Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job'

[DrTeeth]

Show me one in the White House who is?

One of the morals to this story to me. So now we're debating if the current administration is lying, or a guy who has held a high rank in four previous administrations. Either way, it doesn't actually restore people's confidence in US politics.

What kind of a show are you people running anyway?

 

[STING2]

Well argued, Dread and BVS. And well corrected on the admins Clark has served under, Verte. Sting, might be nice if you just admitted, "Hey, folks, I had that fact wrong."

Can anyone suggest what Clark might have to gain by simply opportunism? Just trying to scored a best seller? He's retired after a successful career, and he's stated publically and under oath that he doesn't want a position with Kerry's admin, nor will he accept one. Also, it strikes me that he's the ONLY one in this admin to have said, "Yes we could have and should have done more. I share the blame. I'm so sorry!" His apology yesterday was classy, and added to his creds for me, esp. in contrast to Dr. Rice, who apparently had time for the talk show circuits and press conferences to discredit Clark, but couldn't be bothered to testify before a *bipartisan* commission investigating one of the worst disasters ever to befall our country.

SD

The President that Clarke served the longest was Clinton.

If Clarke feels this way, why is he only coming out NOW? We have a presidential election and he has a book coming out and your going to tell me that the two are not factors? Its irresponsible for Clarke not to have come out about this prior to now if that is how he really felt. In addition, Clarke's own statements at conferences and meetings during his time in office contradict what he is saying now.

The fact is, the democrats are scrambling for things to attack Bush with, and Clarke is just the first of several things that will come up between now and election day. I noticed the Dems planned Kerry's vacation at just the right time as well.

 

[STING2]

You misunderstood, they knew it was Al Qaeda yet Bush's obsession with Iraq prevailed. All the talk from Bush about fighting on terrorism came after 9/11, and not prior.

Clarke said in his testimony he wanted to brief Bush on Al Qaeda danger back in January 2001 but couldn't. He also is the first - and only - member of the administration to apologise for failing to do anything/prevent about 9/11, and in his testimony offered a way to thwart that plan (had he known about terrorists being in the US, he suggested to put their names/pics on TV stations, newspapers and trigger a massive manhunt. maybe they'd catch the two men CIA knew about, maybe they'd scare off the others or at least make it harder for them to finish their plan...now we'll never know)

CIA knew there were two Al Qaeda members (the 9/11 attackers) in the US back in latte 2000, yet did nothing. FBI agent wrote in the Williams memo he saw a suspicous man (another terrorist) attending flight schools, he suggested checking all flight schools in US and nothing happened after that.

Fact is, Bush administration messed up big time on that day - and they even have the nerve to keep bringing it up. How he is now portrayed as a leader that keeps US safe I will never know. Saying the world is a safer place after that horrible event, and in light of things such as Bali and Marid bombings is either hopelessly naive or coldheartedly cynical.

It was the Bush administration that began plans to eliminate Al Quada instead of just "roll back" which was the Clinton plan. This plan was started in March 2001. In addition no one should ignore or pretend that there are no positive effects from liberating 50 million people from two of the worst regimes in recorded history and killing thousands of members of Al Quada and capturing hundreds of others. The Bush administration has made more progress on the most important US Security issues than any other administration than the prior administration. They have done more to fight and defeat terrorism worldwide than any country or administration in history.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The President that Clarke served the longest was Clinton.

How does that make this statement, made by you earlier in this thread, anymore correct?

He has spent most of it serving under Democratic Administrations.

 

[verte76]

The President that Clarke served the longest was Clinton.
<snip>
The fact is, the democrats are scrambling for things to attack Bush with, and Clarke is just the first of several things that will come up between now and election day. I noticed the Dems planned Kerry's vacation at just the right time as well.

I saw Clarke interviewed on Larry King last night, plus I watched about two hours of his testimony yesterday. His favorite president on national security was the first President Bush, not Clinton. He called Bush Sr. a "national security professional". The guy was an ace on national security. His kid is not. Clarke was actually pretty damn critical of Clinton in some ways. Screw strict chronology. That's exactly what he said.
The Democrats didn't have a damn thing to do with Clarke's book or testimony. The head of the 9/11 Commission, Gov. Thomas Kean, is a well-respected Republican with years of service to his credit. Sen. Kerry had not seen the book until some of his aides sent him some chapters of it when he was on vacation. I don't think the DNC was responsible for Senator Kerry's vacation plans either.

 

[STING2]

How does that make this statement, made by you earlier in this thread, anymore correct?

What makes you think that the statement was made to make the other one more correct?

I don't know precisely when Clarke began service under Reagan, but I don't think he was there from begining to end like he was with Clinton.

 

[Sherry Darling]

The President that Clarke served the longest was Clinton.

If Clarke feels this way, why is he only coming out NOW? We have a presidential election and he has a book coming out and your going to tell me that the two are not factors? Its irresponsible for Clarke not to have come out about this prior to now if that is how he really felt. In addition, Clarke's own statements at conferences and meetings during his time in office contradict what he is saying now.

The fact is, the democrats are scrambling for things to attack Bush with, and Clarke is just the first of several things that will come up between now and election day. I noticed the Dems planned Kerry's vacation at just the right time as well.

Ok, based on your post to Wizzing, you don't seem to know the dates of his service, and neither do I, though I do know that he served under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Successively, I presume, but perhaps not. That'd make only 8 years Dem, and 14 (Reagan plus 6 for the Bushes) Rep. Anyone have some facts for us?

To your next point, why is he coming out now. It's only been a couple of years since Sept 11 (we're going on 3 this fall). Based on the commissions findings* (not Clark's book), he spent a lot of that time trying to get a brand new admin's attention. Then it happened, and Bush and Co, along with the rest of us, HAD to pay attention. Then Iraq happens, and resources are diverted and allies alientated, and we're heading ino an election, and suddenly, now it matters more than ever. Doesn't seem to me like there was much time lapsed. Books don't happen that fast. LOL.

I notice, also that you've doged my central question: what does Clark, a life long Republican who is retiring after 30 years and who doesn't want any other position in Bush or any other's admin, have to gain? Not much. And he had quite a lot, reputation-wise, to lose.

Cheers,
sd

 

[Dreadsox]

Let's round...it is about even between Clinton and three Republican administrations...

How hard is that to admit? And for goodness sake, he must have been doing a decent job at what he did to have survived in all of these administrations

Awesome post Verte!

 

[verte76]

Let's round...it is about even between Clinton and three Republican administrations...

How hard is that to admit? And for goodness sake, he must have been doing a decent job at what he did to have survived in all of these administrations

Awesome post Verte!

Thanks. I agree, to last through four administrations in cut-throat Washington says something.

 

[STING2]

I saw Clarke interviewed on Larry King last night, plus I watched about two hours of his testimony yesterday. His favorite president on national security was the first President Bush, not Clinton. He called Bush Sr. a "national security professional". The guy was an ace on national security. His kid is not. Clarke was actually pretty damn critical of Clinton in some ways. Screw strict chronology. That's exactly what he said.
The Democrats didn't have a damn thing to do with Clarke's book or testimony. The head of the 9/11 Commission, Gov. Thomas Kean, is a well-respected Republican with years of service to his credit. Sen. Kerry had not seen the book until some of his aides sent him some chapters of it when he was on vacation. I don't think the DNC was responsible for Senator Kerry's vacation plans either.

I saw the Larry King interview as well. Bush Sr. indeed was an expert on National Security before becoming both Vice President and President. Although his son may have not been like him, he was definitely no worse than Clinton. In addition, he has surounded himself with what is probably the best national security team this country has ever had in Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney.

One of Clarke's best friends is a chief advisor to Kerry. If you want to believe that there is no connection at all, ok. I find the timing and the book very suspicious.

 

[STING2]

Ok, based on your post to Wizzing, you don't seem to know the dates of his service, and neither do I, though I do know that he served under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Successively, I presume, but perhaps not. That'd make only 8 years Dem, and 14 (Reagan plus 6 for the Bushes) Rep. Anyone have some facts for us?

To your next point, why is he coming out now. It's only been a couple of years since Sept 11 (we're going on 3 this fall). Based on the commissions findings* (not Clark's book), he spent a lot of that time trying to get a brand new admin's attention. Then it happened, and Bush and Co, along with the rest of us, HAD to pay attention. Then Iraq happens, and resources are diverted and allies alientated, and we're heading ino an election, and suddenly, now it matters more than ever. Doesn't seem to me like there was much time lapsed. Books don't happen that fast. LOL.

I notice, also that you've doged my central question: what does Clark, a life long Republican who is retiring after 30 years and who doesn't want any other position in Bush or any other's admin, have to gain? Not much. And he had quite a lot, reputation-wise, to lose.

Cheers,
sd

Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell all dispute Clarke accusation that the Bush administration ignored the situation. Clarke's own statements that have been released from the time period dispute his own accusations today.

Iraq is where I feel Clarke falls totally flat. Mr. Clarke should be aware that the units that invaded and removed Saddam from power, specifically the 3rd infantry Division, 1st Marine MEF, and the British 1st Armored Division were not diverted from going after Al Quada because they were never involved in the hunt for Al Quada in the first place.

To claim that the invason was an "unprovoked attack on Iraq" sounds like something Saddam would say.

Books may not happen that face, but resigning and calling a press conference can happen in hours. The fact is, he could have done this at any time since January 20, 2001. If he really felt the administrations actions and lack of response were that objectionable, I would have expected him to do this. The fact that he didn't is rather revealing as well as his own statements back then which contradict what he is saying today.

One does not have to be accepting a new position in a Kerry administration to gain from this. Think about it, how many of you knew who Richard Clarke was a year ago?

 

[STING2]

Let's round...it is about even between Clinton and three Republican administrations...

How hard is that to admit? And for goodness sake, he must have been doing a decent job at what he did to have survived in all of these administrations

Awesome post Verte!

Clarke's definitely not the only one to have worked for all these administrations.

 

[ThatGuy]

Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell all dispute Clarke accusation that the Bush administration ignored the situation. Clarke's own statements that have been released from the time period dispute his own accusations today.

What about these statments?

Clarke Warned of Hundreds Dead Just Before 9/11

(2004-03-24)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke sent a letter to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice one week before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks urging Bush administration aides to imagine how they would feel if hundreds of Americans were killed in a terrorist strike.

The existence of the letter came to light in testimony on Wednesday to the national commission investigating the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, referred to the letter when questioning Clarke.

"You urge policymakers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home and abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on Sept. 4, seven days before Sept. 11."

In the letter, Clarke blasted the Pentagon and the CIA for failing to act against the al Qaeda organization.

In his testimony, Clarke said the United States was too timid in its policy toward al Qaeda and accused the Bush administration of failing to treat terrorism as an urgent matter before the Sept. 11 attacks.

He said the Bush administration did not view terrorism as an urgent priority. "The Bush administration saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent, prior to 9/11," he said.

The former official, who worked for four administrations, said it had been difficult under Bush to convene a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism. He said top Bush administration officials "sent unfortunate signals to the bureaucracy about the administration's attitude toward the al Qaeda threat."

? Copyright 2004, Reuters

Source: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wbur/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=619609

 

[U2girl]

I give up

It was the Bush administration that began plans to eliminate Al Quada instead of just "roll back" which was the Clinton plan. This plan was started in March 2001. In addition no one should ignore or pretend that there are no positive effects from liberating 50 million people from two of the worst regimes in recorded history and killing thousands of members of Al Quada and capturing hundreds of others. The Bush administration has made more progress on the most important US Security issues than any other administration than the prior administration. They have done more to fight and defeat terrorism worldwide than any country or administration in history.

No, according to Clarke, Clinton issued a secret order to kill Bin Laden, which CIA didn't do as he was weak with all the Lewinsky and Watergate and such stuff. Did you know several CIA officials in the Bush administration were very frustrated with lack of terrorism hunt in the first 8 months? (commision on 9/11 said several memmos exist supporting Clarke's words)
You also must remember that for a LONG time it was very undesired to speak out and critisize this administration after 9/11.
O'Neill, Clarke, Kay, Blitz...who else is it gonna take?

I didn't say liberating people is wrong, it was done under false pretences - and it diverted everyone's attention from fighting terroristm. (don't tell me a regime like Saddam's wouldn't use ANY means of defense, and what possible reason they'd have to NOT use any WMDs they might have had - like they used in the first war, and I find it very odd neither UN or US inspectors found NOTHING of the supposed massive WMDs)
If lying about a personal thing (Clinton-Lewnisky affair) was so bad, then what about lying about the reason to go to war?

Yup, security with "justice" a la Guantanamo and the "safety" (no such thing as 100% safety, surely one of 9/11's lessons) for the price of less human rights. (patriot act)
I don't think Al Qaeda is defeated by any means, and what makes you think bombing poor islamic countries is the best/only way to do it? Now we have 2 possible new battlefields where terrorists can come in.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Let's round...it is about even between Clinton and three Republican administrations...

How hard is that to admit? And for goodness sake, he must have been doing a decent job at what he did to have survived in all of these administrations

Awesome post Verte!

That's right, Dread, he's been in the biz too long to have sucked or been blantently dishonest (you only get to do that if you're elected ). So he didn't serve consecutively? Interesting. I wonder where else he's worked. Doesn't matter, I guess. Anyway, thanks for the info.

Sting, the article That Guy posted the article I had in mind; we're talking ONE WEEK before 9/11 he's writing memos to Rice almost predicting what would happen, as is his job. For whatever reason--she was focused elsewhere, red tape, bureautratic ineffeciency--she didn't respond. I don't find any of those reasons acceptable when we're talking about the loss of life 86 nations. This is especially daming when you remember that FBI woman (what was her name?) who was in the name situation, writing memos that some Al Quaeda men were in the country, were taking flying lessons. She had info that precise, if I remember correctly.

So your answer is fame? Clark is risking being jailed for perjury, since that's what it would be if you're right, for his 15 mintues? I find that weak. Also, the Kerry man he knows, he's known for years, even decades. If the friendship were more recent, I'd find the timing more suspicous, as you do.

SD

 

[Marie Clare]

WE know 9/11 took ten years of planning, most of which took place under a president who bent over backwards to be neutral.

If the bush admin had okayed a Bin Laden assasination there would have been an international public outcry. Human rights groups would have been jumping over each other to condemn an unjust brutal regime that has the audacity to 'preemptively' kill 'potential' terrorists.

Of course those in the know were aware of a potential threat, but preventing such a threat is not easy, especially when the world is watching you. 9/11 was not preventable, especially not by a newly appointed admin who came to power after plans for the attacks were completed.

Iraq did not have WMD, but Iraq did have a brutal regime that the majority of Iraqis have shown (in a number of polls) approval of the regimes disposal. The majority of Iraqis are glad America came. Does this justify the money and lives spent? That depends on your sympathy for the Iraqis.

Of course, one must remember if the US had not gone to war, the sanctions that kept Iraq's ruling baath party in check would have been dropped.

 

[STING2]

What about these statments?



Source: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wbur/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=619609

All it is is Clarke sending them a letter to imagine what was a hypothetical by plausible senario. The the rest is simply more of Clarke testimony thats already been covered. Clarke has written letters and has been recorded in conversation making statements that contradict his current testimony.

 

[STING2]

Re: I give up

No, according to Clarke, Clinton issued a secret order to kill Bin Laden, which CIA didn't do as he was weak with all the Lewinsky and Watergate and such stuff. Did you know several CIA officials in the Bush administration were very frustrated with lack of terrorism hunt in the first 8 months? (commision on 9/11 said several memmos exist supporting Clarke's words)
You also must remember that for a LONG time it was very undesired to speak out and critisize this administration after 9/11.
O'Neill, Clarke, Kay, Blitz...who else is it gonna take?

I didn't say liberating people is wrong, it was done under false pretences - and it diverted everyone's attention from fighting terroristm. (don't tell me a regime like Saddam's wouldn't use ANY means of defense, and what possible reason they'd have to NOT use any WMDs they might have had - like they used in the first war, and I find it very odd neither UN or US inspectors found NOTHING of the supposed massive WMDs)
If lying about a personal thing (Clinton-Lewnisky affair) was so bad, then what about lying about the reason to go to war?

Yup, security with "justice" a la Guantanamo and the "safety" (no such thing as 100% safety, surely one of 9/11's lessons) for the price of less human rights. (patriot act)
I don't think Al Qaeda is defeated by any means, and what makes you think bombing poor islamic countries is the best/only way to do it? Now we have 2 possible new battlefields where terrorists can come in.

It is well known that the Clinton administration was deeply involved in attempting to roll back Al Quada. The Bush administration was adopting a strategy that would go for elimination. Clarke was even recorded as saying this back at the time.

Kay found over 300 items that were violations of 1441 in regards to the production and storage facilities for WMD. Kay said he had not found WMD, but had found plenty of WMD related equipment that were violations of 1441. Dr. Kay also supports the coalitions decision to invade Iraq and insure the disarmament of Saddam since all other means to do that had failed.

O'Niel was essentially fired and obviously has hard feelings. O'Niel's job was also the economy, not national security.

Clarke's own statements from the time period in question contradict his statements and views today.


The war was fought to insure the disarmament of Saddam because all other means to do that had failed.

The US Army 3rd Infantry Division, the 1st Marine MEF and the 1st British Armored Division that fought the war were not divereted from any operations against terrorism because they were never involved in any operations against terrorist. So this idea that there was diversion simply does not stand up to careful scrutiny.


#1 Saddam did not use WMD in the first Gulf War.

#2 Saddam would be unable to use any WMD he had because he was attempting to conceal any WMD or WMD related material from UN inspectors who were in the country up to 24 hours just before the start of the war. Careful burial of such materials would make it impossible to extract it and reconstitute it for use on the battlefield in the given time frame.

#3 Iraq is the size of Texas. If Saddam carefully dispersed and buried such material, it would be likely that it would not be found for a thousand years if ever. It was Saddam's responsibility to account for such material and show its remains or hand over any intact WMD. He never did either.

Clinton may have lied about a personal affair, but the Bush Administration has yet to lie about anything.

Thousands of members of Al Quada have been killed or captured and two countries have been liberated from two of the worst regimes in history. The stability and security of a majority of the Planets energy supply has never been this good with Saddam now removed.

The United States removed the Taliban regime because it they were protecting Al Quada and in fact operating with them. The United States and other member States of the United Nations removed Saddam from power with military force as authorized by 3 different UN resolutions after his violations of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

 

[ThatGuy]

All it is is Clarke sending them a letter to imagine what was a hypothetical by plausible senario.

Well, that's not "all it is."

<snip>
Commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, referred to the letter when questioning Clarke.

"You urge policymakers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home and abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on Sept. 4, seven days before Sept. 11."

In the letter, Clarke blasted the Pentagon and the CIA for failing to act against the al Qaeda organization.

<snip>

You must have accidentally skipped over that part of the article.

 

[STING2]

That's right, Dread, he's been in the biz too long to have sucked or been blantently dishonest (you only get to do that if you're elected ). So he didn't serve consecutively? Interesting. I wonder where else he's worked. Doesn't matter, I guess. Anyway, thanks for the info.

Sting, the article That Guy posted the article I had in mind; we're talking ONE WEEK before 9/11 he's writing memos to Rice almost predicting what would happen, as is his job. For whatever reason--she was focused elsewhere, red tape, bureautratic ineffeciency--she didn't respond. I don't find any of those reasons acceptable when we're talking about the loss of life 86 nations. This is especially daming when you remember that FBI woman (what was her name?) who was in the name situation, writing memos that some Al Quaeda men were in the country, were taking flying lessons. She had info that precise, if I remember correctly.

So your answer is fame? Clark is risking being jailed for perjury, since that's what it would be if you're right, for his 15 mintues? I find that weak. Also, the Kerry man he knows, he's known for years, even decades. If the friendship were more recent, I'd find the timing more suspicous, as you do.

SD

The memo that Clarke sent up a week before was simply a hypothetical memo about a plausible senario that anyone in any administration could have written. Its simply an excercise in planning and not a sign of Clarke protesting something or a sign that the administration was not on top of something.

Clarke's statements written and recorded back then contradict much of his testimony today.

When Clarke says that the US invasion of Iraq was "unprovoked", that causes me to doubt his current judgement on many things. So yes, fame of some sort, not what your thinking of, and the fact he could risk perjury are definitely all plausible.

More importantly, everyone discusses Clarke's services to this country. How about Powell's service to this country, Rumsfeld and Rice, Cheney and Bush. You have 5 people with far greater total service in positions higher than Clarke's that totally dispute what he is saying.

 

[ThatGuy]

Re: Re: I give up

Clinton may have lied about a personal affair, but the Bush Administration has yet to lie about anything.

*cough*
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_rice.htm

and

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_cheney.htm

From
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp


And this:

?We never said there were stockpiles.? - Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Interview with Howard Arenstein, CBS Radio (Mar. 16, 2004).

"They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002).

"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"He has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

"He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

 

[STING2]

Well, that's not "all it is."



You must have accidentally skipped over that part of the article.

Yes, the Pentagon and the CIA, not the administration. Do you have the actual letter? I would say that the Pentagon and CIA get criticized for technical things every week. There was a dispute at the time the letter was written between the Pentagon and the CIA over the arming and control over drones that were going to be armed with Hellfire Missiles. The arming of drones had not been done before.

That particular comment is directed at actual operations by the CIA and Pentagon, not the strategy and focus of the Bush administration in fighting terrorism.

 

[ThatGuy]

Who controls the actions of the Pentagon and the CIA? I'm not trying to be an ass, but you're making it sound like they're not controlled, at least indirectly, by our elected officials.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: I give up

*cough*
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_rice.htm

and

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_cheney.htm

From
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp


And this:

?We never said there were stockpiles.? - Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Interview with Howard Arenstein, CBS Radio (Mar. 16, 2004).

"They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002).

"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"He has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

"He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

*COUGH*

United Nations inspectors reported that Saddam had thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard Gas, over 20,000 Bio CHEM Capable shells.

The United Nations required Saddam to verifiable disarm of all WMD. Saddam never did this, in fact Saddam never complied with any of the resolutions passed against him.

Can you name any resolutions that Saddam complied with especially those that apply to WMD and the verifiably disarmament of it?


Saddam did have a large stockpile of WMD. Saddam as of today has yet to account for this stockpile. It is Saddam's responsibility to account for the stockpile not any other nations responsibility.


The Bush administration didn't lie about anything. The statements you mention above are simply facts unless of course you think US Officials should make it policy to presume dictators usually destroy their stockpiles in secret and should be trusted when they claim they did this yet provide no evidence of it.

The fact that Saddam had this stuff is not in dispute. The question is, where is its current location and in what type of condition are the items in question.

 

[STING2]

Who controls the actions of the Pentagon and the CIA? I'm not trying to be an ass, but you're making it sound like they're not controlled, at least indirectly, by our elected officials.

The White House controls stategic decisions made by the Pentagon and the CIA, but not specific tactical decisions and situations that the Pentagon and the CIA make. This is what Clarke is refering to. Otherwise he would not be mentioning the CIA and Pentagon, but the administration itself.

 

[ThatGuy]

STING, Wolfowitz lied. He said that the administration NEVER SAID that Saddam had "stockpiles" of WMD. I NEVER said ANYTHING about whether or not Saddam actually HAD stockpiles. I was merely pointing out Wolfowitz's, ah, inconsistency. I think it is very telling that he is now denying that they ever said that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, especially when you imply that previously they had reason to believe that he did.

And did you even read the links about Saddam's nuclear weapons? Rice and Cheney making statements that absolutely were not supported at all by the intelligence they had at the time. Not lies?

And as for Clarke's accusations against the various agencies and the administration, you've raised some good points. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[STING2]

STING, Wolfowitz lied. He said that the administration NEVER SAID that Saddam had "stockpiles" of WMD. I NEVER said ANYTHING about whether or not Saddam actually HAD stockpiles. I was merely pointing out Wolfowitz's, ah, inconsistency. I think it is very telling that he is now denying that they ever said that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, especially when you imply that previously they had reason to believe that he did.

And did you even read the links about Saddam's nuclear weapons? Rice and Cheney making statements that absolutely were not supported at all by the intelligence they had at the time. Not lies?

And as for Clarke's accusations against the various agencies and the administration, you've raised some good points. Let's agree to disagree.

I think you might be misinterpreting peoples words. What Wolfowitz may be talking about is that they never had irrifutable evidence from the CIA or other intelligence groups that there was WMD at point A or point B. They had intelligence that was indeed cause for concern, but Saddam's failure to account for known stocks according to United Nations Weapons inspectors and to complete the disarmament process in total was the administrations central case for war.

Its really a matter of the way you define the administrations statements. Wolfowitz has his, you have yours.

I have looked at more articles and claims of lies than I'd care to say, and I have yet to find one by the administration. There was a meeting where Cheney mentioned that Saddam had reconstituted Nuclear Weapons but its rather obvious that he simply mis-spoke. Most people do at some point.

I can't actually read the links because over the past few days I have had trouble reading any links posted in here for some unknown reason. If you could cut and paste the articles that would be better. Most broad general statements about Iraq's possession of WMD would be consistent with the UN inspectors reports on these things.

For something to be lie, the person has to be saying something they know to be false.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Try copying these URLs into your browser, Sting. That ought to work even if you're not able to access links at the moment.

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_rice.htm

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_cheney.htm

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp

 

[Sherry Darling]

The memo that Clarke sent up a week before was simply a hypothetical memo about a plausible senario that anyone in any administration could have written. Its simply an excercise in planning and not a sign of Clarke protesting something or a sign that the administration was not on top of something.

Clarke's statements written and recorded back then contradict much of his testimony today.

When Clarke says that the US invasion of Iraq was "unprovoked", that causes me to doubt his current judgement on many things. So yes, fame of some sort, not what your thinking of, and the fact he could risk perjury are definitely all plausible.

More importantly, everyone discusses Clarke's services to this country. How about Powell's service to this country, Rumsfeld and Rice, Cheney and Bush. You have 5 people with far greater total service in positions higher than Clarke's that totally dispute what he is saying.

That Guy has a good point, Sting. His memo specifically mentioned catostrophic loss of US life on US soil. I've read the quotes meself. That's not routine, and yet it was treated as such. That's the thrust of Clark's point!

You and I and most other folks in this board have been thru the Iraq thing ad nasuem, so not desiring to sound like a broken record, I'll let that go unless you'd like me to repeat my arguement.

RE you're final point, how exactly is Clark's service 'less' than the others? And what does one's rank or title have to do with being right? LOL.

Also, welcome Marie Clare! Haven't seen you in these parts before!

sd

 

[STING2]

That Guy has a good point, Sting. His memo specifically mentioned catostrophic loss of US life on US soil. I've read the quotes meself. That's not routine, and yet it was treated as such. That's the thrust of Clark's point!

You and I and most other folks in this board have been thru the Iraq thing ad nasuem, so not desiring to sound like a broken record, I'll let that go unless you'd like me to repeat my arguement.

RE you're final point, how exactly is Clark's service 'less' than the others? And what does one's rank or title have to do with being right? LOL.

Also, welcome Marie Clare! Haven't seen you in these parts before!

sd

It is routine to discuss terrorism and the catostrophic loss of life from terrorism on US soil being in Clarke's position. There have been plans to deal with various acts of terrorism on US soil long before 9/11, a lot of it focused on Biological and Chemical attacks. Clarke's memo is so basic and general.

I don't mind you repeating your points on Iraq at all. But the administrations case for war in regards to Iraq is rock solid because it is based on Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. Many here criticize the administrations case for war, yet offer no NEW alternative yet to be tried which would have achieved verifiable disarmament of Saddam without the use of military force. Achieving Verifiable Disarmament is not a process that takes 12 years as the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan, and South Africa have shown. In retrospect, there definitely was no rush to war and in fact, its far easier to argue that the international community was late in dealing with Saddam's non-compliance.

As far as Clarke service, I'm not the one that made that an issue of whether he is right or not. Its other's that are presenting his service as the reason that he is correct in what he is saying. My response is simply, well if thats the criteria for deciding who is right, Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld have Clarke beat.