Bitter EX-terrorism advisor is still at it.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Bitter EX-terrorism advisor is still at it.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...20183709990004
What's with this guy? He acts like he wasn't part of the problem. Clinton's failed terrorism policy was due, in some small way, to the advice he received from idiots like this guy. The longer you leave them alone, the stronger they get. Ignore a problem and it just gets bigger. If a better terrorism policy had been in place when GW took office, we may not have had a September 11th at all. You can't just snap your fingers and make years of failed policy go away. It takes time. When people see this interview, a lot of them are going to just accept it at face value and never put a minute of thought to it. CBS makes me sick.
What's with this guy? He acts like he wasn't part of the problem. Clinton's failed terrorism policy was due, in some small way, to the advice he received from idiots like this guy. The longer you leave them alone, the stronger they get. Ignore a problem and it just gets bigger. If a better terrorism policy had been in place when GW took office, we may not have had a September 11th at all. You can't just snap your fingers and make years of failed policy go away. It takes time. When people see this interview, a lot of them are going to just accept it at face value and never put a minute of thought to it. CBS makes me sick.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by BrewMaster
link don't work. gotta have AOL.
link don't work. gotta have AOL.
Here ya go.
Bush's Ex-Terror Adviser Says Bush Ignored Threats
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.
AP
Clarke's comments will air Sunday on "60 Minutes."
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.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration followed former President Bill Clinton's policy on al Qaeda until it had developed its own terrorism strategy.
In a transcript of a NBC News interview, made available by the White House on Saturday, Rice said terrorism was a high priority for Bush from the outset of his term.
"We did pursue the Clinton administration policy and pursued it actively, until we could get in a place a more comprehensive policy -- not to roll back al Qaeda -- but to eliminate al Qaeda," Rice said.
She said Bush had only been in office 230 days when the Sept. 11 attacks happened.
"Even if we had been able to do it in 190 days, or 150 days, it was a policy that our counterterrorism people told us was going to eliminate al Qaeda over three to five years," she said. "This was not something that was going to stop September 11th."
Asked why the government did not retaliate after intelligence in Spring 2001 showed al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the USS Cole warship in Yemen, Rice said:
"We were concerned that we didn't have good military options, that really all we had were options like using cruise missiles to go after training camps that had long been abandoned and that it might have just the opposite effect, it might, in fact embolden the terrorists, not frighten them, or not think that they were being taken seriously."
CBS said Clarke asserts in his book, "Against All Enemies," that Bush ignored ominous intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, but Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley, said Bush did hear those warnings and was impatient for intelligence chiefs to develop a new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.
"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland," Hadley told CBS.
He said "the president put us on battle stations. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland."'
Clarke, who left his position in February 2003 after 30 years in government service when the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security, said Bush's decision to invade Iraq had strengthened terror groups.
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.
AP
Clarke's comments will air Sunday on "60 Minutes."
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.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration followed former President Bill Clinton's policy on al Qaeda until it had developed its own terrorism strategy.
In a transcript of a NBC News interview, made available by the White House on Saturday, Rice said terrorism was a high priority for Bush from the outset of his term.
"We did pursue the Clinton administration policy and pursued it actively, until we could get in a place a more comprehensive policy -- not to roll back al Qaeda -- but to eliminate al Qaeda," Rice said.
She said Bush had only been in office 230 days when the Sept. 11 attacks happened.
"Even if we had been able to do it in 190 days, or 150 days, it was a policy that our counterterrorism people told us was going to eliminate al Qaeda over three to five years," she said. "This was not something that was going to stop September 11th."
Asked why the government did not retaliate after intelligence in Spring 2001 showed al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the USS Cole warship in Yemen, Rice said:
"We were concerned that we didn't have good military options, that really all we had were options like using cruise missiles to go after training camps that had long been abandoned and that it might have just the opposite effect, it might, in fact embolden the terrorists, not frighten them, or not think that they were being taken seriously."
CBS said Clarke asserts in his book, "Against All Enemies," that Bush ignored ominous intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, but Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley, said Bush did hear those warnings and was impatient for intelligence chiefs to develop a new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.
"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland," Hadley told CBS.
He said "the president put us on battle stations. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland."'
Clarke, who left his position in February 2003 after 30 years in government service when the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security, said Bush's decision to invade Iraq had strengthened terror groups.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Can’t think of the morons name but seen some information. Basically he was fired and he has a grudge against President Bush.
Fact of the matter is the guy is a complete moron with no common sense at all. He is trying to say that the Clinton administration had warned President Bush about terrorism and that if President Bush would have listen to them that 911 would have never happen.
Odd, first the liberals like this moron were blaming President Bush for the intelligence agencies not having enough information to warn us about 911, that was President Bush’s fault.
Now all of a sudden in a sad attempt to make a Kerry move (change mind in mid stream) they are now trying to say that President Bush did indeed have all the information and could have prevented 911.
Liberals, please get with your people and tell them to put down the pipe and come up with a coherent subject to debate and please inform them on how to read and use their burnt up brains to try and remember what they said yesterday.
NO! Clinton did not know about 911 nor did anyone in his administration try to or warn President Bush about 911. The liberals and democrats are basically pissed off that these selfish terrorist did not fly the planes into the buildings while they were in office.
I can not believe how the democrats and liberals are taking advantage of all the dead people from 911 for their own political agenda and how they continue to put our armed forces at great risk by LYING about the facts.
Clinton did little to NOTHING against terrorism, he sat and watched and waited for a grown-up to come along and take care of HIS problem. President Bush is the grown-up that came along and has taken care of the problem and will continue to do so.
This guy whining is just another liberal who loves terrorist and wants to give them the hope and courage that by carrying out their terrorist agenda they will continue to split the American people and at the same time help give liberals FALSE hope of one day returning to power…
Therefore, if there is ANY blame or responsibility for 911 it was the responsibility of CLINTON and those like this moron that worked for him that FAILED the American people…
Fact of the matter is the guy is a complete moron with no common sense at all. He is trying to say that the Clinton administration had warned President Bush about terrorism and that if President Bush would have listen to them that 911 would have never happen.
Odd, first the liberals like this moron were blaming President Bush for the intelligence agencies not having enough information to warn us about 911, that was President Bush’s fault.
Now all of a sudden in a sad attempt to make a Kerry move (change mind in mid stream) they are now trying to say that President Bush did indeed have all the information and could have prevented 911.
Liberals, please get with your people and tell them to put down the pipe and come up with a coherent subject to debate and please inform them on how to read and use their burnt up brains to try and remember what they said yesterday.
NO! Clinton did not know about 911 nor did anyone in his administration try to or warn President Bush about 911. The liberals and democrats are basically pissed off that these selfish terrorist did not fly the planes into the buildings while they were in office.
I can not believe how the democrats and liberals are taking advantage of all the dead people from 911 for their own political agenda and how they continue to put our armed forces at great risk by LYING about the facts.
Clinton did little to NOTHING against terrorism, he sat and watched and waited for a grown-up to come along and take care of HIS problem. President Bush is the grown-up that came along and has taken care of the problem and will continue to do so.
This guy whining is just another liberal who loves terrorist and wants to give them the hope and courage that by carrying out their terrorist agenda they will continue to split the American people and at the same time help give liberals FALSE hope of one day returning to power…
Therefore, if there is ANY blame or responsibility for 911 it was the responsibility of CLINTON and those like this moron that worked for him that FAILED the American people…
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From: Bells, Tenn,USA
01... I'm with you on that!!!
It appears that the old saying, "if you throw enough s***, some will finally stick" is the democrat's motto........ it's almost as if some people believe... mostly the media, that WE have no memory.............
It appears that the old saying, "if you throw enough s***, some will finally stick" is the democrat's motto........ it's almost as if some people believe... mostly the media, that WE have no memory.............
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
You guys crack me up.That is a lot of opinion based on three quote excerpts from an interview.
I will withhold judgement until I actually see and hear the program 'in context' when it airs.
Or maybe your conclusions are based on his book that has yet to be published?
I respect the opinions of others but, I become suspicious of whether those opinions are the result a heartfelt examination of the facts when those opinions are established before the evidence is presented.
(of course if you are TV execs and have already previewed the entire episode, then I apoligise for judging you when I didn't have all the facts)
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by Raoul
You guys crack me up.
That is a lot of opinion based on three quote excerpts from an interview.
I will withhold judgement until I actually see and hear the program 'in context' when it airs.
Or maybe your conclusions are based on his book that has yet to be published?
I respect the opinions of others but, I become suspicious of whether those opinions are the result a heartfelt examination of the facts when those opinions are established before the evidence is presented.
(of course if you are TV execs and have already previewed the entire episode, then I apoligise for judging you when I didn't have all the facts)
You guys crack me up.
That is a lot of opinion based on three quote excerpts from an interview.
I will withhold judgement until I actually see and hear the program 'in context' when it airs.
Or maybe your conclusions are based on his book that has yet to be published?
I respect the opinions of others but, I become suspicious of whether those opinions are the result a heartfelt examination of the facts when those opinions are established before the evidence is presented.
(of course if you are TV execs and have already previewed the entire episode, then I apoligise for judging you when I didn't have all the facts)
Trending Topics
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Sarcasm?
Here's sarcasm, the parade continues and the tune never changes...
chief weapons inspector David Kay...idiot, moron
Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill...idiot, moron
Richard Clarke, top official on counter-terrorism...idiot, moron
Here's sarcasm, the parade continues and the tune never changes...
chief weapons inspector David Kay...idiot, moron
Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill...idiot, moron
Richard Clarke, top official on counter-terrorism...idiot, moron
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by Raoul
chief weapons inspector David Kay...idiot, moron
Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill...idiot, moron
Richard Clarke, top official on counter-terrorism...idiot, moron
chief weapons inspector David Kay...idiot, moron
Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill...idiot, moron
Richard Clarke, top official on counter-terrorism...idiot, moron
(Sarcasm, with a little out of context quoting. I better watch out before I become a member of the liberal media.)
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by DonnyD
01... I'm with you on that!!!
It appears that the old saying, "if you throw enough s***, some will finally stick" is the democrat's motto........ it's almost as if some people believe... mostly the media, that WE have no memory.............
01... I'm with you on that!!!
It appears that the old saying, "if you throw enough s***, some will finally stick" is the democrat's motto........ it's almost as if some people believe... mostly the media, that WE have no memory.............
Problem for the liberals and democrats is they went and picked a real winner for their nominee.
Kerry – ”I voted YES for the $87 billion to FUND & SUPPORT our troops before I voted NO on the $87 billion”
ROFLMAO, the ol boy voted both YES and NO and is FOR and AGAINST about any issue depending on who is trying to fool and now his comments are on video for the republicans to show the WORLD…
I bet Kerry and the liberals in general are just hating Algore for ever inventing the internet now…
That is the same for these losers coming out of the wood work now trying to state that somehow with a crystal ball knew everything about terrorism. They knew about 911 and warned President Bush about it but he did nothing, they knew there was never ever any WMD’S as well as France and Germany knew there was never any WMD’S but President Bush never listened to them.
They go on to say that President Bush was hell bent on invading Iraq and disregarded any other activities of fighting terrorism and has done nothing about 911 since Iraq, in their fantasies had nothing to do with terrorism.
Problem is we have video clips of American forces kicking *** in Afghanistan and didn’t get involved with Iraq till about a year later, Oppps, forgot about that video…
So if the liberals know so damn much from their 8 years of successful terrorism programs how come we don’t have Bin Laden, I mean Bin Laden hangs out with their buddies, or use to in order to do TV shows for them. Just goes to show the liberals knew very little and when they did, like where Bin Laden was and was offered him on a silver platter 2 or 3 times they acted like a bunch of wusses and said ”Oh hell NO we don’t really want him, not on our watch, maybe the next guy will really want him”
I haven’t seen Bin Laden do many TV shows since 2000 has anyone else?
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by Raoul
You know really bugs the hell out of me?
That NC gets 14 electoral votes and VA only gets 13.
You know really bugs the hell out of me?
That NC gets 14 electoral votes and VA only gets 13.
