Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"It would be irresponsible not to consider all responsibilities." Scott McClellan

This is a real web gemmie! A+ for you Scotty!

So he worked out of the Oval Office that day.

Also, one of the witnesses that Lesley Stahl claimed verified Clarke's version of his meeting with Bush, does NOT:

"Mr. Cressey cast Mr. Bush's instructions to Mr. Clarke less as an order to come up with a link between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11, and more as a request to 'take a look at all options, including Iraq.' He backed off Mr. Clarke's suggestion that the president's tone was intimidating. 'I'm not going to get into that,' Mr. Cressey said. 'That is Dick's characterization.' "

Ms Stahl did not claim he verified Clark's version of the meeting, she claimed he verified the meeting took place.

STAHL: Now can I interrupt you for one second. We have done our own work on that ourselves and we have two sources who tell us independently of Dick Clarke that there was this encounter. One of them was an actual witness.

Hadley, and others, denied (Is this still operative? I can't keep the stories straight) the meeting even took place.

Panel: U.S. Made Effort to Stop al-Qaida


Mar 23, 11:41 AM (ET)

By HOPE YEN

(AP) Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testifies before the federal panel reviewing the Sept....
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to expel Osama bin Laden in 1998, but the Taliban later reneged on the agreement, a federal panel said Tuesday.

The mission was among the most promising, yet ultimately fruitless, efforts by the United States to use diplomacy to stop al-Qaida in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The independent commission reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks said in a preliminary report that the decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaida allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks.

MORE EXAMPLES OF DEMOCRAT CRIMINAL INCOMPETENCE:

The Clinton administration turned to the Saudis for help. Clinton designated CIA Director George Tenet as his representative to work with the Saudis, who agreed to make an "all-out secret effort" to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden.

(AP) Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, right, testifies before the federal panel reviewing...
Full Image


Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, using "a mixture of possible bribes and threats," received a commitment from Taliban leader Mullah Omar that bin Laden would be handed over.

But Omar reneged on the agreement during a September 1998 meeting with Turki and Pakistan's intelligence chief.

"When Turki angrily confronted him Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi government. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out," the report said.

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, the commission's report said.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

(AP) Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, right, and former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering,...
Full Image


"From the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice," the report said. "The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the commission that President Clinton and his team "did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."

The preliminary report said the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan without resistance.

The hearing follows explosive allegations in Clarke's book. Clarke was Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator and a holdover from the Clinton administration.

He said that he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who "gave me the impression she had never heard the term (al-Qaida) before."

(AP) Listensing to testimony as the federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks continues its inquiry...
Full Image


The commission's report Tuesday said Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time. The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11.

The 10-member commission had invited Rice to testify, but she has declined, with the White House citing separation of power concerns involving its staff appearing before a legislative body.

Other potential diplomatic failures cited by the commission:

- The United States in 1995 located Mohammed in Qatar. He was then a suspect in a 1995 plot to plant bombs on American airliners in Asia. FBI and CIA officials worked on his capture, but first sought a legal indictment and then help from the Qatari government, who they feared might tip Mohammed off. In 1996, Qatari officials reported Mohammed had suddenly disappeared.

- The U.S. government pressed two successive Pakistani governments from the mid 1990s to pressure the Taliban by threatening to cut off support. But "before 9-11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives or pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship."

- From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties, with little success.

Gee, I guess Spidle won't be voting for Clinton for president this year.

Patrick, your blind spots are always so interesting. Let's see: Richard Clarke has the unmitigated gall to criticize the dear leader, and every front-line employee in the white house is out to dump all over him (just like they did to o'neill and to diullio).

So here's a surprise: some other soul doesn't want to get dumped on, and so doesn't "want to get into" characterizing.

I once had a meeting with a very, very powerful person and a third party, and said to this person that his or her (leaving the identity out of it) current order contradicted his or her previous order from a few days ago. The person said "I didn't say that." I turned to the third party, who had been present, and said, "what do you remember?" Well, waddya no: the third party couldn't remember. He later told me that of course he remembered, but he wanted to keep his job (whereas i didn't, because i didn't want to work for a liar).

Get with it.

Adrian, what exactly is it that you think you are proving? Every sentient being has said all along that clinton could have, by definition, done much more about terrorism; the rub is, bush, nonetheless, did less when he took office.

This is part of why the Bush resistance to a 9/11 commission can only be understood in the context of his having something to hide: there was never any doubt that an honest commission report would be critical of clinton as well as bush.

Wingers: Your meme, "it's all Clinton's fault!", is so repetitious that it would serve everyone's interests if you just shortened your posts to, "IACF!"

IABF = It's all Bush's fault.

How come Dem's make fun of rabbid right Wing clinton haters will reproducing the inverse of that meme?

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if it will work as well for the Dems as it did for the vast right wing conspiracy?

Adrian VRWC

brad,

thanks for linking to me! i am honored.

Patrick is picking nits. Was the president's tone intimidating? What were the exact words that were said?

All studies of eyewitnesses have shown that people remember incidents differently. Minor differences are not at issue here.

What is at issue is that: former high-ranking members of the administration are coming out with scaithing descriptions of how the administration operates; the gist of the descriptions are consistent with one another; and the administration response is largely to smear the individual's character and motives, to pick nits, or to make statements that contradict previous administration statements.

Can anyone recall, prior to Bush 2, ever seeing even one former high-ranking member of an administration publish a book heavily critical of that administration WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS STILL IN ITS FIRST TERM??? Now we have O'Neill and Clarke, not to mention the diluge of criticism from the middle and lower ranks.

I probably have something of an advantage here, given that I have met Clark and talked to him. He certainly is not a flake.

The Bush spin makes no sense at all, if the counter-terrorism czar was kept out of the decision loop it does not appear that terrorism was much of a priority. What the Bushies are saying is that they ignored Clark, what Clark is saying is that they ignored him. Ignoring advice is the perogative of a President, but it is pretty incredible that they would admit that they kept on a guy in such a key position if they considered him a dud.

It is abundantly clear that Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and Perle gave advice that was flat out wrong. That is something that Bush should be held accountable for, he made a major blunder by choosing aides that gave him false information. He still does not appear to have worked out that he should have fired them a year ago.

The only reason why the pre-9/11 actions are a story is that Karl Rove and Condi tried to spin this fable about a tough response being planned. Nobody is saying that Bush should have predicted 9/11, clearly it would have been better if that had happened. What people are reacting to here is the web of spin and lies that the Bushies are telling to try and claim foresight they clearly did not have.

They trying to make the press buy into a 'he said, she said' thing. It's going to be a tough sell when the 911 survivors go on TV, but they may just pull it off. The administration is aiming at the 10 percent undecided who don't pay attention to anything, and are confused about just about everything. They can probably keep that vote on this issue. The danger comes from old-line Republicans who have got to be appalled at Ms Rice's incompetence. Even Richard Nixon must be rolling over in his grave. These are people who put the Republic above the Republicans. If they break, Bush is hash (or else a lot of people are going to be thrown off the life boat). How this plays out will depend on how many eminent republicans are prepared to risk their political career or livelihood for the good of the nation.

I too have often wondered why the lefties seem so preoccupied with blaming everything on Bush, it would of course be one thing if the man currently held some high political office and actually exerted some form of pressure that could be considered as affecting the fucked up state of the world today, but as we know he doesn't, and thus any blame cast upon him for said current fucked up state is an example of pure hating and, dare I say it, no doubt stems from homophobia, anti-satanism, and just darn persnickety-ness.

Patrick R. Sullivan,

So you admit the administration's first response was to lie? That Stephen Hadley lied to Leslie Stahl? This is after having Clarke's book for three months as White House lawyers reviewed it?

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Stephen Hadley says the conversation never occurred and you say it occurred but Clarke's characterization of it was wrong. Which is it?

Also while you are at it, when Dick Cheney claims on Rush Limbaugh's show that Clarke was out of the loop on counter-terrorism, how does that reflect on the Bush White House, that their top counter-terrorism official is out the decision-making loop? Does it support their claims that Bush took counter-terrorism seriously? Or does it support Clarke's claim, that Bush ignored terrorism?

" Clarke pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time."

The above being evidence that all the unflattering things people who worked with him said about Clarke are true. This guy expected a NEW Administration to turn over policy to a bureaucrat in its FIRST WEEK on the job. What a loon.

" I once had a meeting with a very, very powerful person and a third party, and said to this person that his or her (leaving the identity out of it) current order contradicted his or her previous order from a few days ago. The person said "I didn't say that." I turned to the third party, who had been present, and said, "what do you remember?" Well, waddya no: the third party couldn't remember. He later told me that of course he remembered, but he wanted to keep his job (whereas i didn't, because i didn't want to work for a liar)."

Well, unfortunately for your theory, Howard, it's Clarke with whom Cressey would want to stay on good terms. Not Bush:

http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/consulting/story/0,10801,82965,00.html

"Richard Clarke to lead homeland security consulting firm

" He's joining Roger Cressey, with whom he worked at the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board "

And later on in the story is this interesting revelation:

" Clarke announced in January that he was stepping down from his cybersecurity role in the U.S. government, ending a career at the National Security Council that had spanned three administrations (see story). His career was characterized by a concerted effort to enhance the government's relationship with the private-sector operators of critical infrastructure.

" Shortly after leaving government, he testified at a congressional hearing that he didn't think the Bush administration was moving fast enough in organizing the National Cyber Security Center (see story). Clarke also called on Congress to fund vulnerability scanning sensors on all federal networks, and he recommended that federal agencies outsource cybersecurity projects and withhold money from vendors if the agencies get failing cybersecurity grades."

Maybe you should take Bob Woodward's advice, "Follow the Money".

" Stephen Hadley says the conversation never occurred..."

No, he didn't. You need to upgrade your reading comprehension. Hadley says they can't verify that the conversation took place WHEN Clarke says it did.

" how does that reflect on the Bush White House, that their top counter-terrorism official is out the decision-making loop?"

He wasn't THEIR top man. He may have been Clinton's, but Bush wasn't impressed with Clinton's counterterror results. Bush instituted DAILY meetings with George Tenet (who I believe rarely if ever, got to meet with Clinton), so I'd say that Tenet fits the description better than Clarke. Clarke was a bureaucrat, not a policymaker for Bush.

Patrick, two swings, two misses.

>>Hadley says they can't verify that the conversation took place WHEN Clarke says it did.

How does this statment by Hadley turn into a question of timing?

"We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."
That's a quote from the transcript.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

>>He wasn't THEIR top man.

Here's Clarke's job title in for the first ten months of 2001, National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism. Note that his position did not change, the job itself was no longer a cabinet position, but he was still THEIR top man in charge of counter-terrorism.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisors_clarke.html
Similar to his previous position as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, Clarke will remain on the president's National Security Council. In his new role, he report to both National Security Advisory Condoleezza Rice and newly appointed Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge.

..... Since May 1998, Clarke was the first National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism.

Some Yuks for the Blog: Proposed Bumper Stickers

Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars
Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind
Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!
Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism
Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.
Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at a
time.
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served
Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism
Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
Bush/Cheney '04: The last vote you'll ever have to cast.
Bush/Cheney: Asses of Evil
Don't think. Vote Bush!
George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency
George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There
Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!

For me, blaming a lack of vigilence before 9/11 on Clinton or Bush is silly. But the idea that Bush et al wanted to immediately tie the attack to Iraq is interesting, though not a surprise whatsoever.

But watch how McClellan lies: "There's no record of the President being in the Situation Room on that day that it was alleged to have happened, on the day of September the 12th."

He doesn't say, "the president was not in that room on that day" he just says, "there is no record"

then: "when the President is in the Situation Room, we keep track of that."

Just a statement of normal procedure - he still could have been there, or not. I'm sure for reason's of national security we'll not know.

Recently, McClellan also said that Bush, upon learning of the attacks, continued to read to the preschoolers for "seconds" then met with his handlers. Another finely sliced truth - seven minutes IS some number of "seconds"...

They're pretty good at lying.

Seven minutes of nursery rhymes after D-Day II isn't surprising from the Bushie. If you watched his latest Florida gathering, once he'd gotten beyond those gushing campaign contributors and plunged (with his 4 hefty bodyguards) into the adoring mob, the look of pure horror and panic on his face was a convincing testament Bushie ran all the way home. Mighty scarey that Bush controls The Red Button. Or is that Dickie's job, that 912 day-after when he was in hiding?

"Sir, SPACECOM just confirmed North Korea has carried out a secret launch, and our Ballistics makes it a three-stage Taipoe Dong targeting on Prudhoe Bay. What should we do, sir? Sir? Sir!?"

[What's he doing with his thumb in his mouth?!]

Patrick, couldn't open your link, but what you quote doesn't change my opinion at all.

To pursue my homely little analogy, i never ever held it against the third guy that he said nothing because he didn't want to offend the powerful person. I know how it is; i had already made up my mind to leave this situation, so i had a freedom of action that this person didn't.

The Bushies, on the other hand, as we well know, never, ever forget an insult, and fight very, very dirty.

yeah

Variatio delectat - There's nothing like change! (Cicero)

Sane ego te vocavi. Forsitan capedictum tuum desit - I did call. Maybe your answering machine is broken

Cogito, ergo sum - I think, therefore I exist. (René Descartes)

Minime senuisti! - You haven't aged a bit!

Fallaces sunt rerum species - The appearances of things are deceptive. (Seneca)

Sine ira et studio - Without anger or bias. (Tacitus)

Praetio prudentia praestat - Prudence supplies a reward

Nullius in verba - (Rely) on the words on no one (Horace)

Sine nobilitatis - Without nobility (SNOB)

Sine nobilitatis - Without nobility (SNOB)

Sine nobilitatis - Without nobility (SNOB)