The Richard Clarke effect

At the end of the day, Americans will have to decide who they think will protect them better

from JoeUser Forums

At the end of the day the American people are going to have to make up their own minds with regards to George W. Bush. They will either conclude that 9/11 was unavoidable and the policy of going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and then taking out Saddam in Iraq was a good thing or it wasn't a good thing.

Richard Clarke, who has been testifying before congress, decided that Bush and his team didn't do enough before 9/11. Whether you find him credible or not probably depends on whether you believe he has an axe to grind or not. I personally believe he does. In 2002 he gave a glowing review of how aggressive the Bush team was pre-9/11 and savaged the Clinton admistration's feckless policy. And yet, after not receiving a promotion into the DoHS, he resigned and has changed his mind that Bush's team did enough. The question is, when did he lie? Is he lying now? Or was he lying in 2002?

One thing is clear: Clarke believes going into Iraq was a distraction. He believes it has taken vital resources and attention from Afghanistan. Before you decide whether you agree with that assessment or not, there is still the simple issue: He has changed his view of how Bush's team was dealing with terrorism before 9/11 based on policy decisions made after 9/11.  That's intellectually dishonest at best.

Now, assuming you agree with him, that dealing with Iraq took vital resources away from exterminating Al Qaeda, doesn't the same charge go for Clinton even more? Could it not be argued that the whole Kosovo war was a distraction from Al Qaeda?  Couldn't Clinton, at the very least, inserted some special forces to take out Bin Laden? Post-9/11 Bin Laden is hiding in caves. During the Clinton years, he was living in public.

I think most Americans could be convinced that the Bush team didn't take Al Qaeda seriously enough prior to 9/11. I think Bush would agree that they weren't treating terrorism as the priority it should probably have been given. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But for anyone to argue that Clinton did a good job with terrorism is just trying to sell you something.

But all that aside, the question Americans will ultimately have to decide on is who do they think would have done a better job? A President Gore? A President Kerry? Or President Bush? Would Gore have responded to 9/11 like Bush did? Would Clinton? Would Kerry? Be honest. Can you really see Clinton having put together a plan to overthrow Afghanistan? One must remember how much of a contribution Rumsfeld and Powell put into the Afghanistan campaign.

Somehow I suspect that had Kerry been President (or Gore or Clinton) that the Taliban would still be in power. Certainly Saddam would have been. And as someone who is glad that both are gone, I think it's pretty obvious which candidate I trust American foreign policy to more -- regardless of which version of Clarke's story I choose to believe.

 

politics
15,867 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
hey brad,,,why don't you read my article on this subject that i posted today,,,it will show you just how credible he is,,,and it can be done using words of conservatives and bush himself,,,here's a link to make it easy...

Link
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
With respect to your article Brad, the difference between Clinton's distraction and Bush's distraction, is that when Clinton went into Kosovo, there was insufficient evidence that Al Qaeda was a significant threat. Bush's war distraction occured after Al Qaeda had blown up the twin towers.

Cheers
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
is really the security aspect the only interesting aspect of your Presidental election ?
In my opinion, as a Norwegian, the serious debt problems the Bush Admin. has introduced is as serious an issue as the "terror-threat". And the "not so tactful" foreign policy is another issue that the Bush Admin. is famous for...

Under Clinton most Europeans at least repected the US and it's Government, but nowadays most don't. I'd find that toublesome if I was in charge...
But then I'm not! :)

- Noocyte -
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
A President Gore? A President Kerry? Or President Bush? Would Gore have responded to 9/11 like Bush did? Would Clinton? Would Kerry? Be honest. Can you really see Clinton having put together a plan to overthrow Afghanistan


I'm not sure why you think Gore, Clinton, or Kerry wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. Certainly, if you judged by their campaigns in 2000, Gore was more inclined to a muscular foreign policy than Bush was.

is really the security aspect the only interesting aspect of your Presidental election


Security happens to be in the news right now because of 9/11 hearings. There will be plenty of arguments about other things in coming months.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I personally do not fault him for praising Bush in 2002 and now criticizing him in 2004. Remember 2002 was before the Iraq war. And I think the argument that he was working for Bush, and therefore his job was to praise the Bush administration, is perfectly valid. He was not speaking as a private citizen at that time. Of course, I would not excuse him if he lied, but I haven't seen anything he said then that appears to be a lie. Maybe he simply changed his mind about Bush's policies sometime during or after 2003. There's nothing untruthful about that.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Was Clarke's job to brown nose? If that wasn't his official job, since he shifted his opinion so drastically despite the fact that nothing changed (unless Bush went back in time), it sounds as though he says what he thinks will get him what he wants. Is that credibility?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find Clarke the winner of the credibility poll on the matter. Condo Rice is cementing it now with her desire to not be made to speak truthfully in the investigation of it. The oath she refuses to take to testify - the one Clarke took willfully - is the same one of swearing to serve the people she took to hold office at leisure. The nonsense of no precendent is another sign of this Administration's arrogance of power.

The fact they condemn an apology to the victims' families made by Clarke, is yet another sign of the lack of credibility this President has with the American people. Neither Kerry nor Clinton would ever find such dis-regard of 'feelings' as acceptable. While simultaneously arguing "National Security' as a defense for not truthfully and openly testifying, Bush is allowing classified documents to leak about Clarke. We already know of the proclivity of selective national security in this President's treatment of Haliburton& friends, and his outing of CIA personnel in retaliation for not falsifying evidence to support the invasion of Iraq.

The Republicans are backing a loser on this, and more and more Americans are moving away from Bush in this 'vietnamization' of Iraq and Afghanistan that is now occuring. We are not making the profits on this falsified war, and so lack the motives of Bush, tending to believe an apology to victims is not a bad thing. Credibility? Ask yourself how credible Bush is in face of the emerging facts. This position will not strengthen with time for Republicans. Kerry is more of an alternative because of Clarke's testimony in public and Condoleeza Rice's arguments, on behalf of this President, against being held to the same standard.

Glad to see so many speak up on this sly mis-direction of comparison rather than open public accountability on the true issue by this President, named Bush.

Four more years? Yeah, right.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Jeb, Al Qaeda had already bombed the USS Cole. Had already bombed US embassies. Was involved in Somalia. Had already attacked the WTC?

What does it take to become a "significant" threat in your book?

Also, you are making the assumption that Bush hasn't vigorously gone after Al Qaeda post 9/11. The evidence seems pretty good to the contrary. The Taliban is gone. Osama, if he's alive, is living in caves. And the US hasn't been attacked by terrorists since. The evidence sure points to a pretty successful campaign against Al Qaeda in post 9/11.

What do you think the US should have done differently? The only way we coudl be more effective against Al Qaeda militarily is if we started sending troops into Pakistan. And that has nothing to do with whether we toppled Saddam or not.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Under Clinton most Europeans at least repected the US and it's Government, but nowadays most don't. I'd find that toublesome if I was in charge...

Most Americans care about as much what Europeans think about us as we care about how Bangladesh feels about us. Why should Americans care? We elect presidents based on what they do for us. Not how happy they make Europeans.  I'm sure Roosevelt wasn't too popular in Europe for quite awhile too.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jeb, Al Qaeda had already bombed the USS Cole. Had already bombed US embassies. Was involved in Somalia. Had already attacked the WTC?


When the Kosovo war began, the USS Cole had not been bombed. There were some embassy bombings, but there have been embassy bombings for years, I mean the Iranians bombed our embassy in the late 70s, should we have invaded them? The Somalia link was tenuous at best, Somalia was embroiled in it's own civil war, and we had troops there, and the WTC attackers had been sent to trial.

Since only two of your points are ones I recognize as valid, the embassies and the WTC I'll address those.

Timothy Mcvay bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, we didn't wage a war against Right Wing Militiaists, you don't see Bush pushing that now, so, when a group of men snuck into a building and detonated a bomb, we decided to use a more civilized approach and actually try them for their crimes. There was insufficient evidence that there was a conspiracy led by a single nation, say Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Embassy bombings were also terrible, but since most evidence pointed to locals, working for Al Qaeda I'll grant, the US allowed, which is a diplomatic nicety, the local officials to prosecute and deal with the perpetrators.

Having said that, we also bombed several known Al Qaeda sites afterwards.

Cheers
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, if Timothy McVey did indeed belong to a group that takes responsibility for the attacks, then Clinton and Bush should have done something to them, but if he acted alone, then that's different.

As for my opinion on the subject, I'd say that Clinton and Bush did what was reasonable concerning terrorism. After all, before 9/11, it wasn't that significant. To focus more attention on it would probably result in the same outrage that people feel for the war in Iraq in that it's jumping the gun and making a big deal only out of a possibility.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
This reply is mainly in response to Wahkonta. I really don't know how credible Clarke is. It is beginning to be clear that Clarke didn't really change his story all that much between a few years ago and today and his book. His attitude and focus on certain aspects is what has changed. He seems bitter because he is very against the Iraq war. I don't know what most of his motivations are, but he seems to be telling a somewhat accurate side to the story.

Now today Condoleezza Rice has finally agreed to talk before the commission under oath publicly. The president and vice president both agreed to speak privately. Of course this is because of all the criticism they've been recieving for refusing to testify before the commission. I also want to point out that Clarke refused to testify before a committe investigating the Y2k computer situation citing the same privilege that the White House had been for Rice. I say the more we the commission can find out, the better.

The only reason I could see for "condemnation" of an apology made by Clarke, is that the apology would basically be an admission on the part of the administration of their guilt in 9/11, which I hope they are not actually guilty for.

I've been following the points down on the post written by Wahkonta and this is about where I start getting confused. How can you compare Iraq to Vietnam? Both involved US soldiers fighting against an enemy that was using guerilla tactics, but thats about where similarities end. The majority of Iraqis aren't supporting attacks on US troops, much of Vietnam wanted us out. We've lost close to 600 soldiers in Iraq, compared to many thousands in Vietnam. While I'm not trying to make these deaths sound unimportant, they are all tragedies, the casualties are nowhere near those of Vietnam. Vietnam kept getting worse for us, as many many citizens joined the Vietcong to replace those that died. Iraq is on the whole getting better. Where Vietnam was decimated by the years of fighting, Iraq has gotten significantly better than it was BEFORE the war(If you don't believe me the information is out there and I can link it). Afghanistan, while still facing many troubles, is even further from Vietnam that Iraq.

The paragraph then moves to something about Bush's credibility now because of "the emerging facts". I guess I don't know what these emerging facts are, or what they are even related to. If its about WMD's, then that is still very debatable (I don't know why the administration hasn't done more to debate it). If it's about refusing to testify, they are willing to testify now. If Wahkonta wants to reply with what facts were being referred to, I'd love to discuss it(not necessarily debate it since I'm not actually a fan of everything Bush has been doing).

Then Wahkonta moves on to say Kerry is a better alternative because Clarke came out and testified and Rice didn't. This makes no sense, these events don't have anything to do with Kerry. Why does this make Kerry a good alternative? Isn't there the possibility that Kerry would have handled the situation worse? Bringing him into this is pointless. Kerry has in fact tried to avoid getting into this mess by snowboarding and complaining about his secret service guy.

Now, lets do some agreeing. This administration has been doing many things to give misinformation to the public. I know that. I also think people are too quick not to believe anything that comes out of the White House. That's bad. There has always been a level of mistrust towards the presidents through the years, but I think this particular president is getting worse. I also believe that much of this is that the administration is doing a bad job backing themselves up, they instead attack anyone who says something against them.



Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Somalia link was tenuous at best, Somalia was embroiled in it's own civil war, and we had troops there, and the WTC attackers had been sent to trial.

It was well known that the fighters in Somalia were supported by osama. The WTC attackers were sent to jail, but the people who planned and kept planning more attacks were bascially ignored. Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem, the same as John Kerry would like to do. That is obviously the wrong choice.

Clinton had many opportunities to capture or kill bin laden and he chose not too. One of the reasons I heard recently from the 9/11 commission was that the Clinton administration was worried about what other countries would think. In other words, they were worried about what the french would say.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem with idealogues is that they eventually become of touch with normal people.

Regular people are not going to believe that Bush was LESS effective in dealing with terrorism than Clinton was.

Bush will take some knocks on this in the short term until common sense takes over.

It's kind of like the "No WMD" rantings. The people who were for the war previously are still for the war and the people who were against the war are still against it and using the "No WMD" as if they would somehow have been in favor of the war if they'd found stockpiles of mustard gas or something.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was well known that the fighters in Somalia were supported by osama


It was? All the fighters in Somalia were supported by Osama? Prove it, and then I'll listen.

Regular people are not going to believe that Bush was LESS effective in dealing with terrorism than Clinton was.


I agree with this statement, but the thing is, Clinton wasn't the officer on watch when the boat sank, to use a nautical example. Who does the board of inquiry examine when a ship sinks? The capitain, for one, but also the officer of the watch.

Cheers
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree with this statement, but the thing is, Clinton wasn't the officer on watch when the boat sank, to use a nautical example. Who does the board of inquiry examine when a ship sinks? The capitain, for one, but also the officer of the watch.

People aren't going to look at it that way. They're more likely to see that a goof off cop just happened to go off shift leaving the next cop there to deal with the results of the goof off cop.

Bin Laden has specifically cited things like Somalia and the reaction to the USS Cole as examples of why he thought the US was a "paper tiger" and a good punch in our glass jaw would force us to leave Saudi Arabia. You do know that was the whole point of 9/11 from Al Qaeda's point of view right? Get the US out of Saudi Arabia so that he and his mnions could overthrow it to spread their particular form of Islam further to build towards an eventual war with the west.  Bin Laden hasn't been secret about his aims. 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"It was? All the fighters in Somalia were supported by Osama? Prove it, and then I'll listen."

There is clear links between Somalia and osama.

"I agree with this statement, but the thing is, Clinton wasn't the officer on watch when the boat sank, to use a nautical example. Who does the board of inquiry examine when a ship sinks? The capitain, for one, but also the officer of the watch."

You are comparing Sept. 11 with a boat sinking? The fact is the Sept. 11 attacks were being planned at least two years before. Who's watch was that? I guess that doesn't matter because a democrat was in office.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"It was well known that the fighters in Somalia were supported by osama."
"There is clear links between Somalia and osama. "

there are links between Bin Laden and Somalia. no doubt about that. there were (and still are) so many factions in Somalia that it would be rather surpirising if Bin Laden would have not had contact with one or two of them. btw. almost all of these factions are clan-based and not following some paricular ideology.

the fighters that gave the US hell were from General Aidid´s militia. hard to believe that Bin Laden supported him as Aidid was probably the most secular leader there, he was into smuggling Khat to Yemen and not into Islamic fundamentalism. Bin Laden rather supported some obscure splinter groups.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Somehow I suspect that had Kerry been President (or Gore or Clinton) that the Taliban would still be in power. Certainly Saddam would have been."

don´t agree on the first one. the second is rather likely.

Afghanistan now looks pretty much like when the Soviets were leaving the country. large parts of the country are governed by local warlords. there´s a weak central government. and in the south (where the pipelines from Turkmenistan should be built, remember that was the reason why the Taleban were supported by Pakistan and other sources) there is strong resistance by Taleban fighters and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
it also seems the terror threat to the US allies in that region, the dictatorships of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (their leader is more bizarre than the one of North Korea) has become worse if you check the recent news.
so the real winner here is Iran as sooner or later the oil companies will get tired and build the pipelines through Iran, no matter wether there is an embargo or not.

i wonder what the future holds for Iraq and how the "nation building" plans look like. for sure there will be democracy as i am sure the US government knows just as well how the results will be. anybody remembers how that turned out in Algeria?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad still doesn't understand:

"It's kind of like the "No WMD" rantings. The people who were for the war previously are still for the war and the people who were against the war are still against it and using the "No WMD" as if they would somehow have been in favor of the war if they'd found stockpiles of mustard gas or something."

If Blix had found stockpiles of mustard gas that would have pulled a lot of people over to a point of view where at least removing the threat of those stockpiles would have been welcomed. But you believe what you want to.

As far as "Most Americans care about as much what Europeans think about us as we care about how Bangladesh feels about us. Why should Americans care?", I think most Europeans could care less about how americans feel about them, that's nothing new. What's changed is that there's a growing group of people who were taught to feel safe for having the US as an ally, no longer feel that way. Be that because they no longer feel the US to be an ally of because it no longer feels safe. Funny thing power :-)
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is clear links between Somalia and osama.


I asked for proof and you repeat the same statement.

Sure there were Al Qaeda fighters in Somalia, did they lead the fighting? Probably not, it was one warlord against another warlord, with Al Qaeda fighters, Somali fighters, American fighters, the French Foreign legion, and God knows who else.

Cheers
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Danny: Yes but you still have to make the case as to why Americans should consider European opinion when voting for a Presidential candidate.

Blix, btw, WAS finding huge stockpiles of mustard gas and worse right up until they got kicked out in 1998. I assume you would have supported war in 1998? And if so, why not then in 2003? What changed?

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Having said that, we also bombed several known Al Qaeda sites afterwards.


Which Clinton was widely criticized for I might add. I have noticed a trend lately with "conservatives" that tend to argue fervently on behalf of this administration regardless of any facts that contradict what they say. They tend to portray the current administration as flawless when it comes to decisions they have made and the policies they have produced. This is not only in JoeUser but in every political conversation I have had with this type of "conservative". This is not all conservatives that I speak of, but most I have talked to are not open-minded and/or ready to accept the fact that the government might have made mistakes. When engaged in an argument that goes against Bush they also tend to attack Kerry as if I have to be for him without me even eluding to that fact. I have noticed this with "liberals" as well but they are on the other side of the spectrum attacking every action Bush makes regardless of the facts stated. This whole Bush vs. Kerry thing is like lewis vs. holyfield except their ring is the WhiteHouse.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most Americans care about as much what Europeans think about us as we care about how Bangladesh feels about us. Why should Americans care? We elect presidents based on what they do for us. Not how happy they make Europeans. I'm sure Roosevelt wasn't too popular in Europe for quite awhile too.


Wow Brad... I've been reading a lot of ignorant and unsubstantianted arguments you've been making, but this one really rose to the top of the pile of crap you’ve been dumping out.

This is by far the most arrogant, isolationist, and dare I say… American thing I have ever read or heard.

Since we’re on the topic of who’s job it was to fight terrorism when it mattered most, does no one else realize that it is statements, and beliefs like this that make the US target number one for terrorists.

America bombs third world countries into rubble so routinely that it’s hardly news anymore, and then, just to pour salt into the wound, you seem to assume that the people being bombed are lesser forms of life, who might have something to say about it, but why would an American even fart in their direction, let alone listen to anything they have to say.

I’m really sorry you don’t realize this already, but if you and the boys in the White House continue to treat the rest of the world as sub-human, the US can only hope for more terrorist attacks, and less help fighting them.

Incidently international diplomacy is also a powerful tool that can be used to improve a nation’s economy, environment, credibility, and culture… all of which are things that are at, or near bottom-dropping-out levels in the United States.