WP: Bush's Efforts to Offset Clarke Stymied

[kskiska]

Republicans Say Administration Struggling for Momentum After Ex-Aide's Assertions

Sunday, March 28, 2004; Page A23

CRAWFORD, Tex., March 27 -- President Bush's intense efforts to neutralize the revelations of former national security official Richard A. Clarke have yet to succeed, leaving White House officials struggling to regain political momentum after a tumultuous week, according to interviews with Republicans both inside and outside the administration.

One Bush aide, who refused to be identified because the administration limits who may speak on the record, acknowledged that the White House had underestimated the political and media firestorm that Clarke would ignite. Beginning with interviews in connection with his new book and continuing with Capitol Hill testimony, Clarke said he had watched Bush repeatedly ignore warnings about al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001, then diverted resources from the broader war on terrorism for an attack on Iraq.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who rode in Bush's limousine during a presidential visit to Phoenix on Friday, said the Clarke counterattack was "the most vigorous offensive I've ever seen from the administration on any issue.

"These attacks go to the heart of the strength of the president, and they felt it had to be put down and put down quickly," McCain said. "Whether they'll succeed or not is unclear."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29992-20...

[aquart]

1. They won't succeed.

He's been questioned about the one place he thought he was safe. John Wayne Land. And we already know he's a liar.

[coldwatercyn]

19. Why didn't the White House

stop the release of Clarke's book when they had it for review? Are they that stupid? Or is it that they can't read? Either way, get them out.

[Kool Kitty]

20. Can you imagine if they had blocked publication of

Mr. Clarke's book? Then he could have gone on all the talk shows and told everyone that he had written a book about all this and the Bush administration had blocked the publication. They could never defend that move. Yes, they are stupid, but not that stupid.

[NNN0LHI]

38. I will bet the thought crossed their mind though n/t

[Kool Kitty]

59. I wouldn't doubt it. n/t

[wicket]

62. Good point

They were pretty much damned if they do, damned if they don't. I love it when people play hardball with the Bushies!

[shanti]

45. arrogance

they felt that they were untouchable...and were proven wrong!

[lolly]

49. Or maybe

The idiots never actually read it?

None of them seem particularly inclined to spend the time it takes to read a whole book to find out any information.

[KittyWampus]

2. They Certainly Did Underestimate. Guess They Thought

Clarke would go the way of O'Neill.

[jamesinca]

14. I think you meant misunderestimate

I wonder if this is not a summation thing. The Suskind book with O'Neil sorta got things going. If that had been the only book this may have blown over. Now there is this book by Clarke and it is not going away as quick. When the book by Amb. Joseph Wilson comes out I think that may be the end of it for this administration. Three telling books by three people involved with the WH.

We can help drive this by writing to CBS/60 Minutes and ask them to revisit a story from two years ago that they did with an FBI agent. I think her name was Edwards. It was about be silenced by AG Ashcroft regarding 9/11.

[calimary]

25. CBS contact info at the bottom:

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

[e-mail]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readers...

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdi...

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdi...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail] " target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-onl... ...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpo... ... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpo... ... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpo... ... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpo... ... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtm... - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

And, one more thing - for First Thing Monday Morning - note the info in my sig line...

[dbt]

35. A Thousand Cool Points To calimary

Thank you for the links!


dbt

[calimary]

47. Thanks! I see your toast and raise you two champagnes.

But thanks also to bigtree who issued the original list. I HAVE added a couple of things to it.

Here's another one from Mari333: “MEET THE PRESS”: [e-mail]

I've added it to my own master list that I occasionally copy and paste here. So it'll be there from now on.

Hugs!

And - note my sig line at the bottom - TOLL FREE to give 'em HELL on the Hill!

[Joanne98]

39. Clarke's book is giving new life to ONeill's book lol

[SayitAintSo]

57. Yea ... I just started O'neills book - it's great ...

I figured I better read it before I got clarkes.... They are all sold out here in Columbia SC, of all places.... a FCKN red state ....


Yee Haw

[Lindacooks]

3. That's just it!

They haven't 'put' anything down. Personal attacks against Clarke do nothing to defuse this - and they can't answer the charges directly because they KNOW they are true.

[proud patriot]

4. Keep Up Your Hard Work DUers

[Bozita]

5. If Clarke prevails, Dumbya loses the election. It's life-or-death for Bush

and, If I were James Carville, I'd ... I'd send her on a vacation to Times Beach. Look at this from the article:

-snip-

Mary Matalin, a former White House official and a senior adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign, said that what she called "normal people" will wind up focusing on the larger issues of whether the attacks were an act of war and how the country will continue the global war on terrorism.

"The dramatic moments were dramatic moments, but the hysteria is a Beltway phenomenon," she said. "It was a draw on Clarke, and a net positive for the president because he had the opportunity to speak out on what he did and why he did it. People may know who Richard Clarke is now, but they also know that the president couldn't do in eight months what wasn't done in eight years."

-snip-

[John_H]

6. LOL! Bush at 49 (buried in middle) "Strong foundation" sez WP

In the world of Chimp-spinning media whores, Dubya's gone from being a "popular president" a month ago at 51% to having a "strong foundation" at 49. Which means that the Washington post has gone from "utterly shameless" to "laughably idiotic" in less than a month.

[grytpype]

7. Yeah! HELL YEAH!

The statue is starting to topple....

[DeepModem Mom]

27. I hope so, but these poll numbers are pretty depressing:

"The (Newsweek) poll showed Bush maintaining a strong showing on the intangible qualities that have always been his biggest appeal. When asked which phrases describe Bush, 62 percent said he has strong leadership qualities, 65 percent said he is personally likable, 61 percent said he says what he believes rather than what people want to hear, and 55 percent said he is honest and ethical. Bush was 6 to 18 percentage points ahead of Kerry in each category."

Are that many people clueless, or in denial, or has the press done one heck of a complete con job on most people?

[54anickel]

37. I noticed in this most recent Newsweek poll, there is a huge difference

between their original poll and the web poll. I don't know if they poll their readers, subscribers or randomly, but it's a huge difference. I notice the web responses have nearly doubled since I first looked at this last night.

Check this one out -

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4614361 /

from the interactive poll link midway down this article
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4614818 /

Came across it in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[grytpype]

8. MUST READ, and READ IT ALL

It just gets better and better and better!

[grytpype]

9. Read this, you won't believe it!

Bush is spending the weekend at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., before heading into a week built around celebrations of achieving a campaign treasury of $170 million, a political record.

[grytpype]

11. I diaried on this here...

http://grytpype.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/28/44927/8258

[kskiska]

23. Dear Leader reminds me a lot

of the Great Leader in Woody Allen's "Sleeper" – the guy in a wheelchair with the German Shepherd. Then all they had left was the nose.

[truthisfreedom]

10. i'm certain they attracted more attention to Clarke by attacking him so

vigorously... much more attention than he would have drawn had they had a more statesmanlike response. the media has been given opportunity after opportunity this week because of bush's attack dogs highlighting the issue to mention that Clarke worked for reagan, bush sr, Clinton, and w, and it makes bush look ridiculous to have his staff claim that Clarke wouldn't know what was going on around him. as the total number of these people gather together to reveal the inner workings of the WH, Beers, O'Neil, and now Clarke, a certain critical mass is achieved and it becomes increasingly apparent that the only defense against them that the administration can muster is to shout epithets and claim, literally, that they are all insane. how many men working inside the administration could have been insane at the same time? and how likely does it look to the American public that there is something more insidious going on inside the administration... which has been responsible for so many questionable acts and has been so completely unaccountable, cloaking everything in the jingoistic catchphrases of "national security" and "executive priviledge?"

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Not only that, Beers and Clarke QUIT; O'Neill was fired

Beers said when he quit that the folks in this administration had long since made up their minds about things and were just looking for justifications. Sounds familiar, huh?

If Beers and Clarke were losers, why weren't they fired?

[Bozita]

12. Sunday AM, Richard Clarke appears on Meet The Press

Timmyboy's gonna bring up this article.

[Occulus]

26. Any bets on him reading the book ahead of time?

[RamboLiberal]

13. Hope everyone read the other WP article Clarke Critique Reignites Debate

Some good tidbits there as well including the WP backing the Clarke allegations on Bushie's planning Iraq attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28976-20...

snippets:

Clarke's description of the discussions about Iraq's possible involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks is generally consistent with other accounts, such as that in "Bush at War" by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his public testimony before the commission Tuesday, confirmed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz -- a forceful advocate of attacking Iraq -- "raised the issue of whether or not Iraq should be considered for action during this time."

Woodward, in "Bush at War," wrote that the president ended the debate at Camp David that weekend by saying, "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now. I don't have the evidence at this point."

Clarke also caused a stir last week by saying that Bush, in his secret directive ordering the strike against Afghanistan six days after Sept. 11, also told the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. The Post had reported on this directive more than a year ago, generating no complaint from the administration. But in the furor over Clarke, administration officials said the Iraq order actually involved contingency plans if Iraq tried to take advantage of the fact the United States was fighting in Afghanistan.

Woodward, whose book was based in large part on notes taken at National Security Council meetings, does not mention that the Iraq discussion involved such contingencies. Rather, Woodward reports extensively on an intense debate among senior officials whether an invasion was necessary shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Moreover, a senior administration official, in a Post interview more than a year ago, said Pentagon officials used the language contained in Bush's Afghanistan directive to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq.

I wonder if there is any chance at all Woodward in his new book finds his old Watergate soul?

[buycitgo]

31. Begala commented on Woodward's access to PDBs

"Woodward, whose book was based in large part on notes taken at National Security Council meetings......."

notes to which the 911 commission apparently doesn't have access, only ZELIKOW!!!!!!!!!!!

how insane is THAT?

[DeepModem Mom]

34. That's an important article, rmpalmer --

It highlights Clarke's statements, dramatic, but pretty much ignored in press coverage: "In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq. And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

[snippy]

40. I thought that was one of the most important things Clarke said.

[leftchick]

44. that is a great article. Thanks rmpalmer!... This part is good...

<snip>He said that Arabic-speaking Special Forces officers and CIA officers who were doing a good job tracking Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders were pulled out of Afghanistan in March 2002 to begin preparing for Iraq. "We took the people out who could have caught them," he said. "But even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is two years too late. Al Qaeda is a very different organization now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job."

Jessica Stern, Harvard University lecturer and author of "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill," concurs. "It was a distraction on the war on terrorism and made it more difficult to prosecute because the al Qaeda movement used the war in Iraq to mobilize new recruits and energize the movement," she said. "And we apparently sent Special Forces from Afghanistan, where they should have been fighting al Qaeda, to Iraq."

.....March 2002!!!!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

15. That silver spoon chickenhawk shithead must be throwing a real hissy fit.

He's finally run into something that daddy can't bail him out of.

[buycitgo]

32. "silver spoon chickenhawk shithead"

SSCS!

hahahahahahahaha1

GREAT nickname for the chimpweeze

may I borrow?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

60. Be my guest

[PurityOfEssence]

16. "couldn't do in eight months what wasn't done in eight years"

I love this crap. Far as I remember, nothing like this happened in the eight years of Clinton.

Another way of looking at this is that even when hamstrung by a witch-hunting Congress, Clinton still made it through eight years without this kind of thing happening, whereas Junior took it on the chin in 2/3rds of a year. Seems to me that makes Junior twelve times the idiot Clinton was.

[progressivebydesign]

18. Best news is that the publishing biz is like Hollywood..

rather lemming-like.. so, we can expect some hefty advances on books penned by other disgrunted former insiders from the Bush Administration. Others have quit, in disgust, just like Clarke. The agents are probably looking for them right now, with check in hand. This could get very, very interesting!

I want to see those bastards shamed into defeat in November. Assholes.

[Joanne98]

41. Someone should write a book called "Spawn"

A fair and balanced look at Barbara Bush and her children.

[0007]

43. The whole world will drink to see those bastards shamed into defeat

this November.

[Zhade]

21. Maybe someone can help me understand something here...

I've read that the White House held Clarke's book while essentially vetting it, then foolishly(?) released it right before the 9/11 Whitewash Commission hearings.

Okay, so here's where it breaks down for me: if the White House held the book until the administration was satisfied with it, for whatever reason...how is this book going to contain anything really new or damaging to b*sh and his fellow traitors?

I mean, I want to see Clarke as a hero, too, but isn't that just a little odd, that the book was released only after the WH was okay with it?

Anyone feel the same way on this, or am I just nuts?

[Bozita]

22. IIRC, 60 days was just added to the Commission's lifespan

May have tossed the WH's timing out the window.

This is starting to look like a controlled burn gone wild.

[Zhade]

29. I see it as a limited hang-out that they may wish was even more limited!

Very interesting, to say the least.

[frank frankly]

51. yep!!!

damn, zhade, i've been saying that, too

the myth of bushco cannnot survive a limited hangout of any variety

[lolly]

50. Did they read it?

Just wondered this on another thread.

Maybe none of the Mayberry Machiavelli's bothered to read it.

No one there is especially literate, or shows any evidence of having read much of anything.

[calimary]

24. Funny - Matalin is STILL trying to blame Clinton.

What a bunch of hogwash.

Man, if this keeps up...

[Snazzy]

28. Great article. And some ammo.

[buycitgo]

30. god DAMN it!

they changed their registration deal to an email/password thing, rather than user/password (salon/tabletalk used to work), and no matter what I do, I can't get in there......tried changing emails, different personal info...nothing

can anybody suggest a solution, or give me a fake email address/ID, so I can get in?

pls?

dunno what to do, as the post always has stuff to look at.

dan froomkin's column is an everyday must

[grasswire]

33. I'll send it to you every day, BCG

I did Friday, in case you didn't check your real mail. The links don't pass through, but I can send any URLS you want.

[snippy]

42. Go to bugmenot.com/

http://www.bugmenot.com/

[SayitAintSo]

58. Oh GAWD bless you !!!!!

Cool .... I love it !!!!!

[JoFerret]

36. Bush insiders slam lack of discussion

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20018...

Patterns of failure, arrogance and ignorance

[Ravy]

46. Excellent article. Thanks JoFerret (n/t)

[goforit]

48. Reasons why McCain should never be re-elected......

What a scum bag and part of the conspiracy!!!

Impeach him as well!!!

[peacetalksforall]

52. It's rewarding to watch these particular worms squirm.

[peacetalksforall]

53. Sometimes I think they have Dick Morris and Frank, the NBC poll

guy, advising them...the two of them believe in themselves and who knows, maybe some in the WH believe them also.

[peacetalksforall]

54. These two paragraphs from above should be repeated...

succinct - powerful - and a new lead/name to check out...

posted by leftchick:

snip>He said that Arabic-speaking Special Forces officers and CIA officers who were doing a good job tracking Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders were pulled out of Afghanistan in March 2002 to begin preparing for Iraq. "We took the people out who could have caught them," he said. "But even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is two years too late. Al Qaeda is a very different organization now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job."

Jessica Stern, Harvard University lecturer and author of "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill," concurs. "It was a distraction on the war on terrorism and made it more difficult to prosecute because the al Qaeda movement used the war in Iraq to mobilize new recruits and energize the movement," she said. "And we apparently sent Special Forces from Afghanistan, where they should have been fighting al Qaeda, to Iraq."

.....March 2002!!!!

He who keeps silent is assumed

[Piperay]

55. "Underestimated"...Yeah, they

seem to make a habit of that, like how they underestimated the threat from Al Quida (sp?) too.

[wildwww2]

56. The only political momentum Bu$h Inc. has is their ownership of

the media. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. No persons died. Because of it. One President hounded by the media for something that was no ones business but the two people having sex. Another so called President constantly being excused for lies and personal attacks towards any dissenters. By the same media.The media is corrupt exclusively for the benifit of the GOP. Whom the Corporate media owners contribute to in masse. Over the Democrats. And innocent people and our troops are dying everyday. People besides us DU`ers need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[9215]

61. And then Wilson's book is coming out.......

in a couple of months. Ha, Ha, Ha!!