And the Scum also Rises...

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote>CLAIM vs. FACT: Administration Officials Respond to Richard Clarke Interview
In the wake of Richard Clarke’s well-supported assertions that the Bush Administration neglected counterterrorism in the face of repeated terror warnings before 9/11, the Bush Administration has launched a frantic misinformation campaign – often contradicting itself in the process.

CLAIM #1: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.” No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #2: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection.

CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #4: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations…The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.’” - Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #5: “The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” – Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #7: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: “Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place.” By comparison, Cheney in 2001 formally convened his Energy Task Force at least 10 separate times, meeting at least 6 times with Enron energy executives. - Washington Post, 1/20/02 , GAO Report, 8/22/03, AP, 1/8/02

CLAIM #8: All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. – Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, 3/22/04

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that “In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States” to “carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives.” The report “was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001].” In the same month, the Pentagon “acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]</blockquote>


You can link to all the links here:

<center>http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39828&printmode=1</center>

 

[acludem]

Great post Bully! Richard Clarke was brought in by Bill Clinton after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole toward the end of Clinton's presidency. Clinton's Justice Department may not have done enough, but at least they didn't completely ignore the problem like the Bushies did.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Great post Bully! Richard Clarke was brought in by Bill Clinton after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole toward the end of Clinton's presidency. Clinton's Justice Department may not have done enough,

Yeah, that's it, try to blame it on Bush as usual. All the hijackers were already in the USA and settled by the time Clinton was done fucking things up.

"No, don't worry about Osama, I'm getting a BJ!"

While he had his eyes rolling into the back of his head, over a dozen terrorists entered the USA and settled in to plan the worst terrorist attack on our soil.

Now you want to blame it on Bush for not catching that dipshits screwup!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
CLAIM #2: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection.

Bullshit.

Please show me where the president and vice president repeatedly claimed Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. Not opinions, not conspiracies, not op/ed articles - show me EXACTLY where they repeatedly stated this.

And I suggest you quote the whole legislation instead of starting off with "nations, organizations, or persons...." I guess pulling off the first sentence of that paragraph makes your article sound better!

-------------
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to -- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/resolution.htm

 

[DKSuddeth]

*sigh* some people never completely learn.


Appropriately, the 9/11 commission has determined that BOTH administrations are at fault and not just the Bush admin.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
FACT: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” – Washington Post, 3/22/04

White House spokesman Taylor Gross noted that FBI funding has increased by more than 50% between 2000 and 2004, not including supplemental funds such as those requested after Sept. 11. Under President Bush, "the FBI has been reformed to make counterterrorism its No. 1 priority," Gross said. "No matter what sort of rhetoric gets thrown about in a campaign season, it doesn't change the fact that this president is committed to fighting the war on terrorism."

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
White House spokesman Taylor Gross noted that FBI funding has increased by more than 50% between 2000 and 2004, not including supplemental funds such as those requested after Sept. 11. Under President Bush, "the FBI has been reformed to make counterterrorism its No. 1 priority," Gross said. "No matter what sort of rhetoric gets thrown about in a campaign season, it doesn't change the fact that this president is committed to fighting the war on terrorism."

No offense to you Jim, but the white house spokesman is a mouthpiece only. Is there a budget document somewhere that shows this in ink for verification?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
*sigh* some people never completely learn.


Appropriately, the 9/11 commission has determined that BOTH administrations are at fault and not just the Bush admin.

Indeed, both are at fault, but one should remeber that the Clinton administration was faulted for being too aggressive in its pursuit of Al Qaeda.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Indeed, both are at fault, but one should remeber that the Clinton administration was faulted for being too aggressive in its pursuit of Al Qaeda.

Do you consider turning down an offer to extradite Osama as being too aggressive?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Indeed, both are at fault, but one should remeber that the Clinton administration was faulted for being too aggressive in its pursuit of Al Qaeda.

Last that I remember bully, there were all kinds of documentation to show that clinton got his fair share of republican bullshit when it came to iraq and military action, but show me where he was slammed for agressiveness against al qaeda.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Do you consider turning down an offer to extradite Osama as being too aggressive?

Clinton's own words:

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/731174/posts

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Bullshit.

Please show me where the president and vice president repeatedly claimed Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. Not opinions, not conspiracies, not op/ed articles - show me EXACTLY where they repeatedly stated this.

<blockquote><b>"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of al-Qaeda..."</b>

George W Bush,
State of the Union address</blockquote>

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<blockquote><b>"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of al-Qaeda..."</b>

George W Bush,
State of the Union address</blockquote>

And what does this have to do with claims they said they were directly connected to 9/11?

You're reaching!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<blockquote><b>"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of al-Qaeda..."</b>

George W Bush,
State of the Union address</blockquote>

Ok, while not SPECIFICALLY stating that this is a connection to 9/11, yes, I can see where people think this is a connection. Considering the events and how that tragedy affected americans, I think those fears were played upon by the administration.

I think this rises to the level of deception by allowing mis-interpretation and then not correcting it til after the fact of the war.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Indeed, both are at fault, but one should remeber that the Clinton administration was faulted for being too aggressive in its pursuit of Al Qaeda.

fter the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be Alive today.

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!

http://www.highvolumemedia.com/thebullhorn/ClintonsFailures.htm

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Do you consider turning down an offer to extradite Osama as being too aggressive?

No question, Goat-boy screwed the pooch on that one, and he probably enjoyed it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Ok, while not SPECIFICALLY stating that this is a connection to 9/11, yes, I can see where people think this is a connection. Considering the events and how that tragedy affected americans, I think those fears were played upon by the administration.

I think this rises to the level of deception by allowing mis-interpretation and then not correcting it til after the fact of the war.

I think his reference was towards AL Qaeda in general, not specifically 9/11.

-----------------------

The media are fascinated with the parts of former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke's book that trash President Bush as being out to lunch on the al-Qaida threat before 9/11.

But reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.

In his book, Clarke describes how the Clinton CIA determined in 1996 that Sudan's Shifa chemical plant, which was allegedly bankrolled by bin Laden, was producing the chemical EMPTA.

"EMPTA is a compound that had been used as a prime ingredient in Iraqi nerve gas," writes Clarke. "It has no other known use, nor had any other nation employed EMPTA to our knowledge for any purpose."

"What was an Iraqi chemical weapons agent doing in Sudan?" the terrorism authority asked.

He then explains:

"UNSCOM and other U.S. government sources had claimed that the Iraqis were working on something at a facility near Shifa. Could Sudan, using bin Laden's money, have hired some Iraqis to make chemical weapons? It seemed chillingly possible."

Invoking the 2001 testimony to U.S. interrogators of captured al-Qaida operative Jamal al-Fadl, Clarke says that he "matter-of-factly described his role in traveling to Sudan for his terrorist organization. [Al Fadl] said his assignment was to follow the work al Qaeda had underway in Khartoum to develop chemical weapons."

In fact, much remains in dispute over just what was going on at the Shifa plant, which was bombed to smithereens in a 1998 cruise missile attack ordered by President Clinton.

But since the press has crowned Richard Clarke as America's ultimate authority on the al-Qaida threat, they ought to at least be honest enough to acknowledge that his account provides ample justification for Bush's decision to oust the regime that Clarke says teamed up with bin Laden to make WMDs in Sudan.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/23/221155.shtml

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
No question, Goat-boy screwed the pooch on that one, and he probably enjoyed it.

Turning down Osama, or the BJ?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Ok, while not SPECIFICALLY stating that this is a connection to 9/11, yes, I can see where people think this is a connection. Considering the events and how that tragedy affected americans, I think those fears were played upon by the administration.

I think this rises to the level of deception by allowing mis-interpretation and then not correcting it til after the fact of the war.

And that is the implicit connection that Dubbyuh's administration has been hammering home since 9/12. The Administration has been making political hay with it since then.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Turning down Osama, or the BJ?

Screwing the pooch...Poor dog...