Boston Herald: Clarke approved bin laden family flights

Actually I think it's strange that they were allowed to fly, but not necessarily related to the war on terror. I've never brought that up as an issue, becuase it isn't one to me.

Bin laden was a terrorist not his family. I also don't approve of Israel destroying the homes of Palestinian terrorists families for the same reason.

Even if I was upset by the family flying, it wouldn't take away or contradict a single fact that Clarke has testified about. The smear campaign against Clarke continues - the refutation of Clarke's facts continues to be non-existent.

 

Yeah, it looks like they have staffers pouring over the records (at MY expense, dam# it ) to find ANYTHING that can be thrown at Clarke.

And they continue to ignore the assertions that Clarke makes in his book and testimony. Just like O'Neill, the strategy is smear, slander, and muckrake.

 

Basso your definition of a contradiction makes no sense at all, or else I just don't understand what you're saying...

Just try to drag the discussion back on point, why don't you stop doing what the White HOuse is doing (digging up old quotes, and trying to find something contradictory in order to smear the speaker and concentrate on the substance of the allegations . I don't know if you've responded to them once over the last few days; let's see, you've gleefully mentioned this silly 2002 briefing (which Clarke addressed, under oath), alluded to a media conspiracy with Viacom, and done everything else under the sun to smear him. However, you don't seem to ever address the heart of his allegations.

Here are the parts of the allegations that are verifiable as a matter of public record or otherwise indisputable:

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]



Address them.

 

The problem for Ms Rice is that Mr Clarke's account does not stand alone. It restates, in more impassioned language, a number of accounts of the Bush administration's critical first months in office.

The former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Hugh Shelton, said the Bush administration pushed terrorism "farther to the back burner". And in a sympathetic portrait of the young administration, Bush at War, the president himself told the author, Bob Woodward, that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about going after Osama bin Laden.

 

It appears that Clark was trying to get Bush and Co. to concentrate on terrorism when they were more focused on missile defense and Iraq, issues that were NOT pressing or immediate needs.

The Clinton situation WAS entirely different. Terrorism WAS on Clinton's radar screen and Clinton was spending more money than any other president in history doing it. At the time, they had a war going on and were trying to hammer out an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, issues that were both important and more pressing than causing MORE conflict by bombing Afghanistan.

Why exactly isn't the administration disputing the actual claims in the book in favor of slinging mud? Could it be because Clarkes book is based in fact and the administration can't dispute the charges without being PROVEN as liars?

 

Not only that, but I got it from a moveon.org email....I thought I included the link in there at the bottom but it didn't paste.

I'm interested in what we did after Sept 11 too...which is why I don't particularly care about whether or not Clinton receives the proper browbeatiing or not. I don't think Bush should be 'blamed' in the grand sense either...but the biggest problem, as I see it, is that his (and Cheney,Rummy, etc) obsessive focus on Iraq, both before and after Sept 11, kept them (and keeps them) from seeing the forest through the trees.

 

So....

Basso's not determined to blame Clinton.

and

Sam doesn't think Bush should be 'blamed.'

This isn't supposed to be the way things work in the D&D.

Has Andy been passing out some herb?

 

This is not news... it's been known for some time that Clarke got handed some info about the flights and then did what he was charged with doing... he followed protocol and checked with the FBI.

I find it telling that the right wing machine is in such a fright that they are digging everything up they can, even if it's to their detriment. The story of the flights has been out there for awhile, but was seemingly going nowhere. I doubt the percentage of Americans who know anything about this story is much beyond small. Now, if they want to make the case that Clarke OKed the flights, that's going to raise major questions about who ordered and coordinated the flights before the word got to Clarke. People will start to hear about the flights.

If the GOP is going to make a big deal about this, I think it is a mistake, thus, I hope they make a big deal out of it.

 

Stopped with that stuff in the '80s. I'm interested in drug POLICY, not drugs.

 

Just kidding you Andy.

How's the bambino? Are you getting any sleep?

 

He is great and the sleep situation is much better. He generally sleeps from 9:30 until 5 or 5:30.

 

Wait a second. I thought the Bin Laden family flight after 9/11 was an urban myth, only believed by left wing lunatics?

Basso- are you saying that we can now all agree that the flights did, in fact, take place?

 

i guess its been forgotton, but osama is the black sheep of the family. Yes he has relatives, but that does not mean that his relatives share the same views, in fact its the opposite. His family is also rather large and certain parts are also pretty affluent (no they do not give him money to fund terrorism). One of his so called relatives was at harvard law school on 9-11, no not planting a bomb, but finishing up his law degree. anyone who has a memory of osama, will remember all those profiles they did of him. i don't appreciate the spin that the writer does when he assumes that the relatives are also a threat to national security, when in reality, they may just be rich or eigth cousins, twice removed.

 

The flights didn't just involve the bin Laden family.... a number of others were also allowed to leave and some of those names keep popping up.

 

Can someone please tell me what approving the Bin Laden flights has to do with attacking Iraq needlessly when they had nothing to do with 9/11.

It takes a lot of balls for the admin to try to smear Clarke by criticizing him for doing what Bush, Cheny and the rest were in favor of.

If the approval of the Bin Laden flights is such a big deal, than Bush should immediately do something like 1) call a press conference anc apologize to the 9/11 families or 2) offer to resign from office.


Very funny in away. Attack Clarke for taking part in a policy that the Bushes still claim to approve of.