Wesley Clark's gutsy new tack: Blame Bush for not preventing 9-11.

[robbedvoter]

New Criticism
Wesley Clark's gutsy new tack: Blame Bush for not preventing 9-11.
By Michael Tomasky
Web Exclusive: 10.30.03
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/tomasky-m-10-30.html
Wesley Clark, speaking on Tuesday to a liberal foreign-policy conference sponsored by the Prospect, the Center for American Progress (John Podesta's new outfit) and The Century Foundation, could have gone in any of several directions in attacking the Bush administration's foreign policy. The $87 billion, so unpopular with voters, would have been the obvious target. The lack of a postwar plan, a close second. The intentionally failed diplomacy in the run-up to hostility, a pretty clear bronze medalist.
He didn't ignore those issues entirely, but the heart of his attack came in the form of "a blistering review" (The New York Times' words) of the administration's actions prior to September 11. Clark, assaying pre-9-11 intelligence failures, said that responsibility for those failures can't be fobbed off on "lower-level intelligence officers," and he came within a few inches of saying outright that the Bush administration was responsible for the attacks having happened.
"Shocking" might be putting it too strongly, but certainly it was surprising that Clark chose to reopen that temporarily sealed can of worms. Politicians don't often say something you don't expect to hear, and when they do, you wonder why. Clark either took a major risk here to breath some life into a campaign that nearly every Washington insider thinks is melting (which probably means it's just fine, thanks) or he knows something the rest of us don't. But first, some background. More...

[maggrwaggr]

1. I think it's high time somebody did this.

I posted a thread about this a few weeks ago.

Maybe the Clark people read my post?? :)

[David Zephyr]

2. Perhaps It's Not a "Tactic". Maybe Wes Clark Believes This.

And I welcome it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. My, my

Now there is fertile ground, problem is, it lies on the extremes
both left and right, hopefully he will be able to seed the center.

[elperromagico]

4. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one

who believes that Bush didn't do enough.

Bush just sat there in that effing Florida classroom listening to those kids read some stupid story about a damned goat, when he knew the United States was under attack. And why did he do that? Because he "didn't want to scare the children"!

Isn't it wonderful to have a President who puts not scaring children ahead of saving a few thousand lives?

[SharonAnn]

21. He stopped most of the investigations that involved the Saudis

and those were investigations about Al Qaeda.

He ignored what the Hart-Rudman Report said.

He ignored the chatter in the information in July and August 2001.

The way I see it, it´s his fault and I´ve always said so.

Back in April-May 2001 when he was saying how we needed to divert money to missile defense and was warning us about that, I was screaming about this: What about the terrorists? They´re our biggest worry! We´re in the most danger from the terrorists! What are you doing about the terrorists?

If an average citizen like me could figure that out in spring of 2001 (and I didn´t have the informaiton he had and didn´t know about the Hart-Rudman report since the press didn´t bother to report it), then I hold him accountable for what he did not do to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. good point

The fact that they were briefed in detail on August 6 about the planned attacks, and still couldn't - or didn't - do anything on 9-11 means they are were either negligent or complicit.

[caledesi]

5. Why didn't anyone in this misadministration read the Hart/Rudman Report?

Maybe 9/11 could have been averted.

Excerpt under Security:

The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures.

We therefore recommend the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security -- the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol -- transferred to it. NHSA would not only protect American lives, but also assume responsibility for overseeing the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure, including information technology.

[snippy]

6. Good for Clark. Bush should be attacked on the August 6, 2001 briefing.

Bush is vulnerable on this for two reasons.

First, it described the 9/11 attacks damn near perfectly. That is too much of a coincidence for most people to believe.

Second, both Rice and Comrade Squealer (Ari Fleischer) are on the record lying about the purpose of the briefing. They each have said repeatedly that the purpose of the briefing was to give Bush historical background on Al Qaeda's tactics. But someone from the CIA traveled to Crawford, Texas to brief Bush personally. That would not have happened for background. It could have been done in a memo which Rice could have read aloud to Bush. Or it could have waited until Bush was done with his vacation. Bush is particularly vulnerable on this now since nearly everyone is beginning to realize what a liar he is.

[maha]

7. Yippee!

The General leads the charge!!!

[frank frankly]

8. Wesley, you are great! 9/11 is the key!

If it comes down to Dean, Kerry, or Clark, we can't lose! I would love to have any of them as President. And ANY of them would trounce Dumbya in a Fair Election...now please get Clark to get on BBV!

[RandomUser]

34. I think so too

No matter what changes between now and election day. 9/11 will always be the elephant in the room, just as the cold war used to be.

[Donna Zen]

36. BBV

Wesley knows all about BBV. I checked last summer.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Good for Clark

most of us feel this way; its a variation of LIHOP.

They thoroghly and completely dropped the ball, and their idea of covering their asses was to have the astroturf mill churn out all those "Clinton let Bin laden get away" stories.

[Stephanie]

12. They dropped the ball ON PURPOSE

I don't expect to Clark to say that. Yet. But he probably knows so if he's going this far.

They dropped the ball on purpose. Why? PNAC.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000. A Report of the Project for the New American Century.

<snip>The United States cannot simply declare a strategic pause while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.</snip>

[Mz Pip]

10. Keep pounding on this

2 years later and the WH is still stonewalling. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY AFRAID OF? All this concern about National Security being compromised. What a bunch of hogwash. It's not like anything is being released to the National Inquirer, though I might be happy to see it end up on the front page.

MzPip
:dem:

[blm]

11. Good. I'm glad he's being heard.

Although I notice the media is giving him less time, now while they're in pumping Bush mode.

[charlie]

13. Fantastic

The arc of his criticisms have been widening, this is the natural extension of where he's been heading for a while. I'm glad he's got the brass to go for it. I hope he hangs tough, if he keeps it up the media fusillade is going to be awesome. They'll smear him with everything from being a say-anything-outrageous-for-votes Democrat to a traitor. Stay with it General, this is exactly what America needs to hear.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. It's not a tactic, it's the truth!

[rucky]

15. The more I hear...

...the more I like!

[andym]

16. He's growing

I think Clark as intelligent as he is, is also
a bit naive in the 50ish sort of way: he seems to
want to think well of people and his country,
and being used to thinking in a non-partisan way,
it probably was difficult for him to imagine
that the President would act in a manner that did
not benefit the country, but rather the President's
political agenda.

I think it was his own sense that something was terribly wrong
with the way foreign policy was being conducted that
led him to seek the Presidency.

His understanding is growing, as he begins to connect
the dots. Being privy to some of the unilaterist grandiose ideas that
some military planners embraced at the Pentagon, and now
realizing that this set of ideas is actually being implemented,
logically lead him to question the President in ways that most
citizens, and especially ex-military brass would never do. And being
intelligent, he may now see the outline of what is happenning
as clearly as anyone.

This is a very good thing for our country, because this will
resonate with Americans who might not otherwise come to these
conclusions themselves.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. I Think You're Right

This is (I think) the second analysis I've read from you where I was like, "Wow, that's right on."

Clark does exude that kind of almost naive optimism. The odd thing is, coming from him, even a cynical bastard like me believes it.

I suspect he has known for a while that the Bush gang had devious plans for the country; my guess is that like many Americans, he just couldn't BELIEVE they'd actually act on them so brazenly.

DTH

[andym]

23. Thanks

And this is one reason why I believe the petty political attacks
against Clark (and the other candidates who are trying to
make us aware of what is happenning) are a huge mistake. No matter
who wins the nomination, it will be very helpful to have believable
spokesmen and spokeswomen help the average apolitical citizen to
understand what our government is doing.

[KittyWampus]

27. Andym... Did You See The Movie Quiz Show?

I really likek your analysis.

In the Robert Redford movie Quiz Show we saw how America in the 50's had it's first taste of "lost innocence" with the rigging and exposure of a game show.

My Dad was in the military for a time and he was a teacher for many years and an outdoorsman. By all rights he should be a Liberal and yet he votes Republican. Part of it is the macho thing but also he just doesn't realize how drastically the GOP has changed over the last 40 years.

Yes, it's partly being naive and perhaps partly being in denial... good people just can't fathom the evil heart.

[andym]

32. The 50s

Cryingshame, I didn't see the movie "Quiz Show", but I grew up
shortly after this time, and was personally influenced
by the persistence of 50s culture in the early 60s.

The 1950s apparently were a time of great faith in people's inherent goodness, and yet at the same time there was a strong conformist attitude that allowed dark currents such as McCarthyism and legalized racism to flourish. Fortunately, to some extent these currents were neutralized in the 60s. It's very interesting that the General's New American Patriotism of promoting dissent, is essentially exactly counter to McCarthyism, and I doubt that it was accidental that he used the term "McCarthyism" metaphorically in the last debate.

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Read David Halberstam's Book "The Fifties"

It wasn't as sweet and innocent as you might remember. The seeds of the 60's were planted (and watered often) in the 50's.

[quaker bill]

17. He reiterated it this evening on NPR Newshour

His interview was just great.

On the economy,

'The question is not if it is getting better, rather how much better would it be with another policy'

On 911

'The president should be leading the inquiry on what went wrong, not resisting it'

'The buck stops on the president's desk, he sets the command tone, it is not a matter of some field officer not talking to another, this bit of poor communication or another...there was apparently no plan to deal with Al-Queda, the responsiblilty goes to the commander's desk...'

Powerful stuff. Good for Wes!

[NNN0LHI]

18. You have to admit. Whether is LIHIOP, MIHOP, or just a plain FUCK UP...

...Bush and his minions should be hammered for it.

Don

[Bread and Circus]

19. Michael Moore's next movie will be all about Bush

and his connections to OBL and 9/11.

It's kind of neat that Clark is coming out on this and
seems ahead of the curve than the other dems.

[Bread and Circus]

22. Here's my take on Bush in regards to this....

1.) 9/11 happened because Bush let it happen

2.) We don't have an exit strategy in Iraq because
Bush and PNAC don't want to exit. They want to stay
in order to invade Syria and a bunch of other countries.

[mikehiggins]

38. Lou Dobbs tonight

had another commentator/general on and the guy simply said straight out that Iraq was about gaining a foothold in the heart of Islamic territory as a way of putting pressure on Iran and Syria. There was no bull about WMD's or making the world safe from Saddam.

I think Dobbs wasn't prepared for that becuase he seemed to slide right on past it instead of following up. Maybe he thinks people watching his show are smart enough to figure it out on their own?

[Zhade]

24. I'll be watching for one question: WHERE WERE THE JETS?

He's an Admiral.

He knows SOP.

He knows that the delay in scrambling the jets on 9/11 is unthinkable.

We will learn a LOT when he asks this question. To a professional soldier, this has to stand out like blood on canvas. No way he will avoid this question - if he sincerely intends to get to the bottom of what happened that day, he knows this is the way to force the issue.

Things just got very interesting!

[maryallen]

26. Wesley Clark is a retired General in the US Army ... not an Admiral.

But, yes he knows the score.

Clark recognizes what should have happened on 9/11, but didn't.
That makes him all the more believable, and in fact, the perfect Democratic candidate to relay to the American people the "story" of what really happened on 9/11.

Further, Clark is taking absolutely the right approach to the situation by challenging Bush to "lead the investigation;" by gently reminding Americans that the "buck stops with the President."

His style is not hostile, not sarcastically accusatory, but gently probing, questioning.

[Renew Deal]

28. I'm just surprised that no one else was talking about this.

This is critically important to discuss. Bush* got the report and did nothing with it. Instead he took a 42 day vacation in Crawford. WTF? I am glad Clark is hammering this. He seams to be getting better overall too.

[Stephanie]

29. Wrong - he took the 42 day vacation BECAUSE of the report

He knew what was about to go down so he got his ass out of harm's way. So did Cheney. I can't wait to see them on trial for this. The trial should be held in lower Manhattan.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

46. yep

"The trial should be held in lower Manhattan."

Yes, ma'am, it should!

[gulliver]

30. Heard his PBS interview tonight.

The guy has everything. He's going to be the nominee.

[w4rma]

31. Heck yea!!!!!! Right on target!!!!

9.11 was Bush's *failure* and he cynically used it as a political rallying point and he thinks he's going to do it again at the Republican Convention in New York City.

[RandomUser]

33. I think your comment about the Republican Convention is spot on

Clark is methodically out-manuevering Bush. First, he comes out with a New American Patriotism, to force Bush to attack patriotism if he wants to attack Clark. Then he turns 9-11 into Bush's fault, and starts to tighten the screws, in order to deprive him of that rallying cry at the republican conference.

This snippet from the old Tom Junod, Esquire article is making more and more sense. And I think it's clear that this is the reason for Clark's attack plan.


In the general's rendering, O'Reilly is interviewing a liberal judge who has lifted restrictions on the movement of homeless people in his community. " ‘Judge,' " the general begins, in perfect O'Reilly rhythm, " ‘do you have any children?' ‘Yes, I do. I have a daughter.' ‘Judge, what would you do if a homeless man came to your house and started defecating in front of your nine-year-old daughter?' ‘That's never happened.' ‘But let's say it did happen, judge. What would you do?' ‘I'd probably ask if he needed to use the bathroom.' ‘Oh, c'mon, judge. Get off it. There's a homeless man right on your front lawn. And he's taking a dump in front of your nine-year-old daughter! What are you gonna do about it?' "

This is what the general does. He internalizes his opponents—those on the other side of an issue or a battle—so that he may prevail over them. As an unintended consequence, he is a gifted mimic, whether of O'Reilly, Slobodan Milosevic ("General Clark, he obeys orders; he is like dog"), or, on one afternoon at WaveCrest, George W. Bush. His mimicry does not amount, in the case of our president, to mockery. It is simply his way of judging what Bush may have on the Democratic field so that he may judge what the Democratic field might possibly have on Bush. He is sitting in his office, eating lunch, talking about what might convince him to join the field or stay away. He is talking about running for president and saying that the mistake he does not want to make is the one that's most common: the mistake of finding the reason to run not in oneself but rather in one's opinion of the guy already holding office. "They look at him and say, ‘Hey, I'm smarter than that guy. If that guy can do it, it must not be that hard.' Well, they're wrong. It's hard. It's the hardest thing in the world. So you better have another reason." It's not the lure of power. He's had power. He was arguably the most powerful man in Europe and definitely one of the most powerful men in the world, and so he is not lusting for power so much as he is weighing his desire to "make a contribution" against what he believes is the ultimate consideration for anyone running for president against George Bush: "how much pain you can bear."

And there will be pain. You get the sense, talking to the general, that he has thought it through and decided that the only way to beat Bush is to go to war against him. You get that sense because suddenly, as you are talking to the general, he stands up from his peaceful lunch, and suddenly he is doing Bush. Suddenly he is the warrior president, addressing the delegates at the Republican convention in New York in September 2004, saying that on behalf of the American people, he has fought terrorists at home and abroad, saying that he has fought and won two wars against states that sponsor terrorism, saying that because of his efforts, the American people are safer than they were three years ago and that—and here he finds the resonating Dubyan chord—"there is sunshine ahead."



The more Clark's campaign unfolds, the more I can see the strategic structure being built against Bush. I just hope the other candidates don't sabotage him before he demolishes Bush.

[Upfront]

35. Positive Thread On Clark

Good for the general.

[Mz Pip]

41. Pre emtive strike

Bingo. This is exactly what Clark is doing. He's making it really togh for Bush to play up the patriotism BS at the GOP convention.


He's asking all the right questions, planting the seeds of doubt. Will make it very tough for Bush to ride to re-election spouting 9/11 platitudes.

I beleive in the Old West this was called "Cutting them off at the pass."


MzPip
:dem:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. If we nominate Clark

we're in, and can concentrate on getting Congress. Bush in the flightsuit is going to be his Dukakis Tank. :)

[Clark Can WIN]

37. I was thrilled, and scared, and proud

when I heard him say this. Then I forgot it all and just stood up and cheered.

I hope he hits this HARD.

[Myra]

39. Thank you General

Ask the tough questions.
There are plenty.

[AnnitaR]

40. "Bush Administration Was Slow to Approve Drones to Kill Bin Laden"

The General is right on target. This kind of info needs to keep being brought to the American people. Read this from way back in June. :mad:

Missed Opportunity
Officials: Bush Administration Was Slow to Approve Drones to Kill Bin Laden

By Ted Bridis and John Solomon
The Associated Press


W A S H I N G T O N, June 24 — When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/2020/predator030624.html

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

43. kick

*I* blame Bush for not stopping 911. How huge of a security failure is it that the headquarters of the military, the Pentagon, can be hit with a commercial airliners anyway?

Clark is the only one that can get away with saying it in public.

[gulliver]

45. It's a fantastic move.

Yet another fantastic move by Clark. He's my guy. He has incredible guts. He just socked it to the Bushies right in their glass jaw.

They probably won't take the bait this time, but sooner or later they are going to have to. The Bushsits whole "Clark is confusing ... whine whine ... Clark is a Republican ... whine ... whine" bullsh*t line is already spent. People aren't falling for it. Clark's gonna fly.

[Ilsa]

47. I'm glad Clark doesn't wear a pink tu-tu.

First time he dons one, he'll lose my support.

The rest of the Dems need to help lead the attacks against this rapacious thug resident.

[Ilsa]

48. dupe. sorry. n/t