Posted on 09/27/2006 12:17:59 PM PDT by LSUfan
I received this in an e-mail from a Dem who is obviously pretty worked up about the Clinton interview. I thought it was pretty instructive...it offers insight into their mindset...
ARE REPUBLICANS THAT NAIVE THAT THEY WOULD RATHER BELIEVE THE WORDS OF THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONSISTANTLY LIED TO, AND MISLEAD, US, THAN BELIEVE FACTUAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION? Then again I guess they are liars too.
I know it's hard but, just try and think for YOURSELF. Do not be led around by your complete and utter lack of dignity. Chris Wallace asked Bill Clinton why he didn’t respond to the USS Cole. Clinton said it was a “legitimate question” but challenged Wallace: “I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole.” First, Wallace responded, “we asked.” When pressed further by Clinton, Wallace demurred: “I — with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.” Clinton then said you never asked that
Neither Chris Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow ever asked anyone in the Bush administration why they failed to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search. Wallace and Snow have had plenty of opportunities:
– Vice President Dick Cheney has been on Fox News Sunday 6 times.
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been on Fox News Sunday 9 times.
– Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been on Fox News Sunday 23 times.
– National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley has been on Fox News Sunday 4 times.
42 combined appearances and not ONCE did they ask about the Cole.
Clinton said ; "That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted."
Richard Clark during his 9/11 testimony said in part of his opening statement; "I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance.
I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.
To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.
This chicken @#$% administration, most of whom never served in the military by the way, HAS YET to take ANY RESPONSIBILITY for what happened on that day or since.
Everyone should do yourself a favor and go over Richard Clark's tesimony again. I say again to give you the benifit of the doubt that you read it a first time. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/bn.00.html
Here are some snippits from the first 15 minutes.
9/11 Hearings; RICHARD CLARKE about Clinton Administration: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.
CLARKE: "I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.
Well, president Bush himself says as much in his interview with Bob Woodward in the book "Bush at War." He said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency."
On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.
Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?
CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.
ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?
CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February.
CLARKE: I think in depends, in part, on the president.
President Bush was regularly told by the director of Central Intelligence that there was an urgent threat. On one occasion -- he was told this dozens of times in the morning briefings that George Tenet gave him. On one of those occasions, he asked for a strategy to deal with the threat.
Condi Rice came back from that meeting, called me, and relayed what the president had requested. And I said, "Well, you know, we've had this strategy ready since before you were inaugurated. I showed it you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy any time you want."
She said she would look into it. Her looking into it and the president asking for it did not change the pace at which it was considered. And as far as I know, the president never asked again; at least I was never informed that he asked again. I do know he was thereafter continually informed about the threat by George Tenet.
Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]
Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: “I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We’ve been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.”
Time Magazine; http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
Republican lies are as transparant as the reasons we went into Iraq.
One more question. Why do they have have to lie about this $#@^?
More and more people are dying everyday &%$@# because of what this administration has done regarding Iraq and you people blindly support it because you're title says "Republican."
WAKE THE @#$% UP!!!
1. The USS Cole was bombed on 12 October 2000. Clinton had over 4 months to respond, but I guess since he was trying to make nice with the Ayatollahs for his "legacy" and there were no bimbo eruptions, he saw no need to retaliate for the Cole.
2. The same George Tenet that this guy praises here is the guy who told President Bush that WMD in Iraq was a "slamdunk." So if this moron maintains that we went into Iraq under false pretences, the guy who he should blame is the guy whose praises he is singing right here.
Clinton knew for sure the middle of December that bin Laden paid for the Cole bombing.
Send him this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
Ask him which time Clarke was lying.
BTW, that is an out and out lie; there was NO PLAN left.........there WAS a few pages of a Richard Clarke WISHLIST that had been around for years -- and Clinton didn't do anything about it at all; the Bush people did try to begin implementing some of Clarke's suggestion.
Why do they NEVER admit it was not Bush's JOB to avenge the Cole????
I wish I could find that quote I saw on Monday from Clarke's book, in which he says he asked to be transferred, much to Rice's surprise.
I think W would have in time. Remember that at the time in question, he was still trying to get his cabinet together.
If you will recall, 1996 and 2000 were election years. No way in hades was clintoon going to make waves come h*ll or high water.
"The USS Cole was bombed on 12 October 2000."
EXACTLY. It happened while Slick was in office. Their statement makes as much sense as Kerry referring to Viet Nam as "Nixon's War."
here's some ammo for you to shove up your friends arse....
tell your leftist buddy to read Dick Clarke addressing the media in 2002:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
also; refresh his memory of the PDB Clinton ignored almost two years before the USS Cole bombing....something the liberal media barely touched on...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58615-2004Jul17.html
When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted."
BTW, that is an out and out lie; there was NO PLAN left.........there WAS a few pages of a Richard Clarke WISHLIST that had been around for years
The other lie in that quote is even less open to interpretation.
On 9/11 Richard Clarke was STILL in the exact same position Bill Clinton gave him. He wasn’t demoted later either. He left the position in a snit because he wasn’t made Grand Poobah of the newly created Homeland Security behemoth.
George Tenet?? Isn't he the former CIA Director that Clinton met with twice during his entire Administration??
And of course it is more important to ask the Bush administration about the Cole, and ignore the guy who should have responded in the first place!!
Let us not forget, that the first months of the new Bush Administration were just this side of chaos. Has everyone forgotten that the Clinonistas trashed the White House on the way out? How many computers did the new Administration have to purchase just to get essential operations set up because all of the "W"s had been pried off of the keyboards? Because of the Florida recount fiasco and subsequent legal challenges over the 2000 recount that went all of the way to SCOTUS, all at the behest of AlGore, there was no smooth turnover from the Clinton Corps to the Bush Transition Team.
We can keep detailing this stuff in depth for the 'Rats if they would like to go ahead and relive it all over again...
The bottom line is that Clinton knows he didn't accomplish anything particularly noteworthy during his Presidency, other than to be Impeached. He is extremely sensitive to his legacy, and it is no surprize to see the Moonbat Left starting up thier chorus to support thier former Boy President.
Let 'em yap.
MR. RUSSERT: As you know, your motivation has been widely questioned both at the White House and by some on Capitol Hill. One article captured it this way: "Mr. Clarke... who had sought the No. 2 spot at Homeland Security, was passed over for the post in October 2002 and demoted by Secretary Tom Ridge and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the position of special adviser for cyberspace security." You had applied for a position and didn't get it. Are you a disgruntled job-seeker?
MR. CLARKE: Now, here we go again, you know, with it's about Dick Clarke and it's about his motivation, when really this is what the White House is trying to get you and others to do is to focus on me. I'll answer the question, Tim, but I want to point out again that this is about the president's job in the war on terrorism. This is about how going into Iraq hurt the war on terrorism. This is not about Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke's not running for office.
MR. RUSSERT: But the messenger's important.
MR. CLARKE: No, no, I understand. So let me answer the question.
MR. RUSSERT: And people have questioned your motivation. Were you happy? Did you feel dissed for being passed over?
MR. CLARKE: No. And the information you read is somewhat inaccurate. I wasn't demoted to a position of national cybersecurity adviser. I--and there's lots of paper trail on this one. I asked in June of 2001 to be transferred from the terrorism job, I did and my chief of staff, Roger Cressey, did, because in June 2001, we were so frustrated with the administration's lackadaisical attitude toward terrorism that we no longer wanted to work on the issue. As obsessed as I was with going after al-Qaeda, I felt I had to get out of the terrorism business because I couldn't work for an administration that was treating it in such an unimportant way. I asked the president to create the position of special adviser to the president for cyberspace security so that I could go into it. I didn't consider it a demotion. I considered it an important job and I consider it today, the protection of our cyberspace, to be a very important task which we haven't done...
MR. RUSSERT: But you were turned down for the number-two job at Homeland Security?
MR. CLARKE: No, I wasn't turned down for it. What happened was the White House was developing lists of people to consider for various jobs. And I said, "If you want to consider me, fine. I've been working on homeland security issues for five years."
MR. RUSSERT: Did you interview for it?
MR. CLARKE: I was interviewed for it. Am I disgruntled about it? No. Is that the reason I wrote the book? Let's talk about motivation. You're asking me is that the motivation. So let's talk about what the motivation actually is. The actual motivation for writing this book is to, number one, tell the people who have been asking me for two or three years, you know, what happened on 9/11 and why couldn't we stop it. I hope the 9-11 Commission answers those questions, too. But I had to get it off my chest. I had to tell the families of the victims. I had to tell lots of people who have been asking me, "What went wrong? And how, with all of your experience, can you advise us on what mistakes you made personally? Can you advise us not to make those mistakes again, and with that experience, how do you advise us about structuring the government so that we can avoid this kind of thing in the future?" I had to get it off my chest. That's the motivation.
Exactly.
I guess Bill Clinton really didn't watch ABC's The Path to 9/11 or he would know that Richard Clarke (ABC contributing expert) did everything on 9/11 except fly those planes into the WTC.
If you will recall, 1996 and 2000 were election years. No way in Hades were either of the clintoons going to make waves come h*ll or high water.
Here is, for my money, the operative "business end" of the quote:
I asked the president to create the position of special adviser to the president for cyberspace security so that I could go into it. I didn't consider it a demotion. I considered it an important job and I consider it today, the protection of our cyberspace, to be a very important task which we haven't done...
The move was at his request, and he did not consider it a demotion. QED
Clinton might have done something right, if he hadn't been married to a woman obsessed with becoming president.
He had to avoid controversy so that he would not encumber her bid to be POTUS.
Chris Wallace has never asked any Republicans whether or not they've been the recipients of BJs while on the clock either.
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.