"Against All Enemies,",

Just finished reading the Book by Richard Clarke… Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, and then held over again by the current President Bush who dismantled the organization that had taken 25 years to build. Why…

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."


To this day I don't know why Bush refused to hear about, must less believe, that Al Qaeda was a threat…can anyone tell me?

Clarke's Take On Terror, What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror - CBS News

You believe this guy, Richard Clarke??
"After Clarke appeared before the 911 Commission, his detractors attacked his credibility, suggesting that he was too partisan a figure, and charging that he exaggerated perceived failures in the Bush Administration' counter terrorism policies while exculpating the former Clinton administration from its perceived shortcomings.[10] According to news agency Knight-Ridder, the White House tried to discredit Clarke in a move described as "shooting the messenger."[11] New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was more blunt, calling the attacks on Clarke "a campaign of character assassination."[12] However, the FBI denied they had a role in approving the flight for bin Laden's family as alleged by Clarke when FBI spokesman John Iannarelli said: "I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role in facilitating these flights." http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/in...m?id=971322003

Clarke has also exchanged criticism with Michael Scheuer, former chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA. When asked to respond to Clarke's claim that Scheuer was "a hothead, a middle manager who really didn't go to any of the cabinet meetings," Scheuer returned the criticism as follows: "I certainly agree with the fact that I didn't go to the cabinet meetings. But I'm certainly also aware that I'm much better informed than Mr. Clarke ever was about the nature of the intelligence that was available against Osama bin Laden and which was consistently denigrated by himself and Mr. Tenet."[13] Matthew Continetti writes: "Scheuer believes that Clarke's risk aversion and politicking negatively impacted the hunt for Bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke."[14]
Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looks to me like he totes a lot of excess baggage.

More from Richard Clarke, in an interview with various reporters present:
QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

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 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.

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.
FOXNews.com - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
It is reasonable to conclude that the Clinton Administration was doing absolutely nothing to effect change in its policy with Al Quaeda, and that change was beginning in the Spring of Bush's first year in office. Maybe this is why the order to attach the Twin Towers was given, before it was discovered by the new administration, Bush/Cheney.

Don't expect this to have any effect on you DC. Might on someone though.

YouTube - The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs

YouTube - JFK telling us the 911 truth

Hello DC:

Well, there you go. It was OK for George Bush to do NOTHING because Clinton didn't do anything either. Bwa, ha ha ha ha

excon

I see Clarke's account as a big CYA. He had a big bug in his butt because President Bush [at the recommendation of Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays;Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform.] stripped Clarke of a cabinet level position because of his incompetence.Bush's mistake was that he did not immediately fire Clarke .


In the summer of 2000, the last year of the Clinton presidency, Shays' committee had requested a classified briefing from Clarke “on government wide efforts to detect, deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist acts.”
Clarke responded with an oddly incoherent briefing and slide show. Shays was not at all pleased. In a brusquely worded letter to Clarke, he described the presentation as “less than useful.”
When Shays' committee asked Clarke if his office had prepared an “integrated threat assessment,” he responded that this would have been “difficult to accomplish because of all the different threats faced by the United States.”
When committee members asked if Clarke had prepared a “comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism,” the notoriously patronizing Clarke blew them off.
It was “silly” to believe such a strategy could be developed, said Clarke, “belittling” the committee for daring to pose the question.
“If there are no clear requirements or plan,” Shays asked in obvious disgust, “how does the administration prioritize the $12.9 billion it intends to spend” on counter-terrorism and related activities?
Shays never received a satisfactory answer. So troubled was he by Clarke's non-performance that on January 22, 2001, the first work day after the inauguration, he sent an impassioned three-page letter to the new National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice.
In the letter, Shays alerted Rice to Clarke's “lack of leadership” in the war on terror and his refusal to recognize even the “need for a national strategy.”
To be sure, the Richard Clarke that Shays and his committee had experienced was not at all the one America would meet on 60 Minutes.
The self-rehabilitated Clarke would tell Stahl that on January 24, 2001--two days after Shays had sent his letter to Rice--he had sent an urgent memo to Rice, requesting “a cabinet level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack.”
If Rice ignored him, there is now reason to understand why. Given the feedback from Shays and his colleagues, she had reason not to trust Clarke's judgment.

Congressman Christopher Shays

Also Clarke's tune changed after the attack on 9-11 . Prior to that he had praised Bush for his instructions “to stop swatting at flies and just solve the problem.” Clearly his saying that Bush did nothing before 9-11 was a lie.

It is scary to think that if Obama gets in that Clarke is one of his top national security advisers .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clearly his saying that Bush did nothing before 9-11 was a lie.

---

Hello again, tom:

I love your spin.

Whatever he did, it wasn't enough. We were attacked. People died. He was asleep at the switch. That he tried and was unsuccessful is little consolation.

It's like you spin the surge... That it may be working now, is little consolation. It does not wipe out the years of incompetence during which over 3,000 brave Americans died.

THAT'S what's germane.

excon

80% reduction in violence . That is not spin it is truth .even the dinosaur media is figuring that out

Attacks in Baghdad fall 80 percent-Iraq military | Reuters


Why the Surge Worked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

I love your spin.

Whatever he did, it wasn't enough. We were attacked. People died. He was asleep at the switch. That he tried and was unsuccessful is little consolation.

It's like you spin the surge.... That it may be working now, is little consolation. It does not wipe out the years of incompetence during which over 3,000 brave Americans died.

THAT'S what's germane.

excon

---

Just going to 'borrow' a line from tom's source: "Iraq is also a democratic nation. The local citizens turned out in 2005 to elect their government with 80 percent voter turnout."
These folks are more enthusiastic than Obama fans. Speaking of Obama, I wonder how the mainstream Iraqi views the election in the U.S. Would they favor Obama or Hillary?
The larger point in the article is that over 3,000 have not died in vain, at least not yet. It is difficult to believe that a major political party so readily accepts thuggery and dictatorship. That used to be one of the Democrats biggest gripes with the GOP, so Bush decides to spread the democracy around and Democrats go crazy.

I can't help but wonder how many of those responding have actually read the book.

Two things impressed me about the book, one, when I read the individual quotes by him they take on a different quality, or flavor, than when read in the context of the on-going story covering 25 years. The other, how credible the history from his perspective is.

It is certainly a puzzle to me how a man like Clarke who served three presidents so successfully became to another president useless and incompetent with-out even a personal evaluation by the President.

That leads me to wonder just who is really incompetent, Bush Jr. or Clarke. I also wonder why they would literally let Clarke run the country (co-ordinate all agencies response across the country on the day of 9/11).

I believe Bush and his Administration came in with pre-conceived beliefs and a pre-conceived plan and anyone that would not accept their theory was left out of the loop.

Tom I don't think it scary at all, in fact in my mind it would be a big plus for Obama if he brought in Clarke.

excon, Clinton did more for the war on terrorism than Bush even thought about. Bush thought he was combating terrorism when he invaded Iraq…he did not believe Al Qaeda was a threat. Even after 9/11 he did not believe they were the real threat. He completely missed what had been happening during the 8 years of Clinton.

It sounds like it could be sub-titled, "My Story As A Bumbling Bureaucrat". I appreciate his attempt to provide historical data, but it is subject to review and correction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

It sounds like it could be sub-titled, "My Story As A Bumbling Bureaucrat". I appreciate his attempt to provide historical data, but it is subject to review and correction.

---

George... I'm afraid your argument :p Do you really believe what you say is convincing? I suppose the question is: Have you reviewed it, or are you simply parroting someone else.

That is a new one to me . A life time Bureaucrat is infallible . Seems to me that after serving 25 years that perhaps he would be the one with preconceived ideas. Perhaps the critique that there is inertia in the bureaucracy is off base but I doubt it. My guess is that it would benefit government greatly if there was a house cleaning every now and then. Or perhaps the performace of the intel agencies was stellar pre- 9-11 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

George....I'm afraid your argument :p Do you really believe what you say is convincing? I suppose the question is: Have you reviewed it, or are you simply parroting someone else.

---

I also wonder why Democrats so often side with enemies of the US? Hmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

I also wonder why Democrats so often side with enemies of the US? Hmm?

---

Hello again, George:

It's a good thing, then, that we had a Republican in there when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. And, then a Republican in there when the crippled one died. Otherwise, we'd be speaking Japanese, right?

Oh, that's right. They were Democrats. They whipped the whole world in less time than George has been losing in Iraq. Hmmm.

Yup, you're right on again, George.

excon

He doesn’t claim to be infallible, Tom, and I certainly don’t believe he is. Watch those straw men now.:)

A toolmaker with 25 years experience has pre-conceived ideas too…and I would suggest that it would be wise to at least listen to them…something Bush refused to do.

A house cleaning was the first mistake Bush made in Iraq… :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, George:

It's a good thing, then, that we had a Republican in there when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. And, then a Republican in there when the crippled one died. Otherwise, we'd be speaking Japanese, right?

Oh, that's right. They were Democrats. They whipped the whole world in less time than George has been losing in Iraq. Hmmm.

Yup, you're right on again, George.

excon

---

My hunch is, both would only be small "d" democrats in today's political environment.

It's just plain childish to try and make the war on terrorism into a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Islamic religious Terrorism against everyone opposed to their views began in 1970 and Reagan made inroads against them. Both Parties have done what they see fit to combat it as well as leaders in some Muslim countries.

The unseen and almost unknown enemy was not thoroughly known until the late 90's and that is when Clinton was able to target and capture many terrorist. This was made possible in part by Clark's organizational skills and the Budget afforded by Clinton and Congress. The problem is that Bush lost sight of the real enemy. (He was 8 years behind in the war on terrorism and thought it was the Iraqis that were the problem.) My best guess.