Richard Clark

[wunarmdscissor]

Well what do you all think of this man's allegations about George Bush?

This man served four presidents was the top adviser on counter terrorism throughout that time.

He has come out and said that Geroge Bush , rumsfeld and cheney were obsessed with Iraq.

That condola Rice hadnt even heard of Al quaeda.

That where Clinton held briefings between the FBI , CIA and Himself every other day about terrorism that bush was not interested, especially pre September the 11th.

That Bush ignored warnings of September the 11th.

That immediatley after 9/11 they were trying to use that national disaster as a way to push through a war on Iraq.

That he was told to fabricate a link between Iraq and al queada and ignored his advice that it would only make things worse.

Pretty shockin allegations all in all by a man who seems to be respected. What do u think of them?

[Mekorig]

I think that maybe he is right. Bush doesnt seen the kind of guy for the responsability of the power that give benn the USA president, and when he was "elected" (jajajaja) his only goal were his father´s freinds goals.

[Nxt2Hvn]

I think he is full of S--t!!!!!

I think Bush did what had to be done... And I feel a lot safer now with Saddam out of the way... And I feel that Bin Laden's capture is not too far in the future.

I saw the interview with Mr. Clark yesterday on The Today Show and what he said sounded more like a fabricated story to me... like he has some kind of personal vendetta against President Bush... like he was just trying to become part of the Lymelight... everyone wants their "moment" of fame ... no matter what the cost! It's people like him stirring up negativity.. and are separating out country even more!!!

I am an American and I am proud to say that George Bush is our President!

Edited March 23, 2004 by Nxt2Hvn

[fearfulone]

Funny...for years Clinton had Osama Bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter. It's known fact that the Sudanese gov't called Madeline Albright during Clinton's "bosnia invasion" and Clinton was informed they could take out OBL at that time. Clinton said, "no, we'll catch him again." Funny, couple years later 9-11 happens, couple years after that, the current president who has the gall to stand up to terrorists (i never heard clinton say one thing bout terrorists and clinton went in and bombed the heck out iraq because of the same intelligence bush had), and now this drunk looking b****** who got passed up for a promotion and was actually demoted is trying to sell a book so he talks crap. Simple as that. You look at the statements he made 2-3-4 yrs ago on programs like Nightline and PBS broadcasts, he himself said no one is to blame, that Clinton didn't have enough money in counter-terrorism, that 9-11 was too big for anyone to predict... so to say that Bush is to blame when this mess was left for him is utterly indefensible.

Pretty shockin allegations all in all by a man who seems to be respected. What do u think of them?

Don't know what your media is tellin you, but in the US... much speculation has come out about the guy on the radio shows and news shows (ex: fox news, cnn, etc.) he's seen as having very ulterior motives (et: the selling of his book)

Edited March 23, 2004 by fearfulone

[wcturnersr]

Richard Clark is most likely being paid by the democratic party to come up during election to say all these things he should have said 8 years ago. All liberal democrats have nothing else going good for them to get elected. The only thing they have is to twist around the truth, make up crap and point the finger like little baby morons. If they really wanted to get my vote (speaking of Kerry) they need to tell me what they are going to do for me. Not "Bush is bad" or "He did this" or "I am a vietnam veteran" or "It was all Bush's idea" or "I'm a little whiney baby" or "I wear diapers" or "I still suck on mommy's nu-nu"

Edited March 23, 2004 by wcturnersr

[DC09]

The term 'sour grapes' comes to my mind.

The guy did not get the job he wanted and was actually demoted.

[fearfulone]

The term 'sour grapes' comes to my mind. 

The guy did not get the job he wanted and was actually demoted.

my point exactly, this guy just went postal in the middle of an election year... money for his book, thats all he wants...why didnt he do this a year ago, two, three, when he knew all this.

[Homer]

Clark was not only demoted, but due to the shake up in the intelligence/terrorism arena, he was pretty much fired. So basically what he has to say about anything related to the current administration should be viewed like he's just another disgruntled ex-employee.

[Gazz]

The timing should tell you everything.

Most people had no idea who clarke was

before now.

And now the world knows who he is...

hmmmmm

Could it be because he is trying to boost

sales of his new book?????

Gazz

[ronw60]

lets give george four more years or we will second guess ourselves forever???

[wunarmdscissor]

Homer

Accoring to everything I have read there is no mention of richard clark being sacked or discredited?

[+joc]

Homer

Accoring to everything I have read there is no mention of richard clark being sacked or discredited?

Well, see? There you go! Stop reading the leftist crapola and start listening

to people like me and Homer and FearfulOne and Nancy who know what is actually going on in this country!!

[final flight]

I agree 100% with bush on the fact that Sadaam Hussein hade to be takes out. But it should have been handeled as a civil rights issue. Then the UN might have stepped up and gathered enough military and money to take out the government and then renstate another less corrupt one (not necessarily democratic, democracy does not sit well in the middle east).

[Homer]

Homer

Accoring to everything I have read there is no mention of richard clark being sacked or discredited?

He wasn't officially fired, but taking everything in context, he was.

"There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," Clarke told reporters in August 2002.

Clarke also said the Bush administration, in its first eight months in office, adopted a "new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." He said the Bush administration ordered a five-fold increase in money for covert action before Sept. 11, 2001.

And Clarke told reporters that in March 2001 -- months before the 9/11 attacks -- President Bush had directed his staff to "stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem" -- that problem being how to deal with al Qaeda.

Instead of a counter-terrorism czar, clarke seems more like contradiction czar

[Nancy]

Homer.......

Great Work! Thank you for posting these 'quotes'

I hope all who read them, will begin to get the "full picture"

Nancy

[DC09]

Instead of a counter-terrorism czar, clarke seems more like contradiction czar

[Homer]

Homer.......

Great Work! Thank you for posting these 'quotes'

Anytime Nancy

Just think people should know a little bit more about this person

[fearfulone]

Homer.......

Great Work! Thank you for posting these 'quotes'

Anytime Nancy

Just think people should know a little bit more about this person

clarke said in his book: "When i told condaleeza rice the attacks were most likely from al-qaeda she had a stricken look on her face...like she had no idea who or what i was talking about."

in 2000 Rice was on WRJ radio quoted as saying "We definitely think that Osama bin Laden is a threat. We are trying to catch him and see what kind of connections he has. Osama bin Laden is a very dangerous threat." Sounds to me like she knew who/what al-qaeda was. THis guy Clarke is just a load of lies. It's also funny that he supports Kerry for president...tells u somethin eh?

[Homer]

Not only did Mrs. Rice know of al-qaeda, but so did the rest of the world in early 2001, which is when Clarke said he had this conversation with Rice.

In 1998, al-qaeda was responsible for the two simultaneous U.S. embassy bombings in Africa; and in 2000 al-qaeda is suspected to be responsible for the U.S.S. Cole attack. So to think anyone hasn't heard of al-qaeda after that only illustrates how stupid some people are.

[fearfulone]

Not only did Mrs. Rice know of al-qaeda, but so did the rest of the world in early 2001, which is when Clarke said he had this conversation with Rice.

In 1998, al-qaeda was responsible for the two simultaneous U.S. embassy bombings in Africa; and in 2000 al-qaeda is suspected to be responsible for the U.S.S. Cole attack. So to think anyone hasn't heard of al-qaeda after that only illustrates how stupid some people are.

Wow, you really are forum divinity! great info!

[Midnight Matinee]

I signed up to this board while reading this thread. Had to. The issue isn't as simple as you've been lead to believe.

Since Clarke's book has come out, attacks on his character have replaced reasonable debate of the Bush administration's policies pre 9/11.

These attacks usually take one of three forms.

He's been called racist for questioning Rice's familiarity with Al Quada. The fact that she never mentions "Al Quada" by name on the 2000 radio show where she discussed Osama Bin Ladin is ignored-in fact, the radio show is being offered as the final proof Clarke lied by people who've never heard it.

Then there's the attack on the timing of his book...which was held up for over 8 months as the administration reviewed it to make sure it didn't reveal classified information.

Perhaps the most convincing allegation however, is that he's simply a bitter partisan hack with an axe to grind.

In 2002, he briefed the press corps in the standard Washington manner-spin the positives, pray you aren't called to task on the negatives. He wasn't. Life went on.

He retired from his position.

Honorably.

The White House had nothing bad to say about him.

Then.

Except that he wrote a book about the failures of both Clinton and Bush to deal with the terrorist threat, and Bush had staked his political future on his performance in handling the terrorist threat.

The book was political dynamite.

Despite the fact that he criticised Clinton's actions too, the White house wasted no time in painting him as a desperate attack from the far left-Dick Cheny claimed Clarke was out of the loop regarding White House policy and thus not in a position to discuss the issue, while Rice claimed the exact opposite-that Clarke wasn't locked out of the loop, and so his claims that terrorism wasn't taken seriously pre 9/11 are completely false.

They were right to be concerned-in his interviews with Bob Woodward, Bush had admitted that terrorism wasn't a priority in the early days of his presidency. But perhaps they overreacted...after all, who did take terrorism seriously before 9-11?

The answers may surprise you.

http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_2.29.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...airdefense.html

What's more disturbing of course, is Clarke's position that the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq has damaged the war on terror...

He might be right.

Our leaders attacked anyone who argued with their conclusions, rather than engage them in an honest debate, polarizing the world, and turning many whom might have joined our cause against us.

As a result, America lost the goodwill it had in 9/11...

There's more I could say about the issue, but I want to save a few pieces of ammo for other threads...

Bush has much to answer for.