Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
 

First, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with John Kerry. Had he been President, I have no idea whether his administration would have done better. You don't either.

As I've said a number of times, I'm not crazy about either candidate.

However, I do think that it is telling that President Bush is using video of 9/11 in campaign ads( http://www.greeksource.com/gcforums/...threadid=47621), and when this kind of charge comes up, the response from the National Security Advisor is basically, "It's not our fault, that bad boy Billy did the same thing and we just went along." It's not like it happened shortly after the President took office -- nearly 8 months is not a long time, but it isn't that short, either.

I don't know whether Mr. (Ambassador, I believe) Clarke is a Republican or Democrat, but he served for over 30 years and worked for 4 Presidents which would indicate to me that he worked in both GOP and Democrat administrations.

"Updated: 08:54 AM EST
Bush's Ex-Terror Adviser Says Bush Ignored Threats

NEW YORK (March 21) - A former White House anti-terrorism adviser has accused U.S. President George W. Bush of ignoring terrorism threats before the Sept. 11 attacks and of making America less safe.



AP
Clarke's comments will air Sunday on "60 Minutes."

Richard Clarke, Bush's top official on counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity board, told CBS "60 minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he thought Bush had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.

Clarke, who was an adviser to four presidents, says in a book to be published next week that the Bush administration should have taken out al Qaeda and its training camps in Afghanistan long before the attacks of Sept. 11, for which the militant network was blamed.

"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," Clarke told CBS.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration followed former President Bill Clinton's policy on al Qaeda until it had developed its own terrorism strategy.

In a transcript of a NBC News interview, made available by the White House on Saturday, Rice said terrorism was a high priority for Bush from the outset of his term.

"We did pursue the Clinton administration policy and pursued it actively, until we could get in a place a more comprehensive policy -- not to roll back al Qaeda -- but to eliminate al Qaeda," Rice said.

She said Bush had only been in office 230 days when the Sept. 11 attacks happened.

"Even if we had been able to do it in 190 days, or 150 days, it was a policy that our counterterrorism people told us was going to eliminate al Qaeda over three to five years," she said. "This was not something that was going to stop September 11th."

Asked why the government did not retaliate after intelligence in Spring 2001 showed al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the USS Cole warship in Yemen, Rice said:

"We were concerned that we didn't have good military options, that really all we had were options like using cruise missiles to go after training camps that had long been abandoned and that it might have just the opposite effect, it might, in fact embolden the terrorists, not frighten them, or not think that they were being taken seriously."

CBS said Clarke asserts in his book, "Against All Enemies," that Bush ignored ominous intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, but Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley, said Bush did hear those warnings and was impatient for intelligence chiefs to develop a new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland," Hadley told CBS.

He said "the president put us on battle stations. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland."'

Clarke, who left his position in February 2003 after 30 years in government service when the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security, said Bush's decision to invade Iraq had strengthened terror groups."

Edited to remove a link to an AOL Chat Room.

I just think hindsight is 20/20.

There wasn't a compelling reason prior to 9/11 to prompt a president to commit huge resources to tracking down terroists.

After Sept. 11th there was such a push to do something that not only did we go into Afghanistan, we were able to invade Iraq, override civil liberties and create a whole new administrative arm of the government (office of the HS).

The environment is different.

As far as Bush capitalizing on 9/11 in this campaign . . well he is a politician I think we expect it.

I am sure this Clark fellow is right . . but Clark is a specialist so he has a fairly narrow focus, the president has a lot more concerns.

I buy most of your arguments except for the alleged heavy rise in radio traffic, etc.

And the attack on the Cole.

The latter probably sheds some negative light on Clinton -- but he's not the point in this case. And, if he did a less than adequate job, why did the Bush folks just follow his policies?

I agree with you, it just seems like a hindsight thing . . .

We wouldn't be arguing this if 9/11 hadn't happened, or even a lesser terrorist strike had.

His criticism that the President didn't have an effective policy then or even now may be true and if so is very valid . . especially given that the PResident is running off an "I am needed to save the nation" platform.

However, its unfair the way the press will milk this in saying that the President's action/inaction caused 9/11 . . . thats a pretty strong villification.

Yes. It will be really grasping if they portray this as causing 9/11. The question posed by Clarke is whether it could have been prevented.

Al Qaeda caused it.

Before or after September 11th not a day goes by without an American (and heck others) Embassy etc being threatened somewhere in the world. Based on intelligence they must and can only respond as they judge appropriately to each one. I think saying they are 'ignored' is foolish. It is not as if someone listens to the threat, laughs and puts down the phone then wanders off to make a coffee.

Further, both in Clinton's administration and the current one there have also been attempts made - e.g. to blow up major bridges in the US (I forget which one) which have been foiled and therefore unsuccessful. These are for security reasons not publicised or widely publicised. This paragraph based on comments of ex-President Bill Clinton during an interview.

After the first attack on the Twin Towers in 1993, the FBI foiled an attack on the bridges and tunnels in New York City.

Re: Bush "Ignored" 9/11 Threats...
 

Turns out that Clarke worked first for Reagan, then Bush the First, then Clinton and finally Bush Two.

He was on "Sixty Minutes" this evening and struck me as extremely believable. I sure would be interested in hearing what the folks at CIA and FBI would say if they weren't encumbered by still working for the government -- and thus, The President.

I watched 60 Minutes and Dick Clark does seem credible. He has a long history of service to the US as DA outlined. He has worked for the government for 30 years. I found O'Neill credible also.

They kept recounting a conversation that the President and Clark had a few days after Sept. 11, 2001. Apparently, the President kept asking Clark if Iraq and Saddam were involved with the attacks. Maybe you guys can give me your opinions of this conversation.

Wow 2 former aides so far coming forward about Bush before 9/11 and his obsession about Iraq. If any more former aides come forward maybe some people that trusted Bush before may not as much after?

Too bad this 9/11 commission won't give its findings til after the election.

With absolutely NO facts to back it up, I heard some time ago, and have believed, that President Bush Two has been out to get Sadaam, at any cost, since the apparantely documented attempt on President Bush One sponsored by Iraq.

On one hand, that's understandable, but not at the sums in men, material and treasur that the Iraq war has and is costing. When you're President, you have to put personal vendettas aside.

The myopic predestination toward war, along with the highly unsubstantiated partnership between Iraq and Al Qaeda were a fabrication if you believe Mr. Clarke.

Frankly, to me, the "proof" of WMD's that Secretary Powell (a man I greatly admire), took to the the UN was laughable. President Bush seemed hell bent to depose Sadaam no matter what he was told by advisors, etc. I have believed, and said it here in other threads, that the President lied to the American people to gain his own ends.

The demonstrations around the world of last year certainly sent a message that there was a huge lack of support for the overthrow of the Iraqi government -- even though no love was lost for it.

I also thought that the administration representative (name escapes me) on Sixty Minutes really seemed like a drone spouting the company line. Poor choice. Perhaps someone else might have been more convincing.

The fact that Clarke has worked for more Republican administrations (and for much longer) adds some credibility as well. It is possible that he has a huge ego and is trying to get retribution at Bush for "demoting" him, but you can generally sense if that's true from a person's language and demeanor. I didn't get that from the man.

As much as I dislike Bush and his policies in general, I don't think that anybody could foresee 9/11 happening because we (the whole country, including people who should probably know better) thought we were invincible. Well, we found out that we're not, the hard way and it shook us all to the core. Everybody wants someone to blame, but the only people to blame are the terrorists. Even if they did know that there might be some sort of plan to use plans in a terrorist act, what would they have changed? There hasn't been evidence presented that they knew when or where. Look at all the times we've gone to high alert status and nothing happened. It makes us (the peons) take the elevated status less seriously each time.

Iraq is a whole nother story and completely unrelated to 9/11, although there are an awful lot of people who don't realize that. While I was opposed to the war in Iraq, I was not opposed to our actions in Afghanistan. We need to get al qaeda and that's where our resources should have been focused all along.

Dee

DA-Did you REALLY think I'd let this slide by???;)
BTW- Do you ever clean out your #*&#! BOX!

From everybody's favorite editorialist...Ann Coulter- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...eronthehotseat

As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration? When an FBI (news - web sites) agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton (news - web sites) wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever."


"Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release -- many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece....")


But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" -- with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows.

I found this part to be on target.

All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."

Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas (news - web sites)! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.

Ann Coulter is about as crediable Al Franken. If George Stephanopoulos was that powerfull to influence both books getting air play that way; I am suprized he doesn't play a bigger roll on tv. The networks are all about ratings and if Aldrich's story would have given them good ones everyone would be interviewing him.

Next thing you know she will be saying Hillary Clinton was the person that forced Bush to go to Iraq when he didn't really want to. :rolleyes: