I just rewatched the Clinton interview and one thing kept nagging at me. The claim that Clinton left behind the great Dick Clarke and Bush demoted him. Kinda insinuating that it was a blunder on Bush's part and that is why Bush failed to get Bin Laden in those important first 8 months of his presidency.
Read Clarke's book was Clinton's mantra through most of the interview. Did anyone read Clarke's book? I must admit that I didn't. I wasn't really impressed with Richard Clarke knowledge/job on terrorism since he was still, in fact, the Counterterrorism Czar when 9/11 happened. That's not exactly resume building, if you catch my drift. I know Clarke worked for lots of past administrations but when your job is "counter terrorism czar" and two giant buildings get hit by commercial airplanes and come crashing down in Manhattan that isn't something that screams promotion.
Not getting promoted is not the same as being demoted. Clinton said Clarke was demoted. Uh, not so. He quit after not getting the deputy director of homeland security gig. For as much as people disparage her, at least, Monica went that extra mile when she worked at the White House. Talk about deserving a promotion...
Just wanted to clear that up.
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Clarke was still the terrorism czar under Bush, he just wasn't invited to high-level cabinet meetings personally anymore. And apparently left when he didn't get the job he really wanted, deputy director of national security. [shrug]
People who sit around trying to blame any administration for 9/11 really make me want to vomit.
Once again I don't fault the man greatly for exaggerating and/or getting some minor facts wrong. The tendency to call someone who gets a detail wrong a liar is rather foul.
My favorite story about the period was when, right after 9/11, Rumsfeld said to Clarke, "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. Let's bomb Iraq."
You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy.
Condi- She has given many interviews on the subject, just do a google search. This is the 1st interview in which Clinton sat down and answered questions about his adm., and terroism..we just wish he had told the truth.
Adam,
You need to get over Monica. I don't think I need to apologize for making jokes just because you don't "get them".
I am not now and never was a Clinton hating rightwinger. The only problem I ever had with Monica was she was there and I wasn't. I would've blown him too.
It's what I want it to be. You write on your blog what you want and I will do the same. I'm not beholden to you or anyone else. Didn't we go over this territory before?
TMI! TMI! TMI!
Yours,
Wince
I'm not telling you or anyone else what to write. I'm just saying, coverage of this Clinton interview (throughout the web, not just here) is another example of obsessing with trivia and not dealing with the real issues. It's the literary equivalent of dangling keys in front of a baby.
Oh, and it's not me who has to "get over" Monica. Why can't anyone on the right say anything about Clinton without mentioning Monica? "Bad date" indeed.
Except when the person is a proven liar. Clinton's first instinct is to lie, even when the truth would be just as good. It's just what he does. Saying otherwise is rather foul as it insults my intelligence.
"I didn't inhale" is the worst lie he told as it totally insulted my intelligence. If I had tried that on my mother I would still be grounded. Not just for lying, but for accusing her of being stupid by using such a blatant, obvious lie.
"I never had sexual relations with that women" as he wagged his finger at me. I never really cared about that except for his lying under oath during a civil suit that happened because of a law he signed to much fanfare. But when he came on TV and wagged his finger at me all while telling a flat out lie, well, that's what liars do. They lie and get all angry when you call them on their lies. You know, like Clinton?
"It depends on the meaning of 'is'" is just despicable. Back before Lewis Black contracted BDS he had the best riff on that. "That's the first word they teach you!"
Dean, being evenhanded doesn't mean blinding yourself. Clinton is a liar. That and his absolute narcissism are his defining characteristics.
Monica is his history....Monica came up this week because we were reminded of the DO NOT GO THERE PETER moment when Clinton flipped out the last time!
Gaaahhh!
Let’s recap:
Bill Clinton, acting without an official finding that bin Laden was responsible for the Cole and embassy attacks and facing a rabidly partisan Republican Congress and special prosecutor made it a top priority to kill him, as evidenced by his elevation and regular meetings with Richard Clark and going so far as to order attacks against him whenever feasible.
George W. Bush acting (and I use the term in the purely theatrical sense) with official findings that bin Laden had attacked and killed US Navy personnel and embassy staff and the warning of the Clinton team that bin Laden was the number one threat and a NIE warning that “…bin Laden determined to strike the US,” took a month-long vacation.
Finally coming over to the side of the angels, eh Rosemary?
I had assumed it was short reach. George Bush must make you feel like a complete idiot. Oh, right.
And no, George Bush doesn't make me feel like you.
If you're confused about what Clinton said, consult the transcript of the interview. It's been available since Friday night.
If you're confused about what Clarke's book said, or what he had to say about scapegoating, try the library and let Google be your friend.
Finally, if you think it's a decent lesson to encourage promotion through sexual favors, I'm glad you don't have any daughters.
Remarkably, Mark Adams provides the decisive argument against shep and Adam.
Thanks, Mark.
Yours,
Wince
Finally coming over to the side of the angels, eh Rosemary?
Nah, I am remarkably consistent though.
Mark:
f you're confused about what Clinton said, consult the transcript of the interview. It's been available since Friday night.
I watched it and I have it on tape. I'm not confused at all. He said Clarke was demoted.
If you're confused about what Clarke's book said, or what he had to say about scapegoating, try the library and let Google be your friend.
NOt confused, just uninterested.
Finally, if you think it's a decent lesson to encourage promotion through sexual favors, I'm glad you don't have any daughters.
Better a blow job than a blown up building. Otherwise, hahahhahahahahahhahahahahaha.
Assuming facts not in evidence, I say. Maybe she was just attracted to the big dog (she flashed him, remember?). Entirely plausible anyway, right Rosemary?
Sorry Mark, lust happens. And, you'll have to admit, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun without daughters.
Good memory Shep!
Yeah, I was totally hot for Clinton. Seriously.
GAAHHH!
Argue all you want on this, but when the National Security Advisor's scheduled but never delivered speech on 9/11/01 was about the "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday," and didn't mention terror, but only missile defense; and Clarke couldn't get a meeting with a single cabinet member, only got as high as Wolfowitz after three month of asking, until a week before 9/11, let alone be allowed to brief POTUS; and Cheney's anti-terror task force never met in the 8 months before 9/11 -- the National Security apparatus downgraded the priority of terror as a threat under Bush.
When you're the terrorism Czar, and teror is less a priority than it was, less than you thought it should be, and you're the guy everyone's looking at when the worst happens, and many (as Rose infers in her post) are more than willing to scapegoat you -- well anything less than an public apology and promotion to a position where your expertise can be utilized properly is bull.
Clarke apologized to us, but we still haven't gotten one from Bush. Clinton acknowledges that he failed to get bin Laden despite trying and counts that along with Rwanda as his two biggest dissapointments. We can't even get an acknowledgement from Bush or Condi or Cheney or any of them that maybe, just maybe, they didn't have their eye on the ball.
Would it have made a difference, kept the towers standing? Who knows.
Even today, Condi was selling the same old snake oil. [Link to Murdoch's NY Post]. "We were at least as aggressive as" Clinton. Bull! They didn't even send up a predator recon, but grounded the recon program Clinton was using while they worked on getting an armed version in the air. And this is the only concrete action Condi can point to preceding 9/11? What crap.
Want some light reading? Check out the 9/11 report starting at page 210. [Link to PDF] for a discussion on the predator.
What irks is not who's to blame. Dean and I agree on that. It's a fool's errand. What irks is the failure to aknowledge any responsibility, refusing to admit that they could and should have done more.
You know why Bush had 90% of us in lock-step behind him in late September 2001? Because any of us who thought he blew it figured he learned any lesson that needed to be learned. That fixing any problems was more important than assigning blame.
Why did we turn? Because slowly it occured that he and his supporters didn't learn a thing, or at least learned the wrong lessons. He learned to use the tragedy to beat up Democrats and went on to feed the industrial/military commerial empire like never before.
I think it really started when Bush and Condi tried to stonewall the 9/11 commission. When they started acting like they had something to hide, people started to get suspicious, looking (and finding) what they hid. If they'd been more transparent and forthcoming, they wouldn't be having such problems.
Rose, for someone who is "uninterested" in what Clarke has to say, you've got a lot to say about him. It just seems a bit judgmental, perhaps prejudicial, no?
I'm glad at least you got the daughters reference. These things lose so much impact when they have to be explained. Maybe you could explain it to Wince, Mike and Shep. They seem to have gotten it twisted somehow.
Oh you got me wrong. I am no longer interested in what Clarke has to say. I've heard plenty from him. Plenty. I'm not willing to waste any brain cells reading his revisions of history.
AS to the rest of what you said, I'm pretty sure my Wednesday morning post will cover it. If not, I'll be happy to address this again.
Because frankly, going back to Rosemary's jibe at Clarke, being President (or National Security Adviser or Secretary of Defense) during the largest terror attack in the nation's history, especially after marginalizing the most prominent expert in the field in your administration, isn't something that screams "terror warrior."
Rose, I wait eagerly to your post tomorrow. Make it a good one Darlin'.
Why in the world would Clarke, of all people, have to revise history (even if he could)? From an operational standpoint, he was the least able to do anything about 9/11 (other than loudly warn everyone, which he did) and yet he was the only government official with enough guts and sense of responsibility to apologize for letting it happen.
Republicans are the ones who are trying desperately to revise history because they know they couldn’t get a job as dog catcher if everyone understood it correctly.
Because frankly, going back to Rosemary's jibe at Clarke, being President (or National Security Adviser or Secretary of Defense) during the largest terror attack in the nation's history, especially after marginalizing the most prominent expert in the field in your administration, isn't something that screams "terror warrior."
He wasn't marginalized until after 9/11 but your broader point stands and I agree with it. I have lots of thoughts that I'm trying condense into lovely morning reading.
Shep: Why in the world would Clarke, of all people, have to revise history (even if he could)?
The same reason we all do it. We are human. 9/11 was horror and Clarke was anti-terrorism czar. He felt like he dropped the ball and admirably apologized for it. Personally, I didn't think it was necessary but by doing so it allows him to take the moral high ground and start happily pointing his fingers.
Like I said, he was the least able to do anything about it but was in probably in the best position to "point fingers" at those who were (you think those fingers should be pointed, don't you Rosemary?). I never thought he looked happy about it.
I take your point about being human, my point being, all acting equally human, Clarke had the least motive of anyone involved to distort what happened because he had the least to feel guilty about.
Condi is very human, and concentrated on her strengths when she moved into the West Wing -- East/West, Russia -- and didn't give terrorism the focus it needed because whe was behind the learning curve. I can accept that, and if bin Laden had waited until spring of '02, maybe Clarke could have caught her up to date.
But for her to say they did as much as Clinton is spin, no more. For her to discredit Clarke is CYA.
Yes, that's why the outgoing administration continued to sustain attacks on out people and interests globally!
Pam, that was the epitome of a non sequitur, a conclusion that in no way related to the premiss.
After 9/11, the entire world knew exactly what al Queada was capable of, and yet we continued to sustain Madrid and London. Moreover, our knowledge of al Quaeda may not be as important as our reaction. Bin Laden expected us to go to war after the Cole. He finally provoked the reaction he wanted with 9/11. Mission Accomplished.
An increase, decrease or continuation of attacks has no logical relation whatsoever to the level of competence or appreciation of the problem by our leadership.
The SUCCESS of those attacks, their IMPACT, and our response is a different story.
In OBL declared war on the US in 96', the United States issued an indictment against Bin Laden in Nov of 98 and in 2001, this country finally responded with a Declaration of War!
It most certainly does.
But he needed George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Republican control of government to make it work. And they're still working for him to this very day.