http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3566037.stm

From what we've heard of the testimony thats been given before this commission:



A former White House security expert has charged the Bush government did not consider terrorism to be an urgent threat before 11 September 2001.
Richard Clarke said that in the first eight months of office, the government considered terrorism "an important issue, but not an urgent issue."

And he said the invasion of Iraq had "undermined" the US-led war on terror.
(italics mine)

Mr Clarke criticised the Federal Bureau of Investigation, alleging that the agency did not do enough during the 1990s to prioritise the al-Qaeda threat.
From Clarke's testimony and what I've read of testimony by others who appeared before this commission, it paints a pretty clear picture of a large scale failure of law enforcement through disorganization, lack of communication between agencies, and low prioritization of terrorism.

so the logical conclusion then:
In a preliminary report on its findings so far, the commission said the Clinton and Bush administrations were too slow in moving away from diplomatic pressure to direct military action as a way of dealing with the al-Qaeda leadership.
WHAT?!?
I know I haven't read all the testimony, and there's likely some that actually relates to this in some way, but still, what a ridiculous statement.
How would blowing up Afghanistan sooner have possibly had any effect whatsoever on the plans of terrorists taking pilot lessons in Miami?

This is one of those cases where the Bush team welcomes being lumped together with the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration had several success defeating al Quada plans and made it thier priority - which is far from what the Bush camp did.

The conclusion that both administrations "was slow" persecutes Clinton unfairly and gives Bush credit he does not deserve by defining doing nothing as "slow".

Clark is a joke. He's as credible as the average used car salesman. He has completely contradicted himself with his resignation letter and previous interviews that praise Bush and his efforts with the "war on terrorism". I wouldn't take too much stock in anything he says.

In a preliminary report on its findings so far, the commission said the Clinton and Bush administrations were too slow in moving away from diplomatic pressure to direct military action as a way of dealing with the al-Qaeda leadership.

WHAT?!?
I know I haven't read all the testimony, and there's likely some that actually relates to this in some way, but still, what a ridiculous statement.
How would blowing up Afghanistan sooner have possibly had any effect whatsoever on the plans of terrorists taking pilot lessons in Miami?

I think what they were more likely referring to is that Clarke, both under Clinton, and apparently under Bush as well, had pushed for military action other than firing cruise missiles, which he didn't believe worked, since by the time information on the ground got back to the NSA and then had to get presidential approval, the odds of the target (al Qaeda higher ups) still being there were slim to none. Clarke had pushed for the use of 'boots on the ground', but more the use of Special Ops teams, rather than full scale military invasions. Clinton had also approved of this, but apparently had trouble getting the JCS to go along with it, as they claimed to not want to use SF troops unless in tandem with regular forces. Clarke also had called for the use of Predators armed with missiles (as tests had shown could work), to give access to instant strikes on targets. This came late in Clinton's second term, and Clarke hoped he could get the new admin to accept this, but apparently not. Much of this was covered even before Clarke's new book. Stephen Simon and Richard Benjamin, his former director and deputy director of counterterrorism in the NSA under Clinton, covered much of this in their book The Age Of Sacred Terror, which came out in early '02. It wa actually mostly finished before 9/11, but they held up publication to add a couple of chapters after the WTC attack.


Clark is a joke. He's as credible as the average used car salesman. He has completely contradicted himself with his resignation letter and previous interviews that praise Bush and his efforts with the "war on terrorism". I wouldn't take too much stock in anything he says.

I wouldn't be so quick to write Clarke off.

I think what they were more likely referring to is that Clarke, both under Clinton, and apparently under Bush as well, had pushed for military action other than firing cruise missiles, which he didn't believe worked, since by the time information on the ground got back to the NSA and then had to get presidential approval, the odds of the target (al Qaeda higher ups) still being there were slim to none.

If only he had been listened to on that point we wouldn't have to have dealt with the awful pain of seeing bin laden gloat about 9/11 in his videos. The attacks themselves of course would be unaffected.

If only he had been listened to on that point we wouldn't have to have dealt with the awful pain of seeing bin laden gloat about 9/11 in his videos. The attacks themselves of course would be unaffected.

I agree. We can't really know if taking out bin Laden pre 9/11 would, or even could, have prevented the WTC attack. Even Clarke acknowledged as much. I think what he is asserting is that regardless of whether we could have prevented 9/11 or not, we should have been taking the threat more seriously. But he never thought anyone in either administration took the threat as seriously as he did.

That makes sense.

I really dont' see how anyone can think that killing all these leaders would have had any chance of preventing the 9/11 attacks. These attacks were carried out by dozens of people, from inside the united states. Even if we'd incinerated all but three of them while they were in training camps in afghanistan, they could have replaced the rest and gone on with the plan.

Yep. As long as they didn't lose the trained pilots, they could replace the guys wielding the box-cutters.

Clark is a joke. He's as credible as the average used car salesman. He has completely contradicted himself with his resignation letter and previous interviews that praise Bush and his efforts with the "war on terrorism". I wouldn't take too much stock in anything he says.• Richard Clarke
• Wes Clark
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Dick Cheney

This short list is only a quick sample of people whose present credibility is under question for past statements or actions contrary to their current positions. Yes, I'm aware that I've left a significant name off the list, even for a short list.

I think one of the fruits we might hopefully harvest is that the next generation won't be quite as willing to play "good soldiers" or "party faithful".

There's little that I can think of that would surprise me about Richard Clark's book. I'm sure I would have heard it in the media if there was. On the other hand, maybe I'll come across a used copy sitting mysteriously on my coffee table. It happens.

Two from the New York Times. Note that these links will break in a week or two, and also that a free registration is required:

• Herbert, Bob. "The Wrong War." New York Times, March 26, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/03/26/opinion/26HERB.html
• Editorial, Staff. "The Wrong Target." New York Times, March 26, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/03/26/opinion/26FRI2.html

Being married to a Washington insider, I can affirm the fact that resignation letters are all virtually fill in the blank form letters.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushdance.jpg

Hak,

Being married to "a Washington insider" hardly qualifies you as an expert on whether Clarke is a reliable source. So you are saying that government workers are forced to use certain "form letters" to resign? Bullshit. I have yet to see anyone here deny the fact that Clarke has completely contradicted himself.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushliar.jpg

Isn't that cute. *pats Hak on the head* Now run along to another thread where you can post more of your hard drive hogging pics.

Hak,

Being married to "a Washington insider" hardly qualifies you as an expert on whether Clarke is a reliable source. So you are saying that government workers are forced to use certain "form letters" to resign? Bullshit. I have yet to see anyone here deny the fact that Clarke has completely contradicted himself.

And we have yet to hear you support your position or offer any clarification on just what you mean. I could run around saying that you’re a confirmed ass licker, but before I come forward with some pictures or eye witness accounts there’s really no need to pay any heed to my claims.

This guy’s got 30 years of service under his belt, has everything to lose by making these claims, and is publicly taking blame and saying that he too failed the American people. That doesn’t sound like a weasely liar to me, that sounds like a man with the balls to come forward and tell it how it is.

Isn't that cute. *pats Hak on the head* Now run along to another thread where you can post more of your hard drive hogging pics.

Oh come on, he's not so great with Photoshop, but you've got to admit that his little cartoons are worth a chuckle. Keep up the good work Hakman!

Oh come on, he's not so great with Photoshop, but you've got to admit that his little cartoons are worth a chuckle. Keep up the good work Hakman!

He has been getting better, that barbershop quartet thing was hilarious and has some good compositional elements.

Immane1, As hakman's picture shows, the Bush administration has been waving its hand dismissively at accusations, and trying to discredit its own disillusioned insiders for quite some time without providing much of a story to back any of it up. I mean have you heard what Cheney said about Clark on the Rush show? He said that Clark wasn't even in the loop. Not in the loop?! The counterterrorism adviser was "Not in the loop"? Isn't an assertion like that worse than any of the accusations that Clark is making?

Hak,

Being married to "a Washington insider" hardly qualifies you as an expert on whether Clarke is a reliable source.

And somehow, not being married to a washington insider makes you an expert on it. Interesting.

Mystech,

"I could run around saying that you’re a confirmed ass licker"

What my girlfriend and I do is none of your business. ;)

"Oh come on, he's not so great with Photoshop, but you've got to admit that his little cartoons are worth a chuckle. Keep up the good work Hakman!"

Chuckle? Ok, sometimes.

"And we have yet to hear you support your position or offer any clarification on just what you mean."

Ok, he has done two interviews in the past in which he obviously contradicts himself that I heard on the radio over the past few days. I believe one of these interviews was done with your beloved FOX. This will make it hard to give you a link or something, but I'm sure I'm not the only one here that has heard these interviews. I'll see if I can't find a transcript or 2. I SHOULD be working right now, damn it. :D

"And somehow, not being married to a washington insider makes you an expert on it. Interesting."

You get a cookie for that brilliant observation. He never said he was an expert, neither did I. Although he did imply that his "Washington insider" spousal status gave him more insight into the interworkings of the government. With the subject discussed here, I doubt it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Here is one. Do you want another?

• Richard Clarke
• Wes Clark
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Dick Cheney

This short list is only a quick sample of people whose present credibility is under question for past statements or actions contrary to their current positions. Yes, I'm aware that I've left a significant name off the list, even for a short list.The name I left off the list was Secretary Powell. Much of what I let pass from Powell I file under "G" for Good Solider. Clarke briefing reporters? Good Soldier. It's a lot easier to dismiss than Wes Clark giving a speech. And even that can fall under Good Soldier.

At any rate, I'm much more entertained by the flap coming up in this morning's headlines:
The Senate's top Republican called yesterday for declassifying Richard A. Clarke's testimony before a House-Senate intelligence panel two years ago to determine whether he lied, as partisan exchanges intensified over allegations leveled this week by the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief.

In a blistering speech from the Senate floor, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath" -- first in private before Congress's joint intelligence committee in July 2002, then this week before cameras at a hearing conducted by the commission looking into the same topic, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Frist offered no specific contradictions other than to say that Clarke was "effusive in his praise" of the Bush administration's handling of terrorism matters in his 2002 testimony but was sharply critical this week.

"If he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter" than being inconsistent with reporters, another Republican charge aimed at Clarke, who served in the White House under four presidents . . . .

. . . . Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was co-chairman of the joint intelligence inquiry, said in a statement, "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony [from 2002] and what Mr. Clarke has said this week." He said Clarke's 2002 testimony should be declassified "in its entirety," not in selected ways to favor the White House.

The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), said: "As one of the co-chairs of the House-Senate Joint Inquiry on 9/11, the statements I heard Richard Clarke give then were consistent with what he is saying now." (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28227-2004Mar26.html))It goes on. This little war of words should make for some good obsessive late-night reading when the transcripts come out. And heaven knows, there's only a glut of reporters if there's nothing to report.

• Babington, Charles, and Walter Pincus. "GOP Leaders Seek Releaase of Clarke's 2002 Testimony." Washington Post, March 27, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28227-2004Mar26.html

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushchair.jpg

So I let it go last night when I first heard the phrases, "executive privilege," and "thinking of future presidents." It's a bad joke going back to Nixon, at least.

All anyone had to do was show the President a four-frame Doonesbury strip, and maybe one of the Sunday colors, in order to demonstrate the bad tactic chosen.

And today, a reversal--Dr. Rice can testify in public, under oath before the 9/11 commission. Nonetheless, all sorts of fodder remains:
President Bush reversed himself yesterday and agreed to permit his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify in public and under oath before an independent commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Capitulating on a second point, Bush said he will submit to questions in a private session with all 10 commissioners, backing off his previous demand to meet only with Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton. Bush added a new restriction by saying he will appear only with Vice President Cheney at his side . . . .

. . . . The agreement specifies that the commission cannot tape-record the session with Bush and Cheney but can bring along one note-taker, Kean said. The deal does not preclude the White House from recording the session, he said. Bush and Cheney will not be under oath, Kean said. (Allen and Eggen, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37465-2004Mar30_2.html))"I won't testify unless I have Dick right there"?

(O-tay, Mr. President!)

As Mr. Bush explained:
Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my national security adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.

I've also advised Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton that Vice President Cheney and I will jointly meet with all members of the commission in a private session . . . .

. . . . As the commission has done its work, I've also been concerned, as has Dr. Rice, that an important principle be upheld: A president and his advisers, including his adviser for national security affairs, must be able to communicate freely and privately without being compelled to reveal those communications to the legislative branch.

This principle of the separation of powers is protected by the Constitution, is recognized by the courts and has been defended by presidents of both political parties.

We have observed this principle, while also seeking ways for Dr. Rice to testify so that the public record is full and accurate . . . .

. . . . The commission knows its responsibility: to collect vital information and to present it to the American people.

And I know my responsibility as well: to act against the continuing threat and to protect the American people. I had made that pledge to my fellow citizens, and I will keep it. (Bush, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36823-2004Mar30.html))I had to make a couple painful edits for length, else I would have reproduced the whole speech. Bush noted that--

• 800 members of the administration have been interviewed
• 20 White House officials have testified or will testify soon
• Dr. Rice has already spent four hours privately with the commission

--and went on to say that he ordered this level of cooperation because a complete picture of the events leading to 9/11 is necessary.

And yet it's this much of a struggle to get the President himself to cooperate? Even to that degree?

How can we possibly have a complete picture without the executive branch telling us what it knows?

Executive privilege is an interesting thing, but if the White House is at all genuine in this, it will drop its talk of such concerns. Some things are just that important, and a committed, honorable Executive knows that.
_____________________

• Allen, Mike, and Dan Eggen. "President to Let Rice Testify About 9/11." Washington Post, March 31, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37465-2004Mar30.html
• FDCH E-Media. "Bush Delivers Remarks on Rice Testifying for 9/11 Commission." Washington Post, March 30, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36823-2004Mar30.html

I also don't see why its taken as a given that the President will not testify under oath.
His bad precedent argument doesn't hold water, and if he accepts that its ok for Rice as long as its understood not to be setting a new precedent then why not for him as well? Really, its understandable that he will be testifying in private since they will be discussing issues that are probably classified, but why not under oath? All it would mean is that if he didn't tell the truth he could be charged with perjury, which shouldn't be an issue if he intends to tell the truth.
His not testifying because he legally doesn't have to seems akin to someone pleading the fifth in this instance.

Bush made clear he will not testify under oath. He did make the concession of going beyond meeting with only 2 members of the commision in private for only one hour and expanded that to meeting with all 10 members of the commision plus one commission staff member in private and not under oath.

I am not clear on the rules Cheney has imposed but it could be safe to assume they are similar.