Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wesley Clark's gutsy new tack: Blame Bush for not preventing 9-11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-03 10:07 PM
Original message
Wesley Clark's gutsy new tack: Blame Bush for not preventing 9-11
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/tomasky-m-10-30.html

Wesley Clark's gutsy new tack: Blame Bush for not preventing 9-11.
Michael Tomasky
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.<snip>

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.

It was tough stuff. Other outlets piled on, and for two weeks the administration was playing defense. The problem was that no one -- the Democrats, say -- was playing offense. The charges dissolved into a fog of unprovables; the story lost its momentum; George W. Bush seized the security issue during the midterm elections. And that was the end of that. <snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-03 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think Franken mentioned this in Lies.
Edited on Thu Nov-06-03 10:12 PM by gristy
That Rice and the whole admin just sat on intelligence.

Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, briefed successor Condi Rice on al-Qaeda -- and she yawned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-03 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's a great move.
Notice the Bushies are quiet as mice about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E_Zapata Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-03 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick Ass General Clark!
Excellent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La_Serpiente Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-03 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think he is playing a political tight-rope
I am not saying that he is wrong, but if he is going to say that, he is going to have to learn how to respond to the right wing hate machine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jogi1969 Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-03 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. give 'em hell General
man ohh man!

get this out there;
the little basard needs to answer for 9-11,
and with the General asking these questing his total incompetence
is in full view
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-06-03 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. bout #$%^ time someone
blamed bush for that seeing HE LET IT HAPPEN, by his own stupidity or on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. important to prevent act two
Although if that is their course they absolutely will not stop. It seems to me the nuclear plans and Pentagon reshaping, Homeland Security and FEMA such as they are show equally that the WH at least presumes a nuclear attack is inevitable somewhere on a small scall- and that their energies are 100% diverted and energized only into capitalizing on the results. Too bad those interests are so dismayingly venal(oil, Carlyle, GOP coup).

Attitude- planning for what they have no enthusiasm or hope of avoiding with global and homeland responses for which they have a very great deal of enthusiasm and expectation. At the least this is their typical Rightist negativist attitude that IWH "it WILL happen" but that our warriors will be victorious. A self-actuating game of fear and war such as it has been through the ages.

It's like trying to wrestle away the steering wheel from a maniac while the passengers haven't a clue what is going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC