Against Selected Enemies (Richard Miniter on Clarke)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | April 1, 2004 | RICHARD MINITER

[kcvl]

As NARAL figures out how to pitch a hissy fit.

[Willing To Listen]

Yes, a ping.

[dansangel]

Thanks for the update ((((Howlin))))

[Eva]

The problem is that many posters seem to read nothing but the recent threads and don't have time to check the messages. I wanted to to tell you before I reposted the article because I have been yelled at too many times by posters who claimed proprietary rights to threads.

Thanks

[neverdem]

Pardon me for pinging you to an editorial that's off my usual topics, or if you already noticed this thread on your own, but this author is making a timely criticism of Richard Clarke, who he used as a prime source for his own book "Losing bin Laden", IIRC.

[Krodg]

This actually might be a very good date. Let the media have it Thursday, not so many people watching Friday...etc.

I think it's excellant. Let them spin for a few days when no one is watching...come Monday the right has their turn.

[cyborg]

Clark-E is supposed to be on the FIB network tomorrow.

[archy]

Pardon me for pinging you to an editorial that's off my usual topics...

No 'pology necessary. Interesting article.

Is Clarke being set up to take the fall for something, or being used as a distractiuon away from something else? The Kerry assassination plots, perhaps?

[OXENinFLA]

Sweet!

[archy]

Pardon me for pinging you to an editorial that's off my usual topics...

No 'pology necessary. Interesting article.

Is Clarke being set up to take the fall for something, or being used as a distractiuon away from something else? The Kerry assassination plots, perhaps?

[PhilDragoo]

pp 222-229 contain an account of the post-Cole meeting wherein Clarke urged an attack on al Qaeda.

Clarke fails to note in public now what he makes clear in this and other sections of the Miniter book:

That Clinton, Albright, Berger, Cohen, Tenet, Reno, and Freeh opposed any attack on OBL--

--despite the eleven Predator-Hellfire flights September-October 2000 showing clear video of OBL on three occasions.

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror by Richard Miniter

[marblehead17]

Good article

[cyncooper]

Newsflash: Condi to testify NEXT Thursday!!

I am clearing the deck!

And Bush is on right now, signing Laci and Connor's Law.

I saw that and it was a very moving ceremony.

[My2Cents]

And Bush is on right now, signing Laci and Connor's Law.

It's a great day!

[Eva]

I reposted the article and some idiot ( OXENinFLA ) complained to the moderator and had the thread pulled.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is nothing heartless about it. Many of them are little more than RATwhores. RATS have alread made it plain they will be used in the election as a major tool against Bush. Hopefully families who aren't lyin', crooked RATloving fools will step forward to counter their influence.

[genefromjersey]

Thanks for the reminder. I thought I had seen quite a bit about Clarke in a couple of the books I'd read,but had forgotten which ones.

[windchime]

Bump!

[cyncooper]

despite the eleven Predator-Hellfire flights September-October 2000 showing clear video of OBL on three occasions.

I saw the very end of Hardball last night with Clarke as the guest.

Chris asked him to criticize Clinton "to make it fair" (I had to laugh as I could just imagine the Bush bashing that had gone on).

So Clarke cited not taking out the terrorist camps, but he hastened to minimize this as a failure. (and I do mean hastened. He first tried to respond by saying "Let me tell you what they DID do and since time was running out Chris made him come up with his token criticism first)

Then Chris actually asked about the OBL video and do you want to know how craven Clarke is? Get this paraphrase of his response:

President Clinton was 100% (yes, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HE HAD ZERO INFLUENCE OR DECISION MAKING) not responsible for not doing anything. The fault lay completely and utterly with the CIA.

But he's not a partisan. I don't want you to get the wrong idea....or anything...

[My2Cents]

Bears repeating:

There is other evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda that Mr. Clarke should have felt obliged to address. Just days before Mr. Clarke resigned, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that bin Laden had met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization. In 1998, an aide to Saddam's son Uday defected and repeatedly told reporters that Iraq funded al Qaeda. South of Baghdad, satellite photos pinpointed a Boeing 707 parked at a camp where terrorists learned to take over planes. When U.S. forces captured the camp, its commander confirmed that al Qaeda had trained there as early as 1997. Mr. Clarke does not take up any of this.

At some point (hopefully before the election, and sooner rather than later), the Bush Administration must issue a comprehensive report, interim if necessary, on what we know about Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. The virtual silence of the Administration on this question is understandable considering that investigations and the pouring through of Iraqi intelligence papers are still under way. But what isn't understandable is why the Administration continues to take a pounding from the naysaying left, and its lapdog mainstream media, that "there were no links between Saddam and terror!" Because of the incessant naysaying, many impressionable Americans believe there were no links.

It's hard defending the Administration's policies when they aren't doing a good job defending those policies themselves.