(WP) Clarke Book Reignites Debate Over Iraq Invasion (mentions O'Neill)

[frank frankly]

pretty good article. someone is beginning to connect some dots! he shows that this is exactly what O'Neill was saying in his book. although of course the analysts "split" line is garbage. if 2 out of 10 disagree, is it a "split," even when the 2 must now qualify even their support. blegh.

still, compared to the garbage from the NYTimes, this is pulitzer.

------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28976-2004Mar27?language=printer

Clarke Book Reignites Debate Over Iraq Invasion
Analysts Are Split on Whether Move Hurt War on Terrorism

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer

John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the 9/11 commission, put it bluntly to former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke when he testified publicly last week: Why did his earlier, private testimony to the commission not include the harsh criticism leveled at President Bush in his book?

"There's a very good reason for that," Clarke replied. "In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq. And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

The furious charge and countercharge between Clarke and the White House last week has largely obscured this central complaint by Clarke. The commission investigating the 2001 attacks is not charged with probing this question, so little of the public testimony in recent days dwelled on Iraq. Politically, however, it is potentially just as important for Bush to deal with that assertion as it is for him to address the claim that he was not properly focused on the al Qaeda threat in the first eight months of his presidency.

[yardwork]

1. Fortunately, anyone who reads the book will have no problem

seeing that this is Clarke's central point.

It makes the whole "what did Clarke say when" argument spurious. Talking about Iraq takes us right back to WMD and the fact that Americans are dying over there every day.

Big problem for the * administration. Big problem for the whole country that we're going to have to deal with for years.

[Just Me]

5. His book will only confirm what I have suspected,...

,...when I noted the war propaganda being generated back in 10/02,...that, this administration is crooked, manipulative and has something to hide. Shortly thereafter, I discovered PNAC and I spread that damn thing to at least four dozen members of Congress, every major news network; and every relative, friend and political activist group I could find. I am still waiting for that imperialistic, self-serving agenda to be widely disseminated and understood by the general American public because it explains so much about this extremist ideological regime ruling our country.

[Skittles]

11. those Dems who voted for IWR knew all about PNAC

WTF were they thinking ???

[seemslikeadream]

2. Maybe John still has a voice!

and this from October 2001 is a bit interesting

Richard Clarke
Office of Cyber Security Director



Oct. 9 — Richard A. Clarke was appointed today by President Bush to be the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council.

Clarke became well-known for his use of the phrase "electronic Pearl Harbor," when predicting the implications of a cyber-terrorist attack. Critics say he overstates the threat, perhaps as a tactic to win greater attention, support and resources for government computer defense capabilities.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisors_clarke...

Ambassador William S. Farish


Look what the American Embassy, London is saying and isn't this Farish guy old friends of the bushs?

American film director Billy Wilder once said, "Hindsight is always twenty-twenty." But Richard Clarke's recent assertions show that even hindsight can be woefully off the mark.

Who is Richard Clarke? For thirty years, he was a civil servant in the United States Government. When President Bush assumed office, he kept Dick Clarke on as his principal counterterrorism expert. In return, Clarke has written a new book giving his view of events. He has accompanied its release with an orchestrated array of books and self-promotion interviews, to launch a political attack on President Bush and his administration in the hothouse atmosphere of a presidential campaign season. This is a good atmosphere to sell books, perhaps, but not one designed for a cold examination of the facts.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukamb/farish25.html

ALarmed See Dick Resign

Edited on Sat Mar-27-04 01:06 PM by seemslikeadream
This is off topic but interesting

"About half my job is marketing," Clarke told CSO magazine late last year in an interview. But many factors largely out of his control conspired to make that marketing fail. Those factors include: The emasculation of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace; an administration that wouldn't consider the most cogent ideas to secure cyberspace (including regulation); a constituency of technology vendors that has never been serious about the task and had a part in emasculating the National Strategy; and, most recently, the Litchfields' move.

It starts to become clear why Clarke is resigning. Why push a rock uphill if everyone above you is pushing back down on it?

In his memo to the ISACs, Clarke cited two specific—and far less controversial—reasons for leaving his post: the completion of the National Strategy and the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, whose Secretary, Tom Ridge, was sworn in right when news of Clarke’s departure first leaked. This provides "a good juncture ... to end my 11 years in the White House," Clarke wrote. He also mentions briefly his desire to "contribute to these issues as a private citizen."

http://www.csoonline.com/alarmed/02032003.html

Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11


Assembling The Legend of 9/11
Excerpted from: Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11
by Chaim Kupferberg

One man was Clinton's counter-terrorism "czar". The other was reputedly the FBI's most dogged pursuer of Osama bin Laden. But did these two men perform a more sinister, covert role in coordinating the global elements of the unfolding 9/11 Legend? In this latest excerpt from his landmark article, Chaim Kupferberg takes a closer at Richard Clarke and John O'Neill - the men who reportedly "discovered" Osama bin Laden as a terrorist mastermind.

Heading up that clique was Richard A. Clarke, who joined the National Security Council under the first President Bush, and stayed there under Clinton. As reported by Lawrence Wright in The New Yorker, "In the web of federal agencies concerned with terror, Clarke was the spider." Tim Weiner of the New York Times wrote of Clarke on February 1, 1999: "He has placed proteges in key diplomatic and intelligence positions, creating a network of loyalty and solidifying his power."

It was Clarke who, together with John O'Neill, "discovered" bin Laden as a global terrorist mastermind. Here, as reported by Lawrence Wright in The New Yorker, was Clarke's version of his discovery:

"We'd see CIA reports that referred to 'financier Osama bin Laden' and we'd ask ourselves, 'Who the hell is he?' The more we drilled down, the more we realized he was not just a financier - he was the leader. John said, 'We've got to get this guy. He's building a network. Everything leads back to him.' Gradually the CIA came along with us."

Presumably, Clarke had help in marketing bin Laden - for bin Laden himself would soon enough make his high profile media debut as the declared enemy of American interests the world over, thereby giving the world's only superpower a plausibly sophisticated foe who would overshadow the efforts of one Muslim fanatic (Ramzi Yousef, World Trade Center '93) or one right-wing nutcase (Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma '95). Meanwhile, the gregarious John O'Neill would make the global rounds, liaising with various counterparts as he shadowed the presumed activities of Osama bin Laden. In other words, if one were theoretically to posit the type of operatives who would be most suited to running a highly compartmentalized "op" to develop a global legend of Osama bin Laden, one could find no more conveniently placed men than Richard Clarke and John O'Neill. Where Clarke would manage the national security rank-and-file through his network of loyalists, O'Neill would be the globetrotter, coordinating the unfolding legend through his counterparts in various countries.

In short, Clarke and O'Neill would theoretically be conducting their activities in "plain sight." Under the cover of counter-terrorism, O'Neill would be building a terror legend fit for the New World Order - in the same manner that Oliver North in the '80s employed the cover of counter-terrorism to conduct, on behalf of Vice-President Bush, the illegal arms dealing operations popularly known as Iran-Contra (for which North took a decidedly light rap as the designated patsy). The main difference would be that where North would eventually be tagged as the moron of Iran-Contra, O'Neill would take his place as the martyr of 9/11.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP312A.html

[Hamlette]

8. just curious...

is anying buying this Chaim Kupferberg stuff?

[seemslikeadream]

9. just curious

do you own a dictionary?

[boobooday]

3. This was good

All of a sudden our press has regained their long-term memory! Hurray!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[frank frankly]

4. maybe...

if they ever do their job, BushCo is ended INSTANTLY.

c'mon, media. don't you want to keep living? don't you see the danger to the free world that bushco creates?

[Mari333]

6. 20,000 dead civilians almost 600 or more dead soldiers thousands

wounded for nothing.
Thanks a lot , corporate media.
Now they get a spine.
the blood is on their hands too.
My kid better come home. and intact.
http://www.mfso.org

[frank frankly]

7. keep on, sister

you are doing amazing work and you are an excellent writer. keep channeling that fury.

:hug:

[frank frankly]

10. kick

:kick:

[revcarol]

12. How can we make life miserable for that pitiful excuse for an

ambassador? I have never seen such garbage from a supposedly diplomatic person. The ambassador is supposed to represent the United States, not JUST the administration.

UNO SICKO, he is.