Former Terrorism Advisor (Republican) Holds U.S. Government Accountable

[J.HollaBack]

I hope a democrat gets elected into office, takes over and changes things (in whatever way you guys think that is better than what Bush and them have done) and everything goes to shit. I hope we sink into a depression far worse than the first one.

 

Not because I think Bush and them are doing a good job, but because I CAN NOT STAND everyone bashing them and acting as if because there was somebody else in office, that they wouldn't have done the exact same things that Bush and them did.

 

maybe I'm wrong about that, but I think whoever else was in office during these times would have gone after Bin Ladin after 9/11 and gone after Al Queda and more than likely gone after Saddam in Iraq as well (eventually atleast).

 

But say they didn't, I'm willing to bet that the terrorists would have still struck again, reguardless of the fact that we have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. Bottom line is that they don't like us, and got beef with us for one reason or another.

 

That being said, like i mentioned above, say whoever was president instead of Bush DIDNT go to war after 9/11 or go after the terrorists (which I think the US Public wanted anyways based on revenge)... but anyways, say they STRUCK AGAIN, the people of the United States would have been even more furious!!!

 

Now that I've made that point, people would more than likely be asking WHY we didnt go after these guys after 9/11. Why did we have to wait to get struck again before going after these guys?

 

The only way I see you could argue this reasonings is this way:

 

Instead of going after Bin Ladin, Al Queda and going into Iraq and basically chasing Terrorists around all over, we could have sharpened our intelligence agency skills, built up more defense, and looked into other means of protecting ourselves against another attack, and just be more aware of our situation i guess, but the problem with this plan is it allows these terrorist people and organizations to be able to plot / plan more attacks against us that could foil any attempts of ours to "defend ourselves against them". Because quite frankly, we can't protect every single angle that terrorists could use to their advantage tp attack us by. it's almost impossible.

 

I guess what aggrivates me so much about all this stuff is the Bush bashing, because the way I see it, no matter who was in the office during this time, they would have been defeated in the sense that when it comes to terrorism and having to fight against it, there is only so much you can do, fight against it and protect yourself in the mean time, or just protect yourself and wait on the next attack to come. Basically it's a lose lose situation.

 

And rather than acting like Bush has betrayed us, and is ruining our country and whatever else, I think we need to just label it as our Goverment has betrayed us or failed us.

 

Maybe I'm way off here, but I guess time will tell.

[Dr. Dazzle]

I thought you were grounded from threads like these......

[J.HollaBack]

Originally posted by Dr. Dazzle

I thought you were grounded from threads like these......

 

As long as stay on point and don't be a jerk, i've been somewhat granted admissions.

 

I'll tell you like i told seeking, please read all of what I say, and if you disagree, dont put me down, explain to me why my reasonings are wrong by explaining your thoughts about the situation instead of copping out by saying mine are dumb and leaving it at that.

[TheoHuxtable]

Originally posted by !@#$%

 

* In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10

 

 

 

Hahahaha... I remember back then like in June 2001 that our military superiors and everybody was telling us that there was a possibility of an attack against U.S. interests overseas, more than likely to occur on the Arabian Penninsula. They built all types of guard gates, had stiffer security checks, and watches that we stood that were usually without a gun, were changed and they gave us shotguns, 9 mils, and M-14. I didn't even know what the reason for all the intense security that took place that whole summer but I found out in September.

[gfreshsushi]

Originally posted by J.HollaBack

I hope a democrat gets elected into office, takes over and changes things (in whatever way you guys think that is better than what Bush and them have done) and everything goes to shit. I hope we sink into a depression far worse than the first one.

Not because I think Bush and them are doing a good job, but because I CAN NOT STAND everyone bashing them and acting as if because there was somebody else in office, that they wouldn't have done the exact same things that Bush and them did. I think whoever else was in office during these times would have gone after Bin Ladin after 9/11 and gone after Al Queda and more than likely gone after Saddam in Iraq as well (eventually atleast).

it is not bush's fault we got attacked. however, it is his fault that the office of homeland security was created (the largest bureaucracy ever in US government), and it is his fault that both the patriot acts passed (the biggest threats to american civil rights since slavery). it is also his fault we went into iraq, without proof (only speculation and blurry photos) of their involvement in 9/11 (which has been proven to be nil) or their capacity to attack the united states or our allies (also practically nil). we went into iraq without cleaning up the mess we made in afghanistan first, something we are still trying to clean up over a year and a half later.

I'm willing to bet that the terrorists would have still struck again, reguardless of the fact that we have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. Bottom line is that they don't like us, and got beef with us for one reason or another.

 

yes, their beef with us rests primarily with us having military bases in the middle east, an area they consider "holy." that, and the whole "american pop culture is obliterating hundreds of years of tradition around the world" thing.

say whoever was president instead of Bush DIDNT go to war after 9/11 or go after the terrorists (which I think the US Public wanted anyways based on revenge)... but anyways, say they STRUCK AGAIN, the people of the United States would have been even more furious!!!

 

yeah, no shit. however, that is part of the package deal when you're president. wilson (i think that's who it was) got voted out at the next election right after the stock market crashed in '29. that's what happens when you're the fucking president. you're the guy everybody points at and says "it's his fault!" you're also the guy everybody points to when the country is going well(like fdr getting elected to the presidency four times IN A ROW). it's part of the job description. going after terrorists is a given. going after a country that had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11 is a bullshit move. bin laden hates saddam. want to know why? because saddam is the reason there are u.s. military bases in saudi arabia, kuwait, and a few other choice locales in the middle east.

 

Instead of going after Bin Ladin, Al Queda and going into Iraq and basically chasing Terrorists around all over, we could have sharpened our intelligence agency skills, built up more defense, and looked into other means of protecting ourselves against another attack, and just be more aware of our situation i guess, but the problem with this plan is it allows these terrorist people and organizations to be able to plot / plan more attacks against us that could foil any attempts of ours to "defend ourselves against them". Because quite frankly, we can't protect every single angle that terrorists could use to their advantage to attack us by. it's almost impossible.

no, we can't. that's part of what terrorism is. they use unconventional tactics and methods to fuck us up and scare us into going along with whatever they want. this is where better intelligence comes in. figuring out who, what, where, when, and how of future attacks means we can formulate plans to stop them. i can think of about a hundred ways to create mass chaos in the united states, and i go to junior college. i fail to see why it's so hard to implement safety measures. restricting access to materials that can be used to create bombs, stricter border controls, and a whole hell of a lot of people whose job it is to think of this shit really shouldn't be so difficult. taking away our freedoms as americans does not seem like a wise idea when trying to keep non-americans from fucking us up.

 

rather than acting like Bush has betrayed us, and is ruining our country and whatever else, I think we need to just label it as our Goverment has betrayed us or failed us.

 

bush is the go-to guy when people feel betrayed by their country and government. why? because he's president. at the end of the day, it's a hell of a lot more his fault than you or me, dude.

 

i'm sure there are a million more things i should say in this rant, but i'm way too tired. keep posting in the political topics tease. you have admitted that you don't know much about this shit, and this is as good a place as any to start learning.

[Nekro]

Gfresh, laying the smackdown!

[random]

it's also bush's fault that support for the us from the world community after september 11 was completely squandered, mainly by the administration's decision to wage an illegitimate war

[J.HollaBack]

gfreshsushi-

 

the only thing I disagree with you about your response to mine is Saddam's role in terrorism. I can't help but to believe that he in some way or another funding some sort of terrorism.

 

Even though we didn't have concrete proof of him working with Al Queda in order to justify going after him and although we haven't found WOMD in Iraq, I still think taking him out of power is for the best.

 

Maybe we should have waited to have the support of other nations and the United Nations before going after him, but like I said, I think everyone's better off without him in power.

[Nekro]

Taking saddam hussein may have been a good thing to do, but not becuase he had anything to do with al-Quaeda or 9-11.

 

The investigation into wether Saddam Hussein had ties to al quaeda was the biggest fact-finding mission in history; over 750,000 people were interviewed. If there was a link, we would have known about it.

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by J.HollaBack

I think everyone's better off without him in power.

 

I doubt you'll find anyone that will disagree with you. It's a good thing that Saddam is out of power ...

 

... but at what cost? Over $200 billion spent, more than 500 American soldiers dead, the rest of the world hates us like never before, the basis for war [WMDs] turned out to be a lie.

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by El Mamerro

Well, here's an article from the bastion of pure and unbiased news that is Fox News, where Clarke does seem to have agreed that Bush wanted to go after Al Qaida prior to 9/11. It's a transcript from early August 2002.

 

He addressed this issue in today's hearing. I'll let Billmon do the talking:

 

... Clarke simply rolled over his only aggressive challenger -- former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson -- reducing him to not much more than a greasy spot on the pavement. Thompson (who should have known better) made the strategic blunder of nailing his inquisitorial flag to a transcript of a background briefing that Clarke gave in the summer of 2002, which was leaked to Fox News by the White House and released just hours before he testified.

 

In that briefing, Clarke supposedly lauded the administration's conduct of the war against terrorism in words which were not exactly consistent with the picture painted in his new book.

 

But the ploy backfired on Big Jim after Clarke refused to play the role of evasive double talker (Kerry could learn a lot from him.) He didn't back down an inch. The briefing, Clarke replied, was simply an exercise in spin doctoring -- "maximizing the positives and minimizing the negatives" -- as he had been instructed to do by his political superiors. It was also no different, he said, from simliar background briefings he had conducted for previous presidents. Clarke managed to make it very clear he didn't just mean Clinton. And every member of the commission, and every reporter in the room, knew exactly what he meant ...

[Poop Man Bob]

On the same issue, here's the portion of the transcript I was referring to:

 

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?

 

CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading.

 

The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office.

 

Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern.

 

So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did.

 

Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing.

 

THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy?

 

CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect.

 

THOMPSON: OK. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption?

 

CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case.

 

THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case?

 

CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make.

 

THOMPSON: Are you saying to be you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public, and that you went ahead and did it?

 

CLARKE: Well, OK, over the course of the summer, they developed implementation details. The principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold.

 

THOMPSON: Did they authorize the increase in funding five-fold?

 

CLARKE: Authorized but not appropriated.

 

THOMPSON: Well, but the Congress appropriates, don't they, Mr. Clarke?

 

CLARKE: Well, within the executive branch, there are two steps as well. In the executive branch, there's the policy process which you can compare to authorization, which is to say we would like to spend this amount of money for this program. And then there is the second step, the budgetary step, which is to find the offsets. And that had not been done. In fact, it wasn't done until after September 11th.

 

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on Pakistan, was the policy on Pakistan changed?

 

CLARKE: Yes, sir it was.

 

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on Uzbekistan, was it changed?

 

CLARKE: Yes, sir.

 

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance, was that changed?

 

CLARKE: Well, let me back up. I said yes to the last two answers. It was changed only after September 11th. It had gone through an approvals process. It was going through an approvals process with the deputies committee. And they had approved it -- The deputies had approved those policy changes. It had then gone to a principals committee for approval, and that occurred on September 4th. Those three things which you mentioned were approved by the principals. They were not approved by the president, and therefore the final approval hadn't occurred until after September 11th. THOMPSON: But they were approved by people in the administration below the level of the president, moving toward the president. Is that correct?

 

CLARKE: Yes, so over the course of many, many months, they went through several committee meetings at the sub-Cabinet level. And then there was a hiatus. And then they went to finally on September 4th, a week before the attacks, they went to the principals for their approval. Of course, the final approval by the president didn't take place until after the attacks.

 

THOMPSON: Well is that eight-month period unusual?

 

CLARKE: It is unusual when you are being told every day that there is an urgent threat.

 

CLARKE: The secretary of state has, as a member of the principals committee, that kind of authority over all foreign policy issues.

 

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance, that would have been DOD?

 

CLARKE: No. Governor, that would have been the CIA.

 

But again, all of the right people to make those kinds of changes were represented by the five or six people on the principals committee.

 

THOMPSON: But they were also represented on the smaller group, were they not, the deputies committee?

 

CLARKE: But they didn't have the authority to approve it. They only had the authority to recommend it further up the process.

 

THOMPSON: Well, is policy usually made at the level of the principals committee before it comes up?

 

CLARKE: Policy usually originates in working groups. Recommendations and differences then are floated up from working groups to the deputies committee. If there are differences there, policy recommendations and differences are then floated up to the principals. And occasionally, when there is not a consensus at the principals level, policy recommendations and options, or differences, go to the president. And the president makes these kinds of decisions.

 

By law, in fact, many of the kinds of decisions you're talking about can only be made by the president.

 

THOMPSON: And you said that the strategy changed from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, which I presume is the Clinton policy, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda, that is in fact the time line. Is that correct?

 

CLARKE: It is, but it requires a bit of elaboration. As your staff brief said, the goal of the Delenda Plan was to roll back al Qaeda over the course of three to five years so that it was just a nub of an organization like Abu Nidal that didn't threaten the United States.

 

I tried to insert the phrase early in the Bush administration in the draft NSPD that our goal should be to eliminate al Qaeda. And I was told by various members of the deputies committee that that was overly ambitious and that we should take the word eliminate out and say significantly erode.

 

THOMPSON: And you were asked when was...

 

KEAN: Governor, one more question.

 

THOMPSON: When was that presented to the president? And you answered: the president was briefed throughout this process.

 

CLARKE: Yes. The president apparently asked, on one occasion that I'm aware of, for a strategy. And when he asked that, he apparently didn't know there was a strategy in the works. I, therefore, was told about this by the national security adviser.

 

I came back to her and said, well, there is a strategy; after all, it's basically what I showed you in January. It stuck in the deputies committee. She said she would tell the president that, and she said she would try to break it out of the deputies committee.

 

THOMPSON: So you believed that your conference with the press in August of 2002 is consistent with what you've said in your book and what you've said in press interviews the last five days about your book?

 

CLARKE: I do. I think the think that's obviously bothering you is the tenor and the tone. And I've tried to explain to you, sir, that when you're on the staff of the president of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible.

 

THOMPSON: Well, with all respect, Mr. Clarke, I think a lot of things beyond the tenor and the tone bother me about this.

[Guest BROWNer]

clark is the straight HUD master right now.

[gfreshsushi]

Originally posted by J.HollaBack

gfreshsushi-

 

the only thing I disagree with you about your response to mine is Saddam's role in terrorism. I can't help but to believe that he in some way or another funding some sort of terrorism.

I think everyone's better off without him in power.

 

the only terrorism he was funding was his own special brand. he engineered an assassination attempt against george bush sr. during the first gulf war. the majority if terrorists that the united states gives two shits about are islamic fundamentalists, and they all hate hussein because he declared himself a direct descendent of mohammed and said all this shit about him being the chosen ruler of the middle east and started his own branch of islam. he's like the brigham young of islam, and the muslim world rejected him for it. i believe the world is a better place without him in control of an entire country, but it was not the united states' place to remove him without international support.

[Nekro]

Know what's fucked up? We spent $200 billion in Iraq last year and only $40 billion on the homeland security department.

[Guest BROWNer]

>applause

 

Clarke also made history for being the first high-ranking former or current government official_to offer an_apology to loved ones of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terrorist attacks.

 

"Your government failed you, and I failed you," he said. "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

[!@#$%]

clearly, the guy is not a politician..

he's admitting wrongdoing, then actually apologizing, acknowledging that he shares in the blame..

yes, i'll join in the round of applause, but i'm gonna shake my head too...

that's disgusting that it is so rare for the government to be honest that we are applauding it...

[seeking]

Re: >applause

 

Originally posted by BROWNer

[dick] Clarke also made history for being the first high-ranking former or current government official_to offer an_apology to loved ones of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terrorist attacks.

 

not to mention his tireless work over the past 40 years bringing popular music into our homes. couple that with his undying devotion to each year's 10second ball-dropping countdown, and you've got an american icon we can truly be proud of.

 

ohhh, different dick clarke?

shit...

 

 

seeks/[sincerity]i apologize tease, you were right, i shouldn't pick at you like i did.[/sincerity]

[J.HollaBack]

Apology accepted good buddy. Once again, I apoligize for my previous retardisms in other threads like this that had importance to them and were ruined by my shinanigans.

 

And like others have mentioned, I admire this Clarke character for apoligizing to the people for letting everyone down. However, I think it was dishonorly of him to have his book printed up while Bush was still in office. (he talks bad about Bush and uses a lot of quotes directly from him which even though might be true or are true, its disrespectful to call Bush out I think while he's still in office). That's all.

 

another thing, like !@#$% mentioned its sad in a way that were are praising this guy for being "honest" to the american people, when they should be honest with us reguardless of what's going on.

 

The people of the United States of America seriously need to get more involved in the government and take more initiative when it comes to understanding what the government is up to, and keeping closer tabs on what we want them to be doing.

[!@#$%]

"The people of the United States of America seriously need to get more involved in the government and take more initiative when it comes to understanding what the government is up to, and keeping closer tabs on what we want them to be doing."

 

 

wouldn't you agree then, that this clarke guy is on eof the peopl eof the united states??

 

and that he is tryin gto get MORE people of the united states informed about what their government is doing?

 

that's the thing here..this guy is not a politician.

he has never been elected, he has been appointed..by both republicans and democrats, mind you..

and his book is not about profits, he's made his money..

 

he is worried, like som eof the rest of us, that Bush has been pulling the wool over the american people's eyes..

if even half of what he says is partly true, bush is guilty of treason.

 

american presidents know their lives are an open book

if we can know about clinton's blow job

we can know about bush's lies (that have cost us FAR more dearly)

 

what if no one knew this shit, and it's true, and bush was re elected and continued on this dangerous path??

 

i may see your point if bush wasn;t up for re election..

but we must be able to judge his performance based on his actions..

 

this guy isn't unbelievable just because he's critical!

[J.HollaBack]

Good point !@#$%, i hadn't really thought of it that way before you mentioned it.

 

Personally, I think it's sad that the government cant be more honest and upfront with us, although I'm also willing to bet that some of the shit they keep from the masses is better off that way.

 

But overall, you are right on point. good lookin'.

[seeking]

Originally posted by J.HollaBack

I think it was dishonorly of him to have his book printed up while Bush was still in office. (he talks bad about Bush and uses a lot of quotes directly from him which even though might be true or are true, its disrespectful to call Bush out I think while he's still in office). That's all.

 

every decision bush (or his cabinet, as i am still not even close to convinced that he has any clue as to whats going on, and is nothing more than a puppet) makes, effects the security of the entire world. fuck 'dishonor', this is literally the future of humanity we're talking about. if bush and his people are on some dishonest shit, what would you prefer? that he waits till bush is (hopefully) out of office come nov? what if november is too late? if someone is raping your mother, are you going to wait to kick him in the face until he cum's, because you don't want to hurt his feelings, or interupt him? ridiculous comparison? absolutely! in that scenario your mom will live through it, tens of thousands of people have already died because of bush's decisions, and our decision to allow him to operate unchecked. those people won't be coming back, and their fatherless kids, who already have absolutely nothing to live for, will grow up hating us even more than their fathers did.

in short, no, it's not dishonorly, it's the most honorly thing he could possibly do with his life at this point. the worlds survival is far more important than one administrations ego, or it's attempts to 'save face' (ie: continue lying through their fucking teeth).

[SteveAustin]

Originally posted by seeking

and their fatherless kids, who already have absolutely nothing to live for, will grow up hating us even more than their fathers did.

 

 

one of the biggest components of terrorist 'fuel' in my opinion. revenge is all over the history books. hell, its one of the reasons Bush went to war with Iraq. Imagine an entire country full of fatherless Bushes vowing revenge on the greed giant.

 

and seeking, yeah...you and glik0 can be the chief advisors. consider me in the running.

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by SteveAustin

consider me in the running.

 

that would be great.

i have often thought, recently, about getting into politics: something i never would have even considered two years ago..

 

you should do it..

you've got the law background, don't you?

 

i would; i've got too much shit in my past though

arrests, drugs, it's been a hard knock life and i ain't mothafucking marion barry

 

i say do it.

gimme your platform, maybe i'll vote for ya ;)

or just repost flicks 7-10

:P

[SteveAustin]

Originally posted by !@#$%

you've got the law background, don't you?

 

unfortunately no. when I first started college, I looked at going that route but decided against it. Although, I have kicked the idea around for the past 3-4 years.

 

I fear even if I did...there is entirely too much dirt on me. I've been far from good and there are more than a couple skeletons in my closet. No drugs though.

 

ha-ha...so all it takes is 7-10 huh?

[!@#$%]

gotcha

[villain]

Fuck Bush, he was chillin on the ranch on one of his month long vacations when 9-11 happened. I never liked the guy.

Shit I work harder than him, am way underappreciated and way underpaid.

Lowest social caste in america, blue collar proletariat peice of shit and a minority to boot. Also grew up on welfare with no family assets. Beautiful.

We got this pompous, lazy, headstrong, egotistical bastard in the office running the damn country and basically the world. I cannot believe this shit. He has the nerve to think that GOD made him president! I think he's off the deep end. He's got caligula syndrome. Fuck the motherfucker.

I hope Clarke exposes Bush for what he truly is. I'm tired of taking it up the ass for telling the truth...

[Guest BROWNer]

you'll love this villain..

there's even a video.

[villain]

Originally posted by BROWNer

you'll love this villain..

there's even a video.

 

Haha... The funny part is he doesn't have to act stupid. He can be himself... He should have been a comedian!

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by villain

Fuck Bush, he was chillin on the ranch on one of his month long vacations when 9-11 happened. I never liked the guy.

Shit I work harder than him, am way underappreciated and way underpaid.

Lowest social caste in america, blue collar proletariat peice of shit and a minority to boot. Also grew up on welfare with no family assets. Beautiful.

We got this pompous, lazy, headstrong, egotistical bastard in the office running the damn country and basically the world. I cannot believe this shit. He has the nerve to think that GOD made him president! I think he's off the deep end. He's got caligula syndrome. Fuck the motherfucker.

I hope Clarke exposes Bush for what he truly is. I'm tired of taking it up the ass for telling the truth...

 

tell it man..

 

TELL IT!!!!