Clarke Book Vetting by WH

[Turbineguy]

Now I'm just wondering. If the White house had all this time to vet the Clarke book (from mid-October) why are these revelations so sudden and apparently catching them off guard?

For those of us who read Al Franken's Liars, most of the Richard Clarke info is not really new. Certainly more detailed but from Liars, we already knew about the January, April and September dates.

I seem to get the feeling that the book sat in somebody's in-box for a few months, unread and was then tossed back to the publisher with the Good White housekeeping Seal. A screwup perhaps? Did anybody just get fired?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. How could they have stopped it?

The moment the White House gets a book "crushed", is the moment it is on the Best Sellers list. I bet that Team Bush has been sweating this one since the middle of last year.

The real firings remain to take place. Condi is especially vulnerable. How anyone can be so loyal to a reprobate like "Dubya" is beyond me.

--bkl

[Malva Zebrina]

2. I read somewhere that the CIA vetted the book and forgot to tell

Bush about all the revelations. LOL--I don't have a link for that--it could just be gossip. Perhaps it was the CIA that was in charge of it.

[matcom]

3. don't think so - my take

they knew damn well what this book would do. so they sat on it and released it NOW so they could jump on Clarke's shit and try to discredit him.

they thought they could turn the tables on him. it didn't work.

Clarke is more credible than they thought and didn't back down like they hoped he would.

it was a gamble on their part and it looks like they lost.

cunning if you think about it but not very smart.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Same tactic was used on Hatfield of "Fortunate Son"...

Rove told him that Junior had used coke and Hatfield included that in his book. The next thing Hatfield knew, Rove had leaked Hatfield's prison time for attempted murder which led to a total discrediting of Hatfield in the press. Hatfield was later found dead, supposedly a suicide.

Rove just found out you can't use the same tactic on everyone at every level. What works in Texas doesn't necessarily work in Washington, DC...particularly against 30-year intelligence operatives.

[Beetwasher]

13. I Have A Feeling That Clarke May Have Played Them But Good

Clarke was their go to guy when the Time article came out. He went out there and gave the background breifings to try and limit the damage about the ignored warnings. With that in mind I see the possibility of the following scenario:

Clarke leaves the admin. on "good" terms, but is actually really pissed off at how these morons are bumbling the ball. He's always APPEARED as a team player to them, especially because of his spinning to Time. So he writes this book and approaches the admin. saying "Look, you guys are gonna need some cover for these missed warning allegations that appeared in Time. You know the Dems are gonna bring it up during the election. I'm going to write a book and address it and we'll use it as a limited hang out. I won't press it too much or make a big splash and in my interviews I'll lay most of the blame on Clinton. That way, we get it out of the way and I'll continue to defend you and spin it like I did w/ the Time allegations."

He writes his book, they clear it with all of the above in mind and then Clarke turns around and fucks 'em good because he actually cares about the security of the country and knows these fuckers are up to no good. What are they gonna do? Say "He lied to us! He told us he was gonna blame it all on Clinton!"

That's my take anyway.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Could The WH still have held up publication?

I've wondered this all week. If RoveCo. knew how damaging the stuff was in this book, why couldn't it have been stonewalled til after the election or just outright nixed on grounds of nation security? If Ms. Rice is yelping about executive privilidge, couldn't the regime have prevented publication on the same basis.

Anyone???

[matcom]

6. i think there is a time limit on them

all books must go through WH review when former officials write them (to make sure no classified stuff gets out). i THINK there might be a time limit on how long they can hold them.

anyone know for sure?

[0007]

7. How do we know?

Does anyone know how much material was deleted from Clarke book?

[matcom]

8. Clarke does

and apparently it wasn't much if anything. its not like they can legally 'slice and dice' whatever they want. ONLY material that would compromize national security, etc...

[kiahzero]

11. Don't know about a time limit, but

He'd be sure to sue... suing at such a level would get to the Supremes VERY quickly... the last thing this Administration wanted was to have to go in front of a Court that has been rather strong on free speech issues, and explain why this book has been quashed.

[cmd]

9. My Karen Hughes theory

When her butt-kissing book comes out next week, we will see a story about how the IIC (idiot in chief) was obsessed with the threat of terrorism. It's going to say that he could not think about anything but fighting terrorism from the moment he was sworn in. I think it is being put out to dis Clarke's book.

[htuttle]

10. They tried to shut down the Commission once already, remember?

If the 9/11 Commission hadn't gotten that extension, would this book have made as big an impact as it has?

Perhaps that is what they were hoping for -- to shut down the Commission and 'move forward' before the book really did any damage.

Didn't work.

[RedEagle]

12. Or Someone in the Administration "Let" it Through

Perhaps holding it up made it look like it was vetted thoroughly, to the administration's satisfaction.

Wouldn't rule out more disgruntled people inside.

Interesting if there is a time limit on holding a book, which would just mean they were between a rock and a hard place.