Posted on 03/28/2004 10:52:28 AM PST by mikegi
From the Washington Post article on Clarke's SWORN testimony before the 9/11 commission:
"Under questioning by Republican members of the commission, Clarke, who said he voted Republican in 2000, rebutted charges by the White House that he was engaged in a partisan political attack."
From today's Meet the Press transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: And we're back. Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? MR. CLARKE: No, I did not. MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore. MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
How much perview did Richard Clarke have over Ms. Sirrs activities?"
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/abcnews021802b.html
"...Julie Sirrs, Former Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst, Talks About How US Officials Ignored Her Information About Bin Laden's Link to Taliban ABC News - Good Morning America February 18, 2002 DIANE SAWYER, co-host: Well, the events of September 11th have been described by some as the worst failure of intelligence since Pearl Harbor. So this week ABC News decided to examine what went wrong, the missed signals. Did the US miss opportunities to prevent the terror attacks? One defense analyst, an expert on Afghanistan and bin Laden, claims that the government did just that. And she says she tried to warn them, but no one would listen. ABC's Jackie Judd begins her story..."
They'll just have to find someone else to make allegations against this administration.
http://www.afgha.com/?af=pr&new_topic=2&catid=&order=
Posted the Saturday, February 28 2004 @ 18:37:25 CET
Washington Post
February 28, 2004
by JULIE SIRRS
Ed.'s note: the following is a response to these two articles: A Secret Hunt Unravels in Afghanistan and Flawed Ally Was Hunt's Best Hope
Regarding the Feb. 23 front-page excerpt from "Ghost Wars," a book by Post Managing Editor Steve Coll: Griff Witte, a Post reporter, interviewed me for that book in 2002.
From 1995 to 1999 I was an analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and monitored events in Afghanistan. Part of my focus involved researching allegations made against Ahmed Shah Massoud concerning purported human rights violations and involvement in the narcotics trade. I was never able to find any reliable information that proved either charge. I suspect the officials cited by Mr. Coll found this to be a convenient excuse to dismiss broader cooperation with Mr. Massoud because of their own reluctance to become more involved in Afghanistan.
In October 1998, I traveled to Afghanistan on my own time, but with DIA approval, and met with Mr. Massoud. Contrary to conventional wisdom in Washington, his resistance remained a capable, though undersupplied, force and a viable option for countering al Qaeda and the Taliban threat.
By the time I returned home, senior officials at the Departments of State and Defense as well as the CIA were aware of my trip. On the day I was to brief the wider intelligence community about my findings, the DIA suspended my security clearance and placed me on administrative leave. Eventually, I was forced to resign.
Immediately after leaving the DIA, I traveled to Afghanistan again. I was in the Panjshir Valley in October 1999, at the same time as the team of CIA operators, JAWBREAKER-5. While those men -- presumably under orders from Washington -- remained holed up in their guesthouse, I was interviewing al Qaeda POWs who had been captured by Mr. Massoud. Those interviews confirmed that a vital part of disrupting the al Qaeda organization would involve toppling the sanctuary the Taliban regime provided.
Yet most American officials chose to remain ignorant of that and other facts about Afghanistan. As Mr. Coll's book reveals, the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, was as much a failure of policy as of intelligence.
JULIE SIRRS
Arlington
The writer works for a political risk consulting firm, Argus International, and edits the Terrorism Monitor for the Jamestown Foundation.
Exactly. I don't agree with the "Clarke is lying" rhetoric many Pubbies are adopting. It gives him too much credit. His case against Dubya is pure spin, and we should be portraying it that way. E.g. Clarke claims that the Bush administration "did nothing" about terrorism before 9-11, but by his own admissions, in sworn testimony, this "doing nothing" was carrying forward the Clinton policy toward al-Qaeda, while considering and adopting a much more aggressive policy over a space of eight months. The resulting policy was similar -- excepting more ambitious and comprehensive -- to the suggestions Clarke had submitted to the Clinton administration in '98, and which it had not acted on in two years.
IOW Clarke's bitch is that Bush did nothing, and didn't do it fast enough!
Almost everyone. You've got to make an exception for a few of the particularly dim bulbs like "Madame Secretary".
IMHO, Clarke has done a fine job of that all by himself.
I think what the rats, Kerry included, are trying to do is go after people that only read the NYT, LAT, Daily News, Newsday and other liberal Gannett type newspapers that won't report what he had said and wrote in the recent past, compared to what he most recently testified to and wrote in his flippin' book. He also said his book was written not for $, but to expose the truth.
IMHO, Clarke's so full of $hit, the white of his eyes are turning brown.
Do think possible Mr. Clarke was doing other "things" while employed by the government??
Mike, you may have presumed that but Clarke was clearly being duplicitous. He was trying to hold himself out as a Republican, or a "non-partisan" at the very least, in order to lend credibility to his criticism of the Bush Administration. Clarke is a lying scumbag and a weasel, period.
Earlier this week it was disclosed that ABC has hired Clarke as a "consultant". No joke.
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.