Did Rice Deny Clarke Direct Access To Bush Because She Knew...

[arwalden]

that Bush would be incapable of comprehending someone as intelligent as Richard Clarke? Was she trying to protect the non-reading un-curious doofus from having his lack of knowledge, lack of understanding revealed to "outsiders"?

We already know Bush* doesn't read. Everything is read for him, and typed up in one page synopses (double-spaced 14 pt.) Or... Rice (et al) must first "dumb-down" the reports into simple language so that he gets the black-and-white gist of things (but never understands the nuances and complexities and shades of gray). --- ASSUMING of course that in their roles as "filters", that Bush* even gets the reports in the first place.

Was shutting Clarke out part of their concerted effort to please Bush* by being "NOT-Clinton" that they threw away all that was good because everything associated with the Clinton administration was assumed to be bad?

-- Allen

(I realise that this amateur analysis of mine is so OBVIOUS that others may have already mentioned it here... and probably worded it better, too... but I just HAD to say *something*.)


E: clarity.

[childslibrarian]

1. Hey, sounds perfectly plausible

to me

[Vickers]

2. Yup, all that, plus a healthy dose of

professional jealousy, leavened with a dash of personal empire-building.

[flamingpie2500]

3. Your post reminded me of something I heard today and just want to

know if you heard the same thing. That Bush's daily briefing report on Sept 4th, was written by the CIA and NOT Rice as she previously claimed?
my apologies for going off topic

[oasis]

4. "Not-Clinton" was the main focus of the incoming Bush Administration.

[finecraft]

5. Or maybe Rove wanted him to focus

on Iraq and another terrorist entity would distract him? In the O'Neill book there is an account of a meeting where Bush mumbles something that strays from the topic of the meeting, and Rove tells him to focus and stay on-topic. We already know that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney wanted to get rid of Saddam years before Bush was elected, and regime change was discussed on the first days of bush 43's administration...there was a plan being formulated from day one. For 8 years this group had to hear "bush 41 should have taken Saddam out". I think politically Rove thought that getting rid of Saddam was a slam-dunk for energizing his base, and nothing....even people running down the hallways of the White House with their "Hair on fire" screaming about an imminent attack by Al Queda was going to make them deviate from their "politically correct" plan. The testimony over the last 2 days paints the picture that they were aware of the threat, but everyone thought it was an attack that would happen overseas. I think they thought that if they ignored the threats, and an attack did happen overseas, it would give them an opening to attack Iraq in retaliation. They needed something to justify an Iraq invasion. I think they figured if Al Queda bombed another overseas embassy or navy ship, a few American lives were lost, and they could tie Al Queda to Iraq in someway, public outrage in the US would be enough for them to justify an invasion of Iraq. I don't think they ever dreamed that an attack would take place on American soil, and so many lives would be lost. Doofus has never been in charge of this cluster **** administration...Rove and Cheney have, and in their eyes, Iraq was the politically rich target....not Al Queda.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Believe it of not, Clarke kind of addressed this on Fresh Air today...

he said Bush has a bumper-sticker view of the world and Bush actually prides himself on avoiding nuances.

[arwalden]

7. Bush* Admits That He's Actually PROUD Of Being Dumb?!?

Just when you thought dumb couldn't get any dumber, he out-dumbs himself by taking pride in his dumbness.

Now how dumb is THAT?

-- Allen

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

10. Not so unusual actually...sounds like Dayton, OH, alot.

Sounds like the mindset of people around here.

They take sort of a pride in being ignorant.

[Cleita]

8. Is Condi really Bush's nanny?

I mean she get's nice stuff like Channel suits and all because she probably does the job Bush 41 hired her for. After all she's not relevant for this day and age. She's a Sovietologist and speaks Russian, which is why Bush 41 hired her to begin with, but her expertise isn't needed anymore and she hasn't updated, so why is she in this administration?

Did daddy Bush wanted her to keep an eye on junior maybe?

[skeptic9]

9. Could be. But her own self-interest seems a more likely explanation for ...

... keeping Clarke away from her boss. He was infinitely more capable than Condi in understanding and dealing with the main national security threat, terrorism. He had twenty-something years of on-the-job national security experience in counterterrorism while she had none. He knew who all the real counterterrorism experts were, while she spoke Russian.

She deferred to his experience on many occasions. On September 11th, she let him run the national security meeting. The August 2002 press briefing the right-wing is trying to use against Clarke was a natural responsibility for the National Security Adviser--why was Clarke even there?

I think a better explanation is the old Peter Principle. Condi had reached her level of incompetence, and she wasn't going to allow oneof her subordinates to outshine her in the eyes of her boss.