The Clarke affair should soon take a (delightful) new turn

[troublemaker]

I'm concerned about how the Clarke story is going. I am hoping it proceeds from discussion of Bush's pre-9/11 actions to an examination of the administration's post 9/11 claims. This is a credibility scandal at heart and it needs to get there quickly. Hopefully Condi will offer 60 Minutes a real factual dispute with Clarke the press can dig into, but don't hold your breath.

Items below demonstrate the nature of the administration's problem.

This affair should end with Rice's resignation. She lied to the 9/11 commission (and others) by claiming the administration had pre-9/11 plans for military action in Afghanistan. He request to clarify things to the commission is doubtless an effort to "correct the record."

__________________________________


This is from the Time Magazine article 2002

The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush....The Bush Administration chose to institute its own "policy review process" on the terrorist threat. Clarke told Time that the review moved "as fast as could be expected." And Administration officials insist that by the time the review was endorsed by the Bush principals on Sept. 4, it was more aggressive than anything contemplated the previous winter. The final plan, they say, was designed not to "roll back" al-Qaeda but to "eliminate" it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html
(Ironically this is the article the administration asked Clarke to bat down in the infamous background briefing that the WH allowed FOX news to disgorge one hour before Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission. I have scoured that transcript (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html) for lies and instead found only hard administration spin, an instance of how much one can imply without saying anything. Clarke learned a lot in his 30 years of service.)
_______________________

This is from Today's Washington Post. Keep in mind that Clarke isn't standing on his own here; most of his assertions are backed by the 9/11 Commission.

...Witness testimony and the findings of the commission investigating the attacks indicate that even the new policy to combat Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts, developed just before Sept. 11, was in most respects similar to the old strategy pursued first by Clinton and then by Bush.

The commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28272-2004Mar26.html

__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Since I mentioned the 2002 briefing above (w/link) I ought to get into this a little. The only thing Clarke says that sounds like a lie is his saying there was no "plan" handed off to Rice from Sandy Berger. What makes this technically true is an oddity of this whole affair. The "plan" was Clarke's plan. Since he stayed on with the incoming administration it wasn't a new plan, but rather Clarke's existing strategy. Such subtleties, sadly, shape what we hear from Washington. Because this was an anonymous "backgrounder" it has an odd third-person quality.

Excerpt from FOX transcript:

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new....

[efhmc]

1. Thanks for all the great research and info and welcome to you.

[sadiesworld]

2. Interesting...

but IMO the real issue continues to be Bushco's gross failure to heed the terror warnings in the summer of 2001. The more I read, the more insane it appears. In response to an unprecedented level of "chatter" * failed to call regular meetings of the principals, apparently did not consult with his top terrorism adviser, and proceeded to take the month of August off. It was/is criminal.

[DocSpinal]

3. what about Osama

What do you guys make of this?:

Mansoor Ijaz

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200403230855.asp

[sadiesworld]

4. What ABOUT Usama?

Ijaz is a fraud.

The National Review is filled with lies written for the gullible.

I'll hold off on the DU welcome, okay?

[DocSpinal]

6. What ABOUT Usama?"

What makes Ijaz a fraud??

[thebigidea]

7. well A) he works for FOX B) he's behind a coupla frauds

and C) he works for FOX

[DocSpinal]

8. which frauds

which frauds??

[thebigidea]

9. surely google could solve your queries better

I'm not responsible for your blind trust of pondscum.

[DocSpinal]

10. help me

What would I be searching for on google in reference to Mansoor Ijaz??

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DocSpinal]

12. intelligent response.... thank you.

Mansoor Ijaz seems to be quite reputable. If he was involved in a scandalous event. I would like to inform myself. Could you please tell me which fraud he partook in, please?

His credentials are impressive. He heads a financial analys company that invests in the Mid East with a broad spectrum of local and international investors. When I see him on Fox he's very subdued, never rants, and is factual and articulate. Of all conservatives, I thought he might the one the left would respect...

[thebigidea]

14. we respect him very much for trying to snooker Clinton on the Sudan "deal"

I could see why you'd find that impressive.

Its cute to see Ijaz talk in that article of "damaged credibility."

he should know!

[DocSpinal]

15. One more time....

Once again, why is it that you do not find him credible? You've repeated the fact that you don't like him 4 times. Why. I need information. Specific information. Please.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

20. And I need a snack of some kind, so I'll leave you to the National Review.

You'll be in good hands with them. Good hands. Kinda greasy hands that you're not sure where they've been, but perhaps you're better off not knowing.

I mean, in the long run - do you really want to know what's the deal with Ijaz? Nah - better to remain blissfully unaware. He's a fine fellow, and I wish you the best of luck with him - may you live a long, helplessly happy life together.

I now pronounce you propaganda and wife!

off to a 1am dinner,
me.

[kiahzero]

38. A relatively legit news story on the matter

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/HERALD%20TRIBUNE_Sudan%20Offered%20to%20Arrest%20Bin%20Laden%20in%20'96.htm

The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

If the Saudis wouldn't take him, and we couldn't do anything with him in our justice system, what exactly were you expecting of the Clinton Administration? To say "Fuck the law, we'll do what we like?" That'd be this Administration, not the last one.

[RainDog]

25. From a conservative blog

...if you google and find outside the beltway blog, that one has Ijaz's complaint about Clarke...

which, btw, is that Albright was ready to do the deal, but Berger nixxed it because of some issues about a Sudan deal...

but, the issue with Clarke is that he wanted a military action instead. Rather than have bin Laden alive, Clarke wanted him dead...this is consistent with Clarke's hawkish stand on other issues as well, such as siding with Cheney on wanting to continue the first invasion of Iraq to take out Saddam.

Clinton had called for bin Laden's assassination, as testimony has revealed. Clarke, according to Ijaz's statement, did not want to agree to house arrest?

Ijaz apparently has a close and personal relationship with James Woolsey, who is another PNACer, and was, along with Judith Miller, a participant in Woolsey's simulated bio attack moment back in...don't know the date.

I won't say that Ijaz doesn't have something of interest to say, but I also question him because of his association with people who willingly lied to justify an invasion of Iraq.

I don't know the details of Berger's problems with Ijaz.

I have no doubt that mistakes occurred on both Clinton and Bush's presidential watches...who doesn't make mistakes?

My big issue with Bush is the invasion of Iraq and the whole issue of imperial America rather than a democratic America. I thought that the six generals who testified before the invasion that it would make us less rather than more safe, would harm rather than help the fight to overcome terrorism.

We should treat terrorists as international criminals...because that's what they are.

Did Ijaz support the invasion of Iraq? If he does, his level of credibility drops my a mile for me.

If Bush thought/thinks that we should go after nations which harbor terrorists, then he should have invaded Pakistan, not Iraq.

Does Ijaz support an invasion of Pakistan and routing out the ISI and all the other people in Pakistan who support the Taliban and bin Laden?

Is Ijaz one of those guys like Ghorbanifar? He, remember, was considered trustworthy to Feith, but that Iran/Contra conspirator has repeatedly failed lie detector tests and is considered unreliable by the CIA.

So, these are my questions about Ijaz.

I'm not a Clinton apologist. However, I surely would have appreciated it if, when he was president, the Congress wouldn't have accused him of wagging the dog when he did try to go after bin Laden.

[DocSpinal]

28. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

First I want to thank you for dealing intelligently with me. I was about to cancel my board membership until you came on the scene. Once again, thank you for your civil disagreement.

I'm not capable of judging Ijaz's character as I don't know the circumstances of the accusations you make of him. So I'll drop that issue. But you've given me some leads.

My question now is, would the american Left have approved of going into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, seeing as they did not support going into Iraq. It seems that the liberal element in the U.S. won't support any military action. They even criticized Afghanistan strikes.

We had all the paperwork for going into Iraq: the 1991 cease-fire agreement promised a return to war if its conditions weren't meant in 90 days. 4,500 days and 17 redundant resolutions later, we finally enforced it. Saddam has historically been linked to the training of terrorists (the achilles' laurel (sp?) hijacker had diplomatic immunity to Iraq and that's how he got off scott free, the Beirut bombers fled to Iraq, al Qaeda had had major operatives in Iraq over the last 20 years, etc... So the thought that this madman, who killed 500,000 people w/ bioweapons, was capable of distributing any bioweapons to any of the thousands of terrorists floating through his country seems quite reasonable.

I sincerely do not believe that the liberal public or congress would have accepted going after the Saudis or the Pakistinians considering their absolute refusal to invade and execute an already existing warrant on Saddam....

Peace!

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

31. "I was about to cancel my board membership...."

Taking a RW stance on affairs will usually do that for a person.

And to answer a part of your question, I think the American people would have been less adverse into going into SA than into Iraq considering the fact that most of the 9-11 hijackers were from SA as well as OBL.

Iraq had been under a microscope and held to nearly 3rd world status for nearly 12 years. Saddam couldn't have farted without raising alarms. SA has an army and nukes. Iraq was an easier way to gain a foothold in the ME oilfields (plus, Saddam put a hit out on Daddy Bush).

As shown with Wilson's wife and now Clarke, this admin is one of the most vindictive ever seen in America and behaves more like the mafia than patriots.

[bearfartinthewoods]

36. SA has nukes?

i have never heard that.

[kiahzero]

37. You weren't about to cancel

You were about to be canceled, and probably still are...

My question now is, would the american Left have approved of going into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, seeing as they did not support going into Iraq. It seems that the liberal element in the U.S. won't support any military action. They even criticized Afghanistan strikes.

I can only speak for myself, but I supported military actions directed against bin Laden and al Qaeda. My limited criticism of our actions in Afghanistan stems from our use of cluster bombs, which have an unfortunate propensity to cause civilian casualties.

We had all the paperwork for going into Iraq: the 1991 cease-fire agreement promised a return to war if its conditions weren't meant in 90 days. 4,500 days and 17 redundant resolutions later, we finally enforced it. Saddam has historically been linked to the training of terrorists (the achilles' laurel (sp?) hijacker had diplomatic immunity to Iraq and that's how he got off scott free, the Beirut bombers fled to Iraq, al Qaeda had had major operatives in Iraq over the last 20 years, etc... So the thought that this madman, who killed 500,000 people w/ bioweapons, was capable of distributing any bioweapons to any of the thousands of terrorists floating through his country seems quite reasonable.

Only the Bush Administration viewed the combined UN resolutions as a justification for war. There are traditional key words used in UN Security Council resolutions authorizing war, and they were non-existent in 1441. As for the al Qaeda operatives, they existed in northern Iraq, the Kurdish section, where Saddam had no power.

I find your mention of bioweapons interesting - Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, not bioweapons. And, to date, we haven't found any bioweapons for him to distribute. Didn't you hear Your Glorious Leader's "hilarious" joke the other day?

[leesa]

39. Why did you support military action in Afghanistan. They didn't do

anything to us, just like Iraq. The action in Afghanistan was entirely innapropriate...carpet bombing a country for 10+ months in order to catch a handful of SUSPECTS. There has been bo shred of real proof offered that OBL had anything to do with 9-11....yet you think bombing a country, none of whose citizens were among the alleged "terrorists", is appropriate. What crap!

You DO know that the US threatened the Taliban in July 2001 with a carpet of bombs if they did not participate in the Cheney/Ken Lay oil pipeline. It's been well-documented.
Why do you fall for the GOP propaganda? Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had the least thing to do with 9-11. Look to the WH for your culprits and apologize profusely to the dead and maimed of Afghanistan.

[kiahzero]

40. The Taliban was sheltering & aiding bin Laden

We warned Afghanistan during the Clinton Administration that if bin Laden pulled one more attack, we would be attacking. bin Laden attacked once more, and the Taliban was unwilling to stop him.

Why do you fall for the GOP propaganda? Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had the least thing to do with 9-11. Look to the WH for your culprits and apologize profusely to the dead and maimed of Afghanistan.

Ahhh, a MIHOPer... no wonder. I don't care to debate those who wear tinfoil as a fashion statement... logic tends to bounce off.

[sadiesworld]

13. LOL

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solomon]

27. Why don't you tell us in what official capacity this idiot was supposed

to have negotiated the hand over of Bin Laden? Rangel made him look stupid when he asked him this and his reply was, "as a private citizen". Rangel had a good laugh.

[troublemaker]

5. Ijaz. Hmmm...

I believe he also tried to arrange (for a small fee) a meeting between Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in 1997.

[oasis]

16. Ijaz in on the Fox payroll. In the 90's, he held oil interests in Sudan

and sought to get the sanctions lifted by doing some wheeling and dealing of his own. He is a parasite.

That's what I make of Mr. Ijaz.

[DocSpinal]

19. and that's bad?

He had oil interests in the Sudan? So? Did you read what he said in his article I linked? What is inappropriate about his questions??

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sadiesworld]

23. What the hell...

You DO realize that the chimp's hand-picked 9/11 commission has thoroughly debunked Monsoon's tale that Sudan offered up UBL to Clinton?

And I refuse to play anymore unless you can come up with something more interesting.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. He can't and won't come up with anything but talking points

He doesn't understand that the SAUDIS were offered bin Laden and refused. And of course, the ruling junta is heavily connected to the Bushies.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

32. Listen, DS (Odd... that stands for several different things) This is a

Dem board. Are you really thinking that you can change minds with drivel from RW rags?


It's ALL about the Oil.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

29. From another by the same author...

snip

At the height of the presidential campaign season, Clarke has made irresponsible and untrue allegations that the Bush White House was indifferent to the threat posed by al Qaeda in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks...

snip

Right wing sour grapes. They are caught in ineptitude and now resort to sophomoric means of attacking the messenger.

[kaitykaity]

21. National Review is a conservative publication.

We generally don't much trust conservative publications here because their main job is to shill for and make excuses for the criminals in the Bush administration.

Also, Faux News has no credibility here for the same reason--it is openly conservative, and it openly shills for Bush.

[troublemaker]

26. The GOP strategy seems to be working

Isn't the question of whether the media will start going through old Rice video to document Rice's serial lying post-9/11 more interesting than whatever Mansoor Ijaz has to say? Apparently not.

This Clarke business amazes me -- the issues are fairly simple and the claims mostly narrow and factual in nature yet there is no public discussion (at least on TV) of dueling facts--precisely the sort of story the media should excel at.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

34. KICK

[troublemaker]

35. re: Ijaz credibility

I don't know Ijaz but I've watched and read him for a long time and he falls within a certain BS detector category--people with great personal interests in US policy abroad. From the white Russians in London to the Cubans in Miami to Chalabi in Iraq I tend to discount stories told by people, however seemingly virtuous, that want the US military to do their work for them. That's not to say all exiles and international power brokers are always lying. Frequently they tell the truth, but there's no way to know when because they will lie when necessary. So I tend to tune them out.

re: Ijaz. I've heard him say things that turned out to be true and others that were false. Since his interests sometimes diverge from US interests I'm leery of him. (I don't know that lifting sanctions on Sudan would have been good for the US but would have been good for Ijaz, for instance.)

I wish everyone would distrust "single source" stories--especially from a source known to have been wrong about other things. When we have one guy peddling the "Osama on a silver platter" story it sets off alarms -- it's way too big a story to had never expanded beyond Ijaz's assertions. (This standard should apply to all conspiracy theories currently favored here on DU, also. It's not my responsibility to weigh the credibility of single sources I don't know no matter how much I want their stories to be true.)

____________
from an amusing article about FOX war coverage:

...By April 15, Fox reporter Mansoor Ijaz tells us the top 55 (remember the deck of cards?) in Saddam’s regime have fled Iraq and are holed up in Latakia, Syria. Counterpoint: "The Nixon White House had an insurmountable credibility problem, but you should stamp your reporting ‘Inoperable at Birth.’" As a matter of fact, no evidence has ever emerged that even one member of the Iraqi regime went to Syria...
________________

http://www.indiancountry.com/?1061220825

[blm]

41. Let's spread your post to other forums.

Your post should not be limited to DU.

[troublemaker]

42. A Question for Monsoor Ijaz

Background: Since this thread has (inexplicably) morphed into a Mansoor Ijaz discussion I am folding this question into the thread.

Ijaz is an international money man and influence peddler who advances his interests through shaping US policy (to the degree he can). Fair enough. He is is the main proponent of the "Sudan tried to give Clinton Bin Laden on a platter" stories. He was on Fox just now (He's a paid Fox consultant) recycling his story in the form of criticism of Richard Clarke.

In light of the 9/11 commission staff diplomatic report Ijaz has backed off his claim that Clinton ever knew about the offer, if any. His new line is that the offer may have never made it out of the CIA.

(This means that Sean Hannity can no longer say Clinton refused to accept Bin Laden. Period. Ijaz's claims are the entirety of the Sudan story so when he shifts the story shifts. Hopefully some Hannity guest will pick up on that...)

Why is Ijaz softening his line? 1) Because the 9/11 commission has credibility and he doesn't want to deviate too much from its findings, and 2) because he's figuring Kerry has at least a chance to win and is hedging his bets. Ijaz was a Clinton supporter. Now he's a Bush supporter. If Kerry wins I promise you Ijaz will be a Kerry supporter.


A QUESTION: Ijaz has published seven "questions for Richard Clarke" on National Review, so here's a question for Ijaz:

You say, Sudan's defense minister met in secret with the chief CIA Africa officer--just the two of them--and the Sudanese Defense Minister offered to extradite Bin Laden; an offer the CIA then bottled up without alerting the White House. If so, how do you know about it? Only two people were there. I doubt the CIA section chief for Africa would have told you... if so let's have it out in the open so we can remove the CIA mole.

I'm guessing your source is the Sudanese minister. If so, why do you take his word over the CIA version? I mean, I don't know the guy but he was defense minister of a country that was harboring Osama Bin Laden so I'm prejudiced against him.

If his word to you is sufficient for you to discredit the CIA then I assume you know him well. But even good friends can still be less than candid. You wanted Bin Laden out of Sudan because sanctions were hurting your investments in Sudan. The leader of Sudan was not publicly enthusiastic about selling out Bin Laden. Perhaps your friend had his orders and was not empowered to extradite Bin Laden but pretended to you he had made such an offer, which is presumably what you hoped for. Since you could never know what was actually said, why not make you happy? When time passed without anything happening he could always just say the offer was rejected. If money changed hands (nothing wrong with that) the scenario becomes even more plausible... who wouldn't want to keep the money knowing there was little danger of the truth ever coming out?