prevented from military operations in the middle-east before 9/11 because of foulplay, not domestic support.

Again, you seem to be relying on the "they can't criticize because they're no saints" cliche to defend your position. You say, repeatedly, that Democrats wouldn't have backed military action before 9/11. It's true. So then why do these supposed 'moral highground' Republicans also dodge it? Why did Bush adopt a similar foreign policy to Clinton pre-9/11? Mind you "because the Democrats are no better also" is NOT an answer.