Clarke's Own Words Today on Meet The Press....

and based on HIS OWN WORDS, is it safe to assume that Clinton could not save 2,752 US lives on 9/11 because..

1) the President had two other issues that were more important at the time, Arafat and the Peace process in the Middle East being one. So invading Afghan terrorist camps could not be done.

2) The bombing of Yugoslavia the other reason invading the terror camps could not be done, possibly preventing 9/11.

3) The CIA and Special Forces under Clinton's watch were not adequate enough to either capture or kill Osama.

4) And finally, the President didn’t want or need “wag the dog” heat from the press. So I guess a bj in the WH is a serious offense, it may have caused the death of 2,752 US civilians.

So let's blame Bush for his first 9 months in the WH, not Clinton during his 8 years. .

The great thing about this interview was that unwittingly, Clarke buries Clinton with his own words.

Go to Meet the Press and download the transcript, it’s laughable when you read it carefully.

And this character assassination that Clarke cries about is sickening. Nobody is attacking him personally (that he beat his wife, or is a drunk – that’s personal). They’re using his own words – HOW HORRIBLE.

Here is a partial of today's Meet the Press. Read it a few times and ask yourself how does Clarke have a leg to stand on, and why isn't the former President getting the heat.

MR. RUSSERT:
The Washington Post did an analysis of the September 11 Commission reports, your book and testimony and everyone else's, and concluded in an analysis piece, "Bush, Clinton varied little on terrorism." Would you concur with that?

MR. CLARKE: No, not really. Let's answer Dick Cheney's question: What was the Clinton administration doing and what did it fail to do? Because it failed to do some things. Thirty-five Americans over the course of eight years--35 Americans--were killed by al-Qaeda during the Clinton years. And as a result of those 35 deaths, President Clinton ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden, breaking with years of tradition and precedent, and the assassination of his deputies, by CIA. He fired cruise missiles into a base where he thought bin Laden was going to be. He launched a series of diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, military steps against al-Qaeda.

What he failed to do was to take all of the camps in Afghanistan where these terrorists were being trained on a conveyor belt that was turning out thousands of people and sending them overseas--what he failed to do was to eliminate them, just to bomb them. Now, there were lots of other things going on in the world. And to be fair, he had the Middle East peace process close to an agreement. He was bombing in Serbia. He was bombing in Iraq. In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, people now understand that he should have bombed the camps. I said so at the time.

MR. RUSSERT: In '96 when Osama left Sudan, stopped and refueled in the country of Qatar to go to Afghanistan, there were also discussions at that time, according to President Clinton, to turn Osama over to the Saudis or perhaps, some others suggested, snatching Osama at the refueling.

MR. CLARKE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Should we have done that?

MR. CLARKE: Well, if the CIA had been capable of doing it, we would have. We began looking with the CIA and Delta Force at options to snatch bin Laden in 1996, 1997, 1998, and they were unable do so. And this is one of the things I talk about in the book, the need to strengthen our intelligence and military capability so that we can do things like that.
What else did Clinton do, however? We had Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States; he used military force, and they stopped.

HOW ABOUT THAT LAST STATEMENT, IRAQI-SPONSORED TERRORISM, HMMMMMMMMMM?

Transcript here