Quesitons: The WH had Clarke's book for 3 months.

Do you guys think they attempted to negotiate something with Clarke in exchange to make changes in his book?
Why didn't they try and refute his claims during that time?

That's the real question. What did the WH cut out?

They handled it incompetently, in other words. They are incompetent.

They thought he was an idiot, former Clinton boy, never part of the team, so they ignored the book. Gave it to a staffer who only read it as his job required to find the out if there was classified stuff. Redacted that. Someone either didn't want to pass the incriminating stuff on, was too stupid to see it was going to be a problem, or did, and Condi or whomever never bothered to look at it because they figured that Clarke had been a good soldier and wouldn't bother them.

Focussing myopically elsewhere, the White House crew ignored an abundance of advance warnings and were surprised by an attack they should have seen coming. Only this time, their stupidity didn't cost thousands of American lives, just their jobs (I sincerely hope).

:thumbsup:

approve, censor or have anything at all to say about a book absent classified material? My copy hasn't come yet so I haven't read the whole thing. But I can't figure out how the government can exercise any sort of prior restraint against any published work...


:eyes:

and you could make a point that they held it long enough to delay publication until the heat of the political season when they could spin it as a "partisan" attack, after they had censored all the really incriminating stuff. There's a national security act that all high level White House employees with access to classified info must submit books prior to publication to remove any sensitive "national security" information.

But, wow, Clarke really knocked it out of the ballpark on Russert this morning. Russert was completely disarmed.

I agree Clarke was credible. What's funny is how the Bushies timeing got all fouled up on this one. Clarke said the book was originally planned for xmas publication, but it had to be cleared by the WH first. So those clever turd blossoms decided we'll hold up the book until we know the 9/11 commission is finished their investigation--oh about Feb. when they okayed the book. Figured it would come out long after the commission was done. If the 9/11 families hadn't twisted their arms to extend, the investigation, we wouldn't be seeing the book timed to coincide with Clarke's testimony. In other words, they have only themselves to blame for this mess.

Condi has two choices: perjure herself or take the fifth. Hahahahaha. And to defend her or refute Clarke will require declassification of all kinds of incriminating evidence. Emails? Minutes of meetings? Phone records? Memos?

They are going down!

in the WH that could read.

When they finally did find that one person, the poor guy couldn't work without a dictionary and thesaurus. (I really feel for that guy).

Anyway, once he got to reading the book, he didn't have the time to absorb any of it, because his other duties, cleaning the windows and toilets left him little time actually sit down and think about what he was reading. In the end, the guy just said, "No problem here, just the same inept things I see every day", and left it at that.

:evilgrin:

heehee!!

As soon as they put out Clarke's 2002 back office statement the bushies won. I know it was a PR statement on 2002, but it doesn't matter. He lied period. Why or how he lied is irrelevant.

Those will believe what they want but Clarke lied

You can justify and spin any way you want

It may be spinning but it's not lying.

You still can't point to a single inconsistency when asked. Put up or shut up. You keep parrotting this crap that he lied. Well, show us the lie or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Bushies won? That's pretty delusional when pretty much everyone else says just the opposite, that in fact, he's taken a HUGE hit because of this. Keep dreaming that somehow this whole thing is a win for your monkey :eyes:

Here's something to chew on:

Clarke Charges on Bush Seem to Have Sticking Power

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4689886&pageNumber=0

Ha Ha!

why did they clear it at all?

why were they not better prepared?


I think the stink they tried to raise about the publication date being moved up was because they had scheduled response to the book to be proactive and coordinated with the rest of their campaign. Instead, it slammed them just as they had spent millions trying to run on Georgie Boy's 9-11 mythology.

Clarke gave a copy of his book to the WH last October ... the anti-Clarke's have been making a big deal about how the timing of the book's release was set to exploit the 9/11 hearings ...

but there's one disturbing point to consider here ...

the bushies had total control over the timing of the book's release ... it was they, not Clarke or his publisher, who chose the timing ...

some of you speculate that they are just morons and failed to consider the risks of releasing the book when they did ... i think this is very unlikely ... this WH is totally driven by politics ... i'm sure that Clarke's book and the timing of its release was a central focus of team bush ...

so, the lingering question is, why did they release the book when they did ??? i'm afraid (grab your tinfoil) that Clarke's revelations are merely a distraction from issues they did not want the 9/11 commission to focus on ... and i'm afraid they succeeded ...

and they walked right into his trap.

Clarke was their go to guy when the Time article came out. He went out there and gave the background breifings to try and limit the damage about the ignored warnings. With that in mind I see the possibility of the following scenario:

Clarke leaves the admin. on "good" terms, but is actually really pissed off at how these morons are bumbling the ball. He's always APPEARED as a team player to them, especially because of his spinning re: the Time article and no one in the admin. suspected how pissed off he really was. So he quits and he writes this book and approaches the admin. saying "Look, you guys are gonna need some cover for these missed warning allegations that appeared in Time. You know the Dems are gonna bring it up during the election. I'm going to write a book and address it and we'll use it as a limited hang out. I won't press it too much or make a big splash and in my interviews I'll lay most of the blame on Clinton. That way, we get it out of the way and I'll continue to defend you and spin it like I did w/ the Time allegations."

He writes his book, they clear it with all of the above in mind and then Clarke turns around and fucks 'em good because he actually cares about the security of the country and knows these fuckers are up to no good. What are they gonna do? Say "He lied to us! He told us he was gonna blame it all on Clinton!"

The timing makes sense in this scenario. Get ALL the allegations out of the way during/around the 9/11 hearings. Actually, the hearings were supposed to be over by now anyway, and the admin. had to be pressured into the extra time. They expected a totally different story coming from Clarke. They expected him to minimize the blame on Bushco. and maximize the blame on Clinton. I think he royally fucked them.

That's my take anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1306823