Former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Bush Committed War Crimes

[G_j]

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/5/28/former_counterterrorism_czar_richard_clarke_bush

In a Democracy Now! exclusive, the nation’s former top counterterrorism official has said he believes President George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Richard Clarke served as national coordinator for security and counterterrorism during President Bush’s first year in office. He resigned in 2003 following the Iraq invasion and later made headlines by accusing Bush officials of ignoring pre-9/11 warnings about an imminent attack by al-Qaeda. On Tuesday, Clarke spoke to Democracy Now! in an interview that will air next week.

Amy Goodman: "Do you think President Bush should be brought up on war crimes [charges], and Vice President Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld, for the attack on Iraq?"

Richard Clarke: "I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried. So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing. And I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not it would be useful to do that in the case of members of the Bush administration. It’s clear that things that the Bush administration did — in my mind, at least, it’s clear that some of the things they did were war crimes."

[merrily]

1. Statute of Limitations? And did they really act without knowledge of certain Congressional

Committees?

When members of Congress have to sign away their right to speak out to voters in order to get information for Congressional "oversight" of the Executive Branch, who is kidding whom?

[gratuitous]

8. No statute of limitations on war crimes or crimes against humanity

I wonder where our nation will have to go to retrieve its credibility, integrity and honor?

[merrily]

9. We have intervened on behalf of Buscho with other nations, after deciding domestically to look only

forward.

As for our nation's credibility, integrity and honor, I am not sure how much of that we had during and soon after WWII, even with Churchill and DeGaulle (despite DeGaulle's famed waiver of evidence as to Soviet missles in Cuba). If we had any genuine admiration abroad, thanks to WWII and the Marshall Plan, I think it was limited to allies and faded decades before Bushco.

Starry eyedness about the US is drummed into us from an early age. I don't think that is true of people in other countries, and certainly not the governments of other countries. I don't think anyone even wants to buy our jeans or cigarettes anymore, maybe not even our baby food. Since Ben Laden, they don't even trust our medical providers.

[gratuitous]

13. All good points

Perhaps the people who make a very good living popping off about American exceptionalism and our unique position in the world should hold our country to the standard they think it's supposed to be setting.

But that would require some integrity as well.

[merrily]

15. Apparently, Democrats with principles have become an object of ridicule to "pragmatic" Democrats.

As if believing that whatever we get from Democrats in DC is the very best anyone can realistically expect.

I liked it better when I thought the Party stood for more than vote Democratic, no matter what, and be grateful for whatever you get or don't get. Too bad I can't unknow something once I know it.

[Leme]

18. about just the comment "Too bad I can't unknow something once I know it."

me too

[sabrina 1]

24. True, we were scammed, it seems. During the Bush years we were led to believe that

if only we could throw out Republicans, we could restore the rule of law etc etc. Once we did that, almost instantly, we were told to 'stfu'.

I liked it better when I had 'hope' that there would actually be some 'change' and the war criminals and Wall St. criminals would be held accountable. I really believed that!! I feel like a fool now, we were fools, weren't we? They must have been laughing at us when they saw how naive we were.

[merrily]

25. Even without holding them accountable, I could have lived with it, if

it hadn't been for the appointments, the drive to cut "entitlements," the gay issue (yes, that finally went the right way, but geez), the breaking of the promise about a public option, the secrecy, the raids on the pot shops in states where it was legal, the mocking of liberals, and the liberal hunting, the spying, etc. etc. etc. And really, just all the lying and hypocrisy.

I did not have a litmus test or a sine qua non; and I am not a one issue voter. I don't even smoke pot myself. (After Clinton, if I say I tried once, after I was 21, and I didn't like it, would you believe me, or would you just laugh? Thing is, I smoked for hours but never got high)

At some point, it just all got to be too much for me.

BTW, as far as spending time here, I think I may be coming around to your way of thinking.

[Heywood J]

31. Here you go:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8032
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-034-002.aspx

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

[Leme]

17. they don't even trust our medical providers.

I think the US government recently stated it would no longer do that.

[merrily]

26. No longer do what? No longer seek information while giving vaccinations?

If so, is there a reason why people in Pakistan should take that promise at face value?

[Leme]

27. just telling you what I think they said

in effect... they admitted they had been doing it.

[merrily]

28. Oh, I see. I didn't think that there had been any doubt that they had done it.

[NuclearDem]

2. File under No Shit.

[quinnox]

3. Big K&R! This is the criminal who John Kerry and crew should be focusing on

Comparing Bush to Snowden, I think its no contest which guy killed more people and had more of a negative impact.

[G_j]

4. +100 million

[JoeyT]

12. Well yeah, but there's a big power difference there.

The willingness to pursue criminals is directly correlated to their ability to fight back.

[merrily]

16. Fight back? Or line your pockets?

I don't see that as merely a "potato, pohtahto" level of distinction, though I can see why some would.

[pacalo]

23. We've come to learn that well.

On the other hand...

[neverforget]

5. Impeachment is off the table: Pelosi. Need to look forward and not back: Obama

I guess it's go along to get along......

[Martin Eden]

7. Did Pelosi articulate a valid reason for taking impeachment "off the table"?

As far as I could see, it boiled down to nothing but political calculation.

Forget about accountability, justice, or ensuring that future crimes won't be committed with impunity.

[merrily]

10. Of course, why Obama wants to get along with a man he campaigned so hard against in 2008,

even though that man was not even running then, is a good question. And Pelosi showed such contempt for him, too, until she got thee speaker's gavel, when she promptly took impeachment off the table.

I remember her saying that her first order of business was to "drain the swamp." Silly me leapt to the conclusion that she was going to go after Republicans, not just members of the House Progressive Caucus and Ensign--and not so much against Ensign, either.

Good times.

Ya know, if you just didn't know better, instinctively and way down deep somewhere in your bone marrow, you'd might call bullshit on politicians, even Democratic politicians, on a daily basis. Good thing I just know better.

[Mnemosyne]

6. * 'unsigned' the US from the ICC right after stealing office, has President Obama resigned to it? If

not, the ICC most likely will not act. I hope I am wrong.

[delta17]

55. No.

Obama hasn't signed anything, so the ICC has no jurisdiction.

[Mnemosyne]

58. I was afraid of that. A damn shame. nt

[ChisolmTrailDem]

11. 1998: PNAC wanted a "new Pearl Harbor". 2000: Got themselves installed. 2001: MIHOP/LIHOP. nt

[DhhD]

57. Reformer expans over the years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3378945#top

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/360

[burrowowl]

14. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!

[Solly Mack]

19. Duh

[G_j]

29. I know right?

but it is sure good to hear him say it out loud

[Solly Mack]

42. You're right, of course.

I'm just a cynic.

[G_j]

44. somehow

I doubt this news will make it from DN! to the corporate media, even if Richard Clark is a well known public figure and this is a major story. They aren't going to touch it.

[Solly Mack]

47. It is a topic that many avoid.

Like to pretend it never happened. That it doesn't matter...and that, somehow, America is just so pristine.

America is a beautiful country. I've traveled across a lot of it. I've met wonderful people and I'd never deny I was an American. I have not volunteered the information while living in Europe but never denied it when asked.

But all the beauty and all the good can never erase the war crimes. Nothing will...not even prosecutions. But prosecutions would show we desire to be a decent country.

Might sound strange or old fashion, I don't know. But being decent matters. It's not even a high standard - just simple decency. Our government committed war crimes and the decent thing to do is hold the guilty accountable.

It matters.

[G_j]

62. If we don't take responsibility for grievous wrongs (in this case, war crimes) all else rings hollow

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

and trust is broken. Being decent and honorable should be the guiding rule.

That's not old fashioned. That is a truth for all time! I suspect Obama must know this in his heart of hearts, but I think there must be forces stronger than him. It seems he had to make a deal with the dark side, so to speak. It all feels very "Faustian" to me.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended for water being wet and fire being hot.

Thanks for the thread, G_j.

[Hekate]

21. Right. We heard you the first time, but it bears repeating because a lot of people were in denial.

The Bush/Cheney admin used Gitmo to train our soldiers how to torture, too. To our everlasting shame as a nation.

[pacalo]

22. "Would (charging them with war crimes) be useful?"

It would be the most fitting declaration by way of checks & balances, to the world, that the preemptive invasion of Iraq was a criminal, immoral act that spawned more war crimes.

Just to have them charged would be a justice for those whose lives were destroyed -- by a cruel charade carried out by greedy corporatists who slicked-out two elections to gain that power.

They did it. They boast about it. Cheney goes on & on about it in the media like a deranged Captain Queeg. To not charge them would mean that we will tolerate their lack of ethics. Their criminal way of doing business deserves to be officially denounced, preferably by the Hague, with at least criminal charges. We need that official acknowledgment.

Yes, yes, yes -- charging them with war crimes would be useful & would be the right thing to do.

I'm going to be looking for the full interview; thanks for posting the preview.

[Major Nikon]

30. We also need to ask our own government if they are harboring futitives

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, can't even travel to certain countries for fear of being arrested and charged.

[Enthusiast]

32. Bush crimes started with the theft of the 2000 election.

Well, national Bush crimes. There were other localized crimes before that of course. He's just a criminal fuck. And that goes double for Cheney and Rumsfeld.

[noiretextatique]

38. +1000

Add the criminals on SCOTUS who allowed the theft to happen.

[malaise]

33. Duh!

We know.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

34. War crimes? Election theft? Oh, crazy DU CTers, this is all just so much woo.

[bullwinkle428]

35. +1000. Was just about to post that there's always a contingent

over here that's happy to call us "moonbats" or whatthefuckever, just for bringing up the idea that the Bush cabal was a group of war criminals.

[Octafish]

36. From 2012: New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

By Jordan Michael Smith
Salon.com
Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 04:24 PM EDT

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

SNIP...

Former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has taken credit for the drone program that the Bush administration ignored. “Things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians,” she said in 2006. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.” Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove. “If the administration wanted to get it done, I’m sure they could have gotten it done,” says Elias-Sanborn.

Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”

CONTINUED w LINKS...

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/

War crimes. Treason. Banksters. What else is in the rear view mirror?

[Rex]

43. Interesting how the usual suspects never reply in these kind of threads. nt.

nt.

[Octafish]

45. Cowards.

Plus they can be part of the jury pool.

[Rex]

46. Hopefully they are all over at the New Site, having their never ending arguments

with Repukes. Meanwhile, we can stay here and share information.

[rhett o rick]

49. Give em a break. They got some fresh Snowden or Greenwald threads to swarm. nm

[Rex]

51. Well as long as we talk about GG/Snowden and NOT the NSA spying on every person in America.

Yeah...I am not a fan of GG, but even I see the bullshit character assassinations for what they are. Pure deflection.

[G_j]

60. It's a bit harder I suppose, to attack the messenger here (Clarke) nt

[joanbarnes]

37. Love this guy. Would follow him anywhere, the real deal.

[AnneD]

39. It doesn't matter what you think now....

It is what you did then that counts. You had the chance to stand on the right side of a moral issue and you took the easy way out. You flunked your moral pop quiz. Elliot Richardson did not.


Elliot Lee Richardson (July 20, 1920 – December 31, 1999) was an American lawyer and politician who was a member of the cabinet of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. As U.S. Attorney General, he was a prominent figure in the Watergate Scandal, and resigned rather than obey President Nixon's order to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

[indepat]

40. Shocking, I tell you, shocking

[sellitman]

41. You Liberals will post anything to change the subject.

BENGHAZI

Can't you stay on subject?

[rhett o rick]

50. I thought the current distraction was Snowden. nm

[sakabatou]

48. You don't say, Mr. Clarke!

[obxhead]

52. It would be productive.

If we forget the past, we are doomed to repeat it.

That has been drilled into my head since elementary school. Let's stop forgetting it for once.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

53. they see it as leadership, not war crimes

just sayin'.

[Faygo Kid]

54. An American patriot

In the correct sense of the term.

[blkmusclmachine]

56. MUST.

LOOK.

FORWARD.

[Corruption Inc]

59. Rec'd for truth and justice, although neither matter to current government

Corporate policies are all that matter now, no matter how corrupt, how low, how immoral or how many times they have been proven wrong.

[Hissyspit]

61. Some?

[Jake2413]

63. Now if we can only get the Attorney General to listen