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

Skip to comments.

The Clark Effect- another Leftover from The Decade of Frauds
various FR links | 03-25-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

Posted on 03/25/2004 12:56:18 AM PST by backhoe

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104432/posts
Clarke in '02: Bush Admin Began Counterterror Plan in Jan. '01 (Clarke Caught!Fox Exclusive!)
FoxNews ^ | 24 Mar 04 | Jim Angle
Fox is ripping Clarke to shreds right now.
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104097/posts
THE LETTER FROM CLARKE TO PRESIDENT BUSH
The smoking gun ^ | CLARKE
Another great FR find and post re the liar and changer of reality/history, Clarke.
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104731/posts
Chair-Warmer on the Hot Seat
World Net Daily ^ | 24 March 2004 | Ann Coulter
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104730/posts
Clarke's complicity in crash cover-up
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Jack Cashill
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104900/posts
Wolfowitz vs. Clarke: The deputy defense secretary on Richard Clarke’s “creative memory.”
National Review Online ^ | March 24, 2004
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104885/posts
Bush critic cites terror failures
Washington Times ^ | 3/25/04 | Bill Gertz
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104829/posts
..WOOLSEY on FoX = "CLARKE doesn't listen to others"..
FoX News Channel 'On the Record' with Gretta VanSustren ^ | 3/24/2004 | JAMES WOOLSEY
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104870/posts
Clarke’s Golden Ticket
townhall.com ^ | 3/25/04 | Gary Aldrich
The television networks’ blindness to Clarke’s purposeful memory loss is nothing more than classic media bias.
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104863/posts
Born-again critic of the Bush administration
townhall.com ^ | 3/25/04 | Larry Elder
The Democrats may gloat today, but I will wager the door will hit them square on their noses later, and this "Get Bush out of office" investigation won't have the political leverage in November that the Democrats are hoping for. Matter of fact, most of the voters are probably not even paying attention to the blatant partisanship by the commission members and the attacks from those like Clarke going on in these hearings. We have to remember this, we're a long way from November.
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104695/posts
Bush Team Reveals Clarke as Formerly Anonymous Defender of White House Policies
TBO.COM ^
They think we are just stupid. I am sitting here nearly speechless. The reporters haven't read what is right in our hands and are trying to pretend it is just spin. It isn't spin. The things he said is 2002 are factually correct, he doesn't deny them, and they completely destroy their entire case. On WLS in Chicago, normally quite conservative on these things, they are parroting in a slow drone this "ferocious attack" talking point - when they lose utterly, ignore the substance and claim that losing is all the other guy's fault for being meanspirited for showing they are wrong. They think we can't read.
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104909/posts
RICHARD CLARKE'S SHIFTING STORIES
New York Post ^ | 3/25/04
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104908/posts
CLARKE'S COLLAPSE
New York Post ^ | 3/25/04 | RICH LOWRY
 
 
Clarke on Tape: Bush Admin. Planned to Eliminate al-Qaida
NewsMax.com ^ | 3/24/04 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103511/posts                          CLARKE WITNESSED FIRST-HAND THE CLINTONS' UTTER FAILURE TO FIGHT TERRORISM
NRO ^ | September 11, 2003, 11:45 a.m. | Richard Miniter, Kathryn Jean Lopez
 
 
BACKFIRED [The Failures of Richard A. Clarke]
The New Republic | November 5, 2001 | Ryan Lizza
 
 
 
 
 
It appears to me the plan is to try and smear Pres. Bush and Co. as much as possible so as to be able to moderate back to a fall back position of: "well there is plenty of blame to go around therefore we won't blame anybody." It sickens me to know that is what they are going to do.
 
 
 
Ijaz: Clarke Blocked bin Laden Extradition
NewsMax ^ | Monday, March 22, 2004 | Carl Limbacher
 
 
 
 
CLARKE IN 92: BUSH WAS LAX ON IRAQ
The Washington Post (BRIEF EXCERPT ONLY, IN COMPLIANCE WITH COPYRIGHT LAW AND LAT/WP VS FR] | JUNE 5, 1992 | R. Jeffrey Smith
It's really over for the Dems, isn't it? Ordinary people do research on the WWW and Fox News picks up the story. No more media blackouts...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: backhoe; clarke; richardclarke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 03/25/2004 12:56:18 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Thanks for the links - nice work.
2 posted on 03/25/2004 1:54:24 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (Defeat J Frondeur Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Thank you also. THIS IS WAR! UNBELIEVABLE WHAT A LIAR THIS MAN CLARKE IS!
3 posted on 03/25/2004 3:03:30 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776; ThePythonicCow
Thanks for looking.

The "other side" simply has no honesty, no honor left.

It used to be that the opposition occupied a somewhat different position ( more government ) and you could disagree or argue the point- now, they just lie, spin, change stories or positions endlessly, shout down, talk over, and tell tall tales.

4 posted on 03/25/2004 3:13:22 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Clarke is a piece of work. While he said yesterday he did not work for JFKerry, guess that means not collecting money, he as a counter-terriorism "specialists" knows very well who his "book" supports.

Could it be that it is Hillry that he takes orders from?
5 posted on 03/25/2004 3:13:56 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104924/posts
Fox News reveals unnamed source - White House allows identifying Clarke
Baltimore Sun ^ | 2/25/04 | David Folkenflik



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104928/posts
Pursuing al-Qaida: Learning (or not) from Clinton failures
Union Leader ^ | 3/25/04
Clarke's lies will prove to be a watershed moment for the GOP.
6 posted on 03/25/2004 3:21:32 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Great links...thanks!
7 posted on 03/25/2004 3:31:12 AM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lainde
Thanks for looking!
8 posted on 03/25/2004 3:44:51 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
What still Amazes me , is how Democrats repond to lies ,like Pyrhanna after fresh meat
9 posted on 03/25/2004 4:46:36 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
"It's really over for the Dems, isn't it? Ordinary people do research on the WWW and Fox News picks up the story. No more media blackouts..."

Surely asking too much but I want to see Clarke's letter/earlier interview et al on the front pages of the NYT;Washington Post - Lib Media et al; including a '60 Minutes' segment where they eat Clarke's dirt.

In the meantime, share a grattitue for all those who hold to the value of 'Truth' and for those Media outlets who will share it.

. . . 'the net' and Free Republic, notwithstanding!

10 posted on 03/25/2004 6:04:18 AM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe; lainde
"Great links...thanks!"

. . .and dittos to that lainde!

11 posted on 03/25/2004 6:06:50 AM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cricket
Thanks for looking- the story is getting out, Hannity & Rush have been beating on it.

After hearing Rush's summary yesterday, my largely apolitical wife said

"Well, he could have saved a lot of words and just said 'another lying Clintonista...'"

12 posted on 03/25/2004 6:13:27 AM PST by backhoe (The 1990's? The Decade of Fraud(s)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Excellent. Thank you. b
13 posted on 03/25/2004 6:46:38 AM PST by Barset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105015/posts
Rice Forcefully Rebuts Clarke Testimony (Releases E-mail...)
CNN ^ | 3/25/04 | John King
14 posted on 03/25/2004 7:11:49 AM PST by backhoe (The 1990's? The Decade of Fraud(s)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Barset
Thanks for looking.
15 posted on 03/25/2004 7:15:55 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105052/posts
RICHARD CLARKE EITHER IS .. OR WAS .. A LIAR
Neal Nuze ^ | 3/25/04 | Neal Boortz
16 posted on 03/25/2004 8:12:49 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105050/posts
Fox Reports Clarke Transcript Other Networks Ignore
Talon News ^ | 3/25/2004 | Jeff Gannon, White House Correspondent

17 posted on 03/25/2004 8:26:01 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
I gathered some old threads on him, mostly about the Time magazine article and his background rebuttal that Angle revealed HERE.

I think he was the source for that 2002 Time article, leaking to the press in an attempt to get ahead. What a self-centered loser.

18 posted on 03/25/2004 8:41:11 AM PST by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Thanks- very helpful!
19 posted on 03/25/2004 9:14:56 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

20 posted on 03/25/2004 11:07:46 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ... Support Our Troops! ... Thrash the demRats in November!!! ... Beat BoXer!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105141/posts
Freeper Research - Richard Clarke campaign contribs - ONLY TO DEMOCRATS!
opensecrets.org ^ | 3/25/04 | adam_az
21 posted on 03/25/2004 2:09:12 PM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105176/posts
Goss Questions Truthfulness of Clarke’s 2002 Testimony- could launch investigation soon
Roll Call ^ | 3-25-2004 | Ethan Wallison
22 posted on 03/25/2004 4:13:39 PM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
bump....great job.
23 posted on 03/25/2004 11:17:36 PM 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: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105399/posts
Richard Clarke, at War With Himself
Time ^ | 3/26/04 | ROMESH RATNESAR
Clarke has to be publicly discredited and CBS made to retract the 60 minutes interview. Clarke has been bought. Bush had better not play softball with this one, his re-election depends on it
24 posted on 03/26/2004 12:31:24 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105397/posts
Clarke's contradictions
Washington Times ^ | 3/26/04
25 posted on 03/26/2004 12:35:31 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
placemarker
26 posted on 03/26/2004 12:38:21 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105327/posts
**Richard Clarke Takes Position as ABC News Consultant**
ABC News | March 25, 2004
I've never seen anything like this assault in my life.
27 posted on 03/26/2004 12:45:14 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1104432/posts
Clarke in '02: Bush Admin Began Counterterror Plan in Jan. '01 (Clarke Caught!Fox Exclusive!)
FoxNews ^ | 24 Mar 04 | Jim Angle
Clarke is a liar, trying to sell a book.
28 posted on 03/26/2004 12:53:01 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1104212/posts
2002 TIME Mag quotes CLARKE - Bush team "moved as fast as could be expected" on terrorist threat.
TIME magazine ^ | Aug 5, 2002 | unattributed
29 posted on 03/26/2004 12:56:11 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/1105385/posts
Clarke then . . ./. . . and Clarke now
Washington Times ^ | 3/26/04
30 posted on 03/26/2004 12:58:10 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105363/posts
Clarke Is Star of New Anti-Bush Campaign Ad
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 3/25/04 | Susan Jones
I would only add "That everything the Clintons touch turns to dust."
31 posted on 03/26/2004 1:05:29 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
(Sure, I'll post this here, too.)

I don't know why everybody (except Ann Coulter) is so stinking restrained about stating the obvious. Richard Clarke could not stomach having a boss who was an African-American woman. Sure, Clarke has now been thoroughly exposed as a liar and a fraud, but he is far more than merely a liar and a fraud. Richard Clarke is a racist.

Of all the people Clarke dealt with, he names Condaleezza Rice as the one person "with a blank look on her face, like she never even heard of al Queda". He looks at this black woman and cannot fathom why somebody as smart as he is has to answer to HER. Why do I get the impression that Clarke would never hurl such an insult at anybody else?

It's time for somebody, anybody, in the Republican camp to get a spine and call it like it is. Just put the shoes on the other feet - - does anybody believe for one minute that if a Republican insulted a black advisor to a Democrat President this way that the Democrats wouldn't be all over ABC News and other Democrat outlets with charges of racism? Count on it.

This whole affair is sickening.
32 posted on 03/26/2004 1:05:45 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Hey, backhoe!
Great job with this thread. Thanks for your efforts.

Regards,
LH
33 posted on 03/26/2004 1:06:43 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
btt
34 posted on 03/26/2004 1:06:55 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: All

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105315/posts
Reporter's recording puts Clarke on the record
USA Today ^ | 3/25/2004 | Peter Johnson
They keep forgetting that there is talk radio and FNC and the net now.
35 posted on 03/26/2004 1:14:53 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
btt
36 posted on 03/26/2004 1:16:35 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105294/posts
The Richard Clarke Assembly Line
Media Research Center ^ | March 25, 2004 | Brent Bozell
Richard Clarke Week was the latest widget of propaganda from the liberal-media assembly line, designed with an extremely partisan purpose -- destroying whatever polling advantage George W. Bush enjoys on protecting the nation from terrorism.
37 posted on 03/26/2004 1:17:10 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
This is something I started working on tonight. I'd appreciate contributions of quotes for Clarke, then and now.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um,

The first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

"...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

 "...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

"...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

"...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

"...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

"...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

Bush, Clarke says, "never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

"...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.
...in a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail to National SecurityAdvisorCondoleezza Rice, Mr. Clarke outlined some of the major steps taken by the Bush administration in the summer of 2001 to put the nation on a higher alert footing in an effort to prevent a possible attack.
    Mr. Clarke noted, for example, that on July 5, 2001, representatives of federal law enforcement agencies  including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service  were summoned to a meeting at which they were warned of a possible al Qaeda attack. "Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement (including FAA) knew" of the possibility "that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S. ... and did ask that special measures be taken..."

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

"...failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings, and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks."

In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole. In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror.

38 posted on 03/26/2004 1:23:12 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
That's a very illuminating listing- thanks!
39 posted on 03/26/2004 1:32:01 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105768/posts
Sen. Frist Probes 'Appalling' Clarke for Perjury
Newsmax ^ | Friday, March 26, 2004 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff


http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105766/posts
GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony (Perjury Trap ?)
Yahoo News/AP ^ | 3/26/2004 | DAVID ESPO
40 posted on 03/26/2004 3:10:49 PM PST by backhoe (The 1990's? The Decade of Fraud(s)... the 00's? The Decade of Lunatics...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/1106641/posts
Clarke donates like a Democrat
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | March 28 2004 | ROBERT NOVAK
41 posted on 03/28/2004 1:54:49 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1106773/posts
Is This The DICK CLARKE All You Liberals Hold Up Against Condi Rice?
The Atlantic ^ | 09/2001 | dgallo51
42 posted on 03/28/2004 2:07:45 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1106940/posts
Richard Clarke Latest Puppet in Reshaping Clinton Legacy
ChronWatch ^ | 3/27/04 | Jan Ireland
 
 
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1107005/posts
Dick Clarke's Transformation
Town Hall ^ | March 29, 2003 | Robert Novak [Creators Syndicate]
 
 
 
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1107009/posts
Frustration clear in Clarke book (interesting quotes)
USA Today ^ | March 28, 2004 | Judy Keen
 
 
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1107016/posts
We should demand the liberal media tell the truth about Richard Clark.
3/28/2004 | Joe Camhi
 
 
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1107007/posts
March, 2002 PBS Frontline interview with Clarke; calls Bush response to 9/11 "open minded".
PBS Frontline ^ | March 20, 2002 | PBS
 
 
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1106861/posts
SOURCES: CLARKE 'TO EARN OVER $1 MILLION FOR BOOK'; CONTRACT: BONUSES ADDED
http://www.drudgereport.com ^ | 3/28/04 | Drudge

43 posted on 03/29/2004 1:49:49 AM PST by backhoe (The 1990's? The Decade of Fraud(s)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1107190/posts
Democrats Count on Republicans Not Confronting Richard Clarke Lies
GOPUSA ^ | March.29,2004 | Jan Ireland
44 posted on 03/29/2004 10:39:26 AM PST by backhoe (So 9/10 in a 9/11 World...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1107436/posts
How the Bush-hating media abetted Richard Clarke’s lies and attempts at character assassination
Brookes News ^ | 29 March 2004 | Gerard Jackson
45 posted on 03/29/2004 4:35:57 PM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111541/posts
How Richard Clarke concocted the TWA 800 'exit strategy' ... and why
WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/05/04
Clarke's so-called "exit strategy" was ingeniously conceived, ruthlessly executed and dishonest in its every detail. Whether Clarke was motivated by patriotism or political opportunism only he can tell, but his strategy did spare America an unwelcome war with Iran and assured Bill Clinton's re-election. Unfortunately, it also led the nation blindly to Sept. 11.
46 posted on 04/05/2004 3:15:59 AM PDT by backhoe (Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the TrackBall into the Sunset...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1113072/posts
Richard Clarke's Pentagon Papers/VVAW Connection
Compiled from various sources ^ | 4/7/2003 | Original Freeper research
 

Friends, Foes Say Rice Has Spirit, Toughness She'll Need for Sept. 11 Testimony

Clarke Known As Abrasive but Efficient

The Pentagon Papers and Their Continuing Significance

S. Steven Powell, Richard Milhous Nixon (Introduction), David Horowitz (Designer), Covert Cadre: Inside the Institute for Policy Studies, p. 48

This week in history 25 years ago--February 21, 1971: Stalinists push "People's Peace Treaty"

Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty : John Kerry and the Vietnam War, 361


47 posted on 04/07/2004 8:16:49 AM PDT by backhoe (Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the TrackBall into the Sunset...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1113072/posts
Richard Clarke's Pentagon Papers/VVAW Connection
Compiled from various sources ^ | 4/7/2003 | Original Freeper research
48 posted on 04/10/2004 2:23:42 AM PDT by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117817/posts
The Terrorist Within
Seattle Times ^ | April 2004 | Mike Carter
Yes. There are several Clarke lies exposed here.
49 posted on 04/15/2004 1:51:22 AM PDT by backhoe (Has that Clinton "legacy" made you feel safer yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
bttt
50 posted on 04/15/2004 1:52:29 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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