Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job' - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2004, 04:06 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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?
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 06:10 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling
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 is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 06:20 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 07:08 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The President that Clarke served the longest was Clinton.
How does that make this statement, made by you earlier in this thread, anymore correct?

Quote:
He has spent most of it serving under Democratic Administrations.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 07:49 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 08:01 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 08:59 PM   #67
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 09:07 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:12 PM
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!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 09:22 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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!
Thanks. I agree, to last through four administrations in cut-throat Washington says something.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 09:32 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76


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 is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 09:48 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling



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 is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 09:54 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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!
Clarke's definitely not the only one to have worked for all these administrations.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 02:24 AM   #73
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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?

Quote:
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/wb...ICLE_ID=619609
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 03:21 AM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 10:12 PM
I give up

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 08:48 AM   #75
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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!

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
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com