Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 9/11 Record1600 vs. Richard Clarke.(White House official response)
National Review Online ^ | 3/22/04 | White House staff

Posted on 03/22/2004 10:06:53 AM PST by KJacob

An NRO Primary Document

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the text of a White House release issued right before the 60 Minutes interview with former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke aired on Sunday, March 21.

Myth: The President didn't treat al-Qa'ida as a serious threat before September 11.

The Facts:

The President recognized the threat posed by al-Qa'ida, and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al-Qa'ida.

The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was "tired of swatting flies" and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qa'ida, rather than simply waiting to respond.

The President's national security team worked aggressively and rapidly to develop a new strategy that would employ all elements of our national power: military, intelligence, diplomatic actions, and financial pressure. The new strategy called for military options to attack al-Qa'ida and Taliban leadership, command-and-control, ground forces, and other targets. It focused on the crucial link between al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, recognizing that the two were ultimately inseparable. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al-Qa'ida sanctuary, and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. Our strategy focused on the crucial role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to stop its support to the Taliban, understanding the implications for the stability of Pakistan and its relations with India.

NSC Deputies, the second-ranking officials in the NSC departments, met frequently between March and September 2001 to decide the many complex issues involved in the development of the comprehensive strategy against al-Qa'ida, and also oversaw the work by their staffs on these issues. Contrary to Dick Clarke's assertion that he was not able to brief senior officials until April 30, the first Deputies-level meeting on al-Qa'ida was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke conducted the briefing. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al-Qa'ida should be prepared.

Although the issues involved were complex, the President's team completed the new strategy in less than six months and had the strategy ready to go to the President on September 4.

Myth: We didn't listen to Dick Clarke. Clarke had proposed ideas against al-Qa'ida, such as launching missiles from an armed Predator or modestly increasing assistance to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, that would have prevented 9-11 but these plans were not acted upon.

The Facts: At Dr. Rice's request, in January 2001, Dick Clarke presented her with a number of ideas to address the al-Qa'ida threat. The Administration acted upon the ideas that made sense. For example, the Administration approved increased assistance to Uzbekistan, a frontline state in opposing al-Qa'ida, and pushed hard to develop a weaponized Predator unmanned aerial vehicle.

Although the Administration pushed development of the Predator, the Predator was not available to be used against bin-Ladin before September 11. Extensive work and testing was required to develop a warhead that would be effective, and NSC Deputies were told that testing would not be completed until August at the earliest. Even if the Predator had been available, the Intelligence Community never presented senior officials with specific intelligence regarding bin Ladin's location. At the same time, the Intelligence Community also told senior Administration officials that killing bin Ladin would not destroy al-Qa'ida. Moreover, we know now that, according to the FBI, 16 of the 19 hijackers were in the United States by June 2001; there is no reason to believe that killing bin Ladin would have affected their plan.

Increasing assistance to the Northern Alliance also would not have prevented 9-11. By 2001, the Northern Alliance had been beaten down by military defeats and controlled less than 10 percent of Afghanistan. Providing a small additional amount of money to the Northern Alliance, as Clarke suggested, would not have enabled them to sweep across Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. Moreover, providing such assistance likely would have damaged U.S. efforts later to reach out to other tribes in Afghanistan. NSC Deputies developed a more comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qa'ida that included assisting tribal groups throughout the country, as well as providing significantly more assistance to the Northern Alliance. But such assistance, even if provided earlier, would not have disrupted the 9-11 hijackers, who were not in Afghanistan, but were assembling in the United States.

Although Clarke suggested some ideas to address al-Qa'ida outside the United States, he did not advocate to the Bush Administration any plan of action to address al-Qa'ida's presence in the United States, such as the need to improve collection of intelligence information by the FBI and to reverse longstanding statutory restrictions and DoJ policies limiting sharing of domestic intelligence on terrorism between the CIA and FBI; or to take actions to root out al-Qa'ida cells in the United States and to make our borders less porous for al-Qa'ida and other terrorists. He also never made us aware of any intelligence assessments from the preceding Administration concerning the use of aircraft as weapons to attack the homeland.

Myth: Dick Clarke was never allowed to brief the President on the threat posed by al-Qa'ida.

The Facts: Dick Clarke was the President's principal counterterrorism expert. If he had asked to brief the President on any counterterrorism issue, Clarke could have done so. He never did.

Instead, the only time Dick Clarke asked to brief the President was during the height of the terrorism threat spike in June 2001, when he asked to brief the President — not on al-Qa'ida, but on cybersecurity. He did so.

Myth: The Administration did not treat the intelligence chatter about an imminent attack during the spring and summer of 2001 with sufficient urgency; Principals did not "go to battle stations."

The Facts: The President and senior Administration officials were very concerned about the threat spike during the spring and summer of 2001

The President and his NSC Principals received intelligence reports about the intelligence "chatter" during this period, but none of the intelligence was specific as to time, place, or manner, and was focused overseas.

The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG"), chaired by Dick Clarke, met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period. The CSG was at "battle stations." If Dick Clarke or other members of this group needed anything, they had immediate and daily access to their superiors. Dick Clarke never suggested that the President or the Principals needed to intervene to take any immediate action on these threats.

Dick did not ask to brief the President on the al-Qa'ida threat during this period — or at any other time. Instead, in the middle of the al-Qa'ida threat period, Clarke asked to brief the President, but on cybersecurity, not al-Qaida. He did so.

Formal, in-person meetings among Principals were not required; unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet for an intelligence briefing. Secretary Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qa'ida and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet. Dr. Rice and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld also have a 7:15 am phone call every morning and talk frequently during the day, and in this period they discussed actions to respond to the threat during these calls.

Although the threats were focused overseas, in July, Dr. Rice specifically directed Dick Clarke and his CSG to meet to consider possible threats to the homeland and to coordinate actions by domestic agencies, including the FAA, FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration, to increase security and surveillance. During the Summer of 2001, FAA and FBI issued numerous terrorist threat warnings, including a warning about "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States." Security at federal buildings also were reviewed for vulnerabilities. Overseas, we also disrupted terrorist cells worldwide, significantly increased security at our embassies, and directed US Naval vessels to leave high-risk ports in the Middle East and heighten security at military facilities.

Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.

The Facts: The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.

When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qa'ida and Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it.

Myth: The Administration didn't act on Dick Clarke's advice to hold a Cabinet meeting early in the Administration to discuss the threat posed by al-Qa'ida.

The Facts: NSC Principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat because the threat was already well understood by the Principals and because Dr. Rice had already asked that a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al-Qa'ida be prepared.

In addition, unlike President Clinton, President Bush met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, for an intelligence briefing. Secretary Card, Dr. Rice, and the Vice President sat in on the briefings. The threat posed by al-Qa'ida and the need for a response was discussed regularly at these high-level meetings, as well as in frequent, regular discussions between Dr. Rice and Tenet.

Moreover, NSC Deputies, the second-ranking officials in the NSC departments, met frequently between March and September 2001 to decide the many complex issues involved in the development of the comprehensive strategy against al-Qa'ida, and also oversaw the work by their staffs on these issues. Contrary to Dick Clarke's assertion that he did not brief senior officials until April 30, the first meeting of Deputies was held on March 7, and Dick Clarke briefed the group on al-Qa'ida. Deputies agreed that a National Security Policy Directive on al-Qa'ida should be prepared.

Myth: Before 9/11 the Administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al-Qa'ida.

The Facts: The President and the Administration were legitimately concerned about the threat posed by Iraq. Iraq had sponsored terrorism, attacked its neighbors, used chemical weapons, violated 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions, kicked out UN weapons inspectors, was circumventing sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal activities, and continued to try to shoot down U.S. and U.K aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zones.

But the Administration completed a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qa'ida well before it completed a strategy to address Iraq. In fact, the directive to eliminate al-Qa'ida, approved by the Principals on September 4, 2001, was President Bush's first major foreign policy directive.

Myth: Dick Clarke was demoted and "stripped of his Cabinet rank" by President Bush.

The Facts: Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank.

Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principal counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did.

During the Clinton Administration, Dick Clarke regularly briefed President Clinton because President Clinton did not meet regularly with his DCI. Since the beginning of his Administration, President Bush has met daily with his DCI for his intelligence briefing. President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: richardclarke
I did a search and did not see where this had been posted. Good rebuttal.
1 posted on 03/22/2004 10:06:54 AM PST by KJacob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Bob Woodward in his book Bush at War was given unprecedented access to the president and his administration, including Clarke. Clarke did not mention his concerns about a "focus on Iraq."

The Bush administration was continuing the Clinton administration's foreign policy which called for regime change in Iraq.

Iraq's involvement in supporting terrorists is longer than I can post her but some of the more obvious: Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. Paying Palestinian bomber's families. Salmon Pak where terrorists used a real airplane to learn how to hijack OUR planes.

Clarke claims that Condi Rice didn't even know who Al Qaeda was. I'm nearly falling on the floor laughing. The entire world knew UBL was a threat when he was interviewed in a world exclusive interview, by CNN's Nic Robertson in August of 1998, televised in it's entirety to the world via CNN and CNN International and when he famously repeated his jihad against America.

Just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.

Clarke, who was a primary source for Miniter's book, detailed a meeting of top Clinton officials in the wake of al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

He urged them to take immediate military action. But his advice found no takers.

Reporting on Miniter's book, the National Review summarized the episode:

"At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden."

The list of excuses seemed endless:

"Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.

"Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was.

"Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process.

"Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

And what about President Clinton? According to what Clarke told Miniter, he rejected the attack plan. Instead Clinton twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.

Clarke offered a chillingly prescient quote from one aide who agreed with him about Clinton administration inaction. "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?" said the dismayed Clintonista

2 posted on 03/22/2004 10:07:42 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Monsoor Ijaz said today that Clarke knew full well that Saddam and OBL were working hand in glove for years and challenged Clarke to appear on any television show to debate this matter. Practically called the guy a liar.

What Clarke would just as soon we forget:

Okay - here are just a FEW of the links between terrorism and AQ specifically and Iraq.

Read about what the press was saying in the 90's about the links between Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1

Growing evidence of AQ/Iraq link:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts

Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the World:http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

Saddam link to bin Laden:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

The Al Qaeda connections:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

NYT - 1998 - OBL and Iraq agree to cooperate:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts

Document links AQ and Iraq:http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

Iraq and terrorism:http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

WSJ - Iraq and AQ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts

Iraq and Iran contact AQ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts

Proof Saddam worked with AQ: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml

Saddam's AQ Connection:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

Terrorist killed in Iraq after refusing to train Al Qaeda terrorists:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

Osama's Best Friend: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts

Case Closed - OBL and Iraq agree to work together:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Terrorist behind 9/11 trained in Iraq:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1039898/posts?page=154

The Clinton view of Iraq/AQ ties: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

Saddam's ties to terror: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

NYT - tape shows Wesley Clark tying AQ and Iraq: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts
3 posted on 03/22/2004 10:08:56 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Source, please?
4 posted on 03/22/2004 10:09:26 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Great post KJ.

Clarke is a liar. He stated on 60 minutes that Clinton met with Tenet and Freeh on a day to day basis. A lie.

5 posted on 03/22/2004 10:10:12 AM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Thanks for this excellent post.
6 posted on 03/22/2004 10:10:34 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
read later
7 posted on 03/22/2004 10:11:18 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/clarke200403221131.asp
8 posted on 03/22/2004 10:11:53 AM PST by jwalsh07 (We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
The President specifically told Dr. Rice that he was "tired of swatting flies" and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qa'ida, rather than simply waiting to respond.

See..the libs are right.

It's obvious now that the only reason 9-11 occurred was in response to our intended offensive. If we had left them alone they would never have attacked us.
oops..just thought, we did leave them alone and they still attacked us.

How can that be? I'm so confused ;-)

9 posted on 03/22/2004 10:14:49 AM PST by evad (Such an enemy cannot be deterred, detained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Bump!
10 posted on 03/22/2004 10:14:49 AM PST by Calpernia (http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Thank you
11 posted on 03/22/2004 10:15:50 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Bump-a-rooni!

This is a most excellent dissertation on the willingness of the left to misstate facts to get ahead politically. Of course it all depends on what the definition of terorrism is...

12 posted on 03/22/2004 10:29:59 AM PST by RedWing9 (No tag here... Just want to stay vague...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedWing9
I'm new here. I'm a little puzzled. Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

Please don't flame me. I'm trying to understand.
13 posted on 03/22/2004 10:38:23 AM PST by FreedominAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence.

AWESOME response.

14 posted on 03/22/2004 10:38:31 AM PST by Naspino (HTTP://NASPINO.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedominAmerica
If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

No. It takes a village to raise a liar. :-)

15 posted on 03/22/2004 10:43:38 AM PST by Coop ("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreedominAmerica
I'm new here. I'm a little puzzled. Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

Please don't flame me. I'm trying to understand.
******


Clarke may have been a Republican in the past.
He was a career diplomat starting in 1973 - retired with 30 years in civil service. He was not a poitical appointee, who had to get approval from the senate, and who could be removed by the admin who appointed him.

If you stick around FR for a little while you will read numerous examples of leftist lying attacks. The fact that Clarke is lying, is teaching a course with Randall Beers 9Kerry's foreigh policy advisor), and is defending the Clinton administration, does not mean that all liberals are liars. The two ideas are just simultaneously correct.
16 posted on 03/22/2004 10:45:24 AM PST by maica (World Peace starts with W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Thanks for those links Peach!
17 posted on 03/22/2004 10:47:18 AM PST by PogySailor (Proud member of the RAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peach; marron; Kenny Bunk
Simple to attack Clarke.

Focus on his comment that Condi Rice appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda. Condi should come out saying the statement is absurd and insulting.

The statement is ridiculous, most Americans, let alone security officials, had heard of AQ. Remember the Cole?

Clarke's a nut, and his statements only make sense in a Kerry environment where he's trying to detach Iraq from 12 years of experience there, with the sanctions, bombings, no fly zones, etc. all for political purposes. Call them on it.

Clarke's as much a nut as the Treasury official. Overthrowing Saddam was express government, Kerry-approved law since the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
18 posted on 03/22/2004 10:54:38 AM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreedominAmerica
I believe he was a holdover from the clintoon admin.
19 posted on 03/22/2004 11:01:54 AM PST by mathluv (Protect my grandchildren's future. Vote for Bush/Cheney '04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreedominAmerica
Clarke's claims are based on half truths and hysteria. Just because someone states they are 'Republican' really doesn't mean they are. It's their record, and clearly Clarke is a liberal. Notice how Clinton was never brought up in the interview, or the facts that terrorism happened during his administration, BTW, the Clinton Administration did nothing to stop terrorists, and had at least THREE opportunities where they could have gotten bin Laden. The media would like to rewrite history, claiming all the bad things that have happened from 9/11 onward are a direct result of the Bush Administration alone, conveniently forgetting all the attacks which happened during the Clinton Administration.

Here

and here

PS, welcome aboard!

20 posted on 03/22/2004 11:12:58 AM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Flip on C-span1 the 9-11 Commission is taking questions(and spreading LIES)
21 posted on 03/22/2004 11:14:20 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I agree Clarke's a nut, and you are right, they are trying to forget about the 12 year campaign against Iraq that was fast unraveling.

Clinton had ignored the fact that his Iraq policy was doomed; Iraq had bought several votes on the Security Council by means of oil contracts that were only valid if sanctions ended with Saddam still in place. The writing on the wall was clear to anyone paying attention. The only thing slowing up the process of doing away with sanctions was, ironically, the fact that so many people were making so much money thanks to the UN sanctions program, they would have to be weaned off and bought out. Otherwise, the sanctions were obviously a dead letter.

Thats the way it was when Bush entered office, and he faced the situation that Saddam was going to emerge from his box with French, German, Russian, and Chinese backing, stronger than ever. Our only choice was to watch it happen, or act quickly to remove him. Bush started working from day one on the latter. The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese fought him all the way, for very obvious reasons.

It is astonishing that a security expert like Clarke would have missed all of this. But fortunately Rice is a little quicker on the uptake.

We should also call Clarke and his clones on their continued flat assertions that there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda... I was going back through some of the material that has come out over the past couple of years and it is really startling to realize how much is out there in open sources. It is hard to imagine how folks like Clarke and the alphabets can continue to repeat the same claims with a straight face.
22 posted on 03/22/2004 11:21:59 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
I take it back. We have it...

Guy recommending people buy book American Dynasty (about the Bushes).

What a hit piece this is.

I cannot watch any longer...sorry.
23 posted on 03/22/2004 11:23:24 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I can't watch any more either, I think the Senate will be easier to stomach.
24 posted on 03/22/2004 11:27:24 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KJacob

25 posted on 03/22/2004 11:29:09 AM PST by Fiddlstix (This Space Available for Rent or Lease by the Day, Week, or Month. Reasonable Rates. Inquire within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I love how the WH calls him "Dick Clarke" instead of Richard Clarke. They are the only people I hear calling him that, and it makes him sound like a little kid instead of somebody important. Dick really is not a name anybody of an official status would want....they would obviously prefer Richard because it actually sounds like an adult's name.
26 posted on 03/22/2004 11:33:32 AM PST by rwfromkansas ("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
One can get into a tit for tat, and that's valuable...

But to discredit him, as I think he deserves, I think the Condi "facial expression" comment should be emphasized...since he really seemed to believe it!

It's absurd to think Condi hadn't heard of AQ, and maybe it should be pointed out that Clarke might have a problem with Black women...

I wonder what her "expression" really telegraphed...polite shock at the idiocy of this fool?

27 posted on 03/22/2004 11:48:11 AM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
But to discredit him, as I think he deserves, I think the Condi "facial expression" comment should be emphasized...since he really seemed to believe it! It's absurd to think Condi hadn't heard of AQ, and maybe it should be pointed out that Clarke might have a problem with Black women...

Anyone who underestimates a woman from Stanford who sits on the board of a major oil company is beyond mockery. This guy deserves to be shown for the fool that he obviously is. He and Joe Wilson and Kerry deserve each other, for certain. But we don't deserve these guys, they should never be any closer to the levers of power than the public tour, or the chain link fence outside the grounds.

28 posted on 03/22/2004 12:14:02 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
Just because someone states they are 'Republican' really doesn't mean they are.

A truth often displayed on this forum.

29 posted on 03/22/2004 12:26:30 PM PST by itsahoot (The lesser of two evils, is evil still...Alan Keyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
During the Clinton Administration, Dick Clarke regularly briefed President Clinton because President Clinton did not meet regularly with his DCI.

Bill Clintoon did nothing regularly except try and make a Legacy for himself. This also depends upon what the definition of regularly is also. Does it mean once a week or once a month? Knowing what we know now about our former peasant of the U.S.A,(and a mere peasant he will forever remain) it was most likely once a year.Regularly,------- that is entirely laughable.

30 posted on 03/22/2004 1:14:14 PM PST by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug and Holier- than- Thou Socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedominAmerica
I'm new here.

Lame excuse...

Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

Well, he spent 8 years in the Clinton admin... Kinda makes you think, eh?

31 posted on 03/22/2004 6:28:37 PM PST by RedWing9 (No tag here... Just want to stay vague...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreedominAmerica
I'm new here. I'm a little puzzled. Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

Richard Clarke got a book deal for his "revelations". "Book deals" are also a form of payoff commonly used by the liberal establishment for favors from their friends. Clarke's book is being promoted by CBS (via the 60 Minutes vehicle) and is published by Simon & Schuster. CBS and Simon & Schuster are both owned by Viacom, so what you're witnessing is one big commercial for a Viacom property, and an undeclared political donation to the Kerry campaign.

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

Well, if Clarke is getting paid cash to spread lies for the benefit of the liberal establishment's candidate, I guess that DOES make liberals liars.

BTW, it's common courtesy to reply to those who respond to your queries around here (Zulu excepted).

32 posted on 03/23/2004 4:06:30 AM PST by an amused spectator (John Kerry: Future Leader Of The Traffic Citation On Terror)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Doesn't Mr. Cheney refer to himself as "Dick Cheney."

I've noticed that some of the response here are polite, but others are rude.

I'm probably in the wrong place, and I'm also strongly considering voting against George W. Bush this fall. I'm not impressed by his response to Richard Clarke's concerns, and I'm not impressed by many of the responses to my questions here.
33 posted on 03/23/2004 6:41:35 PM PST by FreedominAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson