03/23 - Clarke rebuffs Admin Attacs [more damnation]

[swag]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/bush.clarke/index.html

Excerpt:

Clarke rebuffs White House attacks
Defends allegations that Bush used 9/11 to start Iraq war
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Posted: 11:46 AM EST (1646 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former White House counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of going on the offensive against him to "divert attention from the truth" that the administration did "virtually nothing about al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001."

Clarke, author of the newly released book, "Against All Enemies," also said the administration focused on alleged Iraqi ties to the terrorist attacks while there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was involved.

"The White House is papering over facts, such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, even though they knew at the time -- from me, from the FBI, from the CIA -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," Clarke said. (Transcript)

Clarke, a 30-year White House veteran who served under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton before the current president, referred to Bush's own comments to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, author of "Bush at War," in which the president said he "didn't have a sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.

. . .

[ewagner]

1. This guy has guts

Standing up to the great right wing smear machine isn't easy.

We need a few more like him.

[RedEarth]

8. On Good Morning America, he said he was going to buy a bullet proof vest

With the Bush administration, who knows, he might even need it.

[Bandit]

13. G Gordan Liddy says "Aim for the Head"

Any bets on whether he get's suicided by rat shot bullets?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. If he keeps it up.

He might need to buy some Kevlar underwear and hat.

[alcuno]

26. He said, "I have a bullet proof vest." A metaphor perhaps?

When I heard him say that the first person I thought of was Sandy Berger. Clarke said, "I have a bullet proof vest." I thought he could have been talking about evidence supporting him.

[yardwork]

2. This is dynamite.

The more the * administration lies, the more vehement Clarke is in his response.

The monkey-brigade is shooting itself in the foot over and over and over again!

[Jackpine Radical]

3. What's happening?

He's not making those half-hearted recantations like Bennett, O'Neil, etc. that we've come to expect from whistleblowers after Rove's brownshirts pay them a visit.

[Beetwasher]

17. Clarke CAN'T Be Intimidated By These Scumbags. It's NOT Possible

Think about the friends and connections he's got after 30 years as a major player in intel under 4 different admins. He's got some serious, serious people at his back. Real players whose names no one except people like Clarke knows.

[Emillereid]

24. Great graphic!!

[Sugarbleus]

36. Ditto...great graphic lol n/t

[gasperc]

4. I found him more forceful this morning on CNN

than sunday night's interview, maybe because it was live, but he saw what has happened to others, like O'Neil, got himself mentally ready and is diving in full throttle.
I agree with KOS and many other bloggers, he is not adding nothing new to what we already "knew" but Iraq obsession story seems to finally be penatrating the media and getting past the administration's defense bubble. As is clear with alot of conservatives I know, whether, there is direct evidence or not linking OBL and Saddam, to most conservatives they are one in the same. And politically speaking Bush knows this and is using it to its fullest advantage. Unfortunately at the peril of our country's security.

[gasperc]

5. in addition, I think Condi has contradicted herself of late

I'm sure Billmon or some other blogger is compiling her "mistatements" as we post!

[0007]

35. I think the 60 minute thingy was taped & edited probaby

a week ago.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Yesterday, on Charlie Rose, he repeatedly referred to Woodward's...

...book. He said he was therefore not revealings state secrets, b/c the things he was saying were already a matter of public record. The clear implication was that he also had additional, probably classified, evidence at his disposal that backed up what he was saying... evidence that I'm sure the 9-11 commission will be interested in.

He also cited 4 witnesses who could back up his version of his exchange with Bush on 9-12-01, in which Bush very clearly implied to him that he WAS to find a link with Iraq.

I'm sure the 9-11 Commission will be interested in those four corroborating witnesses as well.

I think Clarke has the goods.

[Gloria]

32. Also on two BBC World Service programs this morning...he was VERY

blunt. He's getting this out all over the world!! They also had a Time magazine reporter who was asked if the Bushitas were going to answer any questions. He said that THEY HAVE TO ANSWER....he said that if this starts to pile up, it could be big trouble for Bush.

On Rose last night, when Rose asked him what prompted him to write this book, he said that he was sick and tired of what was going on in the country.

Wes Clark also was motivated by a similar distate for the present state of affairs. So glad he was out there defending Clarke all day yesterday.

[xxqqqzme]

41. the interview on Charlie

Rose was sooooooooo much better than 60 min (big surprise). Rose asked real questions and follow ups as they talked. I watched the replays 2day on 3 different PBs stations!

[aprilgirl]

7. I think they had better stop f**king with Clarke.

This man has facts and evidence. The very fact that his book had to have a security clearance by the WH means that it contains truth that can be proved. Otherwise, they would not have cleared it.

[74dodgedart]

9. Kay, Clarke, O'neil- They can't all be wrong

Unless they are part of a "vast left wing conspiracy"

[kskiska]

15. As Josh Marshall says today:

And the pattern suggests two possible theories.

The first is that President Bush has the odd misfortune of repeatedly hiring Democratic party stooges for key counter-terrorism assignments who stab him in the back as soon as they leave his employ.

The second is that anyone the president hires in a key counter-terrorism role who is not either a hidebound ideologue or a Bush loyalist gets so disgusted with the mismanagement and/or dishonesty that they eventually quit and then devote themselves to driving the president from office.

Which sounds more likely?

[74dodgedart]

21. I saw that. Add Beers to the list ..

[yardwork]

30. Add Joe Wilson to the list.

[w4rma]

10. A patriot. This man is an American patriot. (n/t)

[swag]

11. Patriot - well put.

I wish we had even one of those in the current Administration.

[Spazito]

12. This man was the top intelligence czar, he knew...

before his book was published how the bush cabal would react and has prepared for it. He will keep adding facts that he has not already pointed out that will negate the pitiful attacks. One good example was his response to the release date of his book and that it was kept by the WH for 3 months before they released it. He could have pointed that out at the outset but he kept it back till it would resonate. Very smart man!

[Beetwasher]

18. Yes. Also see my Post Above. It Will Be IMPOSSIBLE to Intimidate Him

n/t

[Gloria]

34. Re: 3 months WH hold on book.....Well, Cavuto last night was

busting Wes Clark about the "timing of the book"--he was snidely spinning about how "odd" it was to release it now.
Clark didn't seem to know about the 3 month WH hold, or else he would hve mentioned it.
Instead, he just said: forget that, let's look at the FACTS!!!!

Cavuto looked pretty stupid trying to spin the timing as Wes kept coming back at him about the facts. Wes' last comment was--"well, I think the American people want to know what happened!"

[Florida_Geek]

14. the article from this DU post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1273182

If you read the full article it points to

"Clarke is known for his aggressive sometimes abrasive personality and for his willingness to bypass bureaucratic channels. Under Clinton, he was known to contact Special Forces and other military commanders in the field directly, irritating the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon.Clarke was "a bulldog of a bureaucrat," wrote former national security adviser Anthony Lake in a book two years ago. He said Clarke has "a bluntness toward those at his level that has not earned him universal affection."

Yes this is not a man to roll over.

[EdGy]

25. "bulldog of a bureaucrat"

I like that!

[Manix]

16. He is a brave man. The last guy to buck Bush/Blair (David Kelly)

ended up dead.

[Beetwasher]

19. Clarke is NO Kelly. Think About The People Who Have His Back

This guy was a MAJOR intel player for over 30 years under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. He's also a Repub. Believe me, he is NOT afraid of these scumbags. The people at his back are very powerful I'm sure and no one knows their names except people like Clarke.

[Tracer]

20. The White House is now scurrying around ...

... to find out WHO cleared Clarke's book.

It's impossible to imagine that if any of the principals cited in the book had taken a look through it, that they would have EVER cleared it.

[NewsTalk]

23. How significant is this statement?

"The White House is papering over facts, such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, even though they knew at the time -- from me, from the FBI, from the CIA -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," Clarke said.

Has this directive been publicized at all in the past? Does anyone know the date of it? This seems to me to be the big smoking gun that shows 9/11 was nothing more than *'s excuse to go after Saddam.

[TacticalPeek]

27. Yes, indeed. That point sounds like NEWS to me.

I believe aWol signed it right after the meeting at Camp David, September 15, 2001. Apparently the only quibble with Empire was who gets it first, Iraq or Afghanistan?

This may be why they originally tried the trial balloon in 2002 about their not needing to go to Congress or the UN. Then several grown-ups jumped on them publicly and they altered course.

I wonder how many news cycles will pass before a 'mainstream journalist' notices the official 2001 instruction to the military chiefs to saddle up for Iraq?

:shrug:

[Just Me]

28. If there is any way I can send my support,...

,...please let me know. This guy is digging in and I do not want to let him go. I am certain that I would even disagree about many issues with him. But, he is demonstrating the kind of integrity and honesty and loyalty (to the value of human life and the American people rather than radical ideologies) I want to lend support.

[yardwork]

31. You can write to him care of his publisher.

I'm going to do the same thing. He is a patriot. I want to thank him for coming forward and telling the truth.

[calimary]

40. yardwork has a good idea, Just Me. Great recommendation.

I might add - check my sig line for a TOLL FREE way to let your congress-critter, Dem AND republi-CON, know that you're onto all this, too. The Dems will welcome the calcium infusion for their recently-acquired backbones. The republi-CONS will deny-deny-deny, while little beads of sweat start forming on their foreheads. Richard Lugar already weighed in, NOT joining the flame-throwers, but saying only that this is a great concern to him. That may be indicative of a conscience starting to raise its li'l head within his. That's how it began with Watergate. Slowly but surely, a few republi-CONS, and then a few more, and a few more, started backing away from the White House. Either for self-preservation, or because they just couldn't stand by it anymore. Enough of 'em had this kind of change-of-heart that the whole house of cards finally collapsed.

By the way, want some more ideas? Try one or more of THESE listings, as compiled by DUer bigtree:

Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

MSNBC-

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

[e-mail]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

It is EXTREMELY important that you weigh in on this. The freepers and dittoheads certainly will be.

[bobbieinok]

29. Note from story; Clinton did MORE than Raygun, 41, or 43

to fight terrorists

[Phelix_Dacat]

33. MR. McCLELLAN LIES .....

...about the Richard Clarke assertions that Bush signed a presidential directive to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq.


Q And then I just have one other question. This morning, he raised an allegation I had not heard before, which is that he says that in the presidential directive which President Bush signed after September 11th, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld requested and received within the four corners of that document, a presidential order to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq. Is that true?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is another example of his revisionist history. As we have said, the President made it very clear that his decision at Camp David was to -- this was in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks -- was to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And we also should keep in context that during this time period, Iraq continued to shoot daily at our pilots and remained a threat to the United States. Mr. Clarke even pointed out, himself, that Iraq was a serious threat. And he talked about Iraq's history in just -- in the recent past. I quoted you some of his remarks yesterday.

Q But the presidential directive following the attacks of September 11th focused on counterterrorism and how the United States was going to, as you put it, eliminate al Qaeda --

MR. McCLELLAN: Remember, at the National Security Council meeting --

Q -- did that include -- did that include a directive to the Defense Department to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: The invasion of Iraq -- the decision to go to war in Iraq, as you know, came at a much later time. But obviously, Iraq --

Q But he's making the charge that the President was already directing the Pentagon to prepare plans to invade Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but, obviously -- and Mr. Clarke acknowledges, himself, in his recent past that Iraq was a threat. He met -- he sat down and met with Dr. Rice shortly after he left the White House, and nowhere did he raise a concern about the action that we were taking in Iraq. And that was right at the time period when we were confronting the threat posed by -- posed by the former regime.

Q He's right that in October -- in October of 2001, when the President signed this directive, the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, that's part -- that's part of his revisionist history.

Q That's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of his revisionist history, that's what I'm saying --

Q Are you saying it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's right. I am.

Q You are saying that it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of -- that's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that. He knows that at that point that our focus was on going -- was on Afghanistan and removing the Taliban and taking away the safe haven for al Qaeda.

Q You are saying from that lectern that he did -- that the President did not sign an order to prepare to invade Iraq at that time?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q Scott, I have two quick questions. One, if you can clarify for me --

MR. McCLELLAN: And, Bill, I would just point out to you -- hang on one second, Goyal -- we made everything publicly known in terms of the steps we were taking to confront the threat posed by Iraq. But Iraq was a threat, and because of the action that we took, we are helping to advance freedom and democracy in a very volatile region; we are making America more secure; and making the world a safer and better place. So it was -- you all covered all the steps taken up to the decision by Saddam Hussein to continue to defy the international community.

Q -- an order was prepared to prepare plans to invade Iraq at that time. And you're saying that it was not.

MR. McCLELLAN: As you're aware, when the President sat down in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, he directed his team to lead an effort to remove the Taliban from power and to deny al Qaeda a safe haven. That was the action we took at that time period. But during that time period, it's important to keep in mind that Iraq was a threat and Iraq was shooting at our planes. So, obviously, you are looking at those issues during that time period. Iraq has been a threat for quite some time.

Q Did he then sign such an order?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just addressed that question.

Q You said no.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040323-4.html

OKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK now. Let's compare that performance to this:


washingtonpost.com

U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past
Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy Was Set

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page A01

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.

The previously undisclosed Iraq directive is characteristic of an internal decision-making process that has been obscured from public view. Over the next nine months, the administration would make Iraq the central focus of its war on terrorism without producing a rich paper trail or record of key meetings and events leading to a formal decision to act against President Saddam Hussein, according to a review of administration decision-making based on interviews with more than 20 participants.

Instead, participants said, the decision to confront Hussein at this time emerged in an ad hoc fashion. Often, the process circumvented traditional policymaking channels as longtime advocates of ousting Hussein pushed Iraq to the top of the agenda by connecting their cause to the war on terrorism.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer


Somebody is LYING.

[Sugarbleus]

37. I liked how Scottie says "they were shooting at us" in Iraq....lol

'they were a threat to us'.......ahem, by shooting at planes?

Does that mean that if I call a neocon a dirty name, I'm a terrorist and threatening the establishment?

[calimary]

42. WHOA! That Washington Post archived story is a humdinger!

Heavens but I love the internet!

[GaryL]

38. MSRNC has been attacking him all day.

With Matthews and Scarface. I plan on handing John Kerry another hundred towards his election and a return to fairness in broadcasting. At this rate I be up to my limit by May.

[calimary]

43. Have you called or emailed MSNBC to complain?

Have you urged them to look into these allegations? Aren't they at least worth checking out, independently, as opposed to just knee-jerkedly offering another mouthpiece to the attack dogs? It MIGHT be nice to have some truth here. And REAL, LEGITIMATE truth squads. Note my earlier post - relaying all those names, email details and phone numbers.

SHEESH! I can't stress, strongly enough, how important this is!

[calimary]

39. Just sent CNN a message:

I am SO GRATEFUL that you folks are finally pursuing the dereliction of duty by this White House, leading up to AND in the wake of 9/11. It's about time! Richard Clarke is a brave, truth-telling HERO and PATRIOT, and I hope his statements motivate your anchors, reporters and pundits to start waking up, and facing up. And then doing what is TRULY right - not merely what the right wing wants you to do.

How 'bout it, guys?

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?23

Try this. THEY HAVE TO BE ENCOURAGED TO PURSUE THIS! They DO know how to do it, you know. Remember the bang-up job (pardon the pun) they did when it came to stains on a blue dress?

Note my sig line for a TOLL FREE way to urge your congress-critter to do likewise!

Chris Matthews said, the other day, that the White House wants to get this off the radar screen as quickly as possible. Is that what YOU want, as well?