[Krusty]

To be aired on 60 minutes tomorrow.link

[chris v]

Clarke was assistant secretary of state in the administration of Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, and served as President Bill Clinton's coordinator for counterterrorism and the current president's adviser for cybersecurity.

Just some guy. nothing to see here, move on.

CV

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Krusty:
To be aired on 60 minutes tomorrow.link

One man who has a book he would like to sell:

"Clarke served the last three presidential administrations as a senior White House adviser. He is chairman of Good Harbor Consulting LLC. His book, ``Against All Enemies,'' goes on sale Monday. He will testify before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday in Washington."

I smell a RAT, and he's written a book that he will shlep on 60 minutes tomorrow.

[zachs]

I'm holding my judgement 'til tomorrow.

[clt2]

Obviously Watergate never happened. Bob Woodward made it all up to sell his book.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by clt2:
Obviously Watergate never happened. Bob Woodward made it all up to sell his book.

Are you on crack?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
One man who has a book he would like to sell:

"Clarke served the last three presidential administrations as a senior White House adviser. He is chairman of Good Harbor Consulting LLC. His book, ``Against All Enemies,'' goes on sale Monday. He will testify before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday in Washington."

I smell a RAT, and he's written a book that he will shlep on 60 minutes tomorrow.

yeah, looks like this is gonna be promo for his book. But as you mention, his testimony is considered important by the independent commission investigating 9/11. And he's served as a security advisor of some sort for Bush I, Clinton, & Bush II. He might have something interesting so say. Funny, the dialog sounds like a bunch of teenagers in the midst of a role-playing war game. My favorite quote from the article.

``Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq, and we all said, `No, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan,''' Clarke said. ``Rumsfeld said there aren't good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.''

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Krusty:
yeah, looks like this is gonna be promo for his book. But as you mention, his testimony is considered important by the independent commission investigating 9/11. And he's served as a security advisor of some sort for Bush I, Clinton, & Bush II. He might have something interesting so say. Funny, the dialog sounds like a bunch of teenagers in the midst of a role-playing war game. My favorite quote from the article.

You have a point about the dialogue, but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

Pretty cheesy.

Mmmmmmm, the power of cheese.

[Krusty]

60 minutes is on right now (Eastern Time). Little preview blurb for the story was .... my favorite quote from above

[chris v]

Whoa. He tore 'em a new @sshole.

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by chris v:
Whoa. He tore 'em a new @sshole.

CV

and the administration shill tried to weasel out by saying Clark never had that conversation with Bush, and Stahl countered with two independent sources corroborating....60 minutes does their homework.

It increasingly should be obvious to any with two brain cells to rub together that this administration, and the neocons behind it, had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and the administration shill tried to weasel out by saying Clark never had that conversation with Bush, and Stahl countered with two independent sources corroborating....60 minutes does their homework.

It increasingly should be obvious to any with two brain cells to rub together that this administration, and the neocons behind it, had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11.

Ya think? Saddam had:

Alqueda cells in his country.
Attempted it assasinate Bush Sr.
been behind the first WTC bombings.

Duh.
And that is with just two brain cells.... you should rub yours together sometime and see what happens. This is me standing back. Anyone smell toast?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by chris v:
Whoa. He tore 'em a new @sshole.

CV

You took the words right outta my mouth. Apparently, his testimony to the 9/11 commission is later this week. Maybe this explains the timing of his book more than a political agenda. Just wanting to capitalize on the fact that his name WILL be in spotlight very shortly. At least they seemed to give a fair shake to the White House's representative and his (predictable) denial of most things Clark said.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Krusty:
You took the words right outta my mouth. Apparently, his testimony to the 9/11 commission is later this week. Maybe this explains the timing of his book more than a political agenda. Just wanting to capitalize on the fact that his name WILL be in spotlight very shortly. At least they seemed to give a fair shake to the White House's representative and his (predictable) denial of most things Clark said.

He is good friends with the Kerry Campaign, and is auditioning for a position should Kerry win, which he won't.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Ya think? Saddam had:

Alqueda cells in his country.

Umm .. so did we, doesn't mean we were "sponsoring" them.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

Attempted it assasinate Bush Sr.

In 1993, for which we bombed their intelligence HQ. After this, CIA and FBI sources had 8 years of silence from Iraq toward the US.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

been behind the first WTC bombings.

Links please ... It was Ramiz Yousef (and Al-Qaeda). Link. Where's your evidence of Iraq being behind it?

[chris v]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
:

Alqueda cells in his country.
Attempted it assasinate Bush Sr.
been behind the first WTC bombings.

One out of three's a million dollar career in baseball...

CV

[Krusty]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
He is good friends with the Kerry Campaign, and is auditioning for a position should Kerry win, which he won't.

Again .. links please. We'd love to see you substantiate what you're saying down here in the two-brain-cell peanut gallery. If you saw the bit on 60 minutes, you'd see that this guy was originally appointed by Reagan, then Bush I .. he stayed on during Clinton and was kept by Bush II as well. How does this sound like a Democratic politico ??

[chris v]

So... who's gonna do my legwork for me and post the 60 minutes transcript?

CV

[nredman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

[BRussell]

Wow, that was absolutely devastating. This administration clearly drove this guy crazy with their BS. Bush didn't take terrorism seriously, and then after 9/11, he didn't handle it properly. When are conservatives going to wake up to the truth about how Bush has handled the war on terrorism?

[ghost_flash]

I apologize for my shoddy post previously:

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

"In June 1992, Salameh's phone bill went through the roof, rising from $128.41 in May to $1,401.00 in June. Indeed, on June 10, Salameh made the first of forty-six calls to Iraq, before his phone service was cut-off on July 9 for non-payment.8 The vast majority of these calls to Iraq were to his maternal uncle, Kadri Abu Bakr."

Sorry, my bad: 1993.

Also, see Oklahoma bombing. Iraq had a hand in that as well.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Wow, that was absolutely devastating. This administration clearly drove this guy crazy with their BS. Bush didn't take terrorism seriously, and then after 9/11, he didn't handle it properly. When are conservatives going to wake up to the truth about how Bush has handled the war on terrorism?

i saw that interview and made me visit this side politcal forum for the first time ever

i checked CNN.com first and what do i see as the front story?

"Updated: 08:43p.m.
EST (01:43 GMT)_March 21, 2004

U.N. inspectors: Iraq war wasn't justified

The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time. Hans Blix, who headed chemical and biological weapons inspections, said he thought the administration "chose to ignore us" while nuclear inspections chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" Iraq had not resumed its weapons program."

___________________

in the CBS interview, they had somebody represent the whitehouse speak too. he was clearly full of ****. everything that came out of his mouth was BULLSH!T of the smelliest kind. if Bush II really did as much as he said and was that concerned... WOULD HE HAVE NOT CONSULTED FREAKIN CLARK?!?!?! HE WORKED FOR YOUR ASS AS A TERRORISM EXPERT! HE WORKED FOR THE LAST 4 PRESIDENCIES! IF HE WAS THAT CONCERNED HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN! sorry about that.

seems to me that Bush II is a moron of the highest caliber

[zachs]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i saw that interview and made me visit this side politcal forum for the first time ever

i checked CNN.com first and what do i see as the front story?

"Updated: 08:43p.m.
EST (01:43 GMT)_March 21, 2004

U.N. inspectors: Iraq war wasn't justified

The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time. Hans Blix, who headed chemical and biological weapons inspections, said he thought the administration "chose to ignore us" while nuclear inspections chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" Iraq had not resumed its weapons program."

The big thing with this is, is that they aren't saying "Well, we think NOW that there wasn't evidence." They're saying that they didn't think there was evidence at the time.

seems to me that Bush II is a moron of the highest caliber

Well duh.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I apologize for my shoddy post previously:

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

"In June 1992, Salameh's phone bill went through the roof, rising from $128.41 in May to $1,401.00 in June. Indeed, on June 10, Salameh made the first of forty-six calls to Iraq, before his phone service was cut-off on July 9 for non-payment.8 The vast majority of these calls to Iraq were to his maternal uncle, Kadri Abu Bakr."

Sorry, my bad: 1993.

Also, see Oklahoma bombing. Iraq had a hand in that as well.

Well, thanks for linking out .... to a site sponsored by a Lobby group that supports Bush-Cheney (please see the "sponsors" at the top of your article). Hmmmmm ... lobby site "news" vs the administration's own top security advisor for terrorism speaking from first hand knowledge (he was a security advisor during the period of the first WTC bombing) He will be testifying this same information to Congress in a few days. So .. your site is prone to the same insinuations of political bias that you accused Clarke (which you've still never supported, BTW -- your link is only about the "Iraq Connection" )


Evidence cited in your article: (yes, I read it).
1) A guy involved with a high phone bill to Iraq
2) At least one of the members was from Iraq (al-Qaeda has members from most countries including allies such as Eqypt. OBL is from the ally state of Saudi Arabia).
3) The passport anomaly with Adbul Basit (who's passport Youssef apparently used). If you read the article, it basically says "gee, that looks really suspicious ... and it happened around the time Iraq occupied Kuwait" -- and that's their best evidence.

Also, if you read further on the very lines you quoted above you'll see that Kadri Abu Bakr was a big shot in the PLO (read: NOT the gov't of Iraq or Saddam Hussein) who happened to be working at the PLO office in Baghdad. How does calling his uncle in the PLO imply anything about Saddam Husseins' involvment ??

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Well, thanks for linking out .... to a site sponsored by a Lobby group that supports Bush-Cheney (please see the "sponsors" at the top of your article). Hmmmmm ... lobby site "news" vs the administration's own top security advisor for terrorism speaking from first hand knowledge (he was a security advisor during the period of the first WTC bombing) He will be testifying this same information to Congress in a few days. So .. your site is prone to the same insinuations of political bias that you accused Clarke (which you've still never supported, BTW -- your link is only about the "Iraq Connection" )


Evidence cited in your article: (yes, I read it).
1) A guy involved with a high phone bill to Iraq
2) At least one of the members was from Iraq (al-Qaeda has members from most countries including allies such as Eqypt. OBL is from the ally state of Saudi Arabia).
3) The passport anomaly with Adbul Basit (who's passport Youssef apparently used). If you read the article, it basically says "gee, that looks really suspicious ... and it happened around the time Iraq occupied Kuwait" -- and that's their best evidence.

Also, if you read further on the very lines you quoted above you'll see that Kadri Abu Bakr was a big shot in the PLO (read: NOT the gov't of Iraq or Saddam Hussein) who happened to be working at the PLO office in Baghdad. How does calling his uncle in the PLO imply anything about Saddam Husseins' involvment ??

He made 46 calls to Iraq... I guess he was ordering take out.

[chris v]

Alqueda cells in his country.

The only Al Queda cells that were known to have been in Iraqi territory from what I understand, were in the northern, Kurdish autonomous part of Iraq that was not under Saddam's control due to coalition enforcement of the no-fly-zone. So, one could say that the U.S. and its allies were more to blame for their being there than the Iraqi government.

That's a specious argument if there ever was one, and you're fooling no one but yourself with it.

CV

[James Christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I apologize for my shoddy post previously:



Also, see Oklahoma bombing. Iraq had a hand in that as well.

Ah. I thought it was because of quack Christian groups like those at Waco.

And the night before it McVeigh was having drinks at a strip bar with a German man. Guess which German politician's son that man was?

No Iraq link. Just zany Christian types.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by chris v:
The only Al Queda cells that were known to have been in Iraqi territory from what I understand, were in the northern, Kurdish autonomous part of Iraq that was not under Saddam's control due to coalition enforcement of the no-fly-zone.

Exactly. And not only that, but Bush apparently decided against taking out Zarqawi in Iraq because they thought it might undermine their case for invading. That was yet another instance in which they thought taking out Saddam Hussein was more important than taking out Al Qaeda, even after 9/11. I posted a few links about that in this thread.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
He made 46 calls to Iraq... I guess he was ordering take out.

or calling his uncle.

I suppose he hid the WMDs in the wavelengths of the phone transmission?

[vmpaul]

Didn't the name of the White House tool that rebutted Clarke sound familiar?

Wasn't it Stephen Hadley (the #2 guy at NSC who works for C. Rice) who buried the note from the CIA disclaiming the 'Iraq buying Uranium' statement in Bush's State of the Union address? I'm pretty sure it was him. He was the fall guy for that fiasco, wasn't he?

Correct me if I'm wrong but he's the last guy who should be in front of an audience talking about the credibility of another Adminstration employee.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I have no way of verifying any of this, although I do know that the Clinton Administration pushed cyber terrorism as the Next Big Thing (or one of them, at least). In any case, this guy's personal record and the fact that he has a personal score to settle for being demoted is relevant.

So you should read this.

The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.

September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction.

Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender.

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

This is kind of interesting too.

Trying his hand in cyberspace, Clarke's most lasting contribution is probably the new corporate exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. Originally designed to immunize companies against the theoretical malicious use of FOIA by competitors, journalists and other so-called miscreants interested in ferreting out cyber-vulnerabilities, it was suggested well before the war on terror as a measure that would increase corporate cooperation with Uncle Sam. Clarke labored and lobbied diligently from the NSC for this amendment to existing law, law which he frequently referred to as an "impediment" to information sharing.

While the exemption would inexplicably not pass during the Clinton administration, Clarke and other like-minded souls kept pushing for it. Finally, the national nervous breakdown that resulted from the collapse of the World Trade Center reframed the exemption as a grand idea, and it was embraced by legislators, who even expanded it to give a get-out-of-FOIA-free card to all of corporate America, not just those involved with the cyber-infrastructure. It passed into law as part of the legislation forming the Department of Homeland Security.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have no way of verifying any of this, although I do know that the Clinton Administration pushed cyber terrorism as the Next Big Thing (or one of them, at least). In any case, this guy's personal record and the fact that he has a personal score to settle for being demoted is relevant.

From the CBS Artice:
"Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service. "

[Krusty]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have no way of verifying any of this, although I do know that the Clinton Administration pushed cyber terrorism as the Next Big Thing (or one of them, at least). In any case, this guy's personal record and the fact that he has a personal score to settle for being demoted is relevant.

So you should read this.

One of the responses to the story you posted included at link to a lengthy article from CNN (from 2002) that describes Clarke's long term concern with al-Qaeda and his suggestion to start an offensive against them during the Clinton administration .. which he once again strongly advised when Bush came into office. His book and testimony may in fact spring from settling a personal score of some sort .... but he appears to be telling the truth that he was a loud (almost annoyingly so) proponent of taking the fight to al-Qaeda long before 9/11 and across administrations.

Still, thank you for the link ... looks like this guy is going to turn out to be one of the more interesting characters in the 9/11 investigation.

[BRussell]

He was demoted, but as I understand it, his office (terrorism czar) used to be a cabinet-level position and was changed to staff. So really, it was his office that Bush demoted rather than just him. Because terrorism just wasn't that important to the Bush administration.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
He was demoted, but as I understand it, his office (terrorism czar) used to be a cabinet-level position and was changed to staff.

Really? I see that he claims that but I have my doubts. I don't think that sub-bits of NSC have ever been cabinet level. The National Security Advisor (his boss) is only designated as a special assistant to the President. Not even the CIA director is cabinet level.* He's in effect saying that he outranked his boss. That's doubtful at best.

The article said his office has been shifted over to the Homeland Security, which is a new cabinet office.

However, I have a classmate who was in the Clinton NSC. If I run into her and remember, I'll ask her.


* the only CIA director who was ever designated as a cabinet officer was William Casey under Reagan. After his death and the blowup of the Iran Contra affair, the office was removed from the cabinet. Most people regard Reagan's decision to put it in the cabinet as a mistake not to be repeated. Note also that daily briefings between the president and CIA director were stopped by Clinton. Bush restored the daily briefings when he came into office. That cuts against this idea that Clinton gave national security a higher institutional profile than Bush. The evidence is the opposite.

[BRussell]

Yeah he clearly wasn't a real constitutional cabinet member like AG, state, or defense, but one of those "the president says you can come too" types like EPA and drug czar. As I remember, Clinton liked to do that to make certain constituencies happy, like environmentalists and anti-drug crusaders. Still, from his description, it wasn't him that was demoted - it's not as if someone else took his place. His position as terrorism czar was demoted.

He may have also been really demoted later, after 9/11, to cyber-terrorism mucky muck, but I'm not clear on that. Did someone else take his position as terrorism czar? Or did that just morph into Ridge's position?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah he clearly wasn't a real constitutional cabinet member like AG, state, or defense, but one of those "the president says you can come too" types like EPA and drug czar. As I remember, Clinton liked to do that to make certain constituencies happy, like environmentalists and anti-drug crusaders. Still, from his description, it wasn't him that was demoted - it's not as if someone else took his place. His position as terrorism czar was demoted.

He may have also been really demoted later, after 9/11, to cyber-terrorism mucky muck, but I'm not clear on that. Did someone else take his position as terrorism czar? Or did that just morph into Ridge's position?

Well, first, the cabinet is something that is personal to each president. There is actually nothing in the Constitution that says a president has to have a cabinet at all. It's really kind of a fiction, more tradition and pecking order than anything else. What really matters is presidential access. I don't think there is any evidence that this guy or his office had real presidential access. But as I say, if I get a chance to, I'll ask my classmate.

I haven't heard of a terrorism czar in the Bush administration. FOr that matter, I believe he nixed the other czars (drugs and AIDS) as well. But I don't think that they were considered cabinet level either. They were just special offices in the White House. But they weren't actually in the White House. They had offices on Lafayette Park and probably never had that much actual affect on policy or access to the President.

I imagine that the functions of the "terrorism czar" are divided up between the Dept. of Homeland Security and Dept. of Defense. Plus, of course, Condi Rice at NSC and Tenet at CIA. But I'm just guessing, I don't have any inside information on that. I'm just suggesting that the title "cabinet level" doesn't necessarily mean anything. It can, as you suggest, just be windowdressing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, first, the cabinet is something that is personal to each president. There is actually nothing in the Constitution that says a president has to have a cabinet at all. It's really kind of a fiction, more tradition and pecking order than anything else. What really matters is presidential access. I don't think there is any evidence that this guy or his office had real presidential access. But as I say, if I get a chance to, I'll ask my classmate.

I haven't heard of a terrorism czar in the Bush administration. FOr that matter, I believe he nixed the other czars (drugs and AIDS) as well. But I don't think that they were considered cabinet level either. They were just special offices in the White House. But they weren't actually in the White House. They had offices on Lafayette Park and probably never had that much actual affect on policy or access to the President.

I imagine that the functions of the "terrorism czar" are divided up between the Dept. of Homeland Security and Dept. of Defense. Plus, of course, Condi Rice at NSC and Tenet at CIA. But I'm just guessing, I don't have any inside information on that. I'm just suggesting that the title "cabinet level" doesn't necessarily mean anything. It can, as you suggest, just be windowdressing.

I'm confused how this part of the discussion is relevant, honestly. Whether his position was X or Y, he appears to be relating information that runs counter to the public image Bush would want to project, I assume. this makes him an easy target for character assasination, which seems to be the preferred mode of dealing with whistle blowers in this administration.....
Stahl backed up many of his claims with independent corroboration. Unless you're saying other sources were "demoted" as well, I don't see how this avenue yields any fruit.

[dialo]

Guess what.

Bush's two top advisors for terrorism (Beers and Clarke) leading up to september 11 are speaking out against the Bush administration. You can't get any closer than that other than a cabinet member. Of course, a cabinet member is also speaking out.

Clarke was replaced by Downing, who was an extreme Iraq hawk, so much so that when he resigned in July 2002 it was because of lack of action against Iraq!

At some point the Bushies are going to have to deal with the facts.

And we don't even need to talk about all of the other insiders who are speaking out saying the same stuff.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, first, the cabinet is something that is personal to each president. There is actually nothing in the Constitution that says a president has to have a cabinet at all.

Ah, you're right, I had thought there was something in the constitution about it.

Anyway, I looked up the White House's description of their cabinet, and it includes EPA, OMB, drug czar, and a few others as "cabinet rank members" but still separate from the real cabinet. I didn't find anything suggesting that Clarke held such a position in the Clinton administration, though.

But Clarke clearly thinks he was in the cabinet at some point:

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Maybe he gave himself a retrospective promotion. Or maybe it was just Clinton's famous ability to make everyone feel like they got what they wanted while not really giving it to them.

So that is a little suspicious. But in any case, he clearly seems to feel that they were having meetings and seriously working on terrorism in the Clinton administration, and that stopped when Bush came in, and that could have had something to do with the Bush admin failing to prevent 9/11. I've said that many times over the past couple of years - the Clinton admin, after all, did prevent a few major terrorist attacks. People usually dismiss that as an unfair attack on Bush, but if anyone would know if that's true, it would be this guy.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dialo:
Bush's two top advisors for terrorism (Beers and Clarke) leading up to september 11 are speaking out against the Bush administration.

Yeah, I was thinking about him too. For a president marketing himself as so tough on terrorism, the real experts in his own administration certainly don't think that's true. It's really amazing that these two guys, career non-political types, the two bigwigs involved in terrorism in the Bush administration, have spoken out against Bush so strongly for his actions re: terrorism.

And if I were Clarke, I'd get set for some serious pounding over the next few weeks.

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The article said his office has been shifted over to the Homeland Security, which is a new cabinet office.

The Special Adviser to the President for Cybersecurity reports to both the homeland security advisor and the national security advisor.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
career non-political types,

Career, yes, well sort of. I think they were all schedule C appointees, not civil servants. Non-political? No. There is no such thing in Washington (or America, for that matter).

The earlier guy went to work for Kerry's campaign. He's likely to be the national security advisor if Kerry becomes president just as Bush's advisor did before. In other words, he's as non-political as Condoleeza Rice (i.e. not very).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:
The Special Adviser to the President for Cybersecurity reports to both the homeland security advisor and the national security advisor.

You mean Secretary of Homeland Security.

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean Secretary of Homeland Security.

Considering I'm the one explaining to you the structure...

Just be sure to correct anyone that says "leader of the free world" (President) or "head of the defense department" (SoD).

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Career, yes, well sort of. I think they were all schedule C appointees, not civil servants. Non-political? No. There is no such thing in Washington (or America, for that matter).

Come on, you know what a political appointee is. They weren't political appointees in the sense that they weren't fired/hired as a result of a change of administration. They both remained in their positions through different administrations of different parties, until they quit and then complained about Bush's handling of terrorism.

The earlier guy went to work for Kerry's campaign. He's likely to be the national security advisor if Kerry becomes president just as Bush's advisor did before. In other words, he's as non-political as Condoleeza Rice (i.e. not very).

Yes, he became political, just like this Clarke has. He wasn't a Condi Rice before, but he is now, because, he says, of Bush's poor handling of terrorism. Did he really resign because he thought it would be his best career move, that he could get into a Democratic administration that would defeat Bush and then he could become National Security Advisor? Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So that is a little suspicious. But in any case, he clearly seems to feel that they were having meetings and seriously working on terrorism in the Clinton administration, and that stopped when Bush came in, and that could have had something to do with the Bush admin failing to prevent 9/11. I've said that many times over the past couple of years - the Clinton admin, after all, did prevent a few major terrorist attacks. People usually dismiss that as an unfair attack on Bush, but if anyone would know if that's true, it would be this guy.

As I'm sure you recall, I have never been one of those has tried to blame Clinton. I do think that the law-enforcement approach was wrongheaded (and to be clear, I said so pre-9/11). But Clinton just followed what most presidents did before him. I don't think the policy would have been much different if Bush I was reelected, or if Dole had been elected.

I also know a little from an inside source who later became a professor of mine that the Clinton Administration was worried about al-Queda and WMD terrorism in general. In fact the guy I have in mind almost certainly worked with this Clarke guy. That's how I knew about their interest in cybersecurity issue. My prof (who had been an Undersecretary of Defense) told us about it. So based on what he told me, I give them credit for their foresight. As a matter of fact, I know that what they did on force protection saved lives in the Pentagon. I had the happy opportunity to thank my former prof for that after 9/11. I wish all Americans had a better idea of what their quiet professionals in government do for them and could say so. It's just not a party thing.

However, I don't know directly anything about what might or might not have changed in administrations. It looks like there was some reshuffling. I remember reading that Bush decided to downsize the National Security Staff because he (more likely Rice) felt that under Clinton it was starting to overgrow its responsibilities, becoming a super Pentagon, and super CIA. Presidents when they come into office often do things differently from their predecessors, and this guy may have lost out in the beaurocratic reshuffle. It's possible that he is upset. If so, he wouldn't be the first person to get upset when his turf is invaded. Or there could be other reasons. Who knows? But it is legitimate to ask.

What we shouldn't lost sight of here is that A. this is an election year. And B. this guy is selling a book. It may be that there is all kinds of juicy stuff here for future historians. But have you read many official Washington autobiographies? They are almost always the same: "why I was right and the person who fired me is a blithering idiot" (subtext: please hire me in the next Administration).

[dialo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Did he really resign because he thought it would be his best career move, that he could get into a Democratic administration that would defeat Bush and then he could become National Security Advisor? Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

And it is pretty far-fetched.

It's basically an attempt by some folks to explain away the fact that Bush's two top advisors on terrorism are speaking out about against the bush admin in the harshest ways possible. This isn't subtle criticism, and these people are not outsiders.

But those folks that rely on the bush admin for their worth are having a hard time coming around to reality.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:
to explain away the fact that Bush's two top advisors on terrorism are speaking out about against the bush admin in the harshest ways possible.

Harshest, and most lucrative ways possible.

Of course, it's possible that this guy is absolutely right. Or he could be in the pattern of so many other self-interested "whistleblowers." All I'm suggesting is a little skepticism and examination of who this person is is in order. Not sanctifying him because he happens to come along at the right time to say what you so desperately want to believe.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
And it is pretty far-fetched.

It's basically an attempt by some folks to explain away the fact that Bush's two top advisors on terrorism are speaking out about against the bush admin in the harshest ways possible. This isn't subtle criticism, and these people are not outsiders.

But those folks that rely on the bush admin for their worth are having a hard time coming around to reality.

REALITY...

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

SIMON & SCHUSTER INFO-COMMERCIAL

Earlier this year, it was Stahl who also profiled another author on 60 MINUTES -- for another book owned by VIACOMCBS -- without any disclaimer. "The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, turned Bush critic, Paul O'Neill was financed, produced and released (and rolled-out at CBSNEWS) by VIACOM's SIMON & SCHUSTER.

The truth is so important that it has to be held back for a year, and then packaged to sell to the public for the ripe price of $17.95.

It would be more believable if these "authors" were people who weren't fired and disgruntled, and who were more interested in giving their nation the truth for free.