Let's all watch now how the rightees attack the 9/11 Commission (which was appointed by their own beloved President Bush)...they are so predictable...

"The 9-11 Commission Report" refutes Rice's Claims:

Page 197 (paperback edition- Chapter "Threat To Threat, Sec. 6.3 Attack on the Uss Cole"):

"As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998. The resulting paper, entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from of Al Qaeda: Status and Prospects" reviewed the threat and record to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options".

-snip-

page 200

Rice made an initial decision to hold over both Clarke and his entire counter terrorism staff... She decided also that Clarke should retain title of national counter terrorism coordinator, though he would no longer be a de facto member of the Principals Committee on the issues.

page 201

"Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her- and the new President- to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached his 1998 Dlenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need... a Principals level review on the Al Qaeda network", Clarke wrote."

You can search the report for yourself right here:
www.9-11commission.gov

Clarke is on tape saying there was never any plan.  He later changes his story for his book and his 9/11 testimony.  His excuse: "I was lying before, but now I'm not".  That is the only excuse worse than: " I failed but at least I tried".

Where is this comprehensive plan anyway?  Funny how for 6 years the Democrats have had ZERO solutions as to how to fight the war on terror.  But there was an invisible comprehensive plan that would have kept us safe like a magic force-field.  

Clinton was incorrect when he said Clarke was fired.  He was the terrorism czar when 9/11 happened.  He just got angry and resigned when he wasn't promoted to Deputy Secretary of Homeland Defense.  He did such a bang-up job I'm shocked he was passed over.  His (and Clinton's) one success story was when a random airport security guard that did his job and foiled the millenium plot.  I guess that was part of the comprehensive plan: "Hire good security guards".

But I don't think Clinton was "lying" about Clarke being fired.  He literally doesn't have a clue.

First off, Clarke NEVER said there was never "a plan". He said there is some disagreement about weather to call it a Comprehensive "Plan" or "Strategy" so please stop lying. Why don't you show everybody this video you keep spouting about? Why? Please do show us. It is well documented that there was and is a plan/startegy created by the Clinto administration and left to the Bush administration. BUSH DID NOTHING ABOUT IT!

Now, lets review for those who have a difficult time with reality:

The 9/11 Comission Report says this Verbatim:

Page 197

"As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998. The resulting paper, entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from of Al Qaeda: Status and Prospects" reviewed the threat and record to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options".

-snip-

page 200

Rice made an initial decision to hold over both Clarke and his entire counter terrorism staff... She decided also that Clarke should retain title of national counter terrorism coordinator, though he would no longer be a de facto member of the Principals Committee on the issues.

page 201

"Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her- and the new President- to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached his 1998 Dlenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need... a Principals level review on the Al Qaeda network", Clarke wrote."

Oh, and here's the Dems plan for fighting terrorism: PREVENT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE DON'T START BULLSHIT WARS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM AND END UP CREATING MORE TERRORIST THAN GET CAPTURES OR KILLED.

I will be the first to agree that the Dems have have lots of problems, but hot nearly as bad as your team. Yep, I am sorry to say the Repubs have screwed up this terrorism thing all on thier own my friend. You just refuse to beleive it. You'd rather live in Limbaugh reality -- which is to say... drug induced.

The 9/11 Commission report is a political document. I'm not calling it wrong, but it is a political document.

of course he can't read - he's a fucking Republican.

Hmmm.... Kind of like the "strategy" he employed with Clinton?  Do nothing!  Are you aware that the CIA confirmed it was Bin-Laden and Al Quaeda that attaced the Cole in Nov. of 2000?  He had 2 1/2 months left in his term to finally make a stand against Al Quaeda after a dozen unanswered attacks and the Somolia retreat.  Instead he was dealing with plea bargaining his own sorry ass.

Clarke's quote was said to a room full of reporters.  "No comprehensive plan".  He never had any plan or strategy.  Just check 1993-2001. That is why he with all other failed bureaucrats- A pundit.  

Ol' Willie's performance on Sunday has opened up a can of closed worms.  His woeful neglect of terrorism for 8 years will now become a campaign issue.  The democrats are going to have to defend the indefensible.  But at least it's all about HIM again.  Isn't that what he wants?

Sorry S4H.  Clarke's word is as good as Clinton's.  They have both been caught lying too many times.

Provide links please. You really are a dishonest mo fo aren't you? Why can't you provide them? Is it because they don't exist or because they come from Rush Limbaugh or some other bullshit source who made it up?

This should not be so hard -- unless of coarse you are full of complete shit.

According to you the Terrorist Czar under three REPUBLICAN presidents and only one Democratic President (Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton & Bush Jr.) is a liar and the 9/11 Commission appointed by Bush are also liars. And you say it without shame which is particularly fucked-up. You don't care about the truth do you? You only care about a political advantage even if it is with made-up crap and even if it costs peoples lives. Wow, you really are a sick, f-ed up, evil, wacko.

I'm sure Jesus approves.

Of course, to you it's still bullshit.  Below is the transcript: (Read his first point)

WASHINGTON —  The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

That is such a weasel, cowardly, dishonest and pussy thing to do. Why can't you own up to this supposed "source"? It's THAT good huh?

It is so typical of all you rightwingers -- ya'll talk a big game, but can't back any of it up -- Just like Cheney (5 Deferments), Bush (evaded Vietnam), bla, bla, bla...

You all talk a big game, but in a real fight you'd all get your pussy-assed little butts kicked or RUN away...Just like Chris Wallace last Sunday. ..Whooos, puss, puss, puss....

You are all weak and stupid in my opinion. And you should not have the country's security in your hands (as we all have painfully become aware of in the last 5 years).


-- Modified on 9/27/2006 8:39:36 PM

Let me hold your hand. I'm not vouching for them but I got 1220 hits on "Clinton administration had a strategy in place"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004865

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/30434/view?viewtype

-- Modified on 9/28/2006 1:03:19 PM

What a mistake you have made, quoting FNN to a Lib.

CLARKE: "There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces."

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces."

And BLUBBERMAN IS HIS BUTTBOY

What's even better is that THEY don't even cite a source for where they got it from. Typical. They just make this shit up and ya'll beleive it. It's amazing the shit you rightees will believe.

-- Modified on 9/28/2006 11:08:39 PM

Have you noticed the word "transcript"?  That means it was taped and transcribed.  OK, now I have to send you the tape.   What is the address to your mental hospital?

If I did actually produce the audio for you, you would still think it was phony.  Get out of your bubble.  There is this whole other world out there.

I gave hime some of the 1200 hits that WEREN'T FNN. He probably has a problem with the Wall Street Journal too.

How lame can you be?

Anyone can make up a converstaion or testimony and put the word "transcript" on it you dishonest fool.

GFD you sound so familiar too. Weird.

Take your own pick. I already posted 2 straight above. Since you can't find it, here you go

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=36003&boardID=39&page=1

The interview was with Jim Angle for Fox News.  The audio has been played on Fox News.  That is why the biggest cable news network provided a transcript for their website.  Clarke later was asked about this on "Hardball".  That is when he gave the "I lied to Fox News" excuse.  I also noticed you ignored the WSJ links completely.

The frightening thing about this is that it is common knowledge.  But you know nothing of it.  You must only spoon feed yourself leftwing blogs. You have no idea how foolish you are constantly asking for links of facts and events that are common knowledge.  

You have not represented yourself well.  You have shown everyone how ignorant you truly are.  You're a joke.

That is not honest, man. Your "opinion" source is more credible than the 9/11 Comission? Who's gonna buy that? Are you serious or just fucking with me?

You can't be serious? So Faux & WSJ are more credible than the 9/11 Report?

You wanna know what is scary is that YOU are guilty of what you accuse me of! A very comprehensive plan WAS handed to Bush. He did not hold a single meeting about the subject -- even after being warned many, many times. THAT was in the 9/11 Report! That is common knowledge! And that is why YOU are the joke and the fool for trying to pedal a FAUX news accounts of a WSJ "Opinion Piece" as being more credible than the 9/11 Report.

Either you are totally dishonest or a complete fool.

What do you believe to be true about JFK's assasination? Do you have doubts as to the "official" story? Well that is the Warren Commision Report, as respected as the 9/11 Commision when it first was published.

As I said earlier, the 9/11 report is a POLITICAL document, just like the WARREN report.

Your definition of a credible source is one that only agrees with you.

The WSJ is very careful about what they publish as predicated facts before their opinions on their opinion page. Not everything that appears in an official editorial is opinion.

the problem is that we're not interested in coming along to see how lucky your trip is going to be.

I'll say this slowly in big letterS:
THERE......IS.....AN.....AUDIO....TAPE..... THAT....HAS....BEEN...PLAYED.....MANY....TIMES.  NOBODY....(but you)...DENIES....WHAT.....CLARKE... SAID(including Clarke). YOU'RE...A....JOKE.


-- Modified on 10/2/2006 1:06:19 PM