Clark: Bush was warned about Al Qaida and didn't pay attention!

Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark (website - news - bio) on Sunday said President Bush (website - news - bio) 's preoccupation with a missile defense program distracted him from the threat of al-Qaida (website - news) before the 2001 terrorist attacks.

"One of the reasons we had 9/11 is because this president spent too much time worried about national missile defense and not enough time worried about the greatest threat to this country," Clark told supporters and undecided voters in a crowded living room two days before New Hampshire's primary.

"He was told when he came to office that al-Qaida was the greatest threat and he didn't pay attention," Clark said.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0104/121390.html

..that's the only way it sticks in media's and the public's mind.

Which is a good thing.

...this info was available immediately after 9/11.

One good article was the salon.com

September 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president "We told you so."

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html

on Hardball....I think he has enough intellectual curiosity--and he's enough of a liberal--to believe it.

</sarcasm>

He wan't talking to us, but to those less knowledgeable.

;)

info before 9/11, but his administration denies it ever was warned and when they were being warned they told be people to screw!

This is why he can win. He will fight the fight!

has not been chosen, this kind of statement gets "out there." Once the nomination is all sewed up, the Bush administration will "Gore" the candidate and the attention will be on the "crazy" nominee and not the nominee's words. This tactic has already been used on Dean so that any commentator who takes Dean's words seriously lacks credibility.

So, please, all DUers stand up for ALL of the Dem candidates. If your candidate eventually gets the nomination, then you will have done your candidate a great service.

If we're going to take on Bush and beat him on what is essentially his home turf (the media), we have to back our nominee fully.

in his CSPAN rally speech.

For a preview, see the following Mpls. Star Tribune editorial.

<snip>

He should have been. When Bush took office, the White House was told that a Predator drone had spotted Bin Laden several times recently in Afghanistan, and Richard Clarke wanted the suspended drone flights resumed to track the terrorist down and kill him.

Clarke was a holdover from the Clinton administration, chief of the Counter-Terrorism Security Group. He had special concerns about Bin Laden; after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000, Clarke had put together a comprehensive plan for attacking Al-Qaida with military force, with efforts to stop its international financing network, with police attacks on known cells in foreign countries and with counterterrorism aid to countries like the Philippines and Uzbekistan.

Clarke wanted to take the fight aggressively to Al-Qaida, but his plan was completed only in December 2000, as Clinton was leaving office, so Clarke and his plan were forwarded for consideration by the new Bush team.

more...

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4323598.html

Clark likes to pull rank on Dean and others with this macho talk about Osama and how he's going to "git" him. Problem was Clark was asleep at the wheel and couldn't even arrest significant war criminals from Bosnia and Serbia like Mladic. Talk is cheap, general.

links to these accusations? i have never ran across anywhere that he was asleep during this time and let the war crimnals go

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/18/making_a_distinction_over_iraq_kosovo/

"But when asked why the UN war crimes tribunal's two most wanted men, Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, are still at large today, Clark acknowledged that working with allies posed some obstacles to their capture."

Clark was in charge. These men are still on the loose.

which, btw, involved ethnic cleansing (euphemism for genocide). Obviously that's not enough to satisfy your standards though. Remind me, exactly how many people has Dean saved from extermination?

...that you 've done it before. Mladic and Karazic are still on the loose. What about them, general?

And Bush supporters will criticize Clark on a totally unrelated topic in an attempt to discredit the truth. This is to be expected.

Why? If they did report, it would probably be in the same vein that they report the "deserter" story...

The man is an inspiration.
Look who we could have for president.

He's a distant second behind Dr. Dean in my eyes. Why he doesn't have more support is beyond me though. It is my estimation that anyone who goes with Kerry because he's "electable" (he's not) ought to go with the Four Star General instead. Talk about a potential Dem landslide.

Focusing on the al-Qaida bait-and-switch is keeping your eyes on the prize.