Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[Sava]

It's really quite interesting that Bush fanatics are still supporting their dope despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that he ignored the terrorism before 9-11... and then wanted to blame 9-11 on Iraq.

I like how Condi Rice says the Bush admin was calling for stronger anti-terror measures than Clinton... only... the Bush admin didn't hold their first meeting on terrorism until September 4th, 2001. Man, even Condi's a lying piece of ****.

[Lincoln]

Yeah! And Bill Clinton certainly didn't ignore it! If Bill was still in the Whitehouse none of this would have happened! I think that Bush probably directed the planes into the WTC as well. Just wait until my book comes out...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Yeah! And Bill Clinton certainly didn't ignore it! If Bill was still in the Whitehouse none of this would have happened! I think that Bush probably directed the planes into the WTC as well. Just wait until my book comes out...

well we are all aware of your susceptability to fanaticism

[Lincoln]

I hope you had a good laugh...

I think I will vote for Ralph Nader this time around.

[Ramo]

Meyer, UK Ambassador in DC confirms Clarke's claim with regards to Iraq:

Blair 'dissuaded Bush from attack after 9/11'

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Friday April 4, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair has frequently played a pivotal role in the infighting in the US administration over Iraq, according to the recently retired British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Hawks in the Bush administration, mainly the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, pushed for an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11.

Sir Christopher, in an interview with the US public broadcasting system last night, said that the prime minister, arriving in Washington the week after an inconclusive discussion between George Bush and his key advisers at Camp David, swung in behind the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who saw Afghanistan as the prime target.

In the documentary Blair's War, Sir Christopher, who returned to Britain last month, said that when Mr Blair met Mr Bush in the weeks after September 11, he urged him to deal first with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network and its protector - Afghanistan's Taliban government - before tackling Iraq.

"Tony Blair's view was, 'Whatever you're going to do about Iraq, you should concentrate on the job at hand'. And the job at hand was get al-Qaida, give the Taliban an ultimatum," the former British ambassador said.

Sir Christopher added that Mr Bush took Mr Blair aside and promised he would keep Iraq "for another day".

Apparently, on becoming president, Mr Bush was content with the then US-British policy of containment. But September 11 changed his attitude to Saddam Hussein and he was no longer prepared to countenance a government that might prove to a risk in the future.

When Mr Bush returned to the Iraq issue after dealing with Afghanistan, the prime minister pressed him to go first to the UN, and offered to sell US policy to other European leaders.

"Blair said, 'If you want to do this you can do this on your own; you have the military strength to go into Iraq and do it, but our advice to you is: Even a great superpower like the US needs to do this with partners and allies'."

Mr Blair allied himself with Mr Powell in the battle to go down the UN route, against hawks such as the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, who in August last year appeared to rule out that option.

It was touch and go: when Mr Bush last September in a speech to the UN promised to take the Iraq issue to the security council, it was not in the text on his teleprompter. He agreed so late there was not enough time to include it.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,929464,00.html

Juan Cole has suggested that Blair's strong support for Shrub may be based on a bargain that he take care of Afghanistan immediately.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DanS
Here is the White House response, which is pretty hard-hitting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14760-2004Mar22.html

I think Clarke is off base here, because he wasn't in a position to know as much as he thought he was. Don't know if Clarke's critique is politically motivated or not.

Can you post the text? Can't get the link without subscribing.

[Giancarlo]

Great another guy wanting to a get a press opportunity and lying too from what I hear.

[notyoueither]

I don't know. There is getting to be a lot of smoke. Where there is smoke, there may well be fire.

Can I accept that Bush and members of his administration have been fixated on Iraq? That seems obvious, so yes (whether or not I agree with getting rid of Saddam, which I did and do).

Can I accept that less was done about the threat of terrorism before 9/11 than [could have been] done? Yes, I think I can. Prior to the event it is entirely possible that not as much was done as could have been. No, not possible, make that probable given the magnitute of the attack and the lack of impact prior attacks had.

Did Bush or his administration screw up by not doing things that they could reasonably be expected to have done? Maybe. That will be a question examined for some good long time to come.

[Edit. Fixed egregious error in what was intended.]

[Docfeelgood]

I predicted way back when that Son of a Bush took office that he would look for any excuse to take out that bad man who was trying to hurt his daddy

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
I predicted way back when that Son of a Bush took office that he would look for any excuse to take oyt the man who would try to hurt his daddy

Bull**** alert!

[Docfeelgood]

Bull****?

Look it up in the search.


Then lets see who is talkin bull****!


Bet you were not even on these boards then


If you were here then you would know.


so, eat bull**** and die

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Bull****?

Look it up in the search.


Then lets see who is talkin bull****!

I want something better then Ihatebush.org or some other crap like that. Something actually credible, and not made up horse crap.

[Docfeelgood]

Ask some of the vets here if you don't believe me.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Ask some of the vets here if you don't believe me.

Trust somebody on apolyton? That is like believeing The National Enquirer. Maybe you should talk to people in real life. And I am not listening to a bull**** machine like you.

[Docfeelgood]

Scared you did I?




Yep, the truth will set you free........


Prove me wrong smartazz