GameBanshee Forums

This, from Reuters. I've only quoted the first part:

NEW YORK (March 21) - A former White House anti-terrorism adviser has accused U.S. President George W. Bush of ignoring terrorism threats before the Sept. 11 attacks and of making America less safe. Richard Clarke, Bush's top official on counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity board, told CBS "60 minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he thought Bush had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.

Clarke, who was an adviser to four presidents, says in a book to be published next week that the Bush administration should have taken out al Qaeda and its training camps in Afghanistan long before the attacks of Sept. 11, for which the militant network was blamed.

"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," Clarke told CBS.

Bush bashing is turning into a trend lately.


Twenty Nobel laureates, a former director of the IAEA who happened to be especially chosen (plucked out of retirement actually) to be the head of the UNMOVIC (yes, I'm referring to Hans Blix), and now this.

I wish all those people could form their own opinions, think for themselves and not just jump on the Bush-hating bandwagon

I was just listning in on excerts from Clarkes book on the radio. According to him he was told by Bush in closed quarters to "Find the link with Iraq and Al-Queada" after going back with the cia and the feds several times, and finding no link, and then presenting that report to bush Clarke responds "The report was turned away and "Wrong answer" is what we were told".

He goes on to say "Bush never told us to lie" but he sure eludes to the fact that Bush wanted the connection to be real.

Originally posted by Vicsun
Bush bashing is turning into a trend lately.


Twenty Nobel laureates, a former director of the IAEA who happened to be especially chosen (plucked out of retirement actually) to be the head of the UNMOVIC (yes, I'm referring to Hans Blix), and now this.

I wish all those people could form their own opinions, think for themselves and not just jump on the Bush-hating bandwagon

There is nothing lately about it...Bush Bashing has been going on since the election. It's been old for a long time now

Originally posted by Scayde
There is nothing lately about it...Bush Bashing has been going on since the election. It's been old for a long time now

These kind of accusations are not old. They have also just started appearing from former Bush team members--again, something new. In fact, I think a good case could be made for Bush as the single least attacked president since LBJ, since people traditionally rally around any leader after a perception of being under threat. Bush played this up in a big way (who can forget his famous television interview where he said in justification of going after Hussein, "He tried to kill my daddy"?), and created a draconian, extremely expensive cabinet department designed to weed out traitors and "terrorist suspects." In a nation made beliigerent by a president who misleads others, and grabs as much power to himself as he can, the media and the rest of the government sank into quietude. Bush pretty much had it all his way--until recently.

Originally posted by fable
These kind of accusations are not old. They have also just started appearing from former Bush team members--again, something new. In fact, I think a good case could be made for Bush as the single least attacked president since LBJ, since people traditionally rally around any leader after a perception of being under threat. Bush played this up in a big way (who can forget his famous television interview where he said in justification of going after Hussein, "He tried to kill my daddy"?), and created a draconian, extremely expensive cabinet department designed to weed out traitors and "terrorist suspects." In a nation made beliigerent by a president who misleads others, and grabs as much power to himself as he can, the media and the rest of the government sank into quietude. Bush pretty much had it all his way--until recently.

I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on, and I hardly would expect you to agree with me on this, but from my perspective I have always felt Bush has been treated with a great deal of disrespect, suspicion, and callous disregard for the tremendous burden he faced during his term in office and infact even starting with the election itself. It has often sickened me to see how he has been demeaned both in the forums and in the media, and frankly, nowhere have I seen him maligned so much as right here at GameBanshee. ..But then again, I suppose it is all in your point of view. If you were one of the detractors I am sure you saw it as no more and probably less than he deserved. If you are / were a supporter, then I am sure there are times your blood has boiled to see things I have seen and read. I don't want to go into details. I was just speaking my mind. In my opinion, Bush Bashing is far from a new event

Originally posted by Scayde
But then again, I suppose it is all in your point of view. If you were one of the detractors I am sure you saw it as no more and probably less than he deserved. If you are / were a supporter, then I am sure there are times your blood has boiled to see things I have seen and read. I don't want to go into details. I was just speaking my mind. In my opinion, Bush Bashing is far from a new event

Oh, Bush bashing isn't new. I didn't mean to imply that. My apologies if my post came across that way; I can see where you might take it as such. I meant, that this kind of attack, throwing suspicion on his competence by insiders, is new.

I would only add that there are a number of non-partisan organizations that track media coverage of leading public officials, and perform investigative journalism on journalists, themselves, such as The Center for Public Integrity. Several of these have posted numbers (which admittedly I don't have at hand) that show Bush as being the least attacked president in the media, following 9/11, of any president in recent memory. There have also been striking comparisons of the media's sarcastic editorial treatment of, say, Clinton's "didn't inhale" with the general silence regarding Bush's "military service record" for four years.

I would only add that there are a number of non-partisan organizations that track media coverage of leading public officials, and perform investigative journalism on journalists, themselves, such as The Center for Public Integrity. Several of these have posted numbers (which admittedly I don't have at hand) that show Bush as being the least attacked president in the media, following 9/11, of any president in recent memory. There have also been striking comparisons of the media's sarcastic editorial treatment of, say, Clinton's "didn't inhale" with the general silence regarding Bush's "military service record."

I would not doubt that this information is true. I would only say it also makes a lot of sense if you think about it. The media is 95% a for profit business. The media therefore caters to its customers. There is a big difference in criticizing a sitting president in times of peace and in times of war. This is not a new phenomenon. I would be quite confident that you would find similar parallels to the level of criticism levelled at FDR during WWII - or even of LBJ during the beginning of the Vietnam war or George Sr. during the Desert Storm.

I would like to add that I am not saying that Bush did or did not deserve more criticism - just that after the events of 9/11 there was a bit of a grace period given by the media as the American public worked through the shock and anger of the event and rallied behind our leaders. The public was not interested in "Dubya" bashing and would have reacted negatively against media outlets that engaged in that kind of activity - the whole Bill Maher incident comes to mind as an example. I would think that that grace period ended late last year as the Iraq War wound down and the perception of an iminent threat diminished.

Over the past 6 months or so as the Iraq conflict has become more of a PR issue - and more soldiers die - and no WMDs are found - we are seeing that Bush is no longer given slack by the media. The nightly news is now dominated by post Iraq war issues and criticism of Bush economic and fiscal policies. This backlash may in fact lead to a landslide victory for Kerry if Bush doesn't pull Osama.....er I mean a rabbit....out of his hat soon. And even if he does he better find a couple hundred pounds of weapons grade uranium buried in Sadams mothers backyard.

Originally posted by smass
This backlash may in fact lead to a landslide victory for Kerry if Bush doesn't pull Osama.....er I mean a rabbit....out of his hat soon. And even if he does he better find a couple hundred pounds of weapons grade uranium buried in Sadams mothers backyard.

Even with Osama caught it wouldn't change my mind.

As for the weapons, this wasn't my reason for the support of the war in Iraq. I wanted the sanctions ended one way or the other. With over half the world disagreeing on how to go about this, I chose the military way.

So even if WMD had been found in Iraq, I wouldn't have changed my mind. The only thing that could have/might gotten me to vote for Bush would had been right after the "combat" ended in Iraq. A simple request for the UN to step in and help govern the country till an election could be held. Nope couldn't do this until it looked like the parties in Iraq where going to start an infight. Then Bush starts calling on the UN. Too late IMO.

(No reason to bring up the discussion on the other ways, they have been discussed and no leeway is going to come from trying to convince others of your views. We each have our own opinion of have things should be done.)

Just heard a piece about former terrorism czar Clarke's allegations (and the independent, bipartisan Congressional investigation that was started as a result, over Bush's objections) on Radio Nederland. They mentioned that the Bush administration is trying to paint Clarke as a disgruntled employee, but that it isn't working, because Clarke served two years under Bush after being relegated to what could be considered an inferior position. He was popular under both previous Republican (Bush, Sr) and Democratic (Clinton) admins because he was blunt and spoke his mind in high circles. Apparently, this was not welcome by Dubya or his cabinet.

Here's a transcript of a CNN interview with Clarke held just a few hours ago.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was requested today by the Congressional Investigating Committee, but Bush has refused to allow her to appear. He's offered up instead Colin Powell, who merely said that everybody did their best, and no, he knows nothing about whatever Rice discussed with Bush. Clarke's testimony sounded good, and contained a lot of facts--many of which, of course, touched on Rice. The head of the FBI appeared, and said in essence that there were a lot of problems, but let's look to a bright future, instead.

Originally posted by fable
The head of the FBI appeared, and said in essence that there were a lot of problems, but let's look to a bright future, instead.

I assume his comments were about prior to 9/11? Assuming this, did any one of the Congressional investigation members ask about the problems in getting intelligence of Iraq?

I personally would have asked since he said let's look to a brighter future. What future is this...the joke of intelligence???

Originally posted by Weasel
I assume his comments were about prior to 9/11? Assuming this, did any one of the Congressional investigation members ask about the problems in getting intelligence of Iraq?

It was exclusively concerned with events leading up to 9/11, and a magnificent job of pleading without saying anything to the issues raised. Clarke has stated that there was a great deal of pre-9/11 intelligence about specific Al-Qua'ida plans for attacks on the US, but that he couldn't get Rice to take the reports seriously, and that Bush simply said the main enemy wasn't Al-Qua'ida, but Iraq.

EDIT: The BBC just decided to talk some people on the streets about how the investigation is going--from America's heartland, which is, get this, Chicago. ROFL!

Originally posted by fable
It was exclusively concerned with events leading up to 9/11, and a magnificent job of pleading without saying anything to the issues raised. Clarke has stated that there was a great deal of pre-9/11 intelligence about specific Al-Qua'ida plans for attacks on the US, but that he couldn't get Rice to take the reports seriously, and that Bush simply said the main enemy wasn't Al-Qua'ida, but Iraq.

EDIT: The BBC just decided to talk some people on the streets about how the investigation is going--from America's heartland, which is, get this, Chicago. ROFL!

I should have figured as much. Too many questions about something the majority of Congress backed would not go over well. Sweep it away as fast as you can!


So Clarke is saying Bush and crew spent their time looking for stuff on Iraq instead of the "Group with a name, but not a name the US Intelligence liked". Well that was a failure as well. All the time they spent got .....nothing. No WMDs, no connection to "Group with a name, but not a name the US Intelligence liked". This doesn't seem to be a righter future either! I believe the FBI man is sniffing something.


Well Chicago would be better than @##%@^%% Alabama. Most here would not know what the #$%^ the BBC was even talking about.

I've been listning to some stuff on clarke and well this whole deal kinda smells to me like Clarke's just applying for a job with Kerry.

I mean the guy contradicts himself horribly, I heard a report on how he praises the bush administration in 2002 (or 2003) on how they adapated to Clintons plan and moved forward.

I dont know Im looking for stuff to post but from what I've heard this guy's just a joke atm. His claims like "Rice had an expression as if she had never heard of al-queda" yet in a recorded interview months (or a year I gotta find the evidence) earlier she is quoted talking about that very subject, Osama bin laden and terrorism. I think Clarke's book being pushed forward for this testomony and stuff reaks.

From what I heard and read the plans for sept 11th attack took like four or five years of planning. Clarke's book gives Clinton the benifit of the doubt...

I dont know who to listen to but I won't listen to clarke.

Originally posted by RandomThug


I dont know who to listen to but I won't listen to clarke.

Listen to all, but only believe 10% of what they say. Clarke just like Bush have their own goals for what they say or do. Take the FBI in Fable's post, they are not going to admit they failed and cannot do the job. Instead they say the future is getting brighter. Does this FBI man want to lose his cushy job? Admitting they cannot cope with the problem is a no no.

You can add the CIA, the NIS, Congress, the Rep's , the Dem's ect ect ect to the list.

Until the day comes when the US citizen demands someone step forward and take the blame, this process will continue.

Originally posted by RandomThug
I've been listning to some stuff on clarke and well this whole deal kinda smells to me like Clarke's just applying for a job with Kerry.

Just the opposite. Clarke served Reagan, the elder Bush, Clinton, and the younger Bush. He held many distinguished posts under all these administrations. If he wanted a job with Kerry, all he had to do was keep his mouth shut, smile, and wait for the outcome of the election. Kerry, like Clinton, would have scooped him up for his intelligence and experience in a second. As it is, nobody is going to employ a whistleblower.

I mean the guy contradicts himself horribly, I heard a report on how he praises the bush administration in 2002 (or 2003) on how they adapated to Clintons plan and moved forward.

This completely contradicts everything that the entire Bush administration has been saying. They've claimed for years that Clinton had no policy for dealing with terrorists or Al-Qua'ida (demonstrably untrue), so that if anything, to keep in step, Clarke would have said exactly the opposite of what you claimed in previous years.

I dont know Im looking for stuff to post but from what I've heard this guy's just a joke atm. His claims like "Rice had an expression as if she had never heard of al-queda" yet in a recorded interview months (or a year I gotta find the evidence) earlier she is quoted talking about that very subject,

Just a joke? If he were just a joke, he wouldn't have served in important, extremely high security clearance positions since the mid-1980s, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. (Remember, he was Dubya's Terrorism Czar.) Nor would his book have been sufficient to cause Congress to hold such a hearing--not when the party controlling the Congress is also the party of the president. Clarke is regarded by everybody in the business as an extremely competent, sincere civil servant. Incidentally, he was a close friend of Donald Rumsfeld--until the book came out, that is. In other words, he wasn't in anybody's pocket. And while the book's money is good, he could have easily gotten much more by simply going back into industry. The main thing he stands to reap from this in the longterm is a degree of misery, as he's shunned by his former colleagues, and ignored by future administrations.

As for his remarks re: Rice, he's referring to her expression pre-9/11, when he tried repeatedly to push the idea that Al-Qua'ida was a very dangerous terrorist organization and the main threat to the US. Rice would naturally know about Al-Qua'ida--now.

Ahah! I saw it on tv, this is what I am talking about.

In a Report in August of 2002 Clarke was quoted exactly the oppisite of what his book says today, and when he was asked by the committee which version was the truth he quoted his book, so they ask him "So you're telling us you willing lied to the public" No he says nothing was "untrue" he was just pointing out the positive points. He has also backtracked from saying in the 60 minutes interview that Bush did NOTHING at all to that they reacted poorly.

And the rice comment, her interview was pre 9/11 and pre the date he claims that he told her.

Everyone stinks but this guy cant even keep a 2 year distance between lies. He claims he was putting a positive spin, well damn its pretty obvious now he is putting a negative one. SPIN. Dont tell me about previous relationships and such, the guy is quoted in more than one source (He is quoted in this other guys book to say that Clintons Administration did little to nothing, was full of beaucracy bs and such) to the exact oppsite of what his BOOK he is SELLING right now.

Originally posted by RandomThug
Ahah! I saw it on tv, this is what I am talking about.

In a Report in August of 2002 Clarke was quoted exactly the oppisite of what his book says today, and when he was asked by the committee which version was the truth he quoted his book, so they ask him "So you're telling us you willing lied to the public" No he says nothing was "untrue" he was just pointing out the positive points. He has also backtracked from saying in the 60 minutes interview that Bush did NOTHING at all to that they reacted poorly.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're complaining about. It's expected anywhere that a public official is going to sugar-coat everything they say about the administration and its work while in office, hiding all the negatives. To claim that Clarke was somehow a lying weasel (I beg your pardon) because of this is ingenuous. Many, many books have been written by whistleblowers who were team players until things got to bizarre, and they left. How is Clarke different in this respect?

And the rice comment, her interview was pre 9/11 and pre the date he claims that he told her.

You mean, Rice knew Al-Qua'ida was a major threat before 9/11, and as Security Advisor she did nothing about it? Is that what you're saying?

Dont tell me about previous relationships and such, the guy is quoted in more than one source (He is quoted in this other guys book to say that Clintons Administration did little to nothing, was full of beaucracy bs and such) to the exact oppsite of what his BOOK he is SELLING right now.

What "other" book? Who was the "other guy" that wrote it? Was Clarke questioned about that book? And did he make those comments while in office under Bush? If he was simply BSing and contradicting himself constantly, why did the Republican-dominated Congress decide to hold an investigative hearing on his allegations, over Bush's objections? Why would Bush object if Clarke was nothing but a transparent liar, as you make out?

Again, this is no ordinary time server, but a very highly-rated civil servant who has worked for twenty years closely, personally with Reagan, both Bushes and the Clinton administration. He held a high position under Dubya. I don't understand any motivation he could have for lying now about Dubya, unless he's a masochist who's decided to send his career to hell in a handbasket and lose all his friends because of some psychological need to suffer. But maybe you know better?

I'm afraid I don't know what you're complaining about. It's expected anywhere that a public official is going to sugar-coat everything they say about the administration and its work while in office, hiding all the negatives. To claim that Clarke was somehow a lying weasel (I beg your pardon) because of this is ingenuous. Many, many books have been written by whistleblowers who were team players until things got to bizarre, and they left. How is Clarke different in this respect?

There is a difference between sugar coat and out right lie, this man is claiming they did NOTHING yet he claims absolutly different in 2002. He does not sugar coat doing NOTHING, that would be nothing. He points out like I believe 7 points of how they moved forward. Claiming "its just the way things are" doesn't make him a truth bearing savior. He is lying somewhere, either completly with all seven points (note sugar coating is giving a little better shine, not completly making crap up).

He has backtracked on what he said on 60 minutes and His book was pushed to be published before the sept 11th hearings. I mean sure the guy might have a good point and that Bush wasn't the best guy cause he had previous agenda for IRAQ but the dude's lying somewhere and his credibility no matter how many great terms he has served is in question when he is caught lying.

And when called about it he gave a very clinton like response. He claims his book is the truth, and in his book he completly contradicts his statement in 2002. Completly. But the statement in 2002 is not untrue.

You mean, Rice knew Al-Qua'ida was a major threat before 9/11, and as Security Advisor she did nothing about it? Is that what you're saying?

First off thats way off the point I was making with my statement, its a counter to point out more of Clarkes embelishment of facts (my opinion). He claims she gave that face but she clearly noted the importance of the threats before he had spoken before 9/11. Wasn't clarke security advisor? What did he do during all his glory days to protect us from 9/11, didn't that plan take the terrorists four years.. while he was in office protecting us? I mean this guy appears to me like he is covering his ass by blaming bush, sure he has points but even HE said that they did do stuff. And policies were set..

For instance the deals with Pakistan and the northern alliance etc.. I've gotta run Im at work but I'll finish off soon.

[/QUOTE]What book? Who was the "other guy" that wrote it? Was Clarke questioned about that book? And did he make those comments while in office under Bush?

Again, this is no ordinary time server, but a very highly-rated civil servant who has worked for twenty years closely, personally with Reagan, both Bushes and the Clinton administration. He held a high position under Dubya. I don't understand any motivation he could have for lying now about Dubya, unless he's a masochist who's decided to send his career to hell in a handbasket and lose all his friends because of some psychological need to suffer.[/QUOTE]

I'll get the info on that book, I read it somewhere cant remember but he was quoted in the book and it wasn't retracted by him it was his words.

Secondly if you wanna get political about this he does have ties with the kerry administration (although I do believe that the republicans are reaching with this angry employee thing). His best friend etc whatever.

He claims he wont take any work with Kerry, he wont take up any position in office. He quit, he left he has nothing to loose. He isn't sending his carerr into hell because he doesn't have it any more anyways. I am just saying that the guy is a liar somewhere down the line, a big liar because his statements aren't even simular thier black and white.

I trust him as much as I trust Rice. I dont consider him great because he has served longer under other people, crap probably more of a beuacratic machine because of such. Argh gotta run.