Richard Clarke reveals startling insights on Bush Administration

Richard Clarke reveals startling insights on Bush Administration

Check the 60 minutes interview with Richard Clarke.  A top expert and long serving member of the US government contends:

  • The Bush Administration ignored warnings pre 9/11
  • George Bush was convinced Iraq was behind 9/11 despite the evidence
  • The FBI and CIA were convinced Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism

Perhaps it wasn’t oil, WMD or a secret neo-conservative agenda that fueled America’s invasion of Iraq.  Perhaps the invasion of Iraq was more about a few powerful politicians with one serious preocupation.

  1. #1 by Chris P. on March 22, 2004 - 11:44 pm

    Go here :

    to find out what a fraud 60 Minutes truly is.

    What I believe is that if Al Gore were president, there wouldn’t be a building over 50 stories left standing in the U.S.! We’re better off without him and the other Clintonistas being in charge.

    I do not believe that the Church should be intermingled with any political philosophy, liberal or conservative as both sides promote man-made righteousness. However,I find the Leftists to be the least trustworthy of the bunch and CBS surely fits the criteria. Even so come quickly, LORD JESUS!

    Chris P.

  2. #2 by Leighton Tebay on March 23, 2004 - 12:21 am

    Chris P:

    Please limit your comments to the issue at hand. The post isn’t about CBS.

  3. #3 by phil on March 23, 2004 - 6:48 am

    What the right wing media/blogger go after Clarke! I watched the most amazing interview with C Rice today – her agument is that while Clarke was involved Al Quada attacked on s11 so Clarke was responsible. She seems to miss the point that following this line of reasoning that she was the National Security Advisor and Bush was the commander in chief. So, why does she and Bush get off the hook but not Clarke.

    It is a pity that Rice can’t respond to the actual assertions that are being made and agree to participate in the enquiry on s11 and say under oath her opinion. For that matter it would be nice if Bush would agree to that. But no, but as normal they attempt to smear the person and not deal with the issues.

    But it does all seem to be unravelling for the Bush Administration. I wonder if that will translate to votes.

  4. #4 by Chris P. on March 23, 2004 - 9:42 am

    I beg to differ. The veracity of CBS is the issue at hand. Read this report from Reuters.

    Viacom is owner of Simon and Schuster Publishing and CBS. Can you say conflict of interest or hidden agenda? Don’t accuse people of a wrong-doing and then turn around and commit the same sin! Your arguement is based on the belief that the 60 Minutes interview was done in a forthright manner. Since they did not disclose their corporate connections upfront then your post and ensuing discussion are tainted at best. A little leaven, leavens the whole lump. The media is simply trying to influence yet another election. This also happens to be the second book that CBS has done this with,which also happened to be anti-Bush. Therefore if the 60 Minutes interview was conducted with dubious motives, Clarke’s book becomes just as suspect. Please don’t not accuse me of being right-wing as I believe all the political systems of men are complete failures. Left wingers happen to be more proficient liars, as most of those on the right at least possess a sliver of conscience. I am also tired of the rest of the world’s pre-occupation of spitting in the hand that feeds it before biting it, and then coming back with their mouths open.

    Chris P.

  5. #5 by Steve Menshenfriend on March 23, 2004 - 10:19 am

    Chris P. makes some excellent points. I am very suspicious of CBS in this case and of Richard Clarke’s motives. No one is clean, but this seems a little much. Richard Clarke releases his book and does this interview in the middle of a presidential campign. If he had his doubts why didn’t he come out with this two years ago … or even last year. I’m skeptical.

  6. #6 by RickinVa on March 23, 2004 - 11:05 am

    The blogosphere is filled with that which discredits Clarke’s assertions for what it is…

    A political smear motivated by revenge for a demotion and money for a book…

    Do the homework and check these things out… and be enlightened.

  7. #7 by Leighton Tebay on March 23, 2004 - 11:08 am

    In politics it seems everyone will skew the evidence or time it in such a way to make maximum impact. Just because this is the case, that doesn’t mean the facts presented are false. I have no doubt that Mr. Clarke has an axe to grind with Bush. He has much to gain by grinding that axe. The question is did Clarke’s real and factual experiences steer him against Bush, or did his bias against Bush drive him to skew the facts? What are the facts?

    In Canada I’m naturally suspicious of the Toronto Star (left wing major daily) and the National Post (right wing major daily). However I cannot discount the Toronto Star’s complaints about darker aspects of our Prime Minister’s past just because it leans left. Just because the source has an agenda that doesn’t mean what they are saying is untrue.

    It’s sad that American politics are so polarized that real fruitful discussion is lost amidst suspicion, ignorance and name calling.

  8. #8 by RickinVa on March 23, 2004 - 1:06 pm


    Your initial post is filled with polarizing assertions that cast suspicions…

    Amazing (but predictable from the Left) that you would then decry the sadness of such behavior…

  9. #9 by phil on March 23, 2004 - 3:43 pm

    So if the assertions are that:

    “The Bush Administration ignored warnings pre 9/11, George Bush was convinced Iraq was behind 9/11 despite the evidence, The FBI and CIA were convinced Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism”.

    If as it seems some do here that these assertions are baseless, false and outragous then would it not be good for Bush and Rice address these issues under oath? Surely, people of both left and right leanings would be interested in their under oath response to these assertions.

    Maybe it is my Australian mindset but I get very suspicious when Bush and Rice refuse to do so. What do they have to hide is the thought that runs through my mind. Even if I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, it is hard to do so when they refuse to engage the issues.

  10. #10 by Leighton Tebay on March 23, 2004 - 4:07 pm


    I’m not from the “Left”. In the last Canadian Federal election I voted for the most right wing party on the slate. Just because I put forth a criticism of Bush that doesn’t make me a Left winger. You demonstrate my point. As soon as anyone disagrees and challenges Bush they are disregarded as an ignorant a Bush hating Liberal.

    I presented the facts. That a certain person contends the 3 assertions. My only personal thought was that PERHAPS, what this guy is saying is true and GW had a major preoccupation with Iraq.

    I think Clarke has credibility because 9/11 happened to a country with the most extensive intelligence network ever known. America invaded Iraq under the pretext of WMD and none were found. Everyone knows that there were far more countries more likely to conduct such terrorism like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran.

  11. #11 by Shane on March 24, 2004 - 10:24 am

    You are right when you say that not WMD have been found intact. However all the components to make chemical and biological weapons have been found and continue to be found but it goes unreported by the elitist media that will do whatever it can to discredit the Bush Administration.

    As for Clarke, if you believe him I have some beachfront property in Arizona I’ll sell you real cheap !!!


  12. #12 by Leighton Tebay on March 24, 2004 - 11:01 am


    Finding the components to make chemical weapons isn’t a major story because we know Iraq made chemical weapons in the past.

  13. #13 by Steve Menshenfriend on March 24, 2004 - 4:27 pm

    I just got finished watching the 9.11 hearings ( I am convinced more than ever that Leighton is right in saying:

    Perhaps it wasn’t oil, WMD or a secret neo-conservative agenda that fueled America’s invasion of Iraq. Perhaps the invasion of Iraq was more about a few powerful politicians with one serious preocupation.

    The preocupation was terrorist activity on US soil. Bush used WMD as an excuss for Iraq (and he was wrong in doing so). The extreme left thought is was about oil (they are wrong, why would we spend trillions of dollar and risk US lives on a war for what we could buy for billions). Bush was worried that 9.11 would happen again and he thought the best means of stoping it from happening was to stop those that had the most to gain from this kind of action. In his mind that was Iraq. What WMD did the 9.11 terrorist have … box cutters. He did not feel that this was a “substantial” argument that the United Nations would accept … thus … WMD. I don’t know if this is the truth, but it seems likely to be a part of the truth. It will be interesting to see what the 9.11 pannel has to say when they are finished with their report.

    It seems obvious that 9.11 is the touchstone for all of US foreign policy for the last 2.5 years.

  14. #14 by phil on March 24, 2004 - 10:44 pm

    I agree on the whole with what you have said Steve. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration had a preoccupation with Iraq and in some ways you can understand it. Bush’s Father had an attempted assination attempt by Iraq and most of the current Bush Administration power brokers were also involved with Bush Senior.

    I agree that oil was not *the* reason but I wouldn’t discount it altogether. If the oil was just purchased you sense that the fact that the US was reliant on middle eastern countries would grate a little.

    On the whole I think we have to consider that maybe a reason for the attack on Iraq was represe

    nted by Clarke’s account of Rumsfield saying “we need to bomb Iraq, they have good targets”. I think the Bush Administration wanted to do something, anything, that was measurable, significant and could demonstrate that they had responded to the attack in s11.

    Your last line is spot on and I wonder how long it will continue.

  15. #15 by timk on March 25, 2004 - 7:23 am

    Clarke was removed after he said that cyberterrorism was the next big deal.

    There are new tapes that have him clearly stating that Bush takes it all seriously and has done 5X more than any other president in stopping terrorism (this is before 9/11).

    It’s going to be difficult to allocate the funding and implement a real working plan to get rid of Al Queda in 8 months when for the previous 8 years the president was concerned mostly about closing bases, taking human intell off the field, hitting Aspirin factories with cruise missles, and blow jobs.

    Give me a break if I don’t lay all the blame on the Bushies.

    LT this is what your post asserts. You must take this story way way back.

  16. #16 by timk on March 25, 2004 - 7:24 am

    THE NY TIMES????!!!!!!

    what do you expect?

  17. #17 by Leighton Tebay on March 25, 2004 - 8:21 am


    Actually Timk my post asserts one thing. That the Bush Administration was so focused on Iraq that they invaded.

    The Bush administration is doing a good job at undermining Clarkes contention that Bush was asleep at the switch pre 9/11. They are doing nothing to convince me that GW did not have some sort of weird obsession with Iraq.

    Given the intel at the time there was no good reason to link Iraq with WMD or Terrorism. The US spent billions of dollars taking out one of the few guys in the middle east that actually supressed Islamic Fundamentalism.

  18. #18 by Chris P. on March 25, 2004 - 8:58 am

    Clarke is simply a digruntled ex-employee and unfortunately the American public loves to read up on anything that can be perceived as “dirt” or scandal, even if it’s all based on hearsay evidence. James was right!(James 3:5-12)

    Statements from 2 years ago made by Mr. Clarke praised the Bush administration and now he’s tearing it down. Sounds like blessing and cursing to me. Remember that when he appeared on 60 Minutes he was for all practical intent, being interviewed by his bosses. Two whores screwing each other,pardon my reference. Honor among theives indeed!

    Chris P.

  19. #19 by Shane on March 25, 2004 - 11:50 am

    Oh yeah, the US really blew it by taking out the benevolent Saddam Hussein. Good grief !!!

  20. #20 by timk on March 25, 2004 - 3:08 pm

    good point LT

    I sure wish that we had found wmd

    sometimes he sounds brillint, sometimes he sounds like a broken record

  21. #21 by XAOS on June 21, 2009 - 3:29 am

    ????????????. ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ????-?????? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????.

Comments are closed.