Dick Uncut: "Daily Show" Calls Out Cheney For Blaming 9/11 On Richard Clarke (VIDEO)

Text posted in full for posterity- follow the links for video of DailyShow at HuffPo link, and link to ThinkProgress, which has one of their rare good articles, taking apart Cheney's comments- with video of Cheney- direct link to ThinkProgress below:


At a recent appearance at the National Press Club, Dick Cheney blamed Richard Clarke for leaving the nation vulnerable to attack ahead of 9/11 saying, "He obviously missed it." Cheney was referring to the threat from al Qaeda which Clarke had emphatically warned the administration about several times before the fall of 2001.

Jon Stewart was not pleased with Dick Cheney for these accusations, nor the members of the National Press Club who failed to challenge him about the assertion. In a segment called "Dick Uncut," Stewart used dark humor to take both the former Vice President and the media to task for the events leading up to 9/11 through the waterboarding of detainees. It simultaneously makes you laugh and want to punch a whole through the wall.

Direct to ThinkProgress:

Cheney Blames Richard Clarke For 9/11: ‘He Missed It’

Writing in Sunday’s Washington Post, Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief under Presidents Clinton and Bush, slammed Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice for invoking what he called “the White House 9/11 trauma defense” — namely, the shock of 9/11 was so great as to justify all and any actions taken in the name of national defense. Clarke called the decisions on interrogations, detentions, and Iraq were all “wrong,” and the White House panic proved that Cheney and company had simply been ignoring the warning signs:

Cheney’s admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.

Speaking at the National Press Club today, Cheney struck back at Clarke. When asked about Clarke’s argument, Cheney — once again — invoked the “burning ashes” of 9/11 and the victims who leaped to their deaths from the World Trade Center. Then, quite succinctly, Cheney pinned the entire blame for 9/11 on Clarke:

CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.

When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda’s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, “That’s not my recollection, but I haven’t read his book.”

In fact, it was Cheney who “missed” the warning signs, not Clarke. New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration of the al Qaeda threat throughout 2001:

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

Similarly, Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to “roll back” al Qaeda — a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials:

Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. … In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, “Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.” … The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.

Cheney needs to check his “recollections” before blaming former employees for the single most devastating attack in American history.

They selected THIS plan...

More and more things are getting better and are becoming irreversable...aka...the 9/11 genie is out of the bottle, cannot be put back in, and now its up to us to explain and organize the vapors for people to see what its all about.

Simply put:

1. Bush stated he wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE he got eleceted...

2. The team he assembled known as BushCo, the Bush Crime Family et al., chose to allow THESE SPECIFIC PLANS OF ATTACK to be the ones to create what they NEEDED to begin another unpopulare war effort...

3. The only way that these specific plans could come to work is for Intel to be ignored which stopped the infiltration from having its usual effect upon twarting such plans. In other words, they had to throw a wrench in the normal gears of Intel-Action...and they did...

4. The HI PERPS then cleverly massaged the existing airline security and national aviation defense systems in undetectable ways so that they would "allow" all the elements of the PLAN to work themselves through on 9/11...

5. Then the HI PERPS made sure that all the players, who should have been in position to make quick calls to in fact defend our country at a moment's notice, were NOT where they were supposed to be assuring the result that there was nobody home who had the right immediate answers and instructions...

6. Then they rolled out their massive "psy-op" program which included pulling in all the "chits" from a scared, controlled and compliant corporate media...

However, they did not count on The 9/11 Truth for World PEACE Movement being as tenacious as we are...

love, peace and progress...with:


...just for starters as we throw the criminals out oneby-one...

Robin Hordon


Not quite there as usual for people like Stewart.

What about the War Games John?

A year after 911 we found out about Dick Cheney's anti-terrorism task force, with exercises involving the idea of planes crashing into buildings scheduled prior to and on Sept 11, 2001. Indeed if a presumption of "it's just War Games taking place" explains the lack of a rapid response, why has this not been brought to the attention of the American public? Oh, and by the way how did the hijackers know the exact time and date of these war games in order to plan the attacks to coincide?

Inattention isn't the right description

Withholding of information from the agency with jurisdiction. Obstruction of justice. Failing to follow standard procedure.

This isn't lack of interest at all.

Neither Clarke or Cheney has explained why al Qaeda operatives were protected from surveillance/arrest/deportation. It would be nice if someone would finally ask Clarke why al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were free to roam the US for 20 months.

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke is told in private by Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, “We got the passenger manifests from the airlines. We recognize some names, Dick. They’re al-Qaeda.” Clarke replies, “How the f_ck did they get on board then?” He is told, “Hey, don’t shoot the messenger, friend. CIA forgot to tell us about them.”


The CIA didn't forget to tell them. The CIA intentionally withheld the information. The FBI UBLU intentionally withheld the information. We are told Clarke was the CT bigshot during the Clinton years. For this reason it's very difficult to buy his "out of the loop" excuse. Why didn't Clarke or Rice wonder why the FBI wasn't at the 7/10/01 urgent warning briefing? Why didn't they tell Pickard, Watson, Rolince, Middleton or Frasca to attend?

Falsification of history

Interpreting books written by people who bear responsibility for what happened on 9/11 is difficult. How can we know if these so-called 'revelations' are not another smokescreen meant to veil the real truth? Recent history has shown that politicians have perfected the art of lying, so I'm having trouble accepting their claims of what happened internally as reliable information.

I think the fact that these books are viewed as exposés can be used for purposes of deception. Case in point: the constant promotion of questionable incompetence and coincidence theories.

It becomes most interesting when these 'exposés' reveal contradictions amongst themselves, which proves that at least one account is untrue. Apart from that, I don't really know what use the memoirs of torturing, lying, treasonous mass murders are in our quest for truth, you know what I mean? I think this blame game stuff is meant to confuse, because I really, really don't believe in this enormous blundering apparatus that supposedly caused 9/11. The fact that the 9/11 commission was a horrible cover-up proves this, and the science of 9/11 really drives that home. As for the probability of coincidence: infinitesimal, in my opinion.

So in essence what I am saying is: how can we learn to put these questionable 'exposés' to effective use without poisoning the well, and contaminating the historical record? I simply have trouble believing a word these mofo's are saying. Long live forensic evidence, because you won't find a word about nano-thermite in any of these 'memoirs'.

Right-On SnowCrash

I don't believe a word the MSM says. They have sure perfected the art of lying. What ever they say you can believe it is just the opposite or close to it. Forensic evidence does not lie. Scientific fact is the only truth. It cannot be disputed. One and one is always two. Hit them with scientific fact and the whole 9/11 lie goes up in smoke. No one can debunk the laws of nature. 9/11 was an inside job! Case closed.

talking points seem to be the method

I believe that these so-called think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, that seemed to have popped up in the last 15 years or so, are in fact the source of the lies. I think they use talking points as their method of continuing the big lie. I also believe that 911 itself was planned by a think tank. Obviously PNAC comes to mind when thinking of a think tank in the same vein as 911, but they were just a subset of a larger think tank, I believe.

Has everyone noticed we really don't hear what the real purposes of these so-called think tanks actually are. We never really hear who is supporting them. I don't see what these organizations actually have to offer and am very suspicious that their real activities are developing the how to's and thinking through the ramifications of nefarious activity like 911.

Excellent Point, Tony

Excellent point, Tony. Think tanks and foundations seem to exert enormous influence over what we hear in the media, and just as important, what we don't hear. First we have corporate media monopolies which pose a threat. 5 corporations now control the majority of print and broadcast news outlets and their subsidiaries. And corporations are run from the top down-- unbelievable concentration of power here. Then there's CIA propaganda like "Operation Mockingbird," spreading misinformation via spook-controlled talking heads. And then there are the think tanks which operate behind the scenes with little scrutiny by the media they seem to dominate. These guys devise strategy and establish talking points, and engage in false debate to trick us further. The whole game is fixed. If someone gets too close to revealing the truth, the attack machine springs into action.

These people would like nothing better than for 9/11 Truth to get bogged down on exactly what al Qeada is and exactly what the warnings were all about. And talk about how the attacks were the result of the CIA and the FBI failing to communicate with each other. In other words a blame game about who wasn't doing their job well enough to protect us. What they don't want us to do is talk about the SCIENCE OF 9/11. They don't want to talk about Building 7, War Games, Norman Mineta, Molten Steel, and Nano-thermite. So this is what we need to do. Keep applying pressure where it hurts. Like a jujitsu expert grappling the bigger guy's pressure points until he taps out!
Remember Royce Gracie?

Nano-termite and jujitsu pressure-points

Yes, make them play our game, not vice-versa. They really do hate that nano-thermite subject; it's verboten all over the place, and it's been off-limits since way back, as evidenced by the threats made to Professor Jones (earliest coercions may have banned thermite discussion, but this morphed into nano-thermite as material analyses progressed).

Multiple think tanks? We can read from the PNAC. What about those we can't read from? Scary as hell.

The layers of lies, half-lies, incriminations that may sound severe to the uninformed, but which merely cover up the real and far more heinous crimes.... I've not read much Bob Woodward, but if I take a quick gander at anything recent of his, a few paragraphs or so, I seem to sense fake criticisms that feel like they're intended to misdirect (this magician stage word, the verb "misdirect," as to trick audience attention away from the central illusion, keeps popping up--like a gremlin, not a rabbit). And there are more important ones than Woodward. He comes to mind probably because he was once, it seemed, a good guy. Tony's idea of talking points is strong; the lying journalists don't have to know the truth, they're just told what to say, and the talking points create the illusion of historical actuality, when it's merely a verbalized agreement: a pseudo-reality inside peoples' brains.

The tactic and counterstrategy of applying pressure with the Science, nano-thermite, and the other jujitsu pressure points (thanks for the Gracie metaphor, RL), war games, etc., seem best.

Let's play OUR game, and not waste invaluable time with theirs.

PS about Woodward

I think of Woodward more for his cover-up lies about the invasion of Iraq. He just kind of popped into my mind. But he has made falsifications that bore directly on 9/11 as well.

(And, no, Nano-termite isn't a superhero, just a typo.)

Further clarification

As we know, Professor Jones was warned not to speak about thermite from early on. The more recent problem of discussing nano-thermite, is that prospective interviewers, including even National Geographic, expressly forbid it.

It's possible that's mentioned on his recent video. But I haven't been able to view it yet.

"Think Tanks"

That's the purpose to "Think TANKS!"

A good video on what it is all about

Below is a link to a pretty good short video of the case for it all being about oil


Here is also a little something about PNAC's parent organization the American Enterprise Institute.


One way to avoid speculation

is by pointing out inconsistencies/contradictions in the government's own account.

For example:

1)Clarke tells us the Clinton administration took the threat of al Qaeda very seriously.

2) The NSA tells us they ID'ed al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar as al Qaeda by listening to calls on the infamous Yemen hub.

3) The CIA tells us they were coming to the US but didn't inform the FBI.

This is a contradictory account. If the media with access to these officials were in fact real journalists then we might get past the contradictions and finally learn what was going on. Another reason we are stuck is because the Joint Inquiry and 9/11 Commission pretended the contradictions made sense and evidently refused to find out who was telling the truth.


that's the best way to use these inside stories, I agree.

Agreed, and I also like to use Peter Dale Scott's approach

Read these insider accounts very closely and see what they steer away from and then do as much research into those areas as you can, as these areas are often the most important.

The main problem I have when I read some of the insider accounts is tolerating the obvious bs enough to find the few nuggets of useful information usually contained in each book. It would be easier if they at least paid more attention to what the others are writing and made a greater effort to be consistent.

I would love to be able to depose twenty or so of these criminals and then use the various contradictions to tear the government's conspiracy theory to shreds.

Here's to a real investigation!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.