Clarke's book

[jamesglewisf]

Did you hear about Richard A. Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror"? He is the former White House counterterrorism coordinator.

His book is published by Viacom, the parent company of CBS which interviewed him on 60 Minutes.

It seems like a bit of a conflict of interest for 60 Minutes to be interviewing him without mentioning that every book he sells makes their parent company more money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14923-2004Mar22.html

If Clarke had all of this stuff figured out, how come Clinton didn't act on it? I'm not picking on Clinton here. I'm just saying that maybe the reason Bush didn't follow Clarke's advice is the same reason that Clinton didn't. Maybe they didn't think his advice was credible.

Al Qaeda terrorists existed long before Bush took office. They were around during the Clinton administration while Clarke served. How can Clarke blame Bush for the attacks and not Clinton? The truth is that the terrorists are to blame for the terrorist attacks, not Bush or Clinton.

[mec]

On O'Reiley tonight. Apparently Somalia made an offer to give up Ben Laden several years ago and the news never got to Clark. Other persons in the Clinton Adm didn't believe it was important enough to tell him about it-so the accusation that he turned down an opportunity to get Ben Laden doesn't stick.

Otherwise, it appears that he was a poor fit in the Bush Administration, failed to attend meetings,kept himself out of the loop, and possibly missed a promotion. 60 Minutes identified him as a Cabinet Member which he never actually was. It appears that most of his revellations were based on lack of information during the Clinton administration and partisan opposition to the Bush Presidency.

[theyeti]

Apparently Clinton wasn't big on listening either... *resisting obvious comment about gw's ears* ;)

The connection between isn't completely direct. CBS is owned by Viacom.... which in turn owns Simon & Schuster... which owns Free Press.
While I'm at the website... Viacom owns Paramount, plus over 40 broadcast stations, 16 cable channels, Infinity Broadcasting (one of the largest radio operators), one of the largest billboard companies, Blockbuster, 5 theme parks, over 1,700 screens worth of theaters, numerous internet ventures, and Simon and Schuster, which itself owns at least 60 other publishing companies.

Here's what the book says...
Complete with direct quotes from Mr. Bush in a private conversation, Mr. Clarke, a former antiterrorism adviser, portrays a president "fixated on Iraq and indifferent to al Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks," ABC's George Stephanopoulos said yesterday on "This Week."
"Mr. Clarke has already given 14 hours of testimony to the commission investigating why the government failed to prevent those attacks," said Mr. Stephanopoulos, also noting that Mr. Clarke now works for ABC as a consultant.
"His book includes an exchange with President Bush that Clarke did not divulge to the commission," Mr. Stephanopoulos said.
Mr. Clarke quotes the president as saying, "Look, I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
Mr. Clarke responds: "But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this."
The president: "I know, I know. But see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."
Mr. Clarke: "Absolutely. We will look again. But you know we've looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."
The president: "Look into Iraq. Saddam."http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040322-123921-4285r.htm

Who knows.... the truth is probably in the middle.

[jamesglewisf]

Maybe Clinton did listen and didn't agree with what he heard.

The thing that annoys me is that Clinton was in charge for 8 years while al Qaeda was building up. Bush was in charge for 8 months. Now, I don't think Clinton was any more responsible than Bush for 9/11, but Clarke's acting like it was Bush's fault.

I'm sure that Clarke is only retelling events that help his story.

[CuriousG]

There have been terrorist threats for decades. Countless countries have held a grudge since the United States asserted its strength in the early part of the century. There are hundreds of threats a day that you never hear about from hundreds of terrorist organizations you've never heard of that don't amount to anything. The government tries to keep this all in perspective and sometimes screws up when to take one really seriously. If we had to address all the direct and indirect threats we receive every day with the same amount of detail and force, we'd never get anything done as a government. Not to mention the threats that still exist that are unknown. I think there are some things that were overlooked and should have been done, but if you look at the big picture, who's to say how we should have acted previously. The heart of these terrorist organizations operate in Muslim countries that don't like us that much anyway and are often comprised of individuals who are separatists from their own countries. You can't really expect these countries to let us in and look around based on every hunch that usually came from intelligence we gathered illegally or behind the backs of the countries in question. Can you really place the blame on anyone? Maybe, maybe not, but I think the president is the last person who really should have the finger pointed at them. They're not the ones gathering the intelligence and are usually relying on the advice and analysis of so called experts on these situations. If they disagree with intelligence reports and analysis, many will call them stupid for not listening to these people. If they act on the advice and it turns out to be wrong, the president is still to blame for acting on false information and supposedly surrounding himself with incompetent aides. It's a no win situation.

[mec]

Fox news pulled a briefing tape from August in which Clark said that the bush administration had greatly emphasized the tracking of terrorism. Clark felt that it was unfair of them to show this because it directly contridicted the criticisms of the president he wrote into his book. He said that he had sightly modified the truth to please his bosses and that he was not really being dishonest and that besides, everybody does it.

This has not been brought out on the major news networks or in the press but can be found, at lest for a while, here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115266,00.html

Little Lightbulb Head Bob Kerry was real upset about Fox playing the tape as is cast doubt on the honesty of a fellow liberal democrat.

[Alec]

I didn't find anything there.

Here is the actual transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

[jamesglewisf]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htmThe final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book. Ooops.

[jamesglewisf]

It's interesting that in spite of all the books coming out that slam Bush, in spite of the 9/11 commission, Bush is not doing worse in the polls. http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11419PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite a spate of high-profile political events in the past week and a half -- President George W. Bush's nationally televised press conference, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission, and media appearances by Richard Clarke, the author of a new book criticizing the Bush administration for its handling of the war on terrorism -- a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey finds little change in the presidential contest. Among likely voters, Bush continues to enjoy a slight lead over Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, as he has since the end of March. Also, Bush's job approval rating as well as the favorable ratings of both Bush and Kerry are all essentially the same as they were three weeks ago.

The poll, conducted April 16-18, shows Bush leading Kerry among likely voters, 51% to 46%. In an April 5-8 poll, Bush's lead was three points, while he had a four-point lead in a March 26-28 poll. In the past three weeks, the figures have fluctuated within a small range, suggesting no real change in the preferences of American voters over that time.The same conclusion can be drawn by looking at the results of a voting choice question that includes independent Ralph Nader. In the current poll, Bush leads Kerry by six points, 50% to 44%. In the early April poll, Bush led by four points, as he did in the poll at the end of March.

[mec]

There is so much bullfertilizer involved in the political process that the impact isn't there. Last month the democrats were getting heat because all the communist countries came out for kerry. This month, Kerry is claiming Bush and the Saudis are planning some gas price relief just before the election.

[jamesglewisf]

That's total malarkey about the Saudis. They had the Prince on CNN today. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The charge that Saudi Arabia made a secret pact with President Bush to lower gasoline prices in time to help him in the November presidential election was denied Monday by the White House, the Saudi ambassador to the United States -- and even by journalist Bob Woodward, who raised the specter of such a quid pro quo in a book released Monday.

"I don't say there's a secret deal or any collaboration on this," Woodward told CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday. "What I say in the book is that the Saudis ... hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say."

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who appeared on the program with Woodward, said his characterization of Saudi policy was "accurate."

"We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that's good for America's economy, but more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy," he said. "This is nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise."

"So yes, it's in our interests and in America's interests to keep the prices down. But that was not a deal."http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/20/bush.oil/index.html

I heard that this morning on CNN.

[mec]

Woodward clarified the whole thing. He never wrote it up as a conspiracy and affirms that the Prince's statement is accurate.

[theyeti]

About the books - everyone who likes Kerry reads the books that slam Bush, and everyone who likes Bush reads the books that slam the left... so I don't think it's surprising that they aren't making much of an impact at the polls. Then of course there's the fact that so many people just don't read anymore... {rolleyes} so a 15-second ad full of lies is usually more effective than a 300-page book full of lies :D

[jamesglewisf]

Holy cow. Another book is coming out against Bush. This time it's by Joseph Wilson. It's an interesting way to run a campaign because all of the news networks will cover it non-stop. You get to slam Bush without giving any equal time.

[jamesglewisf]

Has 60 Minutes become "60 Democrat Minutes"? Now Clinton is going to be hawking his book on the show. What happened to the days of 60 minutes actually doing investigative reporting and breaking new stories rather than just rolling out the latest Democrat's book in an election year? That show has gotten pathetic.

[mec]

Gee. I quit watching it before the Jimmy Carter election. CBS has always been cheerfully leftist. Walter Cronkite and one or two others belong to an Internationalist organization. They all loved to put on these documentaries preaching for gun control and other leftist causes.

When Clinton won his first presidential election, Dan Rather announced " Well, We got him elected-now what are we going to do?" He even announced the last election for Al Gore way before the polls closed in florida and influenced a number of people to give up and go home instead of voting.

The major networks do have quite an agenda. Back when the Clinton administration attacked Slobodon Milosovich, they insisted on calling Slobo a Right Winger and a Conservative. This was a little confusing to people who remembered him as a Communist. It was pure Orwellian double-speak.

Things like Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh are a reaction to the leftwing bias of the three formerly major networks. This is only fair and right as it lets the leftists whine about media bias too.

[theyeti]

I haven't watched 60 minutes in a long time either. That's not to say I'm (is "rightist" a word?)

There really aren't that many possibilities to break stories against the democrats when the republicans have control of both the white house and congress. :)