or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Richard Clarke
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Richard Clarke

post #1 of 402
Thread Starter 
[Sorry for the title Typo, if a mod could add the "e" at the end of Clarke, please...][Taken care of]Fellows

Well I can say the man has my respect for now. I've been watching some of the other people testify in front of the comission the past two days, but I was particularly interested in seeing how convincing Clarke was in front of this panel. I was particularly unimpressed by George Tenet who frequently threw his hands up (or down) and said "gee I don't know" or "ask someone else" during this morning's session. I was hoping to get something different from Clark and I did. In spades.

I've never been one to run right out and buy the latest book on political scandal or the like, and I haven't yet read Clarke's book...

...I must say though, he took all of the badgering from James Thomson (who regretably came off as someone who was interested less in obtaining valuable information from Clarke, and more interested in making him look bad with snide comments... being from Illinois I was a embarrased) with great poise. He took their baited questions, answered them logically and stared them right in the eye all the while.

The dead silence after he mentioned the President as having undermined the WOT by handling the Iraq situation as he did, was just... compelling. Clarke didn't even blink (seemed like about 20 seconds), as the panel took in what he said and tried to regain their train of thought. This guy was 100% sincere in his criticisms and disappointment in the whole situation leading to 9/11; he is clearly not some political tool of John Kerry or anyone else. To say otherwise is to reveal nothing but the political motive of discrediting him.

Overall I was impressed with his answers and am more -- and not less --compelled to read his book (which I figured I would be less compelled). The man obviously has no gripe against GOP leadership of this country in general, given his track record under Republican administrations and his own stated affiliaition (Republican). What's more he obviously was not covering his own ass in any respect I could discern... unlike Tenet, who seemed to dodge every other question.

Thus it seems to me whatever criticisms are in his book ought to at least be read and considered in the grand scheme of things this year.

How many experts and respected officials do we need to resign from the Bush Administration before the GOP die-hards in this country start to recognize there is a real problem and its not just politics as usual? Aside from the four high ranking officials from the EPA who have left (all calling Bush's policies deeply flawed and geared toward corporate interests), and the former Secretary of the Treasury... we now have Richard Clarke.

Are we to believe that all of these people simply did their jobs badly in the end, and so quit and criticized Bush as a matter of sour grapes and nothing more?? To anyone who wants to believe that, I recommend therapy. Denial and all that....
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #2 of 402
I agree. The man is very sincere, and of all the criticism I've read about him, so many people just seem to be plugging their ears to what he has to say. They would just as soon toss him into the "ignore" pile based entirely off of misconception and bias.

On 60 minutes, he looked so...sad and angry, it was really interesting to watch, Almost as if he was on the verge of tears.

Not that what he's saying will have any effect on those that are firmly committed to their stance(either way) but maybe it will prompt some people otherwise removed from such events to take note and start thinking.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #3 of 402
What did he say? Any transcripts?
post #4 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
What did he say? Any transcripts?

I'm sure there will be transcripts by the end of the day. From what I saw Mr. Clarke's testimony was very powerful. He documented how the Clinton Administration handled terrorism and how the Bush Administration handled it. From what I got the Clinton Administration wanted to do more, but couldn't because of political and intelligence reasons. For instance no one in government knew that AlQ existed until 1995 even after the first WTC bombing. Similarly, operating in a post Cold War environment put a tremendous amount of focus on technological intelligence gathering rather than personal intelligence gathering. The Bush Administration continued what Clinton was doing, but ignored the new warnings. The most powerful item was some of the language that Clarke used in a memo that came out of a September 4th 2001 meeting, that he had been requesting since January 24th 2001, with the principals which warned of a terrible attack resulting in massive amounts of American deaths.

He also had a convincing description on why the both administrations didn't put two and two together with respect to hijacking a plane and using it as a missile.

There was also a very candid response when asked if he had every tool available and the inter-agency cooperation that he was asking for, would it have been preventable. He answered with a flat "no". He took responsible for the things that he could have done to prevent it, but acknowledged that there was not much that the Bush Administration could have done to prevent it even if they had listened to him on January 24th and not September 4th.

Finally he handled the criticism aimed his way very professionally. When asked about a 2002 Time interview in which he praised the way the Bush Administration was handling the WoT, he said what people in his position rarely say, namely that he was serving at the leisure of the President and he knew that it was his duty as a member of the administration to make the news as positive as possible. I can't remember another official from any administration saying under oath that he was spinning the news to suit his boss.

Bravo Mr. Clarke, America needs more civil servants like you.

edit: I wanted to add that I had no idea that there were two submarines, loaded with Cruse missiles, parked off the coast of Pakistan ready to strike terrorists in Afghanistan if they had "actionable intelligence".
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
post #5 of 402
Thread Starter 
There is a transcript of the entire day's proceeding (80-some pages worth I think) at the NYT.com site... I read most of yesterday's transcript last night, as a precursor to today's events.

I really wish (as all members of the panel did) that Condy Rice had the decency to get in front of these people and answer their questions. All this BS from the administration about there being some sort of conflict of interest is a load. There are several past precedents with Watergate and other issues, that were examined by commissions like this, where someone in her position / relationship to the President testified.

Her not being there is clearly an attempt to dodge a bullet by the administration. If Powell and Tenet and all the other "principles" can get up there, why not Rice? There's not a single good reason I've heard... she needs to do this before the commission makes its conclusions, and publicly.

Back to Clarke: another reason I was impressed... was the ONLY person testifying (either day), or among anyone in the ROOM for that matter, who had the balls to apologize to the families of the victims. He came right out and said "your government failed you... and I failed you" and that his intention with this was partly to get all the facts out, so that perhaps at some point the victims' families would forgive him. He was anything but dodgy.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #6 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
Her not being there is clearly an attempt to dodge a bullet by the administration. If Powell and Tenet and all the other "principles" can get up there, why not Rice? There's not a single good reason I've heard... she needs to do this before the commission makes its conclusions, and publicly.

Testifying before Congress doesn't make a candidate look presidential.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #7 of 402
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #8 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
I've met the man. He is an arrogant blowhard that has an agenda that did not match with either of the past two administration, hence his inexorable shuffle to the outer circle of "advisors", a process that started shortly following Clintons second inaguration. He is also very good at the tactic of putting forth his viewpoint with seemingly genuine confidence. A gift, but it does not make him correct on any particular topic.

Ok, let's see you prove him incorrect then. Honestly interested.

By the way, what "agenda" are you referring to? About the "arrogant blowhard" description, who cares. He wasn't getting paid to kiss babies.
post #9 of 402
Been watching Fox and listening to the background tape where he was interviewed back in 2002.

He sure is singing a different tune now than then.

Wow.
post #10 of 402
It's almost a complete contradiction. Hard for him to explain away. Within a short amount of time Bush made decisions that Clinton left hanging for years. Reformed a plan to eliminate bin Laden et al. Now Clarke is saying Bush was too slow and didn't do enough. Smells fishy.


Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
post #11 of 402
Thanks for the link Scott.

Both administrations made mistakes.

There is just to much beaurocracy in government, on both sides, for anything to happen quickly.

They just lingered unattended for a very LONG time under Clinton.

Bush did act upon quicker but the attack occured under his watch so the media is focusing on that.

Al Qaeda infiltrated the country along time before Bush got in.

I wonder what Gore would have done after 9/11.
post #12 of 402
It really isn't relevent what Gore would have done...

What is relevent is what Bush could have done, and what Clinton could have done...
post #13 of 402
Fair enuff.
post #14 of 402
Quote:

And he discussed that today. But let's ignore all that.
post #15 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And he discussed that today. But let's ignore all that.

Oh yes...he explained it. Right. Case closed.

Oh, and the resignation letter too. mmmm. Probably nothing.

Oh, and CBS made an "oversight" in not telling folks Viacom stood to profit from his book. I'm sure it's nothing.

Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.

Oh, oh....and I almost forgot: The man "fought" terror for eight years under Clinton, was in power when the US was attacked in 1993, 1998 and 2000. But I'm sure Bush is the problem.

OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
Both administrations made mistakes.

This is what was compelling to me about his testimony. In the end, he wasn't what I thought was someone making sensational claims, just someone who was frustrated with two Administrations (one Republican, one Democrat) that considered terrorism an important but not vital issue. He's doing the "I told you so" game too, but I think he seems to have some backbone to come out and say it plainly. We failed and 9/11 is evidence of our misplaced priorities.
post #17 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.


the publishing date was held back because the white house had to go over the manuscript for national security purposes.
they wanted it out before christmas.


from salon interview:

Quote:
Why did you write the book now? That's a question they raise. Did it occur to you that this would be an election year and it would be especially controversial because of that, and that these commission hearings were coming up?


I wanted the book to come out much earlier, but the White House has a policy of reviewing the text of all books written by former White House personnel -- to review them for security reasons. And they actually took a very long time to do that. This book could have come out much earlier. It's the White House that decided when it would be published, not me. I turned it in toward the end of last year, and even though there was nothing in it that was not already obviously unclassified, they took a very, very long time.
post #18 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.

Stop whining and get your facts straight. The White House has to "clear" books like Clarke's(and they took a while on this one.) so go ahead and blame the WH. Ooooops.

Edit: hadn't noticed Super's post.
Thanks for the quote.
post #19 of 402
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #20 of 402
hey i have an idea for everyone: move on!

its so easy to look back and say "oh we could have done _______ to stop the attacks." you know though, if we had taken out somebody before 9/11 or stopped the terrorists from boarding those planes, people would be outraged because we "deprived them of their rights." 9/11 happened, we screwed up, move on.
post #21 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
Had he been consistently correct in his analysis and advice (before, not after the fact) he would have become a very trusted and listened to advisor--even if what he said in those private meetings wasn't what leaders wanted to hear--they do listen to those with proven credibility. But for the last four years, and two administrations he has not been the inner-advisor he started out as. I contend there are two reasons, he was wrong too often and his often grating attitude made him a person many folks just didn't want around as there was no inherent benefit to subjecting themselves to his presence.

Except that we also have another one of Bush's appointees to that position saying the exact same thing.

And a cabinet secretary.

And a slew of other officials.

Not to mention Foster.
Quote:
they do listen to those with proven credibility.

You should have left this out of your post, since it is clearly false.
post #22 of 402
Quote:

From the transcript:
Quote:
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?

CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...

THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.

CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.

THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?

CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.

THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.

CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.

THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)

THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
post #23 of 402
Giant, I think you are confusing the "committee persona" with the reality of the individual. I've seen administration fodder who are of THE MOST arrogant, and mediocre quality (who I've personally seen in day to day administration activities) get up in front of say, a nomination commitee, and look like pure gold. It's a gift.


Edit: And when you get to that level of the power circle, all of those people have that gift to one extent or another. It can literally make you nausous.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #24 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Giant, I think you are confusing the "committee persona" with the reality of the individual. I've seen administration fodder who are of THE MOST arrogant, and mediocre quality (who I've personally seen in day to day administration activities) get up in front of say, a nomination commitee, and look like pure gold. It's a gift.

I've said absolutely nothing about his personality here, so maybe you addressed me by mistake.
post #25 of 402
Thread Starter 
Look I don't dispute for one second that the guy has a talent for talking about difficult issues in a calm and collected manner, but face it: no one gets into the White House and subsequently in front of microphones unless they can do that.

I believe the exchange between Mr. Thompson and Mr. Clarke highlighted this perfectly. The whole Fox thing is a joke, and Fox itself is somewhat responsible for taking a press release / briefing and spinning it into "hard hitting news". Don't overlook their irresponsibility in all this. We all know Fox has not the world's greatest reputation when it comes to accurate reporting. One of the panel members pointed this out specifically, and got some public applause for it if I recall.

Anyway, the point is, to discredit everything this man has testified to (press releases and briefings are spin-vehicles, not sworn testimony... of which this man has given many hours willingly), just because he did his job with the press two years ago is hypocritical in the extreme.

That is, unless we're also willing to discredit for the same reasons Condy Rice, Rumsfeld (who has contradicted himself numerous times), Cheney, Tenet, and a large host of other people who, when queried by the press about some harsh issue, INVARIABLY put the best spin on it they can and try mightily to not bring up certain phrases or words that might trigger more tough questions.

It's what these people do. All of them to one degree or another. Is that sad and bad news for us as the people being "served" by government? Abosolutely it is sad. But now you're talking about a systemic problem, not something brought on by one individual in one administration. Big change is needed but that's a topic for another thread.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #26 of 402
I'm not trying to discredit the guy, he had his job for quite some time, so he must have had some aptitude for his work.

But

To get on these threads and effectively separate him from the political culture that created him---and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias---just trying to show how inane the Bush administration is---just trying to win one for the 9/11 victims---is not realistic.

He oversaw his own period of ineptness, which through a confluence (conflagration?) of groupthink and a lot of technical issuses, somehow allowed al-Qeada to have people in-country prior to Bush coming into office.

This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #27 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Except that we also have another one of Bush's appointees to that position saying the exact same thing.

And a cabinet secretary.

And a slew of other officials.

Not to mention Foster.
post #28 of 402
post #29 of 402
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.

Hmm. Maybe I did a poor job of originally stating my case. I don't even contend that this guy didn't make mistakes / have his own flaws. I guess what I see is, a political "lifer" who has come out of the woodwork and basically laid bare a number of disturbing patterns and problems with our system of dealing with terrorists. It isn't too common, now matter how arrogant the guy may or may not be (as was earlier stated for example).

On a personal level he probably is arrogant. And relative to all of us personally, MOST of these people we're seeing conduct this commission would be considered arrogant I think. Most of these people aren't going to stoop to the level of asking us to join their "insider threesome" on the first tee, if you take my meaning (even if they're not talking business).
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #30 of 402
post #31 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
Hmm. Maybe I did a poor job of originally stating my case. I don't even contend that this guy didn't make mistakes / have his own flaws. I guess what I see is, a political "lifer" who has come out of the woodwork and basically laid bare a number of disturbing patterns and problems with our system of dealing with terrorists. It isn't too common, now matter how arrogant the guy may or may not be (as was earlier stated for example).

On a personal level he probably is arrogant. And relative to all of us personally, MOST of these people we're seeing conduct this commission would be considered arrogant I think. Most of these people aren't going to stoop to the level of asking us to join their "insider threesome" on the first tee, if you take my meaning (even if they're not talking business).


I agree.


(hey giant, hell hath no fury like an NSA scorned)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #32 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh yes...he explained it. Right. Case closed.

Oh, and the resignation letter too. mmmm. Probably nothing.

Irrelevant. Boilerplate resignation letter.

Quote:
Oh, and CBS made an "oversight" in not telling folks Viacom stood to profit from his book. I'm sure it's nothing.

Irrelevant. The book and the hearing would've taken place regardless of the TV show.

Quote:
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.

The White House determined when the book would be released. They have a right to thoroughly review the book for national security issues before it can be published. They took an unusually long time to release the book. Therefore, the release of the book was at their determination, not Clarke's.

Quote:
Oh, oh....and I almost forgot: The man "fought" terror for eight years under Clinton, was in power when the US was attacked in 1993, 1998 and 2000. But I'm sure Bush is the problem.

Irrelevant. Republicans weakened Clinton to the point that he could not attack OBL or Afghanistan because of the right wing "Wag the Dog" argument.

Quote:
OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #33 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I'm not trying to discredit the guy, he had his job for quite some time, so he must have had some aptitude for his work.

But

To get on these threads and effectively separate him from the political culture that created him---and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias---just trying to show how inane the Bush administration is---just trying to win one for the 9/11 victims---is not realistic.

He oversaw his own period of ineptness, which through a confluence (conflagration?) of groupthink and a lot of technical issuses, somehow allowed al-Qeada to have people in-country prior to Bush coming into office.

This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.

Wow, it's amazing how the "Blame America's Ex-President's First" crowd suffers from mass amnesia.

Incredible how Republican's dismiss a man who gave 30 years to public service for The God Formerly Known as Reagan, Daddy Bush, Bubba and Bunnypants. They complete dismiss how Clarke helped Clinton foil the millennium plots to destroy the Seattle Space Needle, the LAX bombing, and several planned mass hijackings.

The CIA completely fvcks up Clinton and Clarke's orders to assassinate OBL and his henchmen, Clinton tries bombing them, and the right wing attack machines goes full force into WAG THE DOG, weakens Clinton politically to the point that he no longer can pursue his plan because Newt Gingrich screamed "Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and we have no right to attack targets there."

But, hey. Clarke's an evil money grubbing unethical opportunist trying to get a job on the Kerry campaign.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #34 of 402
Dick Clarke's American Grandstand indeed. He just seems to me to be a disgruntled man who wants to tell the world "I told you so" with glorious 20/20 hindsight and sell some books while hes at it. Performance in front of the committee doesn't dismiss his contradictions and obviously biased point of view.

Contradictions? The August 2002 briefing shows Clark singing a different tune. At the very least, what he said must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.

Not biased you say? Bull. Why all the criticism of Bush's whopping 7 months prior to 9/11? Why not point to all the mis-steps during his years under the Clinton administration? How he excuses Clinton's non-response to the Khobar Towers, USS Cole attacks and others. Could it be that he was demoted when Bush took office? Nawwww...

First Bushies are criticized for their policies of preemption and unilateralism and now the bandwagon is criticizing them for not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda immediately after coming into office in January 2001. Seeing the liberals jump on the Clark bandwagon just re-affirms to me that most of left-wingers here are simply anti-Bush with no regards for anything else. Make up your mind please.

I haven't read the full Clark transcripts yet... did they ask him any of THESE QUESTIONS?
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #35 of 402
When Tony Blair was elected (I was allowed -- and did -- vote for him), I was exstatic. We had a progressive, smart, humane human as leader of the country I live in. And a pro-European too. A friend of similar, progressive leaders all over the planet. I stuck up for him when ever anyone said things like, "He's a dangerous guy because he believes his own lies" or "he's an opportunist from hell you know."

It took me a good 4 years to realise that he wasn't what I thought he was. It took the war on Iraq for me to really open my eyes and see that for whatever reason, he'd aligned himself with the most right-wing leader of the US in its history, and was an appalling deciever of himself and the world, and was engaged in a path of incredible danger.

Some of y'all should try opening your eyes, thinking for yourself. It's liberating.

It's not just TWO heads of counter-terrorism, a cabinet sec., a Pentagon official and a bunch of other people saying it, *THE NEO-CONS PUBLISHED A PAPER ON IT* saying that Iraq should be a priority. They TOLD you THEMSELVES and still you don't believe you were lied to about WMD -- where are they by the way? -- and you actually think invading Iraq diminished the threat from al Qaeda. You actually believe this.

THEY WEREN'T THERE BEFORE WE INVADED.

Astonishing.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #36 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
He just seems to me to be a disgruntled man who wants to tell the world "I told you so" with glorious 20/20 hindsight and sell some books while hes at it.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Except that we also have another one of Bush's appointees to [chief counter-terrorism advisor] saying the exact same thing.

And a cabinet secretary.

[Hart and Rudman]

And a slew of other officials.

Not to mention Foster.
post #37 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
THESE QUESTIONS?

You should be aware that the private citizen the author disusses is the author himself! That Sudan issue has been beaten into the ground, and the only two still harping about it are Ijaz (who wanted to profit from it) and Mylroie, neo-con conspiracy theorist extrodinaire.

And Pakistani nukes to al-qaeda are a Clinton issue?!

Bizzaro world indeed.
post #38 of 402
Got any links for us Giant? I'd be curious to see who agrees with him on what?
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #39 of 402
Got any links for us Giant? I'd be curious to see who agrees with Clarke on what?

Also I did know who wrote that article above. I thought it was appropriate given subject Clarke and his book. :P
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #40 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
Got any links for us Giant? I'd be curious to see who agrees with him on what?



Like this stuff hasn't been front page news for the past year?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Richard Clarke