Wow. Not only can he torpedo Clinton, he can taint Clarke. Rupert's getting bang for his buck.

Dude, what is it with you and shooting the messenger? Why dont you say you think Mansoor Ijaz is a liar? What the hell does Fox have to do with it? Do I say everything the NYTs reports of the Guardian is automatically a lie? Even direct quotes? Ijaz is a well respected diplomat and journalist. Heres the story in the Washington Post if it makes you feel better:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64828-2002Jun29?language=printer

BananaMan You can imitate Tony Foresta, or you can become just another ignored Troll. Take your pick.

Excuse me. So I'm cynical. So is Murdoch.

nikita:

enjoy.

Mocking the retarded now x. Almost as funny as mocking Alzheimers. You are a sad case.

x: For all the mud-slinging you've done on here, you're hardly one to talk.

Either get some substance and some ethics, or continue being alternately ignored and pilloried.

x: have you ever kissed a girl?

happily married, thanks. have you ever seen the light of the sun?

PseudoBanana So. dirk storm That's a nice touch you've added to your SarcasmSocks - an ankle bracelet with cute liitle bananas hangin' on it. Sweet touch. :o)

Sean Hannity has repeatedly played the soundbite of former President Clinton explaining why he refused to take Bin Laden in extridition as well as why he told Sudan to keep him.

If you want to 'hear' this soundbyte.. you can try Hannity's website. I am not sure if he hosts soundbytes there. Nonetheless.....

President Clinton did indeed admit to what Monsoor Ijaz is saying here. So for those who are skeptical, you need to get yourself a Clue Bat, and hit yourself in the head 100 times.

Jeff

What do you think the charges would have been? I'm willing to learn.

Good Lord!

Multiple Button names and Now Multiple Bananas! What next? Oh well, we can be Thankful that they all have SHORT POSTS. On many threads it has reached the point that No one else can get a post done. They all slimed over by Tony Foresta. Can you at least put a word linit on him?

I meant word LIMIT.

For all the publicity that Clarke's comments are getting, the fact that the 9/11 commission did find that the adminstration had just completed prior to 9/11 a plan to go after the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been widely ignored. Details here

Clarke's complaint is that Bush should have listened to him. But having served eight years already as national security adviser for counterrorism, what record of success does Clarke have to point to that suggests his advice would have worked?

Incidentally, the 9/11 conspiracy was launched early in 2000, when Clarke was in his eighth year as counterterrorism adviser.

Its gettting pretty crazy with the 'he said this and I went like...' Oi, this election!

Why is Clarke getting so much media time for his Bush-bashing?

One reason is the liberal bias in the mainstream media. (I know the liberals hate to hear that, put it's proven time after time).

The latest? MSNBC is now blaming Bush for not invading Afghanistan in . . . 1998! (Sorry to nitpick guys but, um, Clinton was still President then.)

See:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014722.php

Why is Clarke getting so much media time for his Bush-bashing?

One reason is the liberal bias in the mainstream media. (I know the liberals hate to hear that, put it's proven time after time).

The latest? MSNBC is now blaming Bush for not invading Afghanistan in . . . 1998! (Sorry to nitpick guys but, um, Clinton was still President then.)

See:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014722.php

Also, Clarke was wrong about Condi Rice not knowing who Bin Laden was. And here's the proof:

"On Oct. 4, 2000, Condoleezza Rice was asked by WJR radio host David Newman what a Bush administration would do about the Osama threat... Rice spoke at length about the threat, and what needed to be done to deal with it... She said that we don't want to wake up one day and find that Osama has been successful on our own territory. (Watch or record the second segment of "Hannity & Colmes" tonight at 2 a.m. ET on Fox News Channel for a snippet of her comments, played in full earlier today on "The Sean Hannity Show," which can be heard many times on the linked site until 3 p.m. ET tomorrow.) "

http://tvh.rjwest.com/archives/004168.html

He owes here an apology.

Per MSNBC:

"The [9-11 Commission] report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up."

See:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

So: first Bush is a unilateral cowboy for waging war against terror. But, now, according to MSNBC he was negligent for not invading Afghanistan while he was GOVERNOR OF TEXAS!!!

Many critics who now say any President would have invaded Afghanistan were the same people saying the response to terror should be via law enforcement, not military action. (Just like the people who once criticized Reagan for his "evil empire" speech about the USSR and his military build-up, say now that Reagan was irrelevant to our victory in the cold war).

For more on the liberals' revisionism re: Bush's war on terror, see the article in today's Washington Post by Peter D. Feaver :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19164-2004Mar23.html

Most reasoned commmentators realize that neither Clinton nor Bush could have invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11. The post 9/11 world and realities cannot be quantified in the context the pre-9/11 realities.

After all the bluster - it is clear that good intelligence is the key to defeating our jihadist enemies, - not invasions, occupation, and nationbuilding.

Lastly Clinton did more than any previous president to address counterterrorism, and homeland security preparedness and Bush inherited programs and operation Clinton initiated.

Did the Clinton government do enough - obviously not. Were there failures in the Clinton governments counter terrorism operations - certainly.

The Bush government added or enhance counterterrorism operations, but the Bush government is accountable for many failures, and most monumentally the mass murder operations of 9/11, in 19 jihadist mass murderers 15 of them Saudi's with box cutters and $500,000 defeated our entire 400bn defense and war machine, our intelligence apparatus, every office in the Bush government and struck at the heart of America, slaughter 3000 innocent people, and changed the world forever.

If Bush was so focused on al Quaida - how did the monumental failures of 9/11 occur on the Bush watch.

There was a catastrophic failure to adequately monitor or act against al Quaida prior to 9/11. Bush was commander and chief and held the office of the executive at the time, there was plenty of intel warning of an imminent al Quaida threat, there were a catastrophic failures prior to 9/11 throughout the government, - and the Bush government is accountable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Clarke is a scumbag liar.

"If Bush was so focused on al Quaida - how did the monumental failures of 9/11 occur on the Bush watch."

This is how:
“The White House was not informed about investigations that revealed that two al-Qaida operatives - both future hijackers - were in the United States or about the FBI investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the United States with being a Sept. 11 conspirator.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040324/D81GPONG0.html

"CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct. "
August 2002
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

This guy's story is all over the map. Btw who was arguiing about Bush cutting funding?

Penosity Senator Kerry had him in mind for a new Cabinet Position - Embellisher of Disinformation. Kerry will be disavowing any endorsement from him shortly.

Well well well.

Looks like Bush understood the gravity of the situation within a very few months......per Clarke himself:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

There's more.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/clarke.letter/index.html

Jeff, Cap'n Doc & Mark:

Thanks for saving me the linking.

The new information about what Richard A. Clake told Fox News' Jim Angle back in August 2002 is very damning - for Richard A. Clarke (and, oddly, for perennial Bush-basher Joe Conason):

See:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014723.php

and also:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

and also:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_03_21_corner-archive.asp#027972

To Richard A. Clarke: were you lying then or are you lying now?

This is getting sooooooo good. We are gonna watch the Clintonites and the liberal Democrats squirm....and big time!! Clarke was a liar, and CBS promoted it big time.....CBS should come under question too!! The next dagger in the heart of these bastards is that Condi will come to the committee to set it all straight. America will wake up and declare war not only on Al Qaeda, but the fricken Democrats too!!! I love watching Sandy Berger squirm in his chair, and know he's getting slammed by much smarter people!

As an aside, I really dont think Clarke is intentionally lying. After seeing all this, the impression I get is that the man feels slighted and unappreciated. He was fighting this fight for a decade, and when the main event opens up he gets shunted aside and embarrassed. So he was a good soldier for another couple years, then he retires. Looking back, he sees Bush doing all the 'unilateralist' things he's been fighting against all his career. Star Wars, Arms control, Iraq. I think that once he put all that together his perspective on the past got squewed. This reminds me of the post war career of Confederate general James Longstreet. He was an influential, highly successful military leader who was ahead of his time. But he took the fall for Gettysburg and it wounded him deeply. So years later in his golden years he wrote some very bitter and factually inaccurate memoirs that contradicted things he was saying and writing at the time. It badly reflected on his legacy. I think Clarke has a similar story to tell.

"The post 9/11 world and realities cannot be quantified in the context the pre-9/11 realities.
"

AND

"There was a catastrophic failure to adequately monitor or act against al Quaida prior to 9/11. "

Tony,

If you are gonna spew against Bush while giving Clinton a pass, you could at least separate mutually contradictory statements by a post or two.

I would call you an idiot, but you clearly aren't. You are a sophomore, in the original Greek meaning of the word.

MG

Who is Mansoor Ijaz to say that Richard Clarke blocked efforts to capture Bin Laden? Mansoor Ijaz worked with the Clinton Administrations Counter-terrorism once, and it was with Sudan. He had nothing to do with the efforts to capture Bin Laden. He has no idea what he is talking about, to treat him diffrent then any other conservitive would be foolish.

paulie

Paulie, Did you read the article? Perhaps it was this:

I was personally asked to brief Condoleezza Rice’s deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on exactly what had gone wrong in the previous efforts to get bin Laden out of the Sudan, to get the terrorism data out of the Sudan, which I negotiated the offer for,” Ijaz told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.”
He said he also personally negotiated an deal “to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, using at Abu Dhabi Royal Family as a proxy to get him out on an extradition offer.”
But Ijaz told Fox:
“In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again.”

I would hardly call a Clinton diplomat and man that claims to have voted for him twice a "conservative."

Paulie, here's a wild idea. Go read the story before commenting on it. That way you might not look like a fool. Clinton confirmed the story himself.

Clinton is accountable as well, but my examination of the Clinton record does not call for condemnation, - There were failues, including 4 opportunities to assassinate bin Laden, but we cannot imagine what would have happened, and it is difficult to measure in the context of the pre9/11 world. It is however, crystal clear that the Clinton administration was focused on and seeking remedies to al Quaida - unlike the Bush government.

The Bush misadventure and Iraq and the grievious abuse of exploiting the horrors and the dead of 9/11 for partisan political gain are indefensible, inexcusable, and inconcionable grievances and the Bush government must answer to the people.

The Bush government failed monumentally to adequately secure America prior to 9/11, and the Clinton and all previous American governments also failed to adequately address the malignancy of jihadist islam and terrorism.

The tragic fact you cannot alter is that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch, and there were catastophic failures through-out the Bush government. Al Quaida killed 35 American's in eight years of Clinton government, and 3000 Americans in 8 months of Bush disadministration.

The Bush government is accountable.

So one guy accomplishes zero and you give him a pass, the other destroys two states that sponsor terror, and you condem him? Oh that's right Clinton was a democrat. Sorry Tony, I forgot that the Nile is just a river in Egypt.

"Clinton is accountable as well, but my examination of the Clinton record does not call for condemnation"

Well I'm shocked.

I do have one question you can answer for me Tony. Seek deep in your sould for an honest answer:

Lets suppose Bushs former terrorism czar was in front of the 911 committee defending Bush tooth and nail. Lets then suppose the DNC released a bunch of interviews from 2 years ago with said czar saying the dead opposite. Lets further suppose that an email surfaced from 9/12 from the czar lacing into Bush and claiming he had ignored terrorism for months. But at the hearing the czar steadfastly sticks to his story that Bush was doing an amazing job at anti-terrorism pre-911. Oh and he just released a book 2 days ago. What would your reaction be?

I think everyone here that has interacted with you knows what your reaction would be. Can you be honest about that scenario?

Richard Clarke cannot have it both ways. His own words have shown that his MAJOR MOTIVATION in this whole thing is personal profit. How typical.

Tony Foresta, you may accept that as O.K. However, I seriously doubt that the majority of American voters will agree with you in November. The Liberal Bush hating press (MSNBC in particular) have greatly over-stepped themselves on this one. Of course, you would never begin to understand anything not connected with ranting and raving ad nauseaum, would you?

Tony,

Why repeat your self-contradiction?

You made clear that there was a break between what was possible pre-9/11 and post-9/11, and then lambaste Bush for not doing more pre-9/11. What gives? Are you really so transparently dishonest?

Your partisanship or antipathy against Bush has blinded you. Why not take two spoons, gouge out your eyes, and be done with it?

MG

If, on January 22 2001, President Bush had gone to Afghanistan himself, put Bin Laden in handcuffs, brought him back to Washington D.C., tried and convicted him in court, and ( a judge) sentenced him to life in prison, people like Tony F and paulie would have spent the following 8 months complaining about that.They'd have said,"it's unconstitutional, too unilateral, No controlling legal authority, He's a loose cannon, should have gotten a UN resolution, this will just increase the threat of terrorism", etc. Then on September 12, they'd have said," see, ..we were right ". You just can't win with these....what are they?

The Ottawa Citizen

February 5, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION


DATELINE: KANDAHAR

BODY:
The Taliban authorities will consider sending Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born terrorist behind the World Trade Center bombing, to a third country if the West will recognize them as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

"We hope the new American administration will be more flexible and engage with us," said Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister, as new UN sanctions begin to squeeze the hardline group.

Mr. Muttawakil has written to President George W. Bush saying his administration is prepared to resolve the Bin Laden issue through negotiations.

General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military ruler, said the suggestion of sending Bin Laden abroad appeared workable. He added it was not clear which country might provide sanctuary to the world's most wanted terrorist but Yemen had been mentioned.Pakistan is the closest ally of the conservative administration.

Typhonus Taliban? Wouldn't be the same Outfit that chops off women's heads for having their faces exposed would it? Get a grip. A lyin' pack of Rapists and Murderers, man. I'd take their word - like, NEVER.

Again slime Clarke all you want but your basic suppostitions are flawed. If you read the fine print or witnessed the testimonies, Clarke was loudly applauded, and several commissioners remarked favorably on his candid testimony and outstanding service to the nation, under republican and democratic leadership.

You can suppose all you want, but all the partisan soothsaying does not alter the notable fact that by Clarkes own admission and any review of the texts - Clarke only accentuated the positive and minimized the negative. There was no "tooth and nail" defense from Clarke.

Clarke was a good soldier but behind closed doors in the deep security meetings he openly conflicted with the Bush governments policies and invidious agenda.

Clarke released information relating to the spiriting out of the country of 140 Saudi nationals including bin Laden family members in the dark hours and days immediately following 9/11 when all Americans were grounded shortly after leaving the government. A critical disturbing intrigue mysteriously swept off the radar by the "Apparat" and yet mentioned, corroborated, and elaborated in the recent testimony before the 9/11 commission.

Senators Graham of Wexler Florida attempted to floor a committee at the time to investigate the murky SA exodus operation - but were denied and repulsed by the high priests in the republican commandeered Senate. Once Clarke turned his face from the "Apparat" and the deceptions of the Bush government - Clarkes message has been remarkably consistant. In fact the general message is quite consistant through out his sterling carreer and courageous service to the nation Though he was forced to bruit the Bush government party line, Clarke consistantly rejected the Bush governments misfocus on, and misadventure in Iraq, and rang the al Quaida alarm bell often and loud.

Slime Clarke, but you do not and cannot defend or excuse the Bush government.

What gives is the critical difference between attacking al Quaida in Afghanistan, and defending Americans in America.

If the Bush government was focused on al Quaida, either the perceptual apparatus is irrepairably flawed, or there was a monumental failure to connect the glaring dots and recognize critical information. There was plenty of intel warning of al Quaida capabilities, intentions, activities, and threats pouring into the Bush government ears, by Clarke and Tenet, and while the OSP and Bush government focused on Iraq, - 19 al Quaida jihadist mass murderers,15 of them Saudi's defeated every system, operation, and office in the Bush government, struck at the heart of America, slaughtered 3000 innocent people, and changed the world forever with box cutters and our planes. .

Any way you cut it, the Bush government is accountable for the catastrophic failure to adequately monitor al Quaida, and secure America prior to 9/11.

What's done is done. "What's the difference". Let's moveon.

But the shameless exploitation of 9/11, and Cheney's creepy proclamation 9/11exclusivity for the Bush government - cannot and will not be tolerated.

Keep 9/11 out of the mass marketing, or suffer the stinging rebuke for the Bush governments monumental failures prior to 9/11.

The days of the Bush government exploiting 9/11 for political gain are ended.

All this crap.
The FACT is Clinton could have had Bin Laden, and probably a few other oganizers of 9/11, including one of the terrorist that fly one of the planes.
The FACT is the Clinton admin shackled the inteligence service, to the point we didn't have any arab speaking spies in the arwa's we needed them, resulting in faulty intelegence that bothe Clinton and bush thought to be true.
the FACT is Bush ha been doing more to rebuild a much stronger inteligence team, and has done more to stop terrorism in 4 years than clinton ever could in 8.
Those are the facts.

And tony, get your head out of your as and wake up.
God your an idiot.

I've lived in Washington for 28 years, long enough to know that nothing happens at these hearings by accident. Nice piece of theater, Dems.

x: does your wife know what you are posting here?

Fat Guy: Don't bother. Tony's #1 mission is to clog the C-P's database as much as possible.

I am a poor father dreadfully concerned about the future the Bush government will shape for my daughter and my "#1 mission" is to shine a hot light on, and demand accountability for the numerous and obvious failues, deceptions, abuses, and negligence of the Bush government.

You speak for yourself gus3, and I will speak for myself thank you.

Wow, this whole debate is just as pointless here as it is in the media and in congress. On one side here we have the Bush/Rice people, and on the other we have the Clinton/Clark people. How predictable and perfect. Listen, when the blogs and bloggers too closely resemble conventional media and governmental myopia, blogs and bloggers cease to be very much of alternative to anything.

Meanwhile, we have an ever-increasing terror threat to defeat, and strikes to prepare for, even as our collective national brainpower is devoted to dissecting the political past and present. Bleh. It occurs to me that in less stable countries, these would be precisely the type of conditions which lead to an easy military coup or outside invasion: Hopelessly blathering political groups focused on each other and not the threats at hand. Yawn.

Mark Buehner writes:

"Also, Clarke was wrong about Condi Rice not knowing who Bin Laden was. And here?s the proof:"

The story about the WJR interview is a sort of intelligence test that dittoheads fail badly. Everyone
who wasn't an idiot (and even quite a few idiots) knew who Osama bin Laden was, and Clarke never claimed that Rice didn't know. Only a complete moron (i.e., dittohead) could think that. When Rice appeared not to have heard of Al Qaeda, Clarke explained that it was OBL's network -- assuming, of course, that she had heard of OBL. The WJR interview actually confirms
that Rice hadn't heard of Al Qaeda, because she never mentions them; instead she talks of "state support", showing that she was clueless in exactly the way Clarke noted about Paul Wolfowitz.

jbBigBoy And you are clueless, or do you consider yourself one of the Idiots? Moron? Since you are so up on Mr. Clarke, why don't you just 'splain for those of us who are 'intellectually' challenged just exactly what Clarke claimed about Dr. Rice.

He claimed that she appeared never to have heard of the term "Al Qaeda". Indeed, anyone who doesn't know that by now is an intellectually challenged moronic idiot. Especially you, since I just mentioned it in my previous post.

jbLittleBoy He mustabeen readin' her mind, eh? LOL. I think you better read up, little boy. Anybody who didn't know that Clarke was into reading faces instead of palms must be an intellectually challenged Nitwit. How does that hook feel in your lower lip? Do you want me to yank it out now, or do you wish to flounder about on the beach for awhile?

LOL.

Perhaps "Cap'n DOC" is a liberal pretending to be a right winger to make them look bad -- he's even more stupid than most.

To recap: Mark Bluehner wrote "Clarke was wrong about Condi Rice not knowing who Bin Laden was" but Bluehner is a cretin and ignoramus who doesn't even know what Clarke wrote. Most right wingnuts at least get that part right, that Clarke siad that Rice had appeared not to have heard of the term "Al Qaeda", but then tell the lie that the WJR interview contradicts Clarke -- but it doesn't, since Rice never mentioned the term "Al Qaeda", then or any other time prior to going to work at the White House.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: