# It Begins: Clarke goes public with allegations of terror mishandling **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681 "2004-03-22T04:26:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/121 "2004-03-25T23:02:31Z")
Just watched Crossfire, had to bring this in. We are given to understand that GeeDubya and crew were very, very concerned with terrorism, Al Queda and ObL previous to 9/11. One of their very tippy-tip-top priorities. Mr. Clarke’s allegations are therefore horseshit. OK. Now, the Center for American Progress [http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...iJRJ8OVF&b=6228](http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...iJRJ8OVF&b=6228) offers a fascinating way to prove just that. Now, we can take it as a given that the Bushiviks regarded their tax policy, energy policy, education policy, all of these as important, because they talked about it all the time. Bringing thier issues before the people, keeping us informed. And yet, oddly enough, the folks there at the Center, googling as best they can, cannot find a single instance of either GeeDubya, Dick Cheney, or Condoleeza Rice so much as mentioning Al Queda or ObL prior to 9/11. Now isn’t that odd? Is this an example of partisan blindness, a refusal to recognize? Is it a lie, which can be so easily disproved? So…they have a contest going, for anybody who can find so much as one such reference. What an opportunity for our Tighty Righty brethren to sing a loud “neener neener” and discredit those scurillous Bush-bashers! So how about it, guys? Or, shall I say, “bring it on”? ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/122 "2004-03-25T23:27:53Z")
All I have to say is if the Bush Admisnistration is putting the same effort to assassinate bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda, that they put to assassinate Clarke’s character, then the Bush Administration would have finished al-Qaeda off a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/123 "2004-03-26T01:09:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > How can you seriously hold any amount of blame on Bush, while simultaneously avoiding blame for Clinton? Personally, I don’t place any significant blame on Bush or Clinton for actions (or lack thereof) against Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. And I struggle to place blame on Bush for his obsession with Saddam Hussein. Why? Because he pretty much clued us in during the second presidential debate that Saddam was public enemy number one, at least in his mind. Shame on us, I say, even though I didn’t vote for him. But I do specifically blame Bush for focusing effort and resources on Iraq after 9/11 - and have done so since the beginning of the Iraq fiasco. Posts on this message board bear that out… ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/124 "2004-03-26T02:08:24Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re assuming that I believe any of them 100% of the time, which is not true. The beef I have with Clarke is that he has been thrust upon a white horse and paraded around like he’s the 2nd coming of Christ by politicians and members of the media solely because his story fuels their agenda. As soon as his 10 minutes of fame are up (very soon now), they won’t even give him a 2nd thought. I’d say that he has had more than 10 minutes of fame. I mean, he was the chief architect of the administration’s anti-terror policy after 9/11 that people fallen over each other in praise of. This isn’t just some random fella who hung around the White House: this is one of the key players in post 9/11. He shaped it. He kept us focused on Afghanistan for as long as he was there. 10 minutes of fame? The guy had a career in a major position for years and years. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/125 "2004-03-26T02:10:55Z")
The other thing is that Clarke is far from alone in expressing this view. There are a very large number of people who agree with him. We’ve already mentioned many of them. Here’s one more: "Gen. Donald Kerrick served as deputy national security advisor under Clinton and remained on the NSC for several months into the new Bush administration. Kerrick wrote his replacement, Stephen Hadley, a two-page memo. “It was classified,” Kerrick told me. “I said they needed to pay attention to al-Qaida and counterterrorism. I said we were going to be struck again. We didn’t know where or when. They never once asked me a question nor did I see them having a serious discussion about it. They didn’t feel it was an imminent threat the way the Clinton administration did. Hadley did not respond to my memo. I know he had it. I agree with Dick that they saw those problems through an Iraqi prism. But the evidence wasn’t there.” [http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0325-04.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0325-04.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/126 "2004-03-26T02:14:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Because he pretty much clued us in during the second presidential debate that Saddam was public enemy number one, at least in his mind. Shame on us, I say, even though I didn’t vote for him. But that’s another thing: he ran on a platform against nation building. If he was planning all along to take down down Saddam, occupy the country, and basically fulfill the neocon view of transforming the Middle East (which, as I’ve said many times, is a view and set of arguments that you should respect, even if you don’t agree), then attacking Iraq wasn’t a flip-flip dictated by the needs of 9/11: he was misleading everyone during his campaign about his true foriegn policy ambitions. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/127 "2004-03-26T03:01:38Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > He slanders Condi Rice, saying “I got the impression from watching her expression that she had never heard of al-Qaida before that meeting”. Which of course is ridiculous, and from what I hear the conservative radio jocks today have been having a grand time playing an interview with Rice from 2000 in which she goes into the bin Laden/al-Qaida threat in detail. Maybe you were hearing different sound bites than I, but I don’t remember Rice every mentioning Al Qaeda in the interview. She mentions Bin Laden. I guess the idea is that we are supposed to fall for the masked man fallacy here, right? ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/128 "2004-03-26T03:38:48Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > […] he was misleading everyone during his campaign about his true foriegn policy ambitions. I think it more likely that he was simply campaigning, knowing that “nation-building” was politically unpopular. His Saddam comment appeared to be a slip from the talking points - an inside glimpse to what came to mind whenever the mideast came up. Let me remind you of his [words](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221011.html): > [@](#): > > _OCTOBER 11, 2000_ > LEHRER: People watching here tonight very interested in Middle East policy. And they’re so interested that they want to make a – they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president, how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference? > > GORE: I haven’t heard a big difference right – in the last few exchanges. > > BUSH: Well, I think – it’s hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. I mean, we don’t… > > LEHRER: Saddam Hussein, you mean? > > BUSH: Yes. This debate is kinda eery to read _in hindsight_. > [@](#): > > LEHRER: Should the people of the world look at the United States, Governor, and say – should they fear us? Should they welcome our involvement? Should they see us as a friend to everybody in the world? How do you – how would you project us around the world, as president? > > BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom, where it doesn’t matter who you are or how you’re raised or where you’re from, that you can succeed. I don’t think they ought to look at us with envy. > > It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us. > […] > BUSH: Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. > > And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. > > BUSH: I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that’s in our – and it’s in our – when it’s in our best interests. > > But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti, I wouldn’t have supported either. > […] > [Bush:]But we can’t be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that’s where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. > > You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation-building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple of billions of dollars, and I’m not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before. Then Gore goes on to defend nation building. Fascinating. Bush later follows with: > [@](#): > > LEHRER: If you’re just going to – you know, the use of the military, there’s – some people are now suggesting that if you don’t want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen? > > BUSH: I don’t think so. I think – I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. > > Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets over extended, morale drops. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/129 "2004-03-26T04:20:26Z")
[http://slate.msn.com/id/2097800/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2097800/) William Saletan makes the case that a big strategy that was long time in coming shouldn’t have precluded immediate actions, and that doing so was an oversight. Which reminds me of another dimension of the hindsight issue. We have the luxury of hindsight in knowing that certain actions might or might not have helped prevent 9/11. However, that hindsight also narrows our focus too far on what conduct might have been irresponsible and negligent. For instance, just because it turns out that the terrorists did NOT target a plane to crash into the President’s known location does not mean that, at the time, it was responsible for the President to stay in his publically known and scheduled location for also thirty minutes after it became clear that terrorists were hijacking planes and using them to hit key targets. Heck, someone could have detonated a truck bomb outside the school. Just because no one did does not mean it was a good idea to leave the President in a known location for so long after attacks began, let alone have a live press conference in a known location. Likewise, just because certain actions may not have prevented 9/11 doesn’t mean that a lack of urgency in response to threats is acceptable. For all we knew then, taking certain minor actions: like killing Osama, COULD have helped prevent a major terrorist attack. Just because we now know that it probably would not have stopped what DID happen does not mean that Clinton and Clarke and Bush are off the hook for failing to do so when it was clear that he was a dangerous threat to national security. Who knows what he could have decided to work on that we could have thwarted if history had been only slightly different? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/130 "2004-03-26T04:22:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I think it more likely that he was simply campaigning, knowing that “nation-building” was politically unpopular. Doesn’t sqaure: we’ve now had several sources for the fact that his administration was planning to take Iraq right from the very start. Nation building may have been unpopular: yet that was apparently exactly what he was planning on using the military to do, all the while telling us the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/131 "2004-03-26T04:31:07Z")
Clarke is really “shaking the tree” himself, bringing out all sorts of former adminstration and agency employees who confirm and even go beyond his key stories: Now this guy has piped up: [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/26/translator/index.html](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/26/translator/index.html) > [@](#): > > Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. “Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That’s an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it’s a lie.” Edmonds has already testified before the commission, but she is under a gag order not to reveal the specifics of things she’s translated and documents she’s seen. She was fired in 2002 from the FBI for alleging that the FBI deliberately had translators move slowly in order to get more funding, but the case against her was dismissed by Ashcroft, the gag order placed. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, says that she’s credible, and her story is corroborated by others in the FBI. I guess we’d better find those documents to see is what she’s saying is true. She also says that: > [@](#): > > “I’m hoping the commission asks him real questions – like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who’d been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn’t say no,” ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/132 "2004-03-26T07:11:58Z")
David Kay has come back for another bite at the administration as well: > [@](#): > > [Kay implores US to admit mistakes in Iraq > By Missy Ryan, Reuters, 3/23/2004](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/03/23/kay_implores_us_to_admit_mistakes_in_iraq/) > > CAMBRIDGE – The former chief US weapons inspector in Iraq warned yesterday that the United States is in “grave danger” of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if it does not own up to its mistakes in Iraq. > > “The cost of our mistakes . . . with regard to the explanation of why we went to war in Iraq are far greater than Iraq itself,” David Kay said in a speech at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. > > “We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events,” he said. “The answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find most disturbing around Washington . . . is the belief . . . you can never admit you’re wrong.” ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/133 "2004-03-26T07:20:53Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Edmonds has already testified before the commission, but she is under a gag order not to reveal the specifics of things she’s translated and documents she’s seen. Edmonds probably mentioned this 1999 document: [THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY?](http://www.intellnet.org/documents/1000/090/1091.htm) (_A Report Prepared under an Interagency Agreement by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress)_ > [@](#): > > Al-Qaida’s expected retaliation for the U.S. cruise missile attack against al-Qaida’s training facilities in Afghanistan on August 20, 1998, could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation’s capital. Al-Qaida could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building. Suicide bomber(s) belonging to **al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House**. Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters. Apparently Condi hadn’t got around to looking at it when she disavowed knowledge of airplane based threats. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/134 "2004-03-26T07:30:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And yet, oddly enough, the folks there at the Center, googling as best they can, cannot find a single instance of either GeeDubya, Dick Cheney, or Condoleeza Rice so much as mentioning Al Queda or ObL prior to 9/11. > > Now isn’t that odd? Is this an example of partisan blindness, a refusal to recognize? Is it a lie, which can be so easily disproved? > > So…they have a contest going, for anybody who can find so much as one such reference. Oh, _bravo!_ That’s the most brilliantly effing thing I’ve heard all week! 😃 Can’t wait to toss this around the water cooler… ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/135 "2004-03-26T08:24:42Z")
I just can’t imagine WTF the idiots in the administration were thinking. On July 23, 2001 Bush attended a G8 meeting in Genoa: > [@](#): > > [Issue Objectives for the Genoa Summit Meeting 2001: > Transnational Organized Crime, Drugs, and Terrorism](http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/evaluations/2001genoa/objectives/crimes.html) > > **INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM** > > Another projected theme will be the fight against terrorism - which is becoming all the more relevant with the **alleged reports of a terrorist attack on the Genoa Summit this July.** It has occupied a large part of the G7 Summit agenda in the past, aircraft hijacking being the first non-economic issue discussed at a G7 meeting in Bonn 1978. Mr. Bianco indicated that there is a widespread concern regarding regionalist and nationalist types of terrorism, in particular if linked to Islamic fundamentalism. > > A way of intensifying the fight against terrorism would be carried out through juridical channels - notably the EU and the Commissar Antonio Vitorino-that will promote a unitary and homogenous definition of terrorism for the member-states. Mr. Bianco also announced certain concrete measures to intensify the circulation of information, which is essential for the efficiency of action and collaboration. Italy promoted a Convention on cyber-terrorism and technological crime, which constitute the new frontier of criminality, to be held in Rome on March 18/19. It is likely that the commitment to seek ratification of the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism will appear in the final communiqué, as well as to support the work of Anti-terrorism Experts and the Lyon Group. **Recent threats by Osama bin Laden, the most prominent anti-American terrorist, to assassinate President George W. Bush, combined with his admitted bombing of the US warship Cole in Yemen last year, make terrorism a prominent issue and an assured agenda topic, especially with the US.** > [@](#): > > [The G8 summit in Genoa](http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,524209,00.html) > > **What is security like for G8?** > > Horrendous. There are upwards of 16,000 troops and police on duty - some reports say more than 20,000. The centre of the ancient city has been declared a “red zone” and sealed off with steel barriers. The airport, rail stations and the seaport have been closed to civilian traffic. **There are missile batteries at the airport to counter any terrorist threat.** Around 700 would-be protesters have been turfed out of Genoa, including several Britons. > [@](#): > > [G8 summit death shocks leaders](http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/20/genoa.protests/) > > U.S. President George W. Bush will not stay with other world leaders because of fear of terrorist attack. > > About 15,000 police are on duty as part of the $110 million security operation. **Surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and naval ships form part of the security operation, which is also responsible for defending the summit from attacks by terrorists.** > [@](#): > > [Genoa’s Bizarre Fortress Summit](http://www.jrnyquist.com/july23/gordon_frisch.htm) > > **The CIA station chief in Italy warned the Italian secret services that al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group, might be planning a suicide attack on the summit. Italy took security precautions seriously and placed Spada surface-to-air missiles at strategic locations around Genoa in the event of a terrorist air attack.** So then a couple of weeks later, on August 6, Bush gets a warning that Al Qaeda are going to attack the US using aircraft. What does Bush do? Nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/136 "2004-03-26T08:47:09Z")
Jeez. Turns out it was in Time magazine in June 2001 as well. > [@](#): > > [Bin Laden Rides Again: Myth vs. Reality > A ‘plot’ to assassinate President Bush and a second to attack the U.S. military in the Gulf —all in the same week. TIME.com’s Tony Karon sifts the Bin Laden hype > Wednesday, Jun. 20, 2001](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,131866,00.html) > > That It Boy of international terror, Osama Bin Laden, is back in the news. Headlines from just the past week: “Russians Reveal Bin Laden Plot to Kill Bush at G8 Meeting.” “Bin Laden Video Claims Responsibility for Cole Bombing.” “Yemen Foils Bin Laden Plot to Kill U.S. Investigators.” “Bin Laden Group Planned to Blow Up U.S. Embassy in India…” And finally, at week’s end, U.S. forces all over the Gulf confined to barracks and ships put to sea because of a “non-specific but credible threat” from Bin Laden’s group. Vile acts and wretched conspiracies reported from all over the world, all carrying the imprimatur of the Saudi terror tycoon skulking in the hills of Afghanistan, his name now the globally recognizable shorthand for Islamist terror in the same way that “Xerox” has become for “photocopy.” And after the event, Bush wants to know whether Saddam did it, and Blair has to convince Bush to go after Bin Laden rather than Saddam. Real bunch of geniuses in charge. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/137 "2004-03-26T10:47:12Z")
**Desmo** : > [@](#): > > - No, no, I quite understand where you’re coming from, I couldn’t understand what your point was in quoting that. I thought it (the quote) sounded like BS, and said so.\* Actually, upon a second reading, I understand where you might have gotten your impression. I had to ask myself why I missed so obvious an implication; and after a few minutes of reflection it occurred to me that, from my perspective, a potential inability to continue pursuing foreign policy initiatives on Bush’s part is, by definition, a GOOD thing. So the possibility that one might interpret the passage as a kind of underhanded support for Bush slipped right past me, if you see what I mean. As far as it goes, I doubt the hearings will have quite so powerful an impact as the author of that little snippet believes, myself. They certainly aren’t getting much airplay on this side of the pond, at least not up here in the Great White North. I think the problem for the Bush posse is more of a domestic issue, and tied to the election. Fundamentally, it’s a problem of public perception. If Clarke’s “version” of the Bush administration gains “traction” – if his narrative of lax incompetence, obsession with Iraq, and so forth, manages to become the dominant media version of the presidency – then Bush will never have a chance in November. Rather, he will be held _accountable_, possibly for the first time since he assumed office. And I suspect they are afraid of Clarke, that Clarke might just pull it off. Already in his first responses to the administration’s attacks he’s shown shrewd aplomb and fighter spirit. Regarding the accusations circulating around his friendship with Beers, for example, he’s simply explained that they have a 25-year-long friendship that he fully intends to maintain. What self-respecting right-winger can impugn that kind of loyalty? And on Larry King the other night he was even more direct than in his Congressional testimony, flatly stating the Rice wasn’t doing her job prior to 9/11 and practically laying the blame at her doorstep. For once we’re seeing someone who, when punched, punches back. And man, the counter-punch is a doozy. In addition, Clarke has impeccable Republican credentials. He’s a staunchly right-wing, nationalist hawk. (I suspect that, other than our shared view that the current administration is incompetent, he and I would have no political opinions in common whatsoever. By contrast, he and **Sam** are on literally the same sheet of music, if only **Sam** would realize it.) Accusations that he’s somehow working for Kerry are in this context simply ludicrous – only the nutballs buy into that blather. So I judge that Clarke is positioned in the field of the right in such a manner that his defection can be potentially disastrous. His criticism is much harsher and more difficult to rebuff than, say, that of a democratic critic (like Howard Dean, for example), whose arguments can be rhetorically dismissed as “liberal drivel.” A lot of posters in this thread have noticed that most of Clarke’s views are not particularly new, and the facts he reports on are known to anyone who’s picked up a copy of Al Franken’s _Liars_, for example. What’s new is _who_ is saying these things. The administration is going to try to treat Clarke the way it has treated so many of its other critics, but the strategy might boomerang on them. If Rice responds in kind to Clarke’s accusations, what might he say next? I look forward to seeing that match – Rice would have a better chance at KO’ing Mohammed Ali in his prime. It could only be worse for the Bushitas if they were to lose someone like Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh. Finally: thanks for the fascinating link, **Squink**! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/138 "2004-03-26T10:58:15Z")
Now, guys, fair’s fair, and all. We’ve been hogging the bandwidth with all these cites and proof and documentation and stuff. Time to let the other guys get in with all of thiers. I’m sure they are eager to display the firm foundations of thier opinions, but we’ve been crowding them out. OK, pals and gals. We’re all ears. At either end of our grins. While we wait, lets mull this rather odd revelation > **[THREATS AND RESPONSES: POLITICAL MEMO; No Public Appearance by Person Panel...](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/us/threats-responses-political-memo-no-public-appearance-person-panel-wants-most.html)** > > National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is in middle of political storm, furiously defending both Bush administration and her own reputation, as Sept 11 commission clamors for her testimony; her efforts to blunt criticism in various televised... “…As she _prepares to leave her job_ at the end of the year, Ms. Rice, the president’s national security adviser, now finds herself at the center of a political storm, furiously defending both the White House and her own reputation…” Anybody else remember anything about this floating about? Or is this the first we’ve heard about it? A sudden urge to spend more time with her family? A short walk off the boat deck to see whats at the end of the plank? Boy, you just never know, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/139 "2004-03-26T12:06:30Z")
If Rice actually said that, I wonder what’s going on in the background. Is she going to be the sacrificial lamb? Or does she simply recognize that she’s finished? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681/140 "2004-03-26T12:40:23Z")
This just in: > [@](#): > > [Rice Is Agreeable to Return for More of 9/11 Panel’s Queries > Published: March 26, 2004](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/26PANE.html?hp) > > “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people,” Mr. Bush said to a burst of applause. Now that’s getting pretty sloppy. He was warned of exactly that on August 6 2001. Earlier, he’d said stuff like: > [@](#): > > [Bush denies he ignored threat of al Qaeda > March 24, 2004](http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/12623-print.shtml) > > “The facts are these: George Tenet (the director of the CIA) briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threat to the United States of America, and had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11, we would have acted.” Which left him weasel room that he wasn’t told the exact date or target. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-begins-clarke-goes-public-with-allegations-of-terror-mishandling/235681.md?page=8)