Why George Bush Is A Criminal Liar

[mik3cap]

Dear MoveOn member,
As you may have heard, Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush, and a registered Republican who has worked in every administration since Reagan, has exposed Bush's mishandling of 9/11 and the war on Iraq.(1) In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke does an amazing job of presenting the facts and connecting the dots. Instead of refuting Clarke's claims, the Bush Administration has launched a campaign of character assassination, hoping that the story will just go away.(2)

We're committed to stopping that from happening by making sure that the American public hears Clarke's extraordinary comments. If we can raise $300,000 in the next few days, we can run a hard-hitting ad nationally that highlights his message. You can see a rough story board of the ad and donate to get it on the air at:

https://www.moveonpac.org/clarkead.html?id=2491-3550382-d1RQCcTVPTYn4.HNR9R6yQ

When the World Trade Center was hit on the morning of 9/11, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice dubbed Richard Clarke, the administration's top counter-terrorism official, "crisis manager."(3) As the White House, which was thought to be the next target, was evacuated, Clarke heroically stayed on, coordinating the government's response from the Situation Room in the West Wing.(4)

Clarke is viewed by colleagues as a hawk, a "true believer" who doesn't play partisan politics.(5) So the shocking facts he revealed about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism before 9/11 and its response after must be taken seriously. On Sunday, Clarke told reporters that the President and Defense Secretary downgraded counter-terrorism and ignored repeated warnings about an al Qaeda attack prior to 9/11. And, perhaps even more explosive, Clarke revealed that President Bush and senior administration officials wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 even though they knew that it had no connection to al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.(6)

Already, the White House spin machine is in overdrive. Since they can't rebut Clarke's facts -- which independent witnesses have confirmed7 -- they're trying to paint him as an angry partisan, even though he's a Republican. But Clarke's words remain a searing indictment of the Bush Administration's campaign against terrorism. Together, if we act today, we can beat back the spin by widely airing a TV ad which gets these uniquely credible comments directly to TV viewers.

You can view a story board of the ad and help us get it on the air now at:

https://www.moveonpac.org/clarkead.html?id=2491-3550382-d1RQCcTVPTYn4.HNR9R6yQ

In his own words, here are some of Clarke's revelations:

Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."(8) According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.(9)

In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."(10)

On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"(11)

Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."(12)

The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."(13)

The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."(14)

It's been well reported that President Bush intends to run on his record as a wartime President. Clarke's revelations show how deeply flawed that record is. But if we don't act fast, the public may not have a chance to evaluate the facts for themselves -- the story could go away quickly. With an ad, we can take Clarke's comments directly to the public. Can you help? Check out the script and donate whatever you can to get this story out there at:

https://www.moveonpac.org/clarkead.html?id=2491-3550382-d1RQCcTVPTYn4.HNR9R6yQ

(By the way, if we're unable to use your contribution for the ad you specify, either because of oversubscription or for another unforeseen reason, it is our policy to use your contribution for other advertising, public relations, and advocacy activities.)

Richard Clarke had an intimate view -- perhaps the best view -- of how the Bush Administration responded to terrorism. So we should all listen carefully when he says:

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know. . . I think the way he has responded to al-Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe, absolutely. I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."(15)

Together, we can make sure every American knows what President Bush's true record on terrorism really is.

Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team
March 24th, 2004

P.S. Salon has recently published a new interview with Clarke. You can read it at:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/24/clarke_moveon/

P.P.S. As the Administration strikes back, our friends at the Center for American Progress have put together an excellent rebuttal to their claims. Here's an example:

CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. -- White House Press Release, 3/21/04

For the whole document, go to:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39828

Footnotes:

1. "Dissent from within on Iraq war," Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/8260216.htm?1c (Registration required)

2. "Bush Aides Blast Ex-Terror Chief," CBS News, 3/22/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/terror/main608107.shtml

3. "The book on Richard Clarke," Washington Post, 3/23/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16192-2004Mar22.html (Registration required)

4. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

5. See 3, above.

6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

7. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html?hp (Registration required)

8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

9. See 7, above.

10. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

11. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/60minutes/main607622.shtml

12. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on NYTimes.com, 3/23/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CWOR.html (Registration required)

13. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

14. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13607-2004Mar21.html (Registration required)

15. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.

Comments

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

I see you as a reasonable guy, Mikey, but I keep seeing you post links to the WoRST JouRNAlIsM EVARRR.

The big papers have some good stories, and I've especially enjoyed NPR's (http://www.wbur.org) coverage. And you can always go straight to the source. Check out the running coverage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html) of the 9/11 commission.

This shit is getting dealt with properly, I think. Smear campaigns only have value when a topic is being ignored.

-Adam

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I'll admit I didn't read the links before posting... but then again, I believe strongly in letting people decide for themselves what they think - I post links, people interpret what they want. I didn't think the nytimes and washingtonpost sites would be "WoRST JouRNAlIsM EVARRR" though, liberal as they might be.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

The nytimes and washingtonpost articles aren't so bad. It's the hit-and-run citing of them that I have a pseudo-problem with. :)

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

This was an email from MoveOn and the point wasn't really to cover the story so much as to get donations and spread the word.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

I think even activists have a responsibility to engage in proper journalism. I dunno, maybe I should be more pragmatic. There's probably a lot of people who just won't look at this stuff and send money unless someone's an 3v1l Cr1/\/\1n4l!11!!! You know, like most college students.

Sometimes I'm glad that people with the money have the power. The politically active wealth, while famous for having ulterior motives, at least tend to be level-headed.

-Adam

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I didn't call anyone an "evil criminal"... but I did call Bush a criminal liar because I think he is. Wouldn't you call killing thousands under false pretenses a crime?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I thought that was the header of the MoveOn posting.

Bush doesn't pull this stuff out of his ass. Yeah, he gets mixed signals and probably has some latitude to choose. You can fault him for (perhaps criminally) bad judgment.

But this Clarke thing has nothing to do with that. For a while, Bush drifted on the back of Clinton-era policy decisions with regards to the Middle East. Clarke suggested that more aggressive action was needed, and the Bush administration was slow to effect change, although the gears were turning.

Hard to blame any president for siding on the side of non-escalation. I mean, look at the Cold War. There were all kinds of high-level strategic voices yelling for an attack on Cuba, because intelligence reported that they didn't have nuclear warheads yet. Intelligence was wrong, and if we'd done that, the worst would have happened.

Shit, what if we had ramped up aggressive action against Afghanistan and the planes had hit the towers in that light. That would have made the administration look criminally responsible, doncha think?

-Adam

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you saying that Bush wanting to make war with Iraq as policy *before* 9/11, and then insisting that intelligence find causes to make war with Iraq after 9/11 even though intelligence knew it was Al-Qaeda is non-escalation?? Our president never cared about 9/11 and still doesn't! He's making war with Iraq, not with Al-Qaeda! There is no war on terror, because Bush isn't doing jack shit to actually stop terror.

What I'm talking about is his frigging family grudge against Saddam Hussein and his hunger for oil, him and his good energy buddy Cheney there and their fucking pals at Enron. What the hell? Is our government just a tool of the Bush dynasty and oil interests now? It's not bad judgement - it's the ultimate in cash and carry facist fucking government!

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Do you have a hole in your memory, or did you completely forget the attacks on Afghanistan? We didn't attack Iraq until much later; 9/11 was not peddled as the primary justification for war. Bush and Blair are on the hotplate for their statements regarding WMD's, not 9/11.

(Yes, a great many of the ignorant American people blamed Iraq for 9/11, and you would be right to critique the president for not stopping and perhaps even helping that perception. But you can bet the administration doesn't make these decisions based on American sentiment, and you can bet the Congress is smarter than Joe American.)

The fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate a former US president does help to underscore our foreign policy; calling it a family grudge isn't fair.

-Adam

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Did you miss the report saying that Bush wanted to attack Iraq as soon as he got into office - before 9/11/01 and Afghanistan ever appeared on the radar...? I thought you listened to NPR?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

We've been "attacking" Iraq for a long time. Weapons resolutions go back to '91. Y'know, Desert Fox? When they stopped cooperating entirely with UN weapons inspectors, we did a massive bombing campaign. Even before 9/11, we dropped bombs in retaliation to no-fly zone violations.

There were more cases for an attack on Iraq besides terrorist support and WMD's. It's just that WMD's was the most convincing one, and the one Bush brought before the world.

If you have a link to back up what you're saying, I'd like to take a look. As far as I'm aware, the US was planning to go along with the UN at that time, and the Clinton-era policies with respect to Iraq remained in place through the early presidential term.

-Adam

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Oops, let me save you some time.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Sorry then, let me rephrase:

Instead of saying "attacking Iraq" which has been going on for a while, I should say "oust Saddam Hussein". Clinton era policies - and even First Bush era policies never were aimed at ousting Saddam. There were no good reasons to oust Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq, as far as I can see.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Oh, there are plenty of good reasons. The only question is whether you agree with them.

Anti-war people will tell you that as long as we can contain Saddam, there's no valid reason to oust him. Pro-war people will tell you that containing Saddam is a dangerous delusion. They'll say that if you combine the ridiculous amount of money he's making smuggling oil with his terrible record with aggression and weapons regulation, he's obviously a bad fucking timebomb.

The fact that his plans of post-Saddam recovery included plans for oil is only fiscally responsible. If that hadn't been taken into account with plans for aggression, I'd be very disappointed.

-Adam

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Fiscally responsible.

So you're okay that this oil cost people's lives? Think about that next time you go for a drive. Gasoline doesn't move your car... blood does.

Go capitalism, I guess?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Terminal context failure. Abort, Retry, Fail?

I'm saying that if you're going to go to war with Iraq, not thinking about the consequences to oil and making appropriate preparations is fiscially irresponsible. I firmly disagree with any suggestions of major reversed causality there.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Please tell me you at least think there might be a smidgen of conflict of interest when the president and vice-president are both oil and energy men, and they go off to oust a leader who just happens to also be an enemy of the Bush family? You could maybe at least admit to that much?

And when gas prices rose up really, really high and pissed off Americans to no end, they might have just a TINY stake in pacifying the SUV nation in order to get re-elected?

Bottom line: we didn't have to go to war with Iraq. The president *wanted* to, and fabricated a bunch of reasons to do so. I'm sure his motivations are myriad... it's just really really convenient that he benefits financially and personally (grudge-wise) from it too.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

I'll conceed that economic motivations contributed to the war, but only as a way of mitigating the demotivation element of aftermath problems.

As for the rest of it, we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally think it's petty and detracts from intelligent discussion. My ability to lend credence to people's political arguments falters when I hear such talk. I think a lot of people in positions of power and respect feel the same way, and that the case against Bush is actually being harmed by such talk.

And for the record, I want Kerry to trounce Bush in the upcoming election.

-Adam

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

calling it a family grudge isn't fair

It may not be totally "fair", but it is totally goddamn accurate. Our country is just as much a puppet under Bush as Iraq was under Saddam. They play the games of kings, and we are merely their subjects. Last I looked, that's not how our country is supposed to be run.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

In response to the assassination attempt, Bush merely bombed an intelligence center. What's more, he did it at night so there would be minimal casualties.

Any attempt at painting the sophisticated coordination between CIA, FBI, strategic committees, the chiefs, the presidents, and international relations as interpersonal grudge matches is grossly knee-jerk bullshit that's even worse than Rush Limbaugh ranting.

-Adam

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

When all the sophisticated coordination of those agencies was IGNORED by the chief executive, and when he in fact DIRECTED those agencies to "produce intelligence" that pointed to WMD and Iraq being behind 9/11 (as referenced by Richard Clarke)... I'm sorry, but that IS the action of one person, and he sure as hell has a lot of motive to have an interpersonal grudge match as well as a financial gain for himself and his energy buddies.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Nah, Richard Clarke was just the head of a committee. The chiefs were working on a draft, and suggested that Clarke go work on the deputy level.

The deputies felt that Al-Qaeda was tied in with a host of other issues, and that instead of handling this threat separately, it should be included in the package of a long series of meetings to formalize an appropriate Iraqi policy.

Clarke was so annoyed at the bureaucracy that he resigned and decided to work on cyber-terrorism instead.

It's worth pointing out that what was known was very shallow. The original attack was originally thought to be months earlier, which was later thought to be postponed for an indeterminate series of months. Further, they didn't know where the attack would take place; the most likely target was thought to be Israel. Shit, talk about pre-emption! Attacking Al Qaeda before 9/11 would probably have been widely frowned upon. The only thing we had to go on was the sinking of the Cole, and assignment of responsibility to Al-Qaeda was just a preliminary opinion, just like Oklahoma was originally thought to be caused by foreign terrorists.

[that-xmas.livejournal.com]

They're only false pretenses if you believe that the stated reasons for attacking Iraq are the real reasons for attacking Iraq.

:)

There were dozens of better reasons than the simple "He has WMD!!!" that the administration used to drum up support for the war.

In fact, that argument was probably the weakest of the bunch, but if they had found WMD, it would have given the best payoff.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Except that he went and took the most secular Arab state in the fucking world and destroyed it, giving the radical Islamists even more reason to believe crazy right-wing Christians are trying to wipe them out. The sad thing is that they may not be too far from the fucking truth with the way the fundie Republicans are running things!

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, parts of Iraq are poorer than they were. Yeah, a lot of irreparable looting took place during the periods of civil disorder. But the US hardly destroyed Iraq; the war was very careful to preserve infrastructure. Urban areas are actually showing signs of becoming more profitable, and that's even before we've been able to finish setting up a complete government.

On the other hand, radical Islamists have a good reason to think we've corrupted Iraq. You can almost hear the release (SPOOGE!) of years of sexual repression, as the pornography sales are skyrocketing.

-Adam

[goodg99.livejournal.com]

I hate George Bush! That's about all I have to say.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. :)