wow now your just playing the blame game. and how could he have prevented it. he didnt have anymore inside intellegence than clinton did

First of all smart one, the Clinton Administration warned Bush about Bin Laden in 2001 enough times but he didn't pay attention.

 

Secondly..

 

Ex-Terror Adviser Says Bush Ignored Threats

White House Rebuts Counterterrorism Expert's Claim

By TED BRIDIS, AP

 

WASHINGTON (March 22) - The White House, fuming over a former aide's charge that President Bush gave short-shrift attention to al-Qaida while obsessing over Saddam Hussein, branded the fighting-terrorism flap as ''Dick Clarke's American Grandstand.''

 

''When you compare Dick Clarke's current rhetoric with his past comments and actions, the bedrock of his assertions comes crumbling down,'' said chief presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. He called Clarke's new book, criticizing the administration's handling of the post-Sept. 11 terrorism environment, ''more about politics and book promotions than it is about policies.''

 

Clarke's comments aired Sunday on "60 Minutes."

 

It was the latest in what became a three-day cycle of broadsides, driven by Clarke's interview on CBS's ''60 Minutes'' in which he said Bush missed opportunities to rein in or thwart Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network while plotting to attack Iraq.

 

Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator, had said among other things that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, ''looked skeptical'' when she was warned early in 2001 about the threat from al-Qaida.

 

''Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before,'' Clarke wrote in his new book - ''Against All Enemies'' - that is scathingly critical of Bush's response to the 2001 terror attacks against New York and Washington.

 

Clarke said Rice, who previously worked for Bush's father, appeared not to recognize post-Cold War security issues and effectively demoted him within the national security council. He said Rice has an unusually close relationship with Bush, which ''should have given her some maneuver room, some margin for shaping the agenda.''

 

Clarke, expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel investigating the attacks, recounted his meeting with Rice as support for his contention that the Bush administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by al-Qaida in the months leading to Sept. 11, 2001. Clarke retired in March 2003 after three decades in the U.S. government.

 

The Associated Press obtained a copy of Clarke's book before its Monday publication.

 

Clarke said within one week of the Bush inauguration he ''urgently'' sought a meeting of senior Cabinet leaders to discuss ''the imminent al-Qaida threat.'' Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy secretaries. During that meeting, he wrote, the Defense Department's Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, ''You give bin Laden too much credit,'' and he said Wolfowitz sought to steer the discussion to Iraq.

 

The White House responded that it kept Clarke on its staff after the election because of its concerns over al-Qaida. ''He makes the charge that we were not focused enough on efforts to root out terrorism,'' White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said Sunday. ''That's just categorically false.''

 

Bartlett said Clarke's memo to Rice in January 2001 discussed recommendations to improve security at U.S. sites overseas, not inside the United States. ''Each one of these, while important, wouldn't have impacted 9/11,'' Bartlett said.

 

Clarke harshly criticizes Bush personally in his book, saying his decision to invade Iraq generated broad anti-American sentiment among Arabs. He recounts that Bush asked him directly almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings. McClellan said Bush recalls no such conversation.

 

''Nothing America could have done would have provided al-Qaida and its new generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country,'' Clarke wrote.

 

 

'This Week' Book Discussion

 

Clarke added: ''One shudders to think what additional errors (Bush) will make in the next four years to strengthen the al-Qaida follow-ons: attacking Syria or Iran, undermining the Saudi regime without a plan for a successor state?''

 

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that the Bush administration - which defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election - was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

 

''I see no basis for it,'' Lieberman said on Fox News Sunday. ''I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric.''

 

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Sunday on ABC's ''This Week'' that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, ''I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.''

 

Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry said Sunday he asked for copies of Clarke's book to review. Kerry is vacationing at his Idaho home through Wednesday before returning to the campaign trail.

 

 

 

You asked: Why can Condoleeza Rice decline to give 9/11 testimony, when everyone else has agreed?

 

''I would like to read them before I make any comment at all,'' Kerry told reporters. ''I have asked for them.''

 

Kerry's adviser on national security, Rand Beers, is a close associate of Clarke's and held the job as terrorism adviser under President Bush during part of 2002. Clarke quotes Beers in the book as asking his advice when Beers considered quitting because ''they're using the war on terror politically.''

 

Bartlett, the White House communications director, noted Clarke's friendship with Beers and the upcoming presidential election.

 

''We believe the timing is questionable,'' Bartlett said. ''When (Clarke) left office, he had every opportunity'' to make any grievances known.

that enough for you?

well then why didnt clinton do anything about it when he was still serving term?!?!??!

and no its not enough because it was caused by clinton. yea, it wasnt prevented by bush, but more importantly it should fall mainly on the shoulders of clinton

Well this is not Clinton running for president is it?

well then why are people holding this against him. with kerry in office i wouldnt go about saying this country is very safe. he will back out of iraq and basically give a global impression that the US is soft which will cause turmoil for this country

omg people will think we're "soft"....cry me a f***ing river

 

What the hell are we still doing in Iraq anyway? I mean I believe we shouldn't have been there in the first place but now we're pretty much just killing innocent people for no apparent reason at all.

 

WMD? Pfft...still don't see those either.

 

Thank god there are actually some smart countries out in Europe like Germany, France, and now Spain that see that this war is full of crap.

So Republicans were the only ones to make a move on Iraq is what you are saying?

Just a question Juanky... Do you even know what the Republican party is supposed to stand for????? Because it seems that you are pretty much a Republican whether or not they stand on the issues you support. Here is a question for you: Do you know there exists in this country other political denominations then 'Republican' and 'Democrat'?

 

I will register as a Republican in June only because I am ashamed at the fact that party has gone so far to the left and I want to have a say in which candidate they send out there. I don't want to have to pick in a lesser of two evils election again like I'm going to have to this summer, because Kerry is more crap then what I let out after I ate too much pizza today.

 

I also ask, do you ever stand against the democrats? Because I can recall numerous ocassions here and abroad where I have spoken out against something the Bush administration has done, because I think it is wrong or for other reasons. But I have not once seen you speak against anything the mighty Kerry or any democrat for that matter has done.

 

I know very well the points of view and ideals of the Republican party. I know the ideals and points of view of the Democratic party. Can you say the same?

 

And you accuse me of blind faith?

omg people will think we're "soft"....cry me a f***ing river

 

What the hell are we still doing in Iraq anyway? I mean I believe we shouldn't have been there in the first place but now we're pretty much just killing innocent people for no apparent reason at all.

im not the 1 crying!! whos crying?!?!?!

 

and better "innocent people" dying in iraq then innocent people in america

omg people will think we're "soft"....cry me a f***ing river

 

What the hell are we still doing in Iraq anyway? I mean I believe we shouldn't have been there in the first place but now we're pretty much just people for no apparent reason at all.

 

WMD? Pfft...still don't see those either.

 

Thank god there are actually some smart countries out in Europe like Germany, France, and now Spain that see that this war is full of crap.

HAHAHA... Spain really did a great thing by putting the socialists in power just because ists attacked the country. Days prior to the election, it looked like the party in power, the populists, were going to win the election but the Spanish let the attack switch their vote. I hope America would not do such a thing. They gave the ists what they want.

How about we just let the Middle East beat the crap out of each other

Republicans put Saddam in power.

 

 

Republicans started the first gulf war.

 

 

Republicans started the second gulf war.

 

 

 

The Democrats did some bombing of Iraq.

 

 

 

The Democrats didnt send soldiers into the region and get them killed on their watch.

 

 

I know its hard to admit that your boy Ronnie wasnt the saint you might think he is.

 

 

Remember it was his right hand man Bush I that went with the Gulf War.

 

 

And its Dubya who has members of Ronnie's staff littered throughout his advisors and stuff.

The Democrats have never put someone of that nature into power?

 

The Democrats have never started a war?

 

The Democrats have never started a pointless war?

 

The Democrats have never sent soldiers into other countries to die?

 

Well, I'd rather have him back then put another Democrat who doesn't know what he is doing in power.

 

The first Gulf War was because of an invasion, was it not? Or did that invasion never happen.

How about we just let the Middle East beat the crap out of each other

Sounds fun. I still say that we're 100x better off with Kerry than Bush, who has pissed off the entire world at this point. Also, Soriano hit the nail on the head with those true facts about Bush.

omg people will think we're "soft"....cry me a f***ing river

 

What the hell are we still doing in Iraq anyway? I mean I believe we shouldn't have been there in the first place but now we're pretty much just killing innocent people for no apparent reason at all.

im not the 1 crying!! whos crying?!?!?!

 

and better "innocent people" dying in iraq then innocent people in america You are the one crying! Saying we'll look "soft"..give me a break.

 

And you do realize a lot of those people dying in Iraq are Americans....

thats just incredible the way they come up with bad info on their leading competition. politics are so sleazy! :anon

Oh and not to mention our economy has gone *explosion*

Oh and not to mention our economy has gone *explosion*

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

How about we stopped tolerating lying devils and we stop getting them?? that's the better goal. It is a mtter of principle: we don't tolerate lying presidents that contrive war, end of story. I have the firm belief that anyone who doesn't agree with me concerning this principle is a moron. Contriving war is not acceptable.

 

If Kerry holds serve and stays true to the Democratic Party's school of thought on foreign policy nothing substantive will get done most of the time, and when something is done it will turn into a complete debacle. To refresh your memory, here's a few examples....

Both parties suck, do not lecture me on this. Both parties are guilty of terrible foreign policy.

 

The biggest nightmare I have is a Democratic president falling asleep at the wheel and letting some huge terrorist event take place because he was waiting for the UN or international consensus.

No, both parties have fell asleep at the wheel. Neither clinton nor bush adequately kicked enough ass against al qaeda before 9-11 so I blame both, even though I blame neither for the particular event.

 

You are not justified to have anymore fear of a dem screwing up than a republican. Bush's crappy foreign policy makes him highly suspect. Clinto was bad (very bad), but bush out far beat him with an entirily unecessary CONQUEST. It is rather simple. Both fall asleep at the wheel, it is a matter on not tolerating the inept.

 

All you do is blame clinton. Fine, blame him he's an a**hole. However, Bush is too. People relected a**hole reagan, clinton, and now Bush. We should stop reelecting a**holes and we will stop getting them. THE FIRST STEP to this is not tolerating the very fundamentals of what I call "assholeishness". The highest crime below genocide that a president can do to wrong his people is contrive a war of conquest. There is not greater crime besides genocide, remember this. That's why is is absolutely, 100% unacceptable to vote for Bush, and I assert one commits a MORAL WRONG by doing so, because you are condoning something that is next to the act of genocide in wrongness to the citizens of America and the world.

 

I feel like a sane person in insane times where people are tolerating this. Contrived wars are 100% unacceptable, but the douche bag is going to get reelected. Am I the only sane man left, who is not willing to accept this precedent for presidents to continuely screw us? My distaste for morons will only grow.

 

 

I hate Kerry, but I hate the precedent Bush is continuing even more. Kerry cannot be any worse for national security unless he flat out starts sending people to death camps, which I find unlikely.

 

Furthermore, the republican party has no incentive to cut spending with domination over all the branches of government. A balance of powers, something our forefathers deemed absolutely necessary IS NOT HERE. We are living in a lesser degree of dictatorship, where whatever a party wants done gets done. I'm not saying we're having Hitler running the show, but we are certainly not having a democracy anymore. Furthermore, the republicans WILL have incentive to cut spending if Kerry wins.

 

It is absolutely pathetic when spending is cut under Clinton and increases under Bush. Absolutely pathetic.

guys, let's stop playing the blame game about past administrations. It is about RIGHT NOW. The current administration did not serve the true will of the American people and I know this because no one here in principle supports being lied to for a useless war.

 

It is a matter of principle and if you still vote Bush, you condone evil. It is rather simple. All bush voters are on my sh*t-list, not because they disagree with me, but I believe one lacks a necessary amount of intelligence when everything has been laid out for them and they still don't get it.

 

And don't call me intolerant, I know I am.

Oh and not to mention our economy has gone *explosion*

reason it was better before bush was because democrats give out way too much welfare money. taking away cost cuts from other places. so stop coming up with an effect w/o the cause

a useless war.

how is it a useless war? because hussein poses no "threat: when the guy supported terrorist? once again taking care of something before it gets out of hand. the democrats would have sit back and waited for it to explode in their face

guys, let's stop playing the blame game about past administrations. It is about RIGHT NOW. The current administration did not serve the true will of the American people and I know this because no one here in principle supports being lied to for a useless war.

 

It is a matter of principle and if you still vote Bush, you condone evil. It is rather simple. All bush voters are on my sh*t-list, not because they disagree with me, but I believe one lacks a necessary amount of intelligence when everything has been laid out for them and they still don't get it.

 

And don't call me intolerant, I know I am.

Ok, lets talk right now and take a look at "The Human Waffle" Kerry....

 

1) 1991 Persian Gulf War: Voted agaisnt it, calling the other members of the coalition "shadow battlefield allies." Then a couple of months ago he recanted, saying that the coalition in '91 was "strong." Well, which was it, then?

 

2) John Kerry, circa 1997 speaking about Saddam Hussein and his continued belligerence "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." Huh?

 

3) Kerry recently criticized the Bush administration for not providing the materiel support troop in Iraq and Afghanistan needed, ie. body armor, etc. Funny, he was one of 12 Senators who voted against a Bush bill to appropriate more funding for these types of supplies.

 

4) Kerry also voted agisnt spending on, among othe rthings, Tomahawk missles, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and the Apache helicopter.

 

5) Kerry considers action against terrorism not a war ("I don't ant to use that terminology.") Instead he prefers the use of law enforcement. We all have seen how well that works, especially when the original WTC attackers in 1993 were tried in criminal court and sentenced to, GASP, life in prison.

 

Anyway, arguing is arguing, and I assume we shall just have to agree to disagree. In the end is doesn't matter, they all lie like dogs whenever it suites them

Oh and not to mention our economy has gone *explosion*

reason it was better before bush was because democrats give out way too much welfare money. taking away cost cuts from other places. so stop coming up with an effect w/o the cause Do you have any idea what you just said?

Oh and not to mention our economy has gone *explosion*

reason it was better before bush was because democrats give out way too much welfare money. taking away cost cuts from other places. so stop coming up with an effect w/o the cause Do you have any idea what you just said? Although her motivation might be a little off target she makes a good point nonetheless.... Another hallmark for a democratic presidency, the creation of the wefare state in america. Thanks for starting us up on it FDR, and thanks to LBJ for making finishing off the job!!!! Remember, no one left behind as long as we can afford to give them money and drag them along!!!!

Yeah, and the welfare state will get better with Kerry :confused