Richard Clark PROVES that Bush failed to protect us from terrorisim

[DevinDNC]

Former Counter terror official for George Bush, Richard Clarke, has now stated equivically that "Bush failed miserable to defend America from terrorisim". On 60 minutes last night Clark (a man who has been an expert on international terror for over 40 years)accused the Bush administration of cowardice and complicancy in the attacks of 9/11, by failing to take Al Qaida seriously. Because of the ignorance, idiocy, and cowardice of Bush and Cheney, 3000 Americans lost thier lives. Such a thing would never happen under a warrior like John Keryy's watch. I can't wait to see how Republican morons like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly try to eplain the failure (yet again) of Republicans to protect America. The only thing funnier then that will be the pathetic Bush administration attempts to discredit Clark, who they themselves kept on as thier terror advisor.
If they are going to call Clark incompetent or politically motivated...how come they thought so much of him to keep him on after he worked for Clinton.

[Another Bill C.]

1. They'll do a pretty good job

of discrediting Clarke by conveniently neglecting to mention that he was appointed by Reagan and retained by the Senior Bush who was a former head of the CIA (and presumably knew his way around the intelligence community). They'll simply portray him as "Billy's Boy."

[Tim4319]

2. Also, to add insult to injury

Richard Clarke was demoted after briefing the Bush Administration about what his knowledge of Al Qaeda. So I, like you and as I wrote yesterday on this site, cannot wait to see the type of response Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. will give to rebut Richard Clarke.

[Skip Intro]

3. Good point

If Clarke is (rovian smear here), then why did reagan and bush the first find him to be the best man for the job? Why did bush the moron decide to keep him on if he were what they'll be accusing him of being?

[Hav]

4. Here is a reply from the right...

in response to an CBS article about Clarke and to the 60 minutes interview:

"Was requested by the "ex" terror advisor who just "happens" to have a book coming out. Do you expect him to say he messed up? Do you expect him to wait til a non-election year to bring this information forward?

-You weren't in the cabinet meetings, and no one in their right mind ever expected a terror attack on that magnitude. Not you, not your beloved democrats, and not Bush. Not to mention the sheer number of reported "potential" terrorist attacks that administrations are made aware of. You tell me how you give more importance to one and not the other. Then you tell me why is that you are so hard on Bush for not doing anything, when Clinton wasted 8 years in office doing absolutely nothing? The very democrats you support were IN office in the last 20 years and did nothing. Yet somehow it is the sitting president's fault suddenly. All this in an election year.. sounds like more political mud slinging by the left to me.

- I have a lot of respect for Rumsfeld. He has one of the toughest jobs on the planet. After 9\11 happened who did we attack first? Iraq or Afghanistan? Regardless of what Rumsfeld thought what was the decision that Bush made?

Iraq had been on the burner since the first gulf war. This isn't news. It is what I've been screaming. You seem to convieniently forget that we didn't initially talk about WMD's as our reason for goin into Iraq. No one in the entire world doubted that Saddam had them, not you, not France, no one. We brought up war with Iraq after 13 years of broken UN resolutions (yet you seem to forget about that now too.) We brought up war with Iraq after the 17th UN resolution was ignored by Iraq. Yet of course it is ONLY because of some sort of imagined vendetta that Rumsfeld and Bush have against Iraq.

Did you ever entertain the possibility, that while they don't mesh with your own political ideals, just for one moment entertain the possibility that they have more information than you or me or 60 mins or Clinton and they are basing their decisions based upon that information and based upon what they think is the best plan of action for the United States and for the safety of the rest of the world. Did you ever think that maybe just maybe they actually care about human life too, and they care about the US too and our allies. That they aren't doing what they are doing out of some imagined evilness but out of genuine concern for the Iraqi people, for the US citzenship and for the world? Of course it didn't, because you, like most liberals, believe Bush to be a non-human, non-caring, emotionless, greedy bafoon who just pokes his way through the darkness at what his advisors tell him to do. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I got the Al Quaeda cards too and the Iraqi playing cards. Next to everyone one we've caught there's a red x. Does that make me something to snicker at? One of my pet peeves about liberals is the arrogant way they portray republicans as being uncaring, sub par intelligence people. You having a little snicker about it, is a perfect example. I'll take Bush and his cabinet against you and your pop any day of the week and twice on Sundays. "

[Atman]

5. It's Clark's fault, says Condi...

That is her line, and the one clip being re-run in an infinite loop on CNN..."As terrorism czar, It was Dick Clarks job to come up with a plan to defend America."

It'd Dick's fault. The other dick had nothing to do with the war, apparently.

[nodictators]

6. Clarke didn't mention that the PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

said that a "catastrophic attack" on the US would be helpful to the PNAC plans.

Thus, it follows that eliminating binLaden before 9/11 would be unhelpful to the PNAC agenda.

Bush and Rummy began implementing the PNAC plans as soon as Bush "took" the presidency. Bush derailed the ABM treaty and began buliding ABMs. Rummy was working on a space bomber. Both of these actions were in line with the major objectives of PNAC's "Rebuilding."

Remember, Bush and Rice called 9/11 an "opportunity."