Article

2004-03-22 Home Front: WoT

White House Rebuts Ex-Bush Adviser Claim

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Jarhead & Super Hose 2004-03-22 10:06:42 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "I think weâve got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

God Bless Lieberman. I don't agree with some of his politics, but he looks like one of the last sane Democrats.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-3-22 10:43:59 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-3-22 10:43:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 There are two things that make me suspicious of his accounts pre/post 9/11. First off he worked under the Clinton and did nothing for eight years. Second why wait until your book is set for release to launch a âbombshellâ? If he felt that strongly about his arguments he could have called a press conference and CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC would have slithered up to the bar for a glass of his Kool Aid. I heard General Clark (the one that brought peace to the Balkans) has endorsed this book as a ânon-biased look at the failures of the Bush administration.â If you believe that I have a bridge and some swamp land that would interest you.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-3-22 10:50:33 AM|| 2004-3-22 10:50:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Oh great, Kerry has "asked for the book". He's soooo self-important. Why doesn't he send one of his lackeys down to the Barnes and Nobels and buy one.

Posted by Frank 2004-3-22 11:23:58 AM|| 2004-3-22 11:23:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 How did he do nothing under the Clinton administration? He did bomb a few factories in Afghanistan, which the Republicans in Congress praised (especially Newt Gingrich). In 1994, Clinton wanted to expand the intelligence agencies' wiretap authority to combat terrorism. Gingrich explained why he was against it: "When you have an agency that turns nine hundred personnel files over to people like Craig Livingstone...it's very hard to justify giving that agency more power." Isn't it funny? As well, during the Clinton administration, they developed a policy of capturing and arresting the terrorists. It was effective. During his term in office, they prevented numerous attacks, including on LAX in 2000, including blowing up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, including an attack on an Israeli Embassy, and many other attacks. After the attack on the Cole, Richard Clarke put together a proposal to "deal with al-Qaeda." It was given to the Bush administration, but never dealt with until September 4, 2001, a week before 9-11, because Iraq was a greater threat than al-Qaeda. As Paul Wolfowitz said, "Al-Qaeda couldn't launch an attack on us like the [1993] World Trade Center attack without a state sponsor." Granted, while the Clinton administration shrinked the military, the COLD WAR WAS OVER. Why build a military if there wasn't this powerful nation to fight. The administration focused on the technology used. This technology was used in the war in Iraq. Dick Cheney said it best back in 2000: "A commander in chief leads the military build by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow....And when that war [the first Gulf War] ended, the first thing I did was place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan." So when is Dick Cheney going to call President Bill Clinton and thank him?

PS. Sorry if this was long, but I had to point this out.

Posted by TrueLiberal 2004-3-22 12:25:21 PM|| [www.lockntoad.com/myselfalso] 2004-3-22 12:25:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 This is some serious political games.
First - Why did this not come out a couple of years ago? Either for political reasons or profit or both. He will sell more books this close to the election than in 2002.
Second - This guy was the top terrorist adviser in the clinton admin, for 8 years. Not 8 months! Where was the urgency during this time when the first attack occured on the towers,our emabassies were bombed, the cole struck ect. He was also in position of power when alqueda number two man (that piece of shit al zalquira - or however he spells his name)was in the states. Now how did this happen? Asleep at the wheel! Also when the terrorists who took out the towers were coming to this country.
Third - He was demoted in the Bush admin, a little pissed about that?

This guy has no merit! If he knew so much then why wasn't something done years ago? Not in the first months of new admin that had to deal with getting up and running. Not to mention having to replace all the keyboards because some facist son-of-a-bith's in the clinton admin removed the 'W's on the keyboards. Very childish and kinda answers why nothing was done the clinton admin!

Posted by Dan 2004-3-22 1:02:29 PM|| 2004-3-22 1:02:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 TrueLiberal - many of your points are valid. But bottom line the clinton admin either couldn't or wouldn't take the decisive action necassery. Clinton was more concerned about how he was precieved than the security of the US.
It isn't so much the size of the military but how it is applied as part of policy. Taking out a couple of mudhuts and a factory in sudan did not do anything except confirm to the terrorists and countries that support/supported them that the US would do nothing if attacked. Bin Laden believed his organization was safe in Afganistan. This is part of the reason why they chose to attack in such a way.

After the attack on the Cole, Richard Clarke put together a proposal to "deal with al-Qaeda." It was given to the Bush administration, but never dealt with until September 4, 2001

nice try, yes this true but..clinton had many more opportunities to take decisive action but did not. He passed off this major problem to the next admin. Decisive action in 98 most likely would of avoided 9-11.

Posted by Dan 2004-3-22 1:11:28 PM|| 2004-3-22 1:11:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 This guy was the top terrorist adviser in the clinton admin, for 8 years. Not 8 months! Where was the urgency during this time when the first attack occured on the towers,our emabassies were bombed, the cole struck ect.
Where was the urgency when our barracks were bombed in Lebanon? It was the worst attack against America by terrorists until September 11. Ironically, the day after the Lebanon attack, we sent our troops into Grenada. And our troops left Lebanon. At least Clinton did something, unlike Regan. Also, the Cole was attacked in October 2000, about a month before the election. Just like in 1998 when Clinton bombed Sudan, people would have claimed it was being done for political purposes. after Bush had taken office. Even then, there was very little time to prepare a significant attack on al-Qaeda. If they prepared an attack on Afghanistan it would have been a lame duck war. Aside, although we felt we knew who was responsible for the Cole attack, we did not know until 2001. So I ask the question, if you wanted to see retaliation attacks, then why didn't the Bush administration do anything in the first 8 months of his administration?
The terrorists who attacked us on September 11 came into the country legally, most of them weren't on the terror list. Those who did, were bungled up because of the poor CIA-FBI communication. Perhaps if people like Newt Gingrich back in the 90s let the Clinton administration expand the FBI and CIA powers, perhaps, just perhaps, things might have gotten better. Also, you refer to the attacks on the WTC in 93 and the embassies. You should know that most of the top figures invovled in the 93 attack has been captured. Those involved in the 98 attack have since been arrested or killed. On September 11, 2001, one of the terrorists arrested was to be sentenced to jail in New York City. Obviously it was postponed.
clinton had many more opportunities to take decisive action but did not
I'm not sure how Clinton didn't take decisive action. Did you miss the part where it said that the administration prevented attacks. Let me review again. They prevented attacks on LAX in 2000, the destruction of 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, an attack on an Israeli embassy, prevented an attack on the Lincoln Tunnel, and many other attacks I'm sure none of us know about. Their actions may not have stopped 9-11, but how do we know if it would have ever been stopped? The Clinton administration took terrorism seriously. Far more than the Bush administration did before 9-11.
Oh yeah. Let us not forget that back in the 80s, the United States gave money to people such as Osama Bin Laden. And who's watch was that under? Oh yeah. Ronald Regan.

Posted by TrueLiberal 2004-3-22 1:54:49 PM|| [www.lockntoad.com/myselfalso] 2004-3-22 1:54:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually, we didn't "give money" to Binny. He was at that time a relatively obscure junior player in the anti-Soviet war. The money came from the U.S. and Soddy Arabia -- I think the princes actually kicked in most of it -- and was disseminated by ISI. ISI ensured most of it went to Hekmatyar. Most of the support we actually directed went to Masood and the Pandjir Valley folks. That's also where most of our actual people on the ground were.

Posted by Fred 2004-3-22 2:07:41 PM|| 2004-3-22 2:07:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry said Sunday he asked for copies of Clarkeâs book to review.

Campaign war-chest must be getting awfully low. Either that, or his previously documented and ridiculed shopping excursions have taught The French-Looking One a lesson. :)

Posted by eLarson 2004-3-22 2:16:26 PM|| 2004-3-22 2:16:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Point of order True Liberalâ¦I was stationed in the Middle East when they bombed the Barracks in Beirut and we took decisive action against Hezbollah. We bombed just about every structure in the Bekha Valley that could remotely be connected with the terrorists. And then the Israelis bombed what was left. When then took our forces home. In retrospect we should have kept our forces there and keep the Syrians out, but hindsight is 20/20. Clarke is an opportunistic disloyal bastard and should be shot for treason. Decades of appeasement and political correctness have got us where we are today and it will take twice as long to get out of it.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-3-22 2:18:33 PM|| 2004-3-22 2:18:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 As well, during the Clinton administration, they developed a policy of capturing and arresting the terrorists. It was effective.

Except, sadly, the ones that came in to commit 9-11. Most of them got into the US during the Clinton administration.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-3-22 3:14:05 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-3-22 3:14:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 The Clinton administration took terrorism seriously.

Which is why they refused to take bin Laden into custody when offered, right? Which is why they refused to kill bin Laden when they had the chance, right?

Which is why they started the "Visa Express" program that let in most of the 9-11 hijackers with no consular or law enforcement review, right?

Clinton was a failure. He's lucky he's not on trial for treason, IMHO.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-3-22 3:18:08 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-3-22 3:18:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Another line of attack from the liberals: In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows.

The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative capabilities."

Gore would have approved that request, and left the Taliban in place. Bush decided to remove both the Taliban and al Qaeda from power in Afghanistan. Note that the US has suffered no additional attacks since 9/11 despite the denial of the FBI's complete wish list (with bells).

Before 9/11, the US already had huge amounts of money spent on anti-terror efforts. What we did not have was the legal authority to conduct wide-ranging investigations of terrorists before they struck. The Patriot Act has taken care of that. We also did not have the political will to take on the terrorists where they are funded and motivated - meaning that terror sponsors (public or private) all over the Muslim world felt safe. The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq took care of that. An additional $1B of funding for the FBI would not have achieved any of this.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-3-22 3:38:22 PM|| 2004-3-22 3:38:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Cyber Sarge, where do you get off saying that Clarke is an opportunistic disloyal bastard and should be shot for treason? Sure, he may be opportunistic, but calling him a "disloyal bastard and should be shot for treason," is rediculous. Its because of people like you that we have a problem in this country.
The Bush administration lied to this country when the President said that we have a growning imminent threat against us. When he lied was when he said Iraq instead of North Korea. Maybe the French were right; if we waited six months to give the inspectors the opportunity to look around the country, this would have never happened. UN weapons inspectors are now saying that there likely were not massive stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq since 1994. They're saying that we didn't have justification to go to war based on WMDs. Is it a good thing that Saddam is gone? Absolutely!!!!!!!!! We should have done that in 1991, but Bush, Sr was too afraid to because Iran might have invaded the country. So why should Clarke be shot for treason...because he's a whistleblower, who's pointing out what's going on inside the Administration? He's not the only one...Paul O'Neil was also telling about what was going on. It shows the kind of leader that Bush is: one who doesn't care about the struggles of the people in our weak economy (he would let O'Neil go on about economic issues, and Bush would daze off because he felt that it was a boring issue. What about the people loosing jobs? It's not a boring issue for them!) and one who's vindictive to get back at the assasination attempt against his father.
Should the FBI whistleblower, Crawley (I think that's her name), be shot because the FBI was ignoring her memos about the likelyhood of the attacks on the United States?

Clinton was not a failure. Yes, I am rather unhappy that they got in. They should have been stopped. They were not. This doesn't make Bill Clinton a traitor. How about this. In the 1980s, we supported Saddam Hussein. Don Rumsfeld even met the man in Baghdad. During the 1980s, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian people during the Iran-Iraq War. These were chemical weapons we gave them. The United States and Iraq tried to make it seem like it was the Iranians that did it, but it never held up, and we quickly ran away while everyone else wasn't looking. And the world fell for it. So the Administration claims that Iraq has WMDs, and even points to that Saddam used them. He did. The ones we gave them. So if Clinton was a traitor for the terrorists getting into the United States, what about Reagan? What does that make him?

Posted by TrueLiberal 2004-3-22 3:50:24 PM|| [www.lockntoad.com/myselfalso] 2004-3-22 3:50:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 OK, I was a little overboard saying Clinton should be tried for treason. Pardon my ire at hearing for the thousandth time, how Clinton supposedly did so much while objcetive reality shows he did as little as he could.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-3-22 3:50:45 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-3-22 3:50:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Oh, look. The same damned spew we've all seen a thousand times. And it's all just as worthless as it's ever been.

Go away, please. I come to Rantburg to see what intelligent people think, not to read the rantings of DU zombies.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-3-22 4:01:30 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-3-22 4:01:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 The Clinton administration took terrorism seriously.

Please this statement is way out there. The clinton admin did not take terrorism serously, if he did he would not of sent cruise missles into mud huts but sent in the rangers. Especially when laden came out in 98 and basically declared war. Clinton ignored immenient dangers because he was more concerned with his own legal problems and his public/historical image.

Let me review again. They prevented attacks on LAX in 2000, the destruction of 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, an attack on an Israeli embassy, prevented an attack on the Lincoln Tunnel, and many other attacks I'm sure none of us know about.

Clinton can take credit for these only because they happened during his watch. It is like saying the Cold War was won by Sr. Bush because he was in office, a little far fectched.
Yes clinton did elevate the issue but did not pursue a coherent policy. This success were stumbled on. Take prevented attacks on LAX. US border guards caught an inexperienced terrorist with explosives in his trunk. The aborted attacks on airlines happened due to coperation with the phillipenes.

Now do not get me wrong these were all sucesses but Clinton's policy's did not prevent these acts. There was no overriding policy which was instituted that brought coherance to the fight on terrorism.
Clinton never treated the threat as it was - a policy of war by proxy. We have clear enemies who held the US in contempt for the entire 90's who are now scared shitless. And they are responding with more terrrorism because they are desperate.

Perhaps if people like Newt Gingrich back in the 90s let the Clinton administration expand the FBI and CIA powers, perhaps, just perhaps, things might have gotten better
You mean if the CIA was given back the powers taken away by Democrats in the 70's.

Here we some good ole monday night after game quaterbacking...
Let us not forget that back in the 80s, the United States gave money to people such as Osama Bin Laden. And who's watch was that under? Oh yeah. Ronald Regan.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. No politician in the 80's could of supported iran , it would of been political sucide. It is very amuzing when I hear people revert to this issue, I mean we are talking about 25 years ago. It was a very different world and this agrument has no merit in the current world. And the US did not give money directly the Laden but to forces he was involved with. And at this time, unless we had an insight into his mind, how could we know what he would do. The most pressing issue at the time was to make sure the Soviets did not get a blue water port, throught Afganistan then Pakland.

If they prepared an attack on Afghanistan it would have been a lame duck war
SO POLITICS COME BEFORE OUR SECURITY. Clinton's legacy would of been a pres involved in lame duck war. I am sure Clinton did not want that.
This is where I like Bush, he is more concerned with security and western society than how he will be viewed in 20 years.

Just remember, regardless of who wins in november, we now have a third doctrine to carry us forward. First was the Monroe doctrine, Second the Truman Doctrine and now Third the Bush Doctrine.

True Liberal you have very good points and this issue def needs to be discussed.

Posted by Dan 2004-3-22 4:17:14 PM|| 2004-3-22 4:17:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 TrueLiberal: The Bush administration lied to this country when the President said that we have a growning imminent threat against us. When he lied was when he said Iraq instead of North Korea.

Bush said Iraq was a gathering, not an imminent threat. TrueLiberal might wish that Bush had said Iraq was an imminent threat, but he said no such thing.

North Korea cannot possibly be a bigger threat than Iraq - unlike Iraq, North Korea is not next to 2/3 of the world's oil reserves. Unlike Iraq, which is next to some of the most oil-rich, but also some of the weakest countries around, North Korea is surrounded by South Korea, China, Japan and Russia, none of which are pushovers. And unlike Iraq, North Korea has a protector in the form of China that may go to war with the US over any US attacks on North Korea.

TrueLiberal is playing the usual liberal game of saying that Iraq distracted the US from North Korea. The fact is that most liberals would not go to war with North Korea even in the unlikely event that China agreed to stay out. And if China vetoed the idea, I can't see any liberal deciding to go to war with China over North Korea. As to the war in Iraq distracting the US from negotiations with North Korea, note that the North Koreans are playing the same game they were playing in 1994 - more US aid for the unverifiable stoppage of North Korea's nuclear program. This is well short of the US goal of the dismantlement of the program and the removal of North Korea's nuclear material.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-3-22 4:21:28 PM|| 2004-3-22 4:21:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 "We should have done that in 1991, but Bush, Sr was too afraid to because Iran might have invaded the country."

-Truelib - you either have your facts wrong or are trying to be mis-leading. For one thing, the UN Mandate (which you libz love) was only designated to kick Saddam out of Kuwait - there was no mandate for us going into Baghdad and toppling the regime in 1991. Though in hind sight (which is always 20/20) that would've been great. Iran was not at issue (maybe for the UN - not us), nice try though. I find your statement funny because you LLL's are so pissed at Bush Jr for ignoring the UN yet you call Bush Sr afraid for following a UN mandate in 1991. Which is it?

Posted by Jarhead 2004-3-22 4:42:17 PM|| 2004-3-22 4:42:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 "Perhaps if people like Newt Gingrich back in the 90s let the Clinton administration expand the FBI and CIA powers, perhaps, just perhaps, things might have gotten better."

-you mean like backing the Torricelli non-sense that Willie the huckster implemented? Yeah, that was a real good one genius. Gimme a break.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-3-22 4:45:49 PM|| 2004-3-22 4:45:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 The Clinton administration's approach to Islamic terrorism was timid, half-hearted, fragmentary, tunnel-visioned, hamstrung with self-imposed, fastidious legal constraints, and ineffectual.

It had the effect, in the aggregate, of convincing the jihadis that the U.S. was a tired, listless, effete society that no longer had the spine to respond to a determined assault. And that perception, in turn, encouraged the attacks of 9/11.

Clarke was part of the problem. And now he is gone. Tough shit if he feels slighted.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-3-22 5:04:20 PM|| 2004-3-22 5:04:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 TL, I may have gone overboard in my assessment of Mr Clarke. But his is opportunistic bastard that he waited until he could make money on what he thinks he knows. He was not loyal to the office for which he held and other still serve. And by peddling he rantings and LIES at a time of war opens him up to a charge of treason. I believe it is still acceptable to shoot those that have been convicted of treason against the state. Finally, this guy is SOOO wired to the Kerry Camp that it boggles the mind! Why isnât that coming out in the press ad much as his accusations. P.S. the more I hear about this guy, the more I worry about his mental state.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-3-22 7:22:48 PM|| 2004-3-22 7:22:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 And in related news, the "Home Cannibal Recipe Cook Book" cook book recommends, âskin flints are tastier when creamedââ¦

Posted by Hyper 2004-3-22 7:27:49 PM|| 2004-3-22 7:27:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 TrueLiberal wrote: "The Clinton administration took terrorism seriously."

Fred, how come you didn't remove this under your new offensive comments policy?

Posted by Tibor 2004-3-22 9:33:41 PM|| 2004-3-22 9:33:41 PM|| Front Page Top

19:14 CAG Hotshot
07:48 B
07:40 B
05:57 The Dodo
00:41 .com
00:15 Texan
00:00 CrazyFool
23:51 CrazyFool
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:48 Super Hose
23:47 Removed
23:45 .com
23:43 Super Hose
23:39 Barbara Skolaut
23:38 Texan
23:37 Super Hose
23:34 Mr. Davis
23:26 Darth VAda
23:17 Alaska Paul
23:05 .com
22:57 .com
22:48 .com
22:47 tu3031
22:38 eLarson