Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job'

[Nemont]

Could you be just a little more specific?

 

[Ithaca 37]

I posted A NY Times article on Richard Clark in another topic. He sounds OK. I didn't want to post it all in this thread.

 

[Nemont]

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE : Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

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.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — 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 .
QUESTION : When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION : But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE : The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

So which was it either they did all these things Clarke said they did from January onward or they did nothing, as he alleges in his book?


Story


Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

From Woodward's book, which was done with Dubya's coopertation....

page 39.


"Until September 11, however, Bush had not put that thinking [that Clinton's response to al Qaeda emboldened bin Laden] into practice, nor had he pressed the issue of bin Laden. Though Rice and others were developing a plan to eliminate al Qaeda, no formal recommendations had ever been presented to the president.

"I know there was a plan in the works. . . . I don't know how mature the plan was," Bush recalled. . . .He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point [before that date], but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem."

 

[Calif. Hunter]

On the radio, I just heard quotes from Clarke praising the Bush admininstraion a year or two ago...

So, is he a liar, changed his mind or just a fool?

 

[pawclaws]

You know in all of this there is one thing we are totally overlooking; "Where was Mr. Clarke during all of this?" By that I mean why the hell didn't he go to the press immediately? Did he think that his job security was more important than the safety of our nation? I know at least four times I put my own personal ass on the line knowing that I would cause ripples or disturbances; but, {examplesI knew that one airfield commander was in cahoots with a civilian contractor and it needed to be exposed; I knew that one Finance Officer was selling heroine to his enlisted staff and he needed to be stopped, I knew one USAF Lt Col who was stealing construction materials for his privately owned apartment complex who needed to be stopped; I knew one Army Division Commander who was custom tailoring BDUs for his staff officers and friends of equiv rank at taxpayer expense who needed to be stopped. In every instance I had to deal against the will of my immediate supervisors and go outside of channels to resolve the situation and in the short run the cost to me personally were significant. In the long run each and every time it was the right thing to do. Hey; I took the same oath that Clarke did; where was he??
Don't you think our public empolyees need to be held to a higher standard? I believe they should be because they work for the "people" not some party lackey!