Clarke ACTUALLY telling the truth in Aug 2002…
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Clarke ACTUALLY telling the truth in Aug 2002…
Seems like Clarke is like any other liberal when it comes to trying to bash the President and the job he has done “actually” protecting America.
In the quote below is Clarke in his OWN words making himself now look like the *** he truly is. The poor ol boy just doesn’t get it when it comes to “actually” telling the truth rather then whining because he didn’t get the job he wanted and thought he deserved. He should have thought about what he said before in the past prior to writing a book of LIES to sell to other liberal minded people.
These are the people, just like Clarke who will put our country at risk, our citizens at risk, our elder at risk, and our children at risk for further attacks by terrorist all in the NAME OF POWER AND MONEY…
It’s sick and it’s sad and Clarke deserves nothing more then a good *** whooping…
FROM: Fox News
Continued next post...
In the quote below is Clarke in his OWN words making himself now look like the *** he truly is. The poor ol boy just doesn’t get it when it comes to “actually” telling the truth rather then whining because he didn’t get the job he wanted and thought he deserved. He should have thought about what he said before in the past prior to writing a book of LIES to sell to other liberal minded people.
These are the people, just like Clarke who will put our country at risk, our citizens at risk, our elder at risk, and our children at risk for further attacks by terrorist all in the NAME OF POWER AND MONEY…
It’s sick and it’s sad and Clarke deserves nothing more then a good *** whooping…
FROM: Fox News
WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
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 BUSH 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.
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 BUSH 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.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
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.
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.
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
I read it but, I still have a question which I thought was something Clarke was trying to bring up in the Sixty Minutes interview:
'Are we in Iraq because of:'
WMD,
or
Iraq was behind 9/11
or
something else
or
a combination of some things listed above?
The answer has to be among the above choices.
Now, as far as I know, the only concrete answer provided thus far as to why we are in Iraq that cannot be disputed by liberal or conservative is
"Saddam was a bad man."
That is the only fact they have got to hang their hat on at this point.
It is a good fact, you can get some miles out of it with statements like 'Isn't America better off without him?" and Who would Saddam vote for?"
And if that's all they've got,
"Saddam was a bad man."
then they should admit it and deal with the consequences.
The answer I will not accept is:
"It doesn't matter 'why' we are in Iraq!"
I'm trying to be fair and balanced too.
'Are we in Iraq because of:'
WMD,
or
Iraq was behind 9/11
or
something else
or
a combination of some things listed above?
The answer has to be among the above choices.
Now, as far as I know, the only concrete answer provided thus far as to why we are in Iraq that cannot be disputed by liberal or conservative is
"Saddam was a bad man."
That is the only fact they have got to hang their hat on at this point.
It is a good fact, you can get some miles out of it with statements like 'Isn't America better off without him?" and Who would Saddam vote for?"
And if that's all they've got,
"Saddam was a bad man."
then they should admit it and deal with the consequences.
The answer I will not accept is:
"It doesn't matter 'why' we are in Iraq!"
I'm trying to be fair and balanced too.
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: Tyler, Texas
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,550
Likes: 2
From: Mount Airy,MD
Of course taht is not what he is saying today.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115045,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115045,00.html
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Raoul,
I see your point and it is a good one. Why are we in Iraq? Well we know Iraq has WMD’S, at least that is what all the free world was reporting from their intelligence. We know he had some weapons based on the fact that we had sold him some back in the 80’s.
He never proved that he destroyed them all so it was a good logical decision to say “yes he has WMD’S” Therefore that point was proven out with a BIG exception we have yet to find anything.
That is a problem, for the time being, since we have not looked everywhere or followed all leads that have yet to be dug up. However the fact of the matter at this time is we have not found any.
Second, we know from bits and pieces that Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda. I don’t have web links nor can I quote the things I have read in the past year but there are indeed links. The sad, or perhaps smart thing the Bush administration is doing is not pushing as hard as they should to prove that out to the public at large.
I am sure they are wanting to make damn sure they have a lot of good solid evidence before they go public with anything or push it the way I believe they should be now.
From my readings, the hard part is actually tying Saddam himself to Al Qaeda. They have evidence that Al Qaeda was involved with Iraq and Iraq helped to provide cash, land and training but not a lot of evidence that could specifically tie Saddam to those facts.
Saddam wasn’t completely stupid, and like any other leader of a country or mob family is going to try their best to insure they have no “direct” links.
People who wish not to believe me can flame me all they like but I will say this with confidence and that is in time, could be a year, could be 3 years or when ever there will be concrete evidence that shows Saddam was very much interweaved with Al Qaeda due to both of these groups of people hating America.
So why did we go to Iraq:
1. We have facts that have proven in the past that Saddam had WMD’S
2. Saddam had for over 10 years failed to follow through with international law and the resolutions of the United Nations.
3. Saddam had failed by all measures to prove that he destroyed all his WMD’S as instructed to do so.
4. Due to the information we had about Iraq and WMD’S and from Saddam’s own mouth, intelligence from many of the free countries (those associated with the UN) suggested that it was very feasible to think that Saddam may indeed provide terrorist organizations with his WMD’S to perhaps bring to other free countries to heighten the terror level and damage done to those free countries, specifically America.
5. Iraq, regardless what some people may think is INDEED a big part of the “War on terror”.
6. Lastly, but no less important, Saddam was a ruthless dictator who killed and tortured millions of his own people.
Now number 6 alone may not have been enough to justify going into Iraq, though I would argue it was, but when you put all the FACT’S together up to the point we invaded it makes a very strong and logical case for going in to Iraq and dealing with something that should have been dealt with during the first gulf war.
I would agree with you in that it DOES INDEED matter why we went into Iraq and anyone that says screw it, no reason needed is just not being honest about the situation. We had plenty of evidence, more then required in my opinion, to go in and take him and his terrorist organization down.
I see your point and it is a good one. Why are we in Iraq? Well we know Iraq has WMD’S, at least that is what all the free world was reporting from their intelligence. We know he had some weapons based on the fact that we had sold him some back in the 80’s.
He never proved that he destroyed them all so it was a good logical decision to say “yes he has WMD’S” Therefore that point was proven out with a BIG exception we have yet to find anything.
That is a problem, for the time being, since we have not looked everywhere or followed all leads that have yet to be dug up. However the fact of the matter at this time is we have not found any.
Second, we know from bits and pieces that Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda. I don’t have web links nor can I quote the things I have read in the past year but there are indeed links. The sad, or perhaps smart thing the Bush administration is doing is not pushing as hard as they should to prove that out to the public at large.
I am sure they are wanting to make damn sure they have a lot of good solid evidence before they go public with anything or push it the way I believe they should be now.
From my readings, the hard part is actually tying Saddam himself to Al Qaeda. They have evidence that Al Qaeda was involved with Iraq and Iraq helped to provide cash, land and training but not a lot of evidence that could specifically tie Saddam to those facts.
Saddam wasn’t completely stupid, and like any other leader of a country or mob family is going to try their best to insure they have no “direct” links.
People who wish not to believe me can flame me all they like but I will say this with confidence and that is in time, could be a year, could be 3 years or when ever there will be concrete evidence that shows Saddam was very much interweaved with Al Qaeda due to both of these groups of people hating America.
So why did we go to Iraq:
1. We have facts that have proven in the past that Saddam had WMD’S
2. Saddam had for over 10 years failed to follow through with international law and the resolutions of the United Nations.
3. Saddam had failed by all measures to prove that he destroyed all his WMD’S as instructed to do so.
4. Due to the information we had about Iraq and WMD’S and from Saddam’s own mouth, intelligence from many of the free countries (those associated with the UN) suggested that it was very feasible to think that Saddam may indeed provide terrorist organizations with his WMD’S to perhaps bring to other free countries to heighten the terror level and damage done to those free countries, specifically America.
5. Iraq, regardless what some people may think is INDEED a big part of the “War on terror”.
6. Lastly, but no less important, Saddam was a ruthless dictator who killed and tortured millions of his own people.
Now number 6 alone may not have been enough to justify going into Iraq, though I would argue it was, but when you put all the FACT’S together up to the point we invaded it makes a very strong and logical case for going in to Iraq and dealing with something that should have been dealt with during the first gulf war.
I would agree with you in that it DOES INDEED matter why we went into Iraq and anyone that says screw it, no reason needed is just not being honest about the situation. We had plenty of evidence, more then required in my opinion, to go in and take him and his terrorist organization down.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Today 3/24/2004 Clarke:
August 2002 Clarke:
So which is it? It was on the table since 98 or it was extraordinarily high priority?
Here is a thought, it was on the table since 98 and it was extraordinarily a high priority, just not as extraordinarily high as other things going on from 1998 to 2000.
Fact of the matter this Clarke moron has just made himself COMPLETELY irrelevant with absolutely NO creditability. It’s sad that he served his country for approx. 20 years to be tossed out and now looked at as a complete moron that has absolutely no common sense or any logic what so ever.
However, on the bright side its good this guy is being flushed out now for what he is. If Kerry is smart (fat chance) but if so he will distance himself as far a way as possible from this guy. Kerry should look at this guy as if he was Algore. Algore or this guy will guarantee an absolute defeat for Kerry in 2004…
“My impression was that fighting terrorism in general and fighting Al Qaeda, in particular, was an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration. Certainly, there was no higher priority," said Clarke, who also worked for former President Bill Clinton.”
"...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.”
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.
”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.”
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.
So which is it? It was on the table since 98 or it was extraordinarily high priority?
Here is a thought, it was on the table since 98 and it was extraordinarily a high priority, just not as extraordinarily high as other things going on from 1998 to 2000.
Fact of the matter this Clarke moron has just made himself COMPLETELY irrelevant with absolutely NO creditability. It’s sad that he served his country for approx. 20 years to be tossed out and now looked at as a complete moron that has absolutely no common sense or any logic what so ever.
However, on the bright side its good this guy is being flushed out now for what he is. If Kerry is smart (fat chance) but if so he will distance himself as far a way as possible from this guy. Kerry should look at this guy as if he was Algore. Algore or this guy will guarantee an absolute defeat for Kerry in 2004…
Last edited by 01 XLT Sport; Mar 24, 2004 at 03:38 PM.
Trending Topics
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Now we are getting somewhere...
So, the (WMD) are actually chemical artillary rounds that he used on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 80s. He fired these rounds with US field pieces we gave/sold him. OK I'm with you so far but, these artillary rounds make me wonder about the validity of the phrase 'imminent threat and WMD'.
The phrase 'imminent threat and WMD' would make me want to support a preemptive attack on Iraq a lot more than ' chemical warhead artillary rounds' but, that's just me.
2. Saddam had for over 10 years failed to follow through with international law and the resolutions of the United Nations.
We seemed to have him bottled up pretty good for 10 years.
What changed? I know 9/11 happened but, either Iraq was responsible for 9/11 or it wasn't. If you take 9/11 out of the equation, how do you invade Iraq?
3. Saddam had failed by all measures to prove that he destroyed all his WMD’S as instructed to do so.
Most learned experts left and right, are of the opinion that the list of WMD that was supposed to exist actually did not. For whatever reason, bad intel, people inside Iraq lying just to get rid of Saddam. Perhaps even Saddam wanted to bluff what he was holding to keep interior enemies at bay. So, I am having a real hard time with number (3). Is it, "He failed to prove he destroyed the WMD he never had?" Unless we are once again talking about artillary shells. He probably couldn't find them if he wanted to after 15 years of laying around.
4. Due to the information we had about Iraq and WMD’S and from Saddam’s own mouth, intelligence from many of the free countries (those associated with the UN) suggested that it was very feasible to think that Saddam may indeed provide terrorist organizations with his WMD’S to perhaps bring to other free countries to heighten the terror level and damage done to those free countries, specifically America.
OK, we are back to the WMD. I guess if we can just find the WMD then everything is vindicated because WMD creeps into every phrase of each argument. As I have said before, finding WMD makes me pull hard for Bush. No WMD would mean it's time for a regime change. I do not elect UN members nor politicians for foriegn countries. I vote here in the US and hold the Commander N Chief accountable as I am sure he would expect me to.
5. Iraq, regardless what some people may think is INDEED a big part of the “War on terror”.
I agree 100%. Iraq became a big part of the 'War on Terror' the day we invaded. Why did we invade Iraq?
6. Lastly, but no less important, Saddam was a ruthless dictator who killed and tortured millions of his own people.
You are just padding now, my friend.
I gave you Number (6) in my first post.
It is the one true, concrete fact I will not contest.
.... We had plenty of evidence, more then required in my opinion, to go in and take him and his terrorist organization down.
Here my friend is where we civily disagree.
I hope the Bush administration isn't 'holding back' some vindicating evidence as you suggested earlier. This is hurting them badly in public opinion.
...So why did we go to Iraq:
1. We have facts that have proven in the past that Saddam had WMD’S
1. We have facts that have proven in the past that Saddam had WMD’S
The phrase 'imminent threat and WMD' would make me want to support a preemptive attack on Iraq a lot more than ' chemical warhead artillary rounds' but, that's just me.
2. Saddam had for over 10 years failed to follow through with international law and the resolutions of the United Nations.
What changed? I know 9/11 happened but, either Iraq was responsible for 9/11 or it wasn't. If you take 9/11 out of the equation, how do you invade Iraq?
3. Saddam had failed by all measures to prove that he destroyed all his WMD’S as instructed to do so.
4. Due to the information we had about Iraq and WMD’S and from Saddam’s own mouth, intelligence from many of the free countries (those associated with the UN) suggested that it was very feasible to think that Saddam may indeed provide terrorist organizations with his WMD’S to perhaps bring to other free countries to heighten the terror level and damage done to those free countries, specifically America.
5. Iraq, regardless what some people may think is INDEED a big part of the “War on terror”.
6. Lastly, but no less important, Saddam was a ruthless dictator who killed and tortured millions of his own people.
I gave you Number (6) in my first post.
It is the one true, concrete fact I will not contest.
.... We had plenty of evidence, more then required in my opinion, to go in and take him and his terrorist organization down.
I hope the Bush administration isn't 'holding back' some vindicating evidence as you suggested earlier. This is hurting them badly in public opinion.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Raoul
Now we are getting somewhere...
So, the (WMD) are actually chemical artillary rounds that he used on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 80s. He fired these rounds with US field pieces we gave/sold him. OK I'm with you so far but, these artillary rounds make me wonder about the validity of the phrase 'imminent threat and WMD'.
The phrase 'imminent threat and WMD' would make me want to support a preemptive attack on Iraq a lot more than ' chemical warhead artillary rounds' but, that's just me.
Now we are getting somewhere...
So, the (WMD) are actually chemical artillary rounds that he used on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 80s. He fired these rounds with US field pieces we gave/sold him. OK I'm with you so far but, these artillary rounds make me wonder about the validity of the phrase 'imminent threat and WMD'.
The phrase 'imminent threat and WMD' would make me want to support a preemptive attack on Iraq a lot more than ' chemical warhead artillary rounds' but, that's just me.
Now the “imminent threat and WMD” can be taken out of context or misused. I think what happens for some people is that somehow they think that those, perhaps like me, who believe Saddam was a real threat and quite possibly an imminent threat is NOT because he could launch missiles at us which was absolutely impossible but the fact that he could have easily given these weapons (remember we are talking WMD as in chemical and/or biological that could be put into something the size of a baseball and kill for miles from its exposure) and hand delivered here in America, anywhere at anytime…
Originally posted by Raoul
We seemed to have him bottled up pretty good for 10 years.
What changed? I know 9/11 happened but, either Iraq was responsible for 9/11 or it wasn't. If you take 9/11 out of the equation, how do you invade Iraq?
We seemed to have him bottled up pretty good for 10 years.
What changed? I know 9/11 happened but, either Iraq was responsible for 9/11 or it wasn't. If you take 9/11 out of the equation, how do you invade Iraq?
After 911 people had to actually take into account that anything and anytime is possible here. We will NEVER be 100% safe, even if everyone of us sent in every penny we made and it all went to the military, intelligence agencies etc we would still NEVER be 100% safe.
People realize this now and many, like myself have come to what we feel is a logical conclusion which is IF we have a very good reason to believe, based on the facts at hand (not an afterthought) that someone like Saddam, Bin Laden or who ever is planning or ready to carry out an attack on us in our country then take them out, kill them, overthrow them or what ever needs to be done to neutralize the threat…
Originally posted by Raoul
Most learned experts left and right, are of the opinion that the list of WMD that was supposed to exist actually did not. For whatever reason, bad intel, people inside Iraq lying just to get rid of Saddam. Perhaps even Saddam wanted to bluff what he was holding to keep interior enemies at bay. So, I am having a real hard time with number (3). Is it, "He failed to prove he destroyed the WMD he never had?" Unless we are once again talking about artillary shells. He probably couldn't find them if he wanted to after 15 years of laying around.
Most learned experts left and right, are of the opinion that the list of WMD that was supposed to exist actually did not. For whatever reason, bad intel, people inside Iraq lying just to get rid of Saddam. Perhaps even Saddam wanted to bluff what he was holding to keep interior enemies at bay. So, I am having a real hard time with number (3). Is it, "He failed to prove he destroyed the WMD he never had?" Unless we are once again talking about artillary shells. He probably couldn't find them if he wanted to after 15 years of laying around.
Had Iraq stepped aside and allowed the UN inspectors to go ANYWHERE they wished, at anytime, for any reason on their search for WMD it would have been a different story. If that had happened and after what the UN felt was plenty of time, say 5 years of searching WITHOUT any obstructions from Iraq and then stated something to the affect of ”We have searched every possible place we could think of. We have had no obstructions from the Iraq government and they have fully cooperated with us and we had conclude there is no longer any WMD’s in Iraq and therefore declare Iraq free and clear of any WMD’S” I would have been one of the first to say that we should not, can not use WMD’s as an argument for invading Iraq.
However, to the contrary is what happen. Iraq, through their own actions gave the perception that they indeed have something to hide. They played nothing but games, for the most part, with UN inspectors when they were in there and inspecting. They closed them off to many places.
That is Iraq’s fault for the games and perception they let the world conclude.
Originally posted by Raoul
OK, we are back to the WMD. I guess if we can just find the WMD then everything is vindicated because WMD creeps into every phrase of each argument. As I have said before, finding WMD makes me pull hard for Bush. No WMD would mean it's time for a regime change. I do not elect UN members nor politicians for foriegn countries. I vote here in the US and hold the Commander N Chief accountable as I am sure he would expect me to.
I agree 100%. Iraq became a big part of the 'War on Terror' the day we invaded. Why did we invade Iraq?
OK, we are back to the WMD. I guess if we can just find the WMD then everything is vindicated because WMD creeps into every phrase of each argument. As I have said before, finding WMD makes me pull hard for Bush. No WMD would mean it's time for a regime change. I do not elect UN members nor politicians for foriegn countries. I vote here in the US and hold the Commander N Chief accountable as I am sure he would expect me to.
I agree 100%. Iraq became a big part of the 'War on Terror' the day we invaded. Why did we invade Iraq?
Here is where I come from on the argument. First there was ample “evidence” that pointed to Saddam having WMD’S to include his own perception that he led many to believe he had them. This is not a Bush administration that stated this and had this evidence, this was Clinton as well as Clinton himself came to the same conclusions.
It would be really nice to actually find some WMD and I do believe in time we will. If we don’t then what? Well it’s like this:
Sometimes you don’t get a second chance, if you lead your neighbors to believe you make drugs in your home and sale them, you lead the police to believe the same thing and one day they pay a visit to ask if they could take a look to insure your not conducting illegal activity and you give them the impression that you do by not cooperating with them and telling them to get a search warrant they will be back…
This time they will bust down your door, perhaps break up a lot of things in your home and then maybe find nothing. That could have been avoided by simply cooperating with the police.
That’s a bad example, but it may help get the picture across to others to how Saddam brought this on himself. No body came along and made up facts and evidence just so we could invade, it was there and had been there for over 10 years.
Deal is President Bush is the one that got the warrant and busted down the door, the search continues and will for years to come…
I feel confident that one day President Bush and others like myself will be vindicated but I am a “long term” kind of person so I can wait it out…
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
...I feel confident that one day President Bush and others like myself will be vindicated but I am a “long term” kind of person so I can wait it out…
...I feel confident that one day President Bush and others like myself will be vindicated but I am a “long term” kind of person so I can wait it out…
Regardless of whether he wins or losses in November, I hope he is vindicated someday too. Without vindication on this, his term of office has a cloud over it.
As for you, I know where you live!
p.s.
(Why don't you drive down Rt 125 and slap Ray (lightningquick) upside the head for me too.)
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Would it change your mind if I told you that it had been “rumored” that Saddam had a slogan of “Got Goat” and, again rumored, he was slaughtering up to 3,000 goat’s a day and then changed his slogan to “Goat be gone”? 
As far as Lightningquick I don’t know much about this guy, for all I know he could be a good guy in person and when it comes to family arguments I would rather stay out of them…
As far as President Bush being vindicated one day. Well, to be honest I think it is important for America to be vindicated as I really don’t see this as a Bush mistake. Of course many democrats and liberals would love to portray it as such but being honest it is an American problem because all this information was gathered during the Clinton and Bush administrations and thus, in my opinion, puts them both in the chair of responsibility. It just so happens that President Bush was the one in office when the real chit hit the fan and acted on the information we have had for approx. 10 years.
If we find no WMD’s then I would not blame either man for that. You could get into the blame game on which “party” did this or that to hurt our military capabilities and intelligence gathering efforts as far as funding and how they spent the money, high tech, low tech etc.
The way I look at it now is we are where we are because of many years, well over 20 – 30 years of ignoring the terrorist problem in the world and when you get down to it, again my opinion, the American citizen is ultimately responsible for 911 and other such acts of terrorist.
My reason is because until 911 not very many of us were paying attention and I feel very confident that had we done what we did in Afghanistan and/or Iraq prior to 911 the majority of Americans would have been very upset and not understood “why” we needed to do that.
Americans, for the most part, could care less what is going on in the world and their own country when things are going good, good economy, able to buy toys and take vacations etc. It’s only when things get a little tough do many start paying attention and then asking “why” did this happen, well because you, the Americans wouldn’t listen to the few experts that for the past 20 – 30 years told you this day, a day like 911 was coming…
You as well as others know that I am no Clinton supporter but there is no way in hell Clinton could have done anything like Afghanistan and taking out a large group of terrorist and replacing a government, if you want to call it that, but nonetheless no way in hell could he have done that because he would have had very little support from anyone, be it republicans or democrats or the general population.
It took 911 to change things in this country, it took 911 to wake people up as to what terrorist are prepared to do and it took 911 for people to look at Saddam as a very possible real threat to this country by means of supplying terrorist with WMD’S and/or money and training…
What needs to be done now is first realize that we as Americans let our self down from not paying attention and need to assume responsibility because we would have had our leader, who ever it may have been, heads on a platter had they attempted this prior to 911.
So now we need to decide, as a country, not a party, but a country what is it we “really” want to do about this and communicate this to our leader, who ever it might be, and then be prepared to accept responsibility for our leaders actions if they work or if they fail.
No one man, or team of people will solve and/or end this problem. It’s a problem that will take the majority of the country, it citizens to solve and take accountability of allowing our leaders to lead and not worry about polls…
As far as Lightningquick I don’t know much about this guy, for all I know he could be a good guy in person and when it comes to family arguments I would rather stay out of them…
As far as President Bush being vindicated one day. Well, to be honest I think it is important for America to be vindicated as I really don’t see this as a Bush mistake. Of course many democrats and liberals would love to portray it as such but being honest it is an American problem because all this information was gathered during the Clinton and Bush administrations and thus, in my opinion, puts them both in the chair of responsibility. It just so happens that President Bush was the one in office when the real chit hit the fan and acted on the information we have had for approx. 10 years.
If we find no WMD’s then I would not blame either man for that. You could get into the blame game on which “party” did this or that to hurt our military capabilities and intelligence gathering efforts as far as funding and how they spent the money, high tech, low tech etc.
The way I look at it now is we are where we are because of many years, well over 20 – 30 years of ignoring the terrorist problem in the world and when you get down to it, again my opinion, the American citizen is ultimately responsible for 911 and other such acts of terrorist.
My reason is because until 911 not very many of us were paying attention and I feel very confident that had we done what we did in Afghanistan and/or Iraq prior to 911 the majority of Americans would have been very upset and not understood “why” we needed to do that.
Americans, for the most part, could care less what is going on in the world and their own country when things are going good, good economy, able to buy toys and take vacations etc. It’s only when things get a little tough do many start paying attention and then asking “why” did this happen, well because you, the Americans wouldn’t listen to the few experts that for the past 20 – 30 years told you this day, a day like 911 was coming…
You as well as others know that I am no Clinton supporter but there is no way in hell Clinton could have done anything like Afghanistan and taking out a large group of terrorist and replacing a government, if you want to call it that, but nonetheless no way in hell could he have done that because he would have had very little support from anyone, be it republicans or democrats or the general population.
It took 911 to change things in this country, it took 911 to wake people up as to what terrorist are prepared to do and it took 911 for people to look at Saddam as a very possible real threat to this country by means of supplying terrorist with WMD’S and/or money and training…
What needs to be done now is first realize that we as Americans let our self down from not paying attention and need to assume responsibility because we would have had our leader, who ever it may have been, heads on a platter had they attempted this prior to 911.
So now we need to decide, as a country, not a party, but a country what is it we “really” want to do about this and communicate this to our leader, who ever it might be, and then be prepared to accept responsibility for our leaders actions if they work or if they fail.
No one man, or team of people will solve and/or end this problem. It’s a problem that will take the majority of the country, it citizens to solve and take accountability of allowing our leaders to lead and not worry about polls…