Wes Clark Blames Bush For Not Preventing 9/11 ?

[kentuck]

IS this a fair strategy to attack Bush for his "lack of leadership"?
======================================================================

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/tomasky-m-10-30.html
<snips>
Wesley Clark, speaking on Tuesday to a liberal foreign-policy conference sponsored by the Prospect, the Center for American Progress (John Podesta's new outfit) and The Century Foundation, could have gone in any of several directions in attacking the Bush administration's foreign policy. The $87 billion, so unpopular with voters, would have been the obvious target. The lack of a postwar plan, a close second. The intentionally failed diplomacy in the run-up to hostility, a pretty clear bronze medalist.

He didn't ignore those issues entirely, but the heart of his attack came in the form of "a blistering review" (The New York Times' words) of the administration's actions prior to September 11. Clark, assaying pre-9-11 intelligence failures, said that responsibility for those failures can't be fobbed off on "lower-level intelligence officers," and he came within a few inches of saying outright that the Bush administration was responsible for the attacks having happened.

"Shocking" might be putting it too strongly, but certainly it was surprising that Clark chose to reopen that temporarily sealed can of worms. Politicians don't often say something you don't expect to hear, and when they do, you wonder why. Clark either took a major risk here to breath some life into a campaign that nearly every Washington insider thinks is melting (which probably means it's just fine, thanks) or he knows something the rest of us don't. But first, some background.

The question of Bush administration responsibility for 9-11, you may recall, was explored by some in the media in May 2002. Newsweek offered the most notable entry, with a 3,300-word cover package headlined "What Went Wrong?" In it, some of the magazine's lead writers on intelligence and foreign policy (Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball, Christopher Dickey) delved into various aspects of the story and came up with several tantalizing angles that had the potential to do real political damage to the White House. Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, briefed successor Condi Rice on al-Qaeda -- and she yawned. John Ashcroft nixed an FBI request for "hundreds more counter-intelligence agents," as the magazine put it, and reduced Justice Department funding for anti-terrorism activity. Donald Rumsfeld chose not to renew the Predator Drone, which tracked terrorist cells, and emphasized Star Wars Redux.

[papau]

1. About time - I like Clark a bit more today!

:-)

[Demobrat]

7. Yeah, me too.

So far he seems to be the "me too" candidate who waited until he saw which way the wind was blowing to say anything. But if he's going to come out and flat out accuse W of 911, which even Dean hasn't done, I'll be taking another look.

[rman]

49. do you also like the far-lefties who were saying this long before Clark

even had announced his candidacy?

[baby_bear]

2. link? n/t

[kentuck]

6. Sorry about that...

added link from The American Prospect

[annxburns]

12. Clark's not letting up .....

.... here is his latest press release ...

Clark Blasts Bush Administration for Continuing Blame Game
In a speech last night, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice implied that past presidents-Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton-had ignored evidence of growing terrorist threats.

In response to Rice's remarks, General Wesley Clark says:

"Once again, this administration is trying to blame others for what went wrong on their watch. This is yet another example of weak leadership.

"The White House was told that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat America faced. They ignored that threat and focused instead on missile defense and other skewed priorities. Even as they blame other administrations for 9/11, they are stonewalling the 9/11 Commission. Instead of blaming others, they should try to figure out what went on between January 20 and September 10, 2001.

"This White House consistently fails to take responsibility for what went wrong under its watch, while claiming credit for its supposed successes. Harry Truman used to say the buck stops here. This White House doesn't even know where the buck is. We need new leadership that will make the right choices to make our country secure."
............................................


Just to let you know, Sandy Berger did tell Condi that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat they faced during the transition and Bin Laden was spotted three times between January and Sept, we could of taken him out BUT the unmanned aircraft were not equipped with hellfire missles as requested (the source for this is an ABCNEWS story that was reported in June)

For myself, I think this is an EXTREMELY HIGH RISK STRATEGY for Clark. It has the potential to backfire on him and take down his candidacy. The cable news pundits are already slamming him for "blaming Bush for 9-11". One guy I talked to said "It is over for him - he went too far". I think he is probably right but I'm sorry about it .... he at least has a backbone.

[livinontheedge]

3. It's a good strategy if you can prove it.

If you can't prove it, it could backfire. Time will tell.

[Sliverofhope]

5. There is a potential for backfire

but in a sane world, it puts the onus on Bush to prove things with his presidential briefings. Which should be an entertaining show. Of course, that presupposes sanity...

[livinontheedge]

10. Bush is sane . . . just terribly misguided.

He'll show the presidential briefings to a very limited number of senators. I would bet my life that none of those briefings said, "Mr. President, we think that someone is going to hijack an airplane and fly it into the WTC." Our national security people, not Bush, would have had the smarts to do something about a threat so specific.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. The threat was specific enough

They knew they were going to hijack planes and run them into buildings and monuments. Even Bush should have been able to figure out WTC. He can't be that stupid, can he? Cheney isn't.

[kentuck]

8. This is a good start, don't you think?

"Newsweek offered the most notable entry, with a 3,300-word cover package headlined "What Went Wrong?" In it, some of the magazine's lead writers on intelligence and foreign policy (Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball, Christopher Dickey) delved into various aspects of the story and came up with several tantalizing angles that had the potential to do real political damage to the White House. Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, briefed successor Condi Rice on al-Qaeda -- and she yawned. John Ashcroft nixed an FBI request for "hundreds more counter-intelligence agents," as the magazine put it, and reduced Justice Department funding for anti-terrorism activity. Donald Rumsfeld chose not to renew the Predator Drone, which tracked terrorist cells, and emphasized Star Wars Redux."

[livinontheedge]

20. To be countered by "Clinton was offered Osama on a silver platter".

Look, there is no doubt whatsoever that there were lots and lots and lots of things that we could have done better. But would those things have prevented 9-11? How are you going to prove it? The left believes 100% that Bush caused or allowed 9-11. The right thinks just the opposite, in fact they blame Clinton. The people in the middle just want proof before an accusation like that sticks. Who would believe that Bush or any president would "allow" someone to murder 3,000 people? You think the average American believes Bush would do something like that? Of course not. Without proof, it looks like pure partisan smear politics to blame either Bush or Clinton.

I'm not hanging my election hopes on Bush getting blamed for 9-11, the economy, or the Iraqi counterinsurgency. I'm hanging my hopes on Howard Dean convincing enough voters that he will make America a better place to live. I think with all my heart that if Dean has a positive message that people can believe in and trust in, he will win. Bashing Georgie Porgie isn't going to win this election. If it would, Bush's favorable ratings would be in the 20's or 30's by now.

[kentuck]

22. I think that is mostly right-wing pablum...

and no proof...Because Clinton tried to take Osama out with cruise missiles, which there is proof. He didn't succeed but neither has Bush. And there is much more reason to take Osama now than before the attack on the WTC...

[Spazito]

24. Have you looked at his "unfavorables" lately?

Pointing out what Bush is doing is not bashing, imo, it is trying to get out the truth and if that makes him look like the fool, so be it.

[livinontheedge]

26. Bash all you want. I'll bash with you.

My firm belief is that Dean will win on a positive message, not Bush bashing. That bashing could so easily backfire.

[returnable]

27. "Bashing Georgie Porgie isn't going to win this election."

That's an interesting premise coming from a Dean supporter, considering the thrust of his campaign has been built on his vocal attacks on Bush and his handling of the war.

It's Dean's "anger" at the administration that is energizing the majority of his support.

[livinontheedge]

30. Wrong . . . it's Dean's vision of a better future that energizes

his followers. I don't need Dean to tell me what a fuck-up Bush is. I don't vote for people because they can bash someone else. That would be incredibly foolish . . . and it's extremely shallow and misguided for you to suggest that I am energized by trash talk. Speak for yourself.

Dean will bring about national health care, better educational opportunities and fiscal soundness. I could give a fuck what he says about Bush. Unlike Bush, I can read the papers and make up my own mind.

[returnable]

32. "extremely shallow"

Nice. Insults.

Look, I'm happy you support Dean's vision for the future. Good for you.

But the fact is, Dean has made his name in this campaign by BASHING BUSH AND THE IRAQ WAR.

And more power to him for taking that stand.

[livinontheedge]

34. You could not be more wrong.

Any two year-old can hurl insults at Bush. Speaking of which, you are insulting me and everyone else who follows Dean my making such a wild, baseless and unsupportable accusation that we are drawn to his Bush bashing. My neighbor bashes Bush BETTER than Dean. I'm not following him. I follow ideas.

[returnable]

35. "wild, baseless and unsupportable"

Oh. My. God.

Look, it's obvious ya love Dean and everything he represents. Like I said before, way to go.

But, geez - any analysis of Dean's rise in this campaign is gonna start with his attack on Bush and the Iraq War.

Dean has made it a central theme of his campaign, fer crying out loud!

"Wild, baseless and unsupportable"? Have you even been to a Dean rally? Are you actually suggesting he doesn't attack Bush?

The whole point was you said a candidate can't beat Bush by bashing him. I thought it was an ironic statement because your man Dean does plenty of Bush bashing.

Get it now?

[livinontheedge]

37. Of course he bashes Bush. But that is NOT why I follow him.

Which is what you accused Dean followers of doing. Of course we enjoy his rants. He might enjoy my rants. Doesn't matter. Nobody of any intellectual ability votes based on who rants the best. You can say it fifty different ways but your pointless theory doesn't hold water. We love Dean for what he stands for. NOT for what he says about Bush. I'm not voting AGAINST Bush, I'm voting FOR Dean. Now, do you get it??

[returnable]

39. Say what?

"Which is what you accused Dean followers of doing."

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Find where I said that. Really. I'll be waiting.

I said Dean supporters are energized by his attacks on Bush.

And you agreed: "Of course we enjoy his rants."

I never said ya supported him solely because of his attacks. In fact, I congratulated you a couple of times for embracing his entire message.

I just said ya can't deny he makes them, or that they're not a central part of his campaign.

Attacking Bush is a central part of everyone's campaign, Dean's included.

Geez.

[calimary]

45. Um, I'm a Dean supporter, too, and it's because he's saying what

should be said about bush. It's not trash talk, except if you happen to define bush himself and everything he does and everything he touches as trash (which would be a good and accurate definition). Dean won me over precisely because I have been yearning to hear Democrats come out and hit back hard. And say what I've been feeling. And articulate MY rage. Dean's been the only one consistently to do that. It's still the most appealing to me, especially in an era where the biggest complaint we Dems and liberals and progressives and NON-rightwingers have had - besides the one about everything bush is ruining about our country: that nobody's shown any spine!

How often have you seen that complaint even just here at DU? And how about elsewhere? Seems to me, from what I've seen at Meetups, over the "watercooler," in the neighborhoods, online, in emails, in chats with friends, just a broad spectrum of venues, THAT has been the biggest complaint. That Dems have shown no spine. They've not stood up to bush. They've not fought back. They've rolled over and caved and just tried again and again to be appeasers and make nice-nice. And again and again they're getting their butts kicked.

It's about damned time somebody comes out and roars like Howard Dean has. I think that's the single biggest reason people have flocked to him. His roaring and his anger and outrage got their attention. THEN, they listened to what else he had to say and were further won over. But it was the outspokenness and in-yer-face challenges to bush that got the ball rolling.

[SahaleArm]

48. Thanks.

I needed a good laugh; truth is with the Iraq war Dean saw an opening and grabbed it, he's a shrewd politician. I heard Dean speek at the Magnuson awards earlier this month in Seattle. He used the forum as a bully pulpit from which to criticize the president, and rightfully so. Every candidate takes on a persona that drives his/her candidacy, for Dean it's attacking Bush on Iraq. For Clark it may be attacking the failure of the intelligence community under Bush. Whether it's Iraq or 9/11, ultimately Bush is responsible and people are coming to realize that.

[BloodyWilliam]

52. They're lying, they're full of shit, they're intellectually dishonest

So we have to fight back with every ounce of vitrol and bile we can muster. Starting with a simple tactic I learned from a certain asshole named Bill O'Reilly.

"No he wasn't."

"No, he didn't."

"No, that didn't happen."

And most importantly,

"That's not true. You're LYING."

Let's stop backing up every word we stay, because the details are exactly what people don't care about. We need the people to see blood. And the best way to show blood isn't by spending all your time on one deep wound, but by scratching and scratching until every inch of your opponent's skin is glistening red.

...MAN, that's a dark image.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

36. Rice "yawned"

I still remember her going on tv and lying through her teeth: "We had no idea". Her pants then burst into flames.

[janekat]

14. It's pretty easy to prove that there was total incompetence on 911

from just about every agency in the U.S.: NSI, the FAA, NARAL, the Pentagon, FBI, the CIA, just to name a few. Who was in charge of those agencies?

Who told the CIA and FBI to stop "harassing" and to "back off" from investigating the Bin Laden's and Saudi Arabia before 911?

There's tons of memos that went to the NSI warning them of a terrorist attack ala 911.

[bobthedrummer]

19. The FBI had active leads on some of the hijackers{?} at flight schools

they were circumvented by higher-ups, but I'm biased and am part of the LIHOP camp already.
http://www.madcowprod.com/

[RummyTheDummy]

38. If Dean had said it, it would have been brilliant and ballsy...

But since someone else said it, it's questionable. I love how the Dean folks marginalize Clark and the rest of the field at every turn.

[maggrwaggr]

41. prove what? It's a fact. Bush failed to prevent 9/11

No "proof" required for THAT.

[janekat]

4. What do you mean by "fair"?

I KNOW you don't mean is this fair to Bush... Not sure what you mean by the question.

I'm glad Clark is doing it that's for sure.

[kentuck]

13. Just being facetious janekat...

:) Of course it is fair. We could also point out that he was still in Texas on his ranch as the memo lay on his desk, warning him of a possible attack. No indeed, he doesn't want to turn over all the documents, because they will prove that there was a total breakdown in "leadership"...

[janekat]

16. so you mean "fair" with italics.... whew....

LOL!

[11cents]

9. The topic header isn't quite right.

Clark isn't saying definitively that Bush could have prevented 9/11 and failed to. He's saying that as commander-in-chief, he should be holding himself and his administration accountable by laying open how 9/11 happened and why we didn't stop it. His point of comparison is the US military's practice of holding "accountability" reviews after every action, successful or unsuccessful, in which the commander's performance is scrutinized along with everybody else's. Instead, of course, the Bush administration is blaming underlings and covering up the fact that it failed to give bin Laden and terrorism a high priority. It's a question of accountability rather than of blame.

[kentuck]

15. I will "fix it" to meet the high standards here at DU...

:)

[spindoctor]

44. Correct

That is what I heard him say the other night, although I wasn't paying full attention.

And he is right. Nobody in this administration or in other positions is taking accountability or being held accountable.
If the CIA failed, then somebody in the CIA should pay for that. Same with the FBI, same with the Air Force, same with the Administration.

Somewhere there are people who carrie the responsibility for this defense faillure. That does not mean that they are guilty by association, but it was their job to prevent these things from happening and obviously they failed to do their job.
Nobody resigned, nobody got pink-slipped. Nobody takes responsibility for faillure or faces the consequences.

[StephNW4Clark]

11. Center of American Progress (liberal think tank) agrees w/ Clark

NATIONAL SECURITY
Condi's Believe It Or Not

The NYT reports White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave a speech "faulting past administrations" for terrorism and 9/11. She specifically "said the Clinton and other past administrations had ignored evidence of growing terrorist threats and that despite repeated attacks on American interests." Rice's passing the buck claims stand in sharp contrast to news reports that she was the first National Security Adviser in American history to admit to not reading her own Administration's intelligence documents before a war . A few things Rice failed to mention:

WHITE HOUSE PROPOSED CUTTING COUNTERTERRORISM UPON COMING INTO OFFICE: According to the NYT on 2/28/02, the Bush Administration began cutting counterterrorism funding at the Justice Department upon coming into power. “In his final budget request for the fiscal year 2003 submitted on Sept. 10, the attorney general called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of which directly involved counterterrorism” and actually ”proposed a $65 million cut to the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.” Former Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation official said they were frustrated that the Administration had not supported more financing for counterterror programs before Sept. 11. One former federal law enforcement official said that top officials in the FBI, which does the bulk of the department's counterterrorism work, had been concerned about Ashcroft's initial lack of focus on fighting terrorism. He said there was worry among some senior agents that counterterrorism would be downgraded in future years if Ashcroft's early attitude did not change. This contrasts to Janet Reno, whose “department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6 percent in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1 percent in 2000 and 22.7 percent in 2001.” She issued a plan “in 2000 that said the Justice Department would have to devote more attention and resources to terrorism, citing sophisticated computer and bomb-making technology and the ‘emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.’”

IGNORING PRE-9/11 INTELLIGENCE: In trying to defend the Administration against charges of negligence before 9/11, Rice said on 5/16/02, “I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport” . More specifically, ABC reported, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.”

ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO UNDERFUND HOMELAND SECURITY: Throughout the year after 9/11, the White House and conservatives in Congress repeatedly voted down increased funding for homeland security. By January 2003, though, criticism by Governors, lawmakers and security experts had reached such a crescendo that the White House admitted its negligence. As the NYT reported in February, " the White House is now saying that the long delayed government spending plan for the year does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil." After initially praising its own counterterrorism budget "the White House reversed itself, conceding in a series of public statements that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged."

[ronatchig]

17. In leading the country to ruin?

Then dumba is a natural Ace. But in terms of leading the USA, the only thing he should lead is the perp march out of our house.
Tho I don't think much of Clark's idea of mandatory "volunterring", I am proud of him for noticing and saying something about the 1000lb. gorilla sitting in the oval office with Bush et.al.

[Clark Can WIN]

21. mandatory "volunteering" Where do you get that?

prove it please. MANDATORY volunteering. I think you are possibly missinformed or you have been misguided.

[StephNW4Clark]

23. On volunteering

It's a voluntary "double-trigger" mechanism.

1) You have to agree to volunteer to the program.
2) You have to agree to accept the assignment. You can refuse, with the possible exception of a major catastrophe/disaster.

[Clark Can WIN]

18. Glad to see my main man

Spreading the word to the comatose masses.

[kentuck]

25. This is the Repubs worst nightmare....

that they be held accountable for what happens on their shift. That is why they say such things as "Well, Clinton had a chance to capture him and he didn't do it..."

[livinontheedge]

28. Who will hold him accountable besides the left?

Without proof, the middle will not believe for one second that Bush is any more responsible for Osama's attacks than Clinton is.

Without proof, these types of allegation could backfire just like when republicans accused the Clintons of murder, fraud, and all that other shit. If you got proof, make your accusation . . . make it loud. If you don't, you would be well advised to hold your fire.

[returnable]

29. No accusations have been made

Read the actual statement.

Clark says the administration needs to stop stonewalling the 9/11 investigation and take responsibility for the intelligence breakdowns THAT ARE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

What "proof" do you need?

[SahaleArm]

47. Exactly.

It forces Bush to turn over the sensitive 9/11 documents.

[kentuck]

31. We'll know more when we see the documents Bush is now hiding....

It doesn't cost anything to point out their remarks where they refuse to accept responsibility for anything. But they are quick to jump if there is something they think they might can take credit for...i.e. 7% growth rate....:)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. Brass Balls

Can anyone else get away with saying the obvious? Don't go flying in small planes General.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Clark has balls....

not like those fake ones Bush used to fill in the flight suit!

What didn't Bush know, and when didn't he know it?

Has the cable triplets taken Clark off of ignore yet?????
They are so scared!

"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[eridani]

46. Agreed. This is the first time I've ever really been impressed

by Clark. Now that the gate is open, maybe the others will pile on.

[rman]

50. while lefties saying the same thing are conspiracy theorists

right?

[tom_paine]

43. Goddamned right it is!

CLARK!

:thumbsup:

[BloodyWilliam]

51. Who gives a fuck about "fairness?"

Fairness is what gets our asses handed to us again and again. It's about time we start fighting back using the same dirty tricks those bastards used against Clinton, a hundred times over. If Clinton was in office during 9/11, this would be a THOUSAND times worse.

No more playing nice.