Richard Clarks Praises Bush (transcript)

[newsstand 0]

So as a percentage of population how many Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks on our soil compared to those in Israel? Sharron's latest actions against Hammas have only guaranteed continuation of the problems and another Muslim martyr.

As to the rest of your original post. We have created a mayor of Kabul, not a president of a country. If you really look at it there is no country, unless you appoint a king. The ethnic diversity is to great, tribalism rules. Frankly I have no objection to a kingdom, or queendom, as long as the ruled agree. Democracy cannot be imposed and not every society is ready for it.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Michele 1]

Quote

Al Qaeda has attacked the US exactly twice, in 1993 and 2001. So you'll have to wait until 2009 to see if Bush's policies are really quelling terrorist activities here.

No, AQ attacked us many times between WTC 93 and 2001.

Clinton's administration had the conception of "criminality", not terrorism. The administration's plan of action was incident, investigate, determine culprit, indict, arrest, try, and, if guilty, incarcerate. That did nothing to prevent any attack. It waited - as all criminality does - for an occurance to start the process.

Irrespective of the Omnibus Act, there were no additional actions taken to stop terrorism; the administration sat back after the arrest of those involved in WTC 93, and said, "well, that's all there was to do...". He could've frozen assets, tightened borders, handled the lax security in the airports. The administration didn't allow the CIA/FBI to do their job; and Clinton pulled spooks out of those countries which had ties to terrorism.

Instead, we were fairly regularly attacked, and Clinton kept his head in the sand. He had 8 years to do something, and didn't. Do I blame him? Far more than I blame Bush...far far far more. Again, 8 months v. 8 years...it is partisian politicking to lay this wholly - or even mostly - at Bush's doorstep...he inherited things which were out of control, and, as I've stated, inevitable at the exchange of the presidency.

Quote

I think the effort has gone fairly well, but keep in mind that most arrests and killings of Al Qaeda's leaders have been by our allies. That's not to denigrate Bush at all, as he is partly responsible for our allies' desire to help us. It is, however, something of an indication as to how we can make the most progress in the war on terror.

Agreed wholeheartedly - terrorism is a global issue, not just an American one. Great strides are being made - and have been taken - to promulgate a "Coalition", and should continue.

Quote

If those terrorists had not flown their aircraft into the WTC in 2001, there would be no "imperative 90's issue,"

I can't agree with that, though, Bill. There had been many attacks. Just in Nov. 2000, the USS Cole had been attacked, and it was known AQ was behind it.

What happened was we all slept through the alarm clock ringing - WTC 93 - and believed it would never hit here; and if it did, it certainly wasn't going to be that big. The truth was that Clinton focussed on other parts. Bush is focussing on terrorism. I remember thinking when 9/11 happened that this was Clinton's catastrophe...I had been aware of OBL and the rise of terrorism since WTC 93 - paying attention, listening, thinking, trying to understand. I like to think I'm unique, but I know far better minds than mine were aware of the problem, and had been ineffective in stopping it during Clinton's administration.

I do note that no additional attacks have happened since then by AQ on US soil. The anthrax, I believe, is a home grown issue...

Quote

A lot has been done, but a lot remains for us to undo.

I maintain that we've done nothing to deserve the 2001 attacks, nor any of the other attacks. I think that a lot has been done, and a lot remains to be done, but the phrasing you put there leaves me with the perception that you believe we deserved 9/11, that it was "understandable", and that there is something we did which warranted the killing of 3,000 innocent civilians. I am very clear on your position regarding that, and you are very clear on mine. I don't think that needs to be debated again, as neither of us has moved from that position.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Clinton was offered bin Laden not once, not twice, but three times on
>a golden platter. He did nothing.

Other than the cruise missile attack intended to kill him. It's easy to overlook that one I suppose; no live video on CNN.

In any case, Bush has so far been as successful as Clinton in getting Bin Laden i.e. neither one has.

Scoring Bin Laden, yes. Chipping away at Al Qaeda, Bush is leagues further ahead than Clinton could ever fathom.

Clinton's approach to terrorism was that of "Law Enforcement". Granted, he shifted his policy later in his second term, but it never got off the ground. The problem is, an entity that is "at war" with you cannot be treated like a common criminal (i.e. gather evidence, indict, and attempt to apprehend for a trial), it needs to be rooted like the parasites they are. Pakistan is finally smelled the coffee, we (US) are out of Saudi Arabia, we can start to draw boxes of containment in Afghanistan, we have lanced a festering boil in Iraq, Libya is calling it quits. Pretty damn good progress in less than three years, compared to Clinton's eight.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Al Qaeda has attacked the US exactly twice, in 1993 and 2001.

Wrong. You left out the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania just for starters. That's just what we know about.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,116]

> There had been many attacks. Just in Nov. 2000, the USS Cole had
> been attacked, and it was known AQ was behind it.

Oh, OK. You originally said you liked that he did things to "quell the terrorist activity here in my country." I assumed you meant here in the US. If you mean throughout the world, then I agree. There have been a lot of terrorist attacks against US interests (including our military) between 1994-2000. There have been a lot more since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan; a soldier a day is dying in terrorist attacks that have been averaging about three a week.

So in that sense we've gotten a lot worse.

>Instead, we were fairly regularly attacked, and Clinton kept his head in the sand.

And Bush attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and now a US soldier a day is dying.

>What happened was we all slept through the alarm clock ringing -
> WTC 93 - and believed it would never hit here; and if it did, it >certainly wasn't going to be that big.

Oh come on. Oklahoma City wasn't a big alarm clock ringing? If the next McVeigh style terrorist had taken out ATC computers and caused a few planes to crash, the republicans would be wringing their hands saying "why oh why did Clinton ignore the clear warnings that domestic terrorism was the imminent threat?" (And yes, if it had happened during Clinton's presidency, the democrats would be saying the same about Bush I.)

We are at risk for terrorism. It may come from domestic or foreign sources; so far, most terrorist attacks against domestic targets have been inside jobs. As risks go it's a lot less of a risk than we faced during the 60's and 70's from global thermonuclear war. So in that way we're making progress.

>I do note that no additional attacks have happened since then by AQ
> on US soil. The anthrax, I believe, is a home grown issue...

They happen once every 8 years, looking at recent history; we're not due for another one until 2009. If one did happen in 2009, what would your reaction be?

>I maintain that we've done nothing to deserve the 2001 attacks, nor
> any of the other attacks.

Agreed.

>I think that a lot has been done, and a lot remains to be done, but
> the phrasing you put there leaves me with the perception that you
> believe we deserved 9/11, that it was "understandable", and that
> there is something we did which warranted the killing of 3,000
> innocent civilians.

I am well aware that you have a perception of me that has little to do with reality. That's fine; you can imagine whatever you choose about me, if it helps you "win" your arguments.

We have a lot more to do, and a lot to undo. The things we have to undo are the animosity we've generated towards allies we've alienated, the damage to Iraq and Afghanistan, the security, drug and human rights problems we've caused and/or fostered during those wars. And if you think we don't need to fix that stuff, if you think the wars generated nothing but good feelings and bad-guy-sized craters, you're wearing some very rosy glasses.

[billvon 3,116]

>Wrong. You left out the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania just for starters.

Kenya and Tanzania are not in the US. If you include attacks against US interests overseas, terrorism is now ten times worse than it ever has been.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Wrong. You left out the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania just for starters.

Kenya and Tanzania are not in the US. If you include attacks against US interests overseas, terrorism is now ten times worse than it ever has been.

US Embassies are United States soil. They are sovereign.

Edit to add: Number of world-wide terror attacks dipped under 200 events last year, part of a decline over the past three years. I'll try to find the stat, but it isn't 10x worse.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[storm1977 0]

Off the subject, but still very interesting is what was mentioned about the Iraq Al Queda connection during the Clinton Administration.

I won't post really anything until I get my hands on the transcripts from the past few days of meetings, but did anyone here the main reason for Clinton Bombing in Sudan????

Anyway tha guy they were going after was a an AlQueda operative whom the week before had met with SH and his #2 and recieved funding from them..... Interesting....


Anyone know a good place to get the transcripts???

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

What I'd really like to know is why Rice has refused to speak to the commission claiming that her conversations with Bush are classified, but has been on every major political interview show in the past week.

[TomSpoon 4]

All this tells me is that Richard Clarke took about 18 months to develop a conscience and stop being a political yes man. Have you taken your soma today?

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

>Clinton was offered bin Laden not once, not twice, but three times on
>a golden platter. He did nothing.

Other than the cruise missile attack intended to kill him. It's easy to overlook that one I suppose; no live video on CNN.

I'd actually forgotten about that.
IIRC, the republican attack machine derided Clinton and accused him of trying to distract the nation from the more pressing issue of how Monica Lewinsky's dress got stained.

I guess counter terrorism is only important to them when it's convenient.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

IIRC, the republican attack machine derided Clinton and accused him of trying to distract the nation from the more pressing issue of how Monica Lewinsky's dress got stained.

True, and shame on them for doing so. Shame though on Clinton for not having the balls to follow through with his plan, his sworn duty to protect the United States. Yet another example of Clinton's famous governing by popular opinion.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Actually he swore to protect the constitution of the US, as did Bush. Bush is woefully lacking on that end of things.

[Jimbo 0]

Do you think that things would be significantly different if Al Gore were in office? Honestly, he scares me A LOT more than Bush ever did, or even does now.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Do you think that things would be significantly different if Al Gore were in office? Honestly, he scares me A LOT more than Bush ever did, or even does now.

-
Jim

Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter. I think things will be better with Kerry than they are with Bush, though.

[Jimbo 0]

Why?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why?

-
Jim

Read my last 5000 posts on the subject.

[Jimbo 0]

5000? I guess that's why you're a "Fanatic".

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

What I'd really like to know is why Rice has refused to speak to the commission claiming that her conversations with Bush are classified,

WRONG

Rice spoke with the Commision already for 4 hours.... But the media doesn't tell you that does it.

She answered quests in a closed door seccion because of a confidence with the president.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/911.commission/index.html

Notice under the title it says "ANOTHER"

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok....

What I'd really like to know is why Rice has refused to speak publicly under oath but is going on every political news show.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Rice spoke with the Commision already for 4 hours.... But the media doesn't tell you that does it.

Followed by..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/911.commission/index.html

?????????????????

[storm1977 0]

Sorry, I know that seemed a bit strange....

Anyway she testified a while ago, but for the past week most meadia outlets have been saying "Rice refuses to talk with commity" blaa blaa blaa ....

I call that Spin .... They hadn't been saying she already met privately and refuses to talk publically. Today was the first metion of it in the major news organizations I read.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

I'll go along with that. I was not aware that she had already spoken to them.

But you brought up another good reason to get rid of Bush. Media bias. GWB has increased the ability for media conglomerates to control more markets and larger chunks of each market effectively giving control of most public outlets to a few companies.

[billvon 3,116]

>US Embassies are United States soil. They are sovereign.

Oh please. If the Russian embassy in NY was attacked by terrorists, you wouldn't claim that terrorists had attacked the US?

>Edit to add: Number of world-wide terror attacks dipped under 200
> events last year, part of a decline over the past three years. I'll try
> to find the stat, but it isn't 10x worse.

There have been ~100 attacks in Iraq alone, so I think you'd have to do some creative counting to get those numbers. Also, keep in mind that we don't even care about most of the terrorist attacks throughout the world - when's the last time you heard Bush pushing the case against the Tamil Tigers? They've killed 60,000 in 200 attacks over a decade. But since they really only affect Sri Lankans we don't care much.