KipWellsFan Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Just thought I should follow up my earlier topic. From cbc.ca Former Bush adviser apologizes to families of 9/11 victims Last Updated Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:47:11 WASHINGTON - Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser to U.S. President Bush, apologized to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, saying "Your government failed you." Richard Clarke Clarke made the comment Wednesday in a brief statement to a U.S. Congressional committee looking into the attacks. Clarke's recent book accused Bush of being obsessed with Saddam Hussein and downplaying the danger posed by al-Qaeda. He repeated the theme in his subsequent testimony. Clarke testified that the Bush administration made the fight against terror "an important issue but not an urgent issue," but said the Clinton White House had "no higher priority." Clarke said he didn't think Bush treated the fight against terrorism as an urgent problem before Sept. 11, 2001. "Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you," Clarke said. In earlier testimony, a former national security adviser said the CIA had Bill Clinton's full support for plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. CIA director George Tenet Sandy Berger flatly rejected an earlier suggestion that, prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA was told it could only use deadly force against bin Laden if it was attempting to capture him. "If there was any confusion down the ranks, it was never communicated to me nor to [President Clinton]," Berger said. "If any additional authority had been requested, I am convinced it would have been given immediately." An interim report, released Wednesday morning before Berger's testimony, concluded that bin Laden wasn't marked for death because the CIA thought its priority was to take him alive. Clinton ordered "the CIA to use its proxies to capture or assault bin Laden and his lieutenants in operations in which they might be killed," the report said. However, "the instructions, except in one defined contingency, were to capture bin Laden if possible." The report said CIA director George Tenet and other agency officials "believed the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation." Berger rejected that conclusion, testifying that Clinton gave the CIA "every inch of authorization that it asked for" to kill the al-Qaeda leader. The commission, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was set up by Congress and authorized by President George W. Bush "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks … [and] to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." It is holding hearings in Washington this week, and is expected to issue its final report this summer. The Richard "Dick" Clarke Saga!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 If the Clinton administration made the battle against terrotism the "highest" priority, why did he fail to act when he had two chances to put Bin Laden out of commission? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 If the Clinton administration made the battle against terrotism the "highest" priority, why did he fail to act when he had two chances to put Bin Laden out of commission? correction, 3 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Clarke praises bush team in 2002 Timeline this discussion is referring to is the transeferrence of power in early 2001. Some excerpts: "So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda." "Over the course of the summer [2001]— last point — 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, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance." "And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I am finding it odd that I can see this guy's transcript all over, but the only place I can find the transcript of him praising the administrations efforts is on foxnews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I am finding it odd that I can see this guy's transcript all over, but the only place I can find the transcript of him praising the administrations efforts is on foxnews. Liberal media bias, vs the all republican news network? It makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 This is kinda interesting... Richard Clarke's resignation letter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 I still want to know why, ABC, CBS, NBC or any of the papers I have seen, havent' said anything about Clarkes comments back in 2002. Am I the only one who gets a little pissed off on this?? Whether you are on the left or right don't you feel you are getting half the story most of the time?? I mean seriously, I can not BELIEVE that the only place this information is on is FOX NEWS. This is an important story....I mean here is a bitter man absolutly tearing into Bush, yet he had praised him in August of 2002 for stopping Clintons roll backs on terrrorism and increasing the pressure 5 fold. Isn't this important?? If the major networks don't even want to do a whole story at least publish the f***in transcripts!!!! I can read the Clarke ripping on bush transcripts in the Lava Hot Springs Idaho Post, but I can't find the transcripts of him PRAISING the administration on any major news network??? The news is suppose to be NEUTRAL...at least giuve us both f***in sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 IF this guy is so sincere and apologetic, then he should donate his money that he's making OFF 9/11 (no hypocrisy here) to the families fund. I don't see that happening in this lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Am I the only one who gets a little pissed off on this?? Whether you are on the left or right don't you feel you are getting half the story most of the time?? Yes and yes. Sort of why I gave up on 'the news' awhile ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Yes and yes. Sort of why I gave up on 'the news' awhile ago. And that is exactly why people need to learn to think for themselves. Not many people can take information and digest it, and get something out of, that you didn't see at face value. My wife is teaching freshmen at the HS level, and she said that is one of the amazing things, is that the kids have no ability to rationalize something and come to a conclusion. If it wasn't in their textbook, they have no clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Well, I'm glad we help some of the younger generation on this site see both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 And that is exactly why people need to learn to think for themselves. Not many people can take information and digest it, and get something out of, that you didn't see at face value. My wife is teaching freshmen at the HS level, and she said that is one of the amazing things, is that the kids have no ability to rationalize something and come to a conclusion. If it wasn't in their textbook, they have no clue. Welcome to the era (starting with us 30 somethings, actually) of kids sitting in front of tv and picking up EVERYTHING from it. It's no wonder that kids can't think for themselves anymore, no one teaches them to anymore, it's so much easier to just plop 'em in front of the tv to fend for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.