White House Makes Damning Confession

[leftofthedial]

Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, appeared on PBS’s News Hour tonight. His attempt to rebut Richard Clarke’s claims was weak and full of logical inconsistencies. However, one comment in particular stood out.

Bartlett tried to rebut Clarke’s claim that the *Bush administration ignored the threat of al Qaeda and did not take Clarke’s plan to attack Afghanistan and bin Laden seriously by stating that after 9-11 they implemented, in effect, Clarke’s plan when they attacked Afghanistan and bin Laden.

(I do not have a transcript, but this is very close to what he said.)

His point in rebuttal to Clarke was that the *Bush cabal knew al Qaeda was a threat right away upon taking office, that they weren’t focused solely on Iraq and that they didn’t really ignore Clarke's warnings because they enacted the main tenets of his counter terrorism plan after 9-11 by going after the Taliban and al Quaeda in Afghanistan.

This is a startling admission of negligence. Bartlett has admitted that the *Bush cabal had intelligence that al Qaeda was an urgent threat (from the CIA, the FBI, the outgoing Clinton Administration, their own counter-terrorism expert and foreign intelligence services). They had a plan for dealing with the threat on 1-04-01 (Clarke’s plan, delivered to C. Rice on that date). Yet they took no action until AFTER the 9-11 attacks. The *Bush cabal are responsible for nearly eight months of negligent inactivity that led to the worst national security breach in American history.

Why?

[whirlygigspin]

1. This is a startling admission of negligence

oh my...Ted Kennedy's gonna love that!

[MMP]

2. Fair is Fair

I will agree that Bush is responsible for 8 months of inaction, if people here will agree that Clinton is responsible for 8 years of inaction.

That would make Bush 12 times the president that Clinton was. Not the best argument against Bush, on the face of it.

Or you can agree that after little attacks performed outside the United States that perhaps Clinton acted reasonably. After a major attack inside the United States that Bush acted reasonably.

If you respect an enemy, you have to admit that he will sometimes come up with an idea that would not occur to you. Al Quaeda did that. The Al Quaeda method actually used a judo esque approach. The disarmament of US citizens on US carriers was a longstanding weakness that was intended to PREVENT terrorism. Their technique depended on surprise, and so the 4th plane was crashed, because the initial surprise was not enough after the first 2 planes had struck. The 15 minutes later takeoff permitted the passengers to respond, and showed how fragile was the terrorists advantage.

Now, given that our enemy uses illegal methods, and its members are illegal combatants who intentionally target non-combatants in violation of the laws of war, and all relevant treaties, what do you do? Do you wait for them to kill again, using ever more terrible weapons, giving them a free shot? I think not.

Rather you may consider using your advantages, the overt, legal use of conventional military force, against a terrorist government, who had a history of using WMDs, and who was both weak, and an international pariah. If you believe in democracy, you might even try to give democracy a chance to be established where it had never taken root before, just as Democracy had never taken root before in Germany or Japan (or even Italy!).

I think that Bush did what Clinton would have done. The counterpart to that is that Clinton did what Bush would have done.

[Octafish]

4. Clinton stopped Al Quaeda from hitting LA during Y2K.

The Democratic Administration also had a plan in place for going after Al Quaeda where they lived -- Afghanistan.

This they did not enact before the election, because before the election, the Dems feared the GOP would say they were playing an October Surprise card. After the election, Clinton didn't want to leave a turd on the White House's front porch, like Poppy did with Somalia.

Clinton and his team, BTW, fully briefed and many members, like Richard Clarke, stayed on to make the transition smooth and safe. That, too, is different from the BFEE SOP.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

5. Clinton Admin foiled a MAJOR attack on Los Angeles Airport, AND

caught the perpetrators of the 1st WTC bombings. They are all in prison.

No defending Bush on this forum. He dropped the ball-the outgoing Clinton administration handed them the intelligence, and they chose to do nothing.

[buycitgo]

6. you are completely full of it

meaning mendacious RW talking points

but you know that, don't you?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

8. You should see his bon mots on gay marriage

if you think this little snippet is bad...

[Vickers]

7. "Bush (is) 12 times the president that Clinton was"

Well by golly, there ought to be 12 cum-stained dresses lounging around somewhere.

Light up the cigars (sic), boys, his goose is cooked!

[kaitykaity]

9. Clinton wouldn't have sat in that classroom

after being told that the country was under attack.

I just luv the "blame Clinton" routine. Didn't anybody tell you that Clinton isn't president anymore???????

[Kathy in Cambridge]

10. Republicans: The Party of Personal Responsibility Whose Motto is:

ABC: Always Blame Clinton.

[leftofthedial]

12. I utterly disagree that Clinton did nothing

he caught and imprisoned the 93 WTC bombers

he foiled the millenium bomb plot

he mobilized his cabinet on the issue of counter terrorism

he tried to brief and warn the incoming *Bush administration, but they refused (just as they neglected to pursue the Cole bombers--bombing in Oct. 2000)

he came within an hour of killing bin Laden in Afghanistan--closer than *Bush's "war" has ever come, at the expense of one cruise missile instead of uncounted lives and billions of dollars

After Poppy Bush's WTC bombings, Clinton prevented terrorism on US soil for eight years

Cooperating with foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies, those responsible for the African embassy bombings were caught and executed or imprisoned

Not that Iraq is an important front in the "war" on "terrorism," but at the cost of missiles and airstrikes (instead of >500 American deaths, 100's of billions of dollars, 10,000 dead civilians and destabilization of a key Arab nation, Clinton neutralized Iraq and eliminated their weapons programs for eight years.

It is RW myth that Clinton did nothing.

[Trajan]

13. False analogies ...

and pure fallacy ...

What is this ? .. Numerology ? ..

Guess what: .. 9-11 happened while GEORGE BUSH was president of the United States of America ...

George W. Bush, NOT William Jefferson Clinton ....

Clinton has his own cross to bear: but it CERTAINLY isnt George's cross that Clinton must carry ....

The Boy Prince must carry his own baggage ...

He wanted to be president: he got it ....

No blaming others allowed ...

[Guaranteed]

14. Nope. Totally different situations.

The USS Cole was attacked on Oct. 12, 2000- less than a month before the election. Clinton was ready to do something about it, but his term was almost up, and we were in the middle of an election, and he didn't want to start up a war to leave for the next administration. HOWEVER, he DID leave Clarke himself for the Bush administration, who REPEATEDLY told them that Al Qaeda was an extremely serious threat to the US.

Further, what's your excuse for Bush STILL obsessing over Iraq in the days after 9/11, even though he knew that Al Qaeda was the culprit, and then INVADING last year? Remember that?

[Guaranteed]

15. Dupe

[LoZoccolo]

21. TOMBSTONED.

Baaaahahahaha.

Seemed to have a thing for introducing concealed-carry into a lot of threads.

[Sugarbleus]

3. 'they are the most crooked bunch of liars........'

With all the hubbub coming out of the white house today over Clarkes revelations, the bushitas are looking like a bunch of keystone cops too.:+

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. USS Cole fresh on the victims list

yet Bush did nothing. I wonder how those families feel?

[jeanmarc]

17. Probably as well as the 9/11 families when the chimp said...

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Only six months passed since 9/11, and this bastard doesn't care and is not concerned. I bet that warms the hearts of the 9/11 families. He was too preoccupied with Iraq with the rest of the neocons. But to make these statements, it shows a level of audacity and stupidity.

[countmyvote4real]

16. Their defense for waiting seems to be based on

developing a "broader" and more "strategic" plan and that took time to develop properly. Never mind that the strategic plan was given to them by the Clinton advisors and Clarke was there trying to make it happen. This charade is clearly BS. Once they got the 9/11 wake-up call, it was suddenly, "Hello, Afghanistan." Although what we know from O'Neil and now Clarke is that they were really saying, "Please get me Iraq on the line" from day one.

The WH is simply responding the way they always do: with lies, denials and by blaming their opposition. If this behavior was present in a family member or loved one, their friends would propose some sort of intervention to stop the self-destruction. Maybe that's why these Republican advisors have taken these bold steps to speak out about their experience in the WH. Of course, I'm being generous. I think they know these paranoid, imperialist wackos will take us all down in their distorted reality.

I know it's not supposed to be politically correct to draw any historical comparisons to this type of behavior. Wait a minute. That came from the emperor's camp. Well, that's just stupid and it's just more distortion. Why do we study history, if we can't learn from it?

So, if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it must be Nero, Caligula, Duvalier, Amin or most certainly Hitler. These guys and gals in the WH are ruthless, delusional, megalomaniacs. They’re suddenly getting caught in their own lies and it’s not pretty. If there is not a serious intervention soon, they will destroy us all. They may already have set it in motion.

(My bleak rant is now over.)

On edit: And SO many posts appeared between the original while I was responding.

[leftofthedial]

18. you nailed it

ruthless delusional megalomaniacs


they just want to steal money as fast as they can and stay in power as long as they can.

They'll walk away with TRILLIONS of dollars of loot (AGAIN!) when this is all over unless we bring them to very hard justice.

[buycitgo]

19. not to worry! fine post.....very fine!

liked this bit, in particular

So, if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it must be Nero, Caligula, Duvalier, Amin or most certainly Hitler. These guys and gals in the WH are ruthless, delusional, megalomaniacs. They’re suddenly getting caught in their own lies and it’s not pretty. If there is not a serious intervention soon, they will destroy us all. They may already have set it in motion.

very well put....walks like caligula?

and did you see Jon Stewart?

he had Bush in a NAZI uniform, swastika and all, doing the sieg heil!

[LoZoccolo]

20. Yeah, I'm surprised they'd try to pass this off.

If someone tells you to look both ways before you cross the street and you don't, and you get hit and end up in a wheelchair, and then look both ways next time, it doesn't matter as much, you already got hit by the car!

Is the transcript out yet? This would make a good one for misleader.org.