Don’t you think any sane government leader would have done the same? Sure. Why not? Iraq had known ties to the screwballs in Afghanistan. EVERYBODY would have thought the President nuts if he had NOT ordered an investigation. I still believe the whole mess is one big intelligence breakdown on the USA’s part. Of course, the media, the opposition et al get more mileage out of the deal if they crucify ONE guy for it. I don’t believe for a second anything would be significantly different had John Kerry won the election.
Quote (Richard Clarke @ Jan 01 0000,00:00)
"The president dragged me (Richard Clarke) into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’
"He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.” Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer. … Do it again.’
"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don’t think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don’t think he sees memos that he doesn’t-- wouldn’t like the answer."
Doesn’t exactly sound like an ‘investigation’ was ordered, more like a justification was sought. Interesting fellow, Richard Clarke, no relation (AFAIK).
Mr. BB - the Democrat’s didn’t start this war - Bush did.
Isn’t that a bit simple Mr Soul? God knows I’m no Republican and I think Bush is one of the biggest assholes to sit in the White House, but many of us made a mistaken call there, and I think blaming the whole deal on Bush is a cop out. Just because we didn’t vote for him doesn’t mean we can sit back like Pilate and say we wash our hands of the whole deal and its not our fault.
Guys, guys guys, you are forgetting PNAC - the Project for a New American Century - none of this was the result of a miscalculation, it was all intended - all of the major players signed on to this script 10 years ago. WMD, no WMD, it’s all a bunch of bullshit and totally irrelevant to them. Bill’s comments on Clark are dead on.
Don’t you think any sane government leader would have done the same? Sure. Why not?
Yes this would be true if it weren’t for the fact that Richard Clarke et al. had already done the Iraq analysis and found no substantial Al Qaeda links. Clarke actually gave Bush the benefit of the doubt.
My view of Bush & Iraq is not simplistic. Bush & his admin. made the claim that Iraq was an immediate threat to us. They also suggested that Iraq & Al Qaeda were connected, even though the 9/11 Commission report said this wasn’t true. Bush was later forced into admitting that they had found no ties between 9/11 and Saddam (do you remember that). In short, Bush did take us to war and it’s a simple as that. He did it by cherry-picking intelligence. Bush had other alternatives. The inspectors were in Iraq and the US could have let them do their job. We could have continued to put pressure on Saddam to conform.
We had REAL intelligence that Iran & Al Qaeda have direct connections (the 9/11 Commission discusses this). Why didn’t we go to war with Iran?
I agreed with the war in Afghanistan but the war in Iraq was a mistake and we are seeing that today. We should have focused our efforts on bin Laden & Al Qaeda, and then dealt with any Iraq issues if and when they became important. And I am not stating this in hindsight, i.e., I and many others knews that the Iraq war was wrong, it was cooked & Iraq threat was not imminent.
Hey ksdb - this is an example of how right-wing media worked together to discredit Clarke. Read “Fox News plays dirty” in the above article. Bush released background briefing, a dirty trick in itself, and FOX gave a copy to Jim Thompson on the 9/11 Commission. Right-wing media picked up on this immediately & started calling Clarke a liar. However, Clarke countered Thompson’s attacks at his 9/11 testimony (under oath):
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who’s been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you’re asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn’t do enough or didn’t do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is…
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America’s cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story.
The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them.
In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did.
I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they’re asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don’t think it’s inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it’s really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you’re suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that’s somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America.
CLARKE: I don’t get that.
CLARKE: I don’t think it’s a question of morality at all. I think it’s a question of politics.
Hey ksdb - this is an example of how right-wing media worked together to discredit Clarke. Read “Fox News plays dirty” in the above article. Bush released background briefing, a dirty trick in itself, and FOX gave a copy to Jim Thompson on the 9/11 Commission. Right-wing media picked up on this immediately & started calling Clarke a liar. However, Clarke countered Thompson’s attacks at his 9/11 testimony (under oath):
It’s not a dirty trick to release a background briefing, especially when the previously anonymous source decides to go public to sell a book that contradicts his own “off the record” statements. Fox’s reporter, Jim Angle, noticed the obvious discrepancies and approached the White House for permission to make the backgrounder public. This wasn’t a case of the WH initiating an action to discredit Clarke. His own words did that well enough alone.
You already made that clear in your previous post.
Quote (Mr Soul @ May 04 2006,15:49)
In any event, Clarke didn’t lie about anything, as the right-wing media claimed he did. In fact, what he said to the 9/11 Commission was the truth.
His comments weren’t consistent from the 2002 backgrounder with the accusations he made in his BOOK. Maybe he was more honest with the 9/11 Commission, but who is actually in position to vouch for his integrity??
Quote (Mr Soul @ May 04 2006,15:49)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
This wasn’t a case of the WH initiating an action to discredit Clarke.
Can you prove that?
I based this on Angle’s comments and that of Andrea Mitchell who was evidently present during the backgrounder that Clarke gave, as well as what the other news coverage indicated, such as on USAToday.com. There was nothing to indicate that this came out because the WH initiated it.
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
the White House granted a request by a Fox News reporter to identify former national security aide Richard Clarke as the official who briefed reporters on the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism efforts in August 2002.
Any self-respecting reporter would investigate and expose the truth.
Of couse, when any reporter does this and it looks like someone in the administration has lied it is liberal bias.
Sorry, can’t have it both way ksdb.
Clarke WAS somebody in the administration. Liberal bias occurs when people like Clarke are given a pass by the LMSM. That’s the “both ways” that you are overlooking.
Kerrey was right: Off-the-record briefings ought to be kept off the record. Violating that rule – and that promise – will doubtless hurt journalists’ ability to use important information that sources will only agree to provide off the record. As the CJR pointed out, this bit of “odious” undertaking may hurt both journalists and the White House.
Could the White House have released Fox News from its confidentiality obligation? Not according to the CJR. As the CJR article explained, “the only ethical way in which a reporter can divulge the person’s name would be if the source changed his mind and decided to go on the record.” Still, no one – at either Fox News or the White House – bothered to ask Clarke before the off-the-record backgrounder was released.
What do you mean when you say “People like Clarke”?
Clarke explained the descrepancies under oath to the 9/11 COmmission - do you believe him or not?
I think he means any media outlet that is not Fox News…the fair and balanced folks. "Colbert complained that he was "surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides…the president’s side and the vice president’s side."
It’s not a dirty trick to release a background briefing, especially when the previously anonymous source decides to go public to sell a book that contradicts his own “off the record” statements. Fox’s reporter, Jim Angle, noticed the obvious discrepancies and approached the White House for permission to make the backgrounder public. This wasn’t a case of the WH initiating an action to discredit Clarke. His own words did that well enough alone.
It wouldn’t be a dirty trick if the ‘previously anonymous source’ also agreed to its release, but Richard Clarke wasn’t consulted about it.
Jim Angle would be justified in asking for its release if it did contain ‘obvious discrepancies’ but any discrepancies is a different matter; and any it did contain are apparently merely those of tone rather than content - maybe Jim Angle doesn’t read very well or maybe his ‘request’ was encouraged.
I guess since he served four presidents, three of whom were Republicans, it must be difficult to slag him off as a Democratic hack. Nothing left to do but spin him to death, huh?
Despite revelations in the ‘Downing Street Memo’ I am still willing to give your president the benefit of the doubt that it was faulty intelligence which led your nation to war. If so, the honourable thing for him to do is admit the mistake (which he has done) and take responsibility for acting on that intelligence by resigning office (which he has not done). For him to admit the error then not resign is essentially the same thing as not taking responsibility at all since, as a second term president, he faces no political consequences.
That’s an interesting find. My usage of LMSM is not the same as what you found. MSM is a common abbreviation for mainstream media (although some folks object to the S being unnecessary). I find most of the mainstream media coverage to be laughable, so I have permanently added an L. Other folks assume that the L stands for Liberal, which is also sometimes accurate.
It wouldn’t be a dirty trick if the ‘previously anonymous source’ also agreed to its release, but Richard Clarke wasn’t consulted about it.
Jim Angle would be justified in asking for its release if it did contain ‘obvious discrepancies’ but any discrepancies is a different matter; and any it did contain are apparently merely those of tone rather than content - maybe Jim Angle doesn’t read very well or maybe his ‘request’ was encouraged.
Mr. Soul’s source that criticized Fox and the WH of dirty tricks came AFTER your citation showing that Clarke wanted his records released. Was John Dean oblivious to this fact when he wrote his scathing criticism??
Quote (BillClarke @ May 04 2006,20:35)
I guess since he served four presidents, three of whom were Republicans, it must be difficult to slag him off as a Democratic hack. Nothing left to do but spin him to death, huh?
No one called him a hack. He may be nothing more than opportunist who knew that he could make a lot of money with a book that panders to conspiracy-minded Democrat hacks.
Quote (BillClarke @ May 04 2006,20:35)
Despite revelations in the ‘Downing Street Memo’ I am still willing to give your president the benefit of the doubt that it was faulty intelligence which led your nation to war.
The Drowning Street memo revealed that civilian and military leadership expected to encounter WMD counterattacks from Saddam and were making preparation plans for the forces. This would have been unnecessary had the President truly known that intelligence was faulty.
Quote (BillClarke @ May 04 2006,20:35)
If so, the honourable thing for him to do is admit the mistake (which he has done) and take responsibility for acting on that intelligence by resigning office (which he has not done). For him to admit the error then not resign is essentially the same thing as not taking responsibility at all since, as a second term president, he faces no political consequences.
The part about resigning is a gratuitous expectation on your part, especially since WMD intelligence was only one factor in making the decision to commit to military action.
Mr. Soul’s source that criticized Fox and the WH of dirty tricks came AFTER your citation showing that Clarke wanted his records released. Was John Dean oblivious to this fact when he wrote his scathing criticism??
Wouldn’t surprise me at all. Nevertheless it is telling that Clarke is willing to have his statements put on the record, he just wants it ALL on the record, presumably to provide context. That sounds like a man with nothing to hide.
Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,12:04)
No one called him a hack. He may be nothing more than opportunist who knew that he could make a lot of money with a book that panders to conspiracy-minded Democrat hacks.
No, as I said you can’t call him a hack - even your president praised him as having made a significant contribution. Is it the case that everyone who writes a book that disagrees with your position did so for the money but those who write books that agree with your position are trying to impart knowledge? At least Clarke wrote his book on his own time; Frist wrote his while he was being paid to represent his constituents - which is the more opportunistic?
Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,12:04)
The Drowning Street memo revealed that civilian and military leadership expected to encounter WMD counterattacks from Saddam and were making preparation plans for the forces. This would have been unnecessary had the President truly known that intelligence was faulty.
And the price of bananas in Jamaica has remained relatively stable. And together we can probably cite several hundred more non sequiturs. I said I was prepared to give your president the benefit of the doubt despite what is contained in the ‘Downing Street Memo’ and I did not suggest that he knew the intelligence was faulty. On the contrary, I assume he believed it. The alternative (that he acted without believing it) is unthinkable; only a madman would risk so many lives without just cause.
Nonetheless, the intelligence was faulty and your president needs to take responsibility for that.
Quote (ksdb @ May 05 2006,12:04)
The part about resigning is a gratuitous expectation on your part, especially since WMD intelligence was only one factor in making the decision to commit to military action.
It is only gratuitous if you fail to share my sense of honour which, evidently, is the case with your president.
No matter how many other factors were at play, the WMD issue is the one your president identified as primary; he called the tune, now balks at paying the piper.
ksdb seems to be somewhat unique is his utter contempt for mainstream media. I have other “discussions” with VERY right leaning people in other forums and none of them show quite this same disdain. They complain about media bias but they don’t for example, typically question the reporting in the WP like ksdb does.
The interesting thing I find is that FOX is blatantly biased to the right - without question & doubt. These right-wing ideologues don’t seem to have problems with that.
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The Drowning Street memo revealed that civilian and military leadership expected to encounter WMD
Can you please verify this claim?
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
especially since WMD intelligence was only one factor in making the decision to commit to military action.
I’ve heard this argument before. Please show us a source showing these other arguments? I’ve heard that there were 9 or so reasons. I’d love to see them.
ksdb seems to be somewhat unique is his utter contempt for mainstream media. I have other “discussions” with VERY right leaning people in other forums and none of them show quite this same disdain. They complain about media bias but they don’t for example, typically question the reporting in the WP like ksdb does.
I’ve worked in the media and in journalism education and know the rules that are supposed to be followed. The transgressions that I notice are very obvious.
Quote (Mr Soul @ May 05 2006,12:21)
The interesting thing I find is that FOX is blatantly biased to the right - without question & doubt. These right-wing ideologues don’t seem to have problems with that.
The people who complain about Fox do so mostly based on commentary-based programming, while they ignore the fact that these shows usually offer liberal amounts of time to liberal pundits. Regardless, there’s no real obligation for the commentary to be fair & balanced, just the news coverage, which actually features many of the same slanted wire stories and reports covered by the rest of the LMSM.
Quote (Mr Soul @ May 05 2006,12:21)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The Drowning Street memo revealed that civilian and military leadership expected to encounter WMD
Can you please verify this claim?
Read the memo. It’s there.
Quote (Mr Soul @ May 05 2006,12:21)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
especially since WMD intelligence was only one factor in making the decision to commit to military action.
I’ve heard this argument before. Please show us a source showing these other arguments?
An excellent place to start is the 2003 SOTU address. There were at least six separate reasons listed.
Quote (Mr Soul @ May 05 2006,12:21)
I’ve heard that there were 9 or so reasons. I’d love to see them.
And I’d love to see you honestly acknowledge them.
