Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets see Clark a career DC insider and one of the people responcible for not getting Bin Laden even though we had him in the gun sights. Clark a self professed expert on terrorism allowed our Sailors on the Cole to die.
So his track record of predicting and preventing terrorist attacks is well established. He has established that he did a fairly poor job of it. Now sitting in the hot seat after 911 he can:
A. admit that he dropped the ball yet again.
B. Admit that they under setimated the threat.
C. Do what DC insiders always do. Blame someone else.
Guess he went for C.....
Can he admit that he and the CIA allowed known terrorists to enter our country?
Can he admit that they knew those terrorists were here already?
Can he admit that maybe just maybe he and his team actually sucked at their jobs?
NO... Its much easier to blame everyone else.
Question. Did he apologize to the families of the sailors who died on the USS COle?
Contrary to what the Bush Administration has led us to believe, the US government knew a major attack was coming in Summer 2001.
Below is an excerpt from an conversation between MSNBC's Tim Russert and Richard A. Clarke.
As a counter-terrorism expert, Clarke worked for the Bush Administration, and reported directly to Condi Rice when she was the National Security Advisor.
With all of the above going on, why in the world did Bush go on vacation the entire month of August 2001?
Also, why was our nation put into a somewhat "defenseless" state when practice military missions were conducted on September 11, which took our fighter jets away from Washington?
Why did Condi Rice state that the Bush Adminstration never imagined that a hijacked plane would be used as a weapon, and flown into a building, when, prior to 9/11, the US government conducted training exercises for that exact scenerio?
Below is a huge list of military exercises which took place prior to 9/11, which included training for scenarios of planes hitting the Pentagon:
Shhhh, this is top secret stuff you got here. Did you know Obama was in on the planning too? That's what he was doing back then, planning terrorist attacks. I think it's time you refilled your meds there captain courageous.
Lets see Clark a career DC insider and one of the people responcible for not getting Bin Laden even though we had him in the gun sights. Clark a self professed export on terrorism allowed our Sailors on the Cole to die.
So his track record of predicting and preventing terrorist attacks is well established. He has established that he did a fairly poor job of it. Now sitting in the hot seat after 911 he can:
A. admit that he dropped the ball yet again.
B. Admit that they under setimated the threat.
C. Do what DC insiders always do. Blame someone else.
Guess he went for C.....
Can he admit that he and the CIA allowed known terrorists to enter our country?
Can he admit that they knew those terrorists were here already?
Can he admit that maybe just maybe he and his team actually sucked at their jobs?
NO... Its much easier to blame everyone else.
Question. Did he apologize to the families of the sailors who died on the USS COle?
Richard Clarke did not let Bin Laden go. That was Clinton. Clinton at that time, felt if he sent troops into another country to capture Bin Laden, people would assume he was "wagging the dog" to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky hearings. The Republican controlled Congress had pushed the Monica issue to the point where Clinton had difficulty acting in his role as President.
Clarke also could not have prevented the Cole attack without some type of intel telling him it was being planned. So it is ridiculous to blame him for that.
Clarke considered Bin Laden as America's most severe threat, and he continually tried to get the Bush Adminstration Senior members to meet on Al Qaeda from January - September 2001, and Condi Rice kept putting off the meeting, until September 4th ... when it was already too late.
Between January - September 2001 all Bush was concered about was how to come up with a reason to justify a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Yes itspossible they had heard about the threat. Along with the thousands of other threats that are made. Which one do you take seriously. Bin Laden and company have made numerous threats since 911 and yet none have actually happened.
Yes the military undoubtedly trains for such events. I trained for Nuclear attack. None happened.
This is all old news. What caused delays in response. Why the military wasn't flying armed aircraft over us skies. A little known fact here. The american public is uncomfortable with fighters flying with missiles under their wings over our cities. Another thing to consider. Those 4 planes were not the only ones not responding to radio traffic. Should we have shot every violator down?
Whoa wait maybe we should have missile batteries in every city just in case? Maybe we should have armed soldiers walking around just in case? Hey we are being threatened are we not? Better to take every threat seriously just in case.
Or we can learn from the mistakes. Have better reaction plans and preparedness. Just a thought.
Clarke served as chief counter-terrorism advisor on the NSC when Al-Qaeda bombed the two U.S. Embassies in August of 1998 and the attacked the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000, under the Clinton administration (a position he was promoted to by Clinton). Under the new Bush administration, he was more or less demoted.....he maintained the same position but, as a member of the Senior Executive Service and was no longer on the NSC. Both he and the Bush administration have been critical of each other.
There's always two sides to a story but, out of all the media sources MSNBC is very biased so, chances are you're only going to hear half of the story from them. Which is fine but, you need to realize that (so the same applies when (if) you watch FOX)and also check elsewhere to get the complete story and decide for your self what happened.....which is almost always some where in the middle of the two stories (but not always). I find wikipedia to be helpful....it's user submitted but, then reviewed by the staff thoroughly and it warns you if part of something has not been verified yet or even if the material may be biased (and it eventually gets removed if it's not corrected within a certain period of time). You can read about Richard Clarke here on it:
I've read Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies", and have seen him interviewed many times on TV.
In my opinion, Clarke was the only person in the Bush Administration who told the truth about 9/11. The rest of the administration did everything they could to cover it up.
Clarke had served for 30 years in government, and worked for every president since Ronald Reagan. He was not a politician or affiliated with any party. He simply considered himself a civil servant.
While I don't disagree that MSNBC leans a little left ... and FOX leans far right ... Tim Russert (d. 2008) was not known to take sides. Russert was an exceptional journalist, who held all politicians feet to the fire, especially on his Sunday show Meet The Press.
After 9/11, Bush did everything he could to cover up his Administration's role in 9/11. When Clarke left the White House in 2003 and attempted to tell the truth about 9/11, the Bush Administration tried to make "Clarke" into the problem, instead of responding to Clarke's "accusations".
Shhhh, this is top secret stuff you got here. Did you know Obama was in on the planning too? That's what he was doing back then, planning terrorist attacks. I think it's time you refilled your meds there captain courageous.
I heard that ole Barry & George worked together to personally put all the explosives in the WTC Towers. Then they went over to Shooters Pub and watched it all happen on the big screen TV.
In my opinion, Clarke was the only person in the Bush Administration who told the truth about 9/11. The rest of the administration did everything they could to cover it up.
So is it possible that maybe Clarke is the one that's wrong? I'm just asking if it's possible.
I mean, honestly, in a court of law if you have one person saying one thing, and 50 others saying the exact opposite, who do you suppose is apt to be believed?
Yes itspossible they had heard about the threat. Along with the thousands of other threats that are made. Which one do you take seriously. Bin Laden and company have made numerous threats since 911 and yet none have actually happened.
Yes the military undoubtedly trains for such events. I trained for Nuclear attack. None happened.
This is all old news. What caused delays in response. Why the military wasn't flying armed aircraft over us skies. A little known fact here. The american public is uncomfortable with fighters flying with missiles under their wings over our cities. Another thing to consider. Those 4 planes were not the only ones not responding to radio traffic. Should we have shot every violator down?
Whoa wait maybe we should have missile batteries in every city just in case? Maybe we should have armed soldiers walking around just in case? Hey we are being threatened are we not? Better to take every threat seriously just in case.
Or we can learn from the mistakes. Have better reaction plans and preparedness. Just a thought.
The question is, why did Bush try so hard to keep 9/11 from being fully investigated?
If Bush had nothing to hide, he would have allowed the investigation to begin immediately.
Instead, Bush waited 18 months to start the investigation, after being pressured by families of the 9/11 victims.
Bush also initially allocated a ridiculously little amount of money for the investigation ($3 million), and later had to raise it substantially.
There were way too many questions concerning Bush that were completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission.
Why did Bush and Cheney testify together, and prevent Congress from recording and taking notes of any sort? Why was none of their testimony made public?
So is it possible that maybe Clarke is the one that's wrong? I'm just asking if it's possible.
I mean, honestly, in a court of law if you have one person saying one thing, and 50 others saying the exact opposite, who do you suppose is apt to be believed?
The Bush Administration were "not" saying the exact opposite. They simply refused to say "anything" in response to Clarke's accusations. Instead of responding to the actual accusations, they chose to attack Clarke himself. Read the full transcript in the link provided in the original post.
As Clarke and other previous administration officials have admitted, when you serve a president, you do not go against the administration's directives while in office. So everyone in the Bush Administration were directed to say the exact same thing.
The exact same thing recently happened to Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan, after he wrote his book. Everyone in the White House "parroted" the same exact phases when interviewed by journalists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
