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

Richard Clarke - Page 4

post #121 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Justify this.

I watched every minute of his testimony. And he basically said that he was asked to exaggerate or sell the bush standpoint and that this is just what you do when a president asks you to. He also said he has done this for other presidents.

I am not posting a link because his testimony is readily available and I don't want to participate in a "link" war that happens so many times.
post #122 of 402
He also acted as if it was no big deal. That was the impression that I got, anyway.
post #123 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I watched every minute of his testimony. And he basically said that he was asked to exaggerate or sell the bush standpoint and that this is just what you do when a president asks you to. He also said he has done this for other presidents.

I am not posting a link because his testimony is readily available and I don't want to participate in a "link" war that happens so many times.

Basically, is not a justification. He said he followed the party line while working for the WH. I already linked the transcript. He said he did what most people in politics do. They accentuate the positve, elliminate the negative.. As Baloo would say.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #124 of 402
Again, I'll raise the question. If Clake is so untrustworthy then why do his statements follow those said by O'Neill?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #125 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Basically, is not a justification. He said he followed the party line while working for the WH. I already linked the transcript. He said he did what most people in politics do. They accentuate the positve, elliminate the negative.. As Baloo would say.

But if he was 180 degrees from what he was saying why would he not just assign the job to his assistant or his assistant. The more he defend either stance the deeper he digs his hole IMO.
post #126 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Again, I'll raise the question. If Clake is so untrustworthy then why do his statements follow those said by O'Neill?

To use that line of thinking then you would have to concede that Bush is in the right because more than one person agrees with what he says and supports it.

They both agree, I am not sure that makes them right. It may justify further digging.
post #127 of 402
Quote:
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?


CLARKE: No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #128 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
But if he was 180 degrees from what he was saying why would he not just assign the job to his assistant or his assistant. The more he defend either stance the deeper he digs his hole IMO.

Because the August 2002 statement was put out by the WH where Clarke was the assigned "annonymous" source. The WH asked Clarke to follow the part line, and Clarke did. The WH outed Clarke the other day as the source of the statements true (again I linked to an article about the outing). I don't think it was a smart thing to do, but I know Clarke wasn't the first, wasn't the only and wont be the last Special assistante asked to tow the part line by focusing on the good things done by the administration while minimizing the negatives. I'm sure Powell has done the same. He was a noted advocate of diplomacy, yet he is on record making statements both for diplomacy, and war. I'll bet dollars to dougnuts (my opinion) Powell wasn't as warm to war as others in the administration, yet Powell being the good employee went ahead and spread the word for his employer nontheless.

Before I went back to school, I was an Engineer. To keep my projects going I had to resort to presenting the positive aspects while not focusing on the negatives as much. Most people do this. When you buy a used car do you expect someone to say "yeah its a rust bucket." No you expect "this is a classic" and "the engine purrs like a kitten."
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #129 of 402
Quote:

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Again, Clarke said he and both administrations failed. He's critical of Bush not for 911, but for the fixation on Iraq, and a preception of inaction toward terrorism from Al Qua'ida in general.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #130 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
To use that line of thinking then you would have to concede that Bush is in the right because more than one person agrees with what he says and supports it.

They both agree, I am not sure that makes them right. It may justify further digging.

No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #131 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Because the August 2002 statement was put out by the WH where Clarke was the assigned "annonymous" source. The WH asked Clarke to follow the part line, and Clarke did. The WH outed Clarke the other day as the source of the statements true (again I linked to an article about the outing). I don't think it was a smart thing to do, but I know Clarke wasn't the first, wasn't the only and wont be the last Special assistante asked to tow the part line by focusing on the good things done by the administration while minimizing the negatives. I'm sure Powell has done the same. He was a noted advocate of diplomacy, yet he is on record making statements both for diplomacy, and war. I'll bet dollars to dougnuts (my opinion) Powell wasn't as warm to war as others in the administration, yet Powell being the good employee went ahead and spread the word for his employer nontheless.

Before I went back to school, I was an Engineer. To keep my projects going I had to resort to presenting the positive aspects while not focusing on the negatives as much. Most people do this. When you buy a used car do you expect someone to say "yeah its a rust bucket." No you expect "this is a classic" and "the engine purrs like a kitten."

No, i don't agree with your assessment of why he did it. The WH could have gotten enyone to do that. If clarke disagreed and requested to be excused from that responsibility, what difference would that have made? I say none. It was from an anonymous source.

"I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me."

this statement to me shows he personally agrees with what is being said because he does not react as if he was speaking for anyone else there.

Throughout the interview he injects his opinion rather than just quoting from canned reasons and answers. Once again, that's the way I read it.
post #132 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.

That is not true. Clark and O'neil both get notorious mention and TV time and they both have Books to sell, this all helps. Money is money and it motivates, so does fame and power. All of these are in play here.
post #133 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.

Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
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 #134 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.

That is an understatement. The 2002 thing will haunt him if not sink him altogether.

No one likes weaseling people like this. He is a yes man.
post #135 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is not true. Clark and O'neil both get notorious mention and TV time and they both have Books to sell, this all helps. Money is money and it motivates, so does fame and power. All of these are in play here.

You honestly believe these guys are glory hounds? I serously doubt it. You thike they were banking on vast amounts of revenue from their books? Again, I dobt it. Both books will be off the national radar in a couple of weeks, and off the book selves in a year. They are not going to be $$$ makers except for the publishers. If these guys were motived as much as you think by the almighty $$$ then they would have stayed in corporate america (O'Neill) or left politics for CA (Clarke). Government jobs pay well, but executive jobs pay better. Royalties from one book may come in, but more money can be made (and with less public attention) in the business world. These guys could have taken multi-million $$ lobbiest jobs, but they didn't. They both went into less lucrative persuits and wrote books about what they felt their days with BushCo amounted to.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #136 of 402
BushCo is now officially the most overused catch phrase going right now.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #137 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.

If they Indict Clarke they'll have to indict ever WH SA because if you believe Condi, and Perle, and McClellan haven't done the same, then your diluding yourself.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #138 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.

The White House would be awfully foolish to let that sort of prosecution get underway since the discovery requests from Clarke's attorneys could prove rather uncomfortable for the White House.

Now, with respect to that backgrounder, Clarke has said that he was following orders to tell the truth, but with a spin, and did so. And it's worth noting that if that were a crime this White House would be emptied out pretty quickly. But let's set that aside for the moment.

Back up for a moment and look at what's happening here.

What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.

This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch.

We don't know what Condi Rice did because the documents haven't been released; nor have the minutes of meetings. Nor will she testify in public or even privately under oath.

Talking Points Memo
"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 #139 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
You honestly believe these guys are glory hounds? I serously doubt it. You thike they were banking on vast amounts of revenue from their books? Again, I dobt it. Both books will be off the national radar in a couple of weeks, and off the book selves in a year. They are not going to be $$$ makers except for the publishers. If these guys were motived as much as you think by the almighty $$$ then they would have stayed in corporate america (O'Neill) or left politics for CA (Clarke). Government jobs pay well, but executive jobs pay better. Royalties from one book may come in, but more money can be made (and with less public attention) in the business world. These guys could have taken multi-million $$ lobbiest jobs, but they didn't. They both went into less lucrative persuits and wrote books about what they felt their days with BushCo amounted to.

People have done worse for less. You cannot count it out.

I have heard people say that Cheney promoted this war so his buddies would profit. That is much less a reason than money in pocket. Yet this theory is constantly brought up in these forums. Look at what people do to get their mug on TV, like survivor and Idol and the like. Do you think that clarke is being sought by any media outlets for his sheer good looks?
post #140 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
The White House would be awfully foolish to let that sort of prosecution get underway since the discovery requests from Clarke's attorneys could prove rather uncomfortable for the White House.

Now, with respect to that backgrounder, Clarke has said that he was following orders to tell the truth, but with a spin, and did so. And it's worth noting that if that were a crime this White House would be emptied out pretty quickly. But let's set that aside for the moment.

Back up for a moment and look at what's happening here.

What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.

This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch.

We don't know what Condi Rice did because the documents haven't been released; nor have the minutes of meetings. Nor will she testify in public or even privately under oath.

Talking Points Memo

This 9/11 board has no intentions of finding the truth, or fixing anything. These are just more politicians making a big spectacle of pretending to care.
post #141 of 402
Quote:
The difference in the Bush administration, Clarke says, is that it didn't consider the threat urgent, even though he and others were saying it needed immediate attention. Bush said as much to journalist Bob Woodward.*"I was not on point" on terrorism, he said. "I didn't feel the sense of urgency."

*Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"

Edit: emphasis mine.
post #142 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
People have done worse for less. You cannot count it out.

I have heard people say that Cheney promoted this war so his buddies would profit. That is much less a reason than money in pocket. Yet this theory is constantly brought up in these forums. Look at what people do to get their mug on TV, like survivor and Idol and the like. Do you think that clarke is being sought by any media outlets for his sheer good looks?

Again, your assuming these guys are glory hounds. I don't think either man is an American Idol, or Survivor. I think one was a career politician, and the other was an on again off again politician/businessman.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #143 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"

He says he didn't FEEL the urgency. That says nothing to the facts.
post #144 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Again, your assuming these guys are glory hounds. I don't think either man is an American Idol, or Survivor. I think one was a career politician, and the other was an on again off again politician/businessman.

But you cannot honestly write off the allure of fame and the prestige of being a best selling author.
post #145 of 402
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.

What are we going to do from here on out?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #146 of 402
Yeah, Clarke just wants publicity. I'm sure he's "loving" the Administration's incesant character assassination attacks.
post #147 of 402
Naples isn't claiming it is without a doubt his motives. He's saying how about it gets taken into consideration?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #148 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, Clarke just wants publicity. I'm sure he's "loving" the Administration's incesant character assassination attacks.

But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.
post #149 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Naples isn't claiming it is without a doubt his motives. He's saying how about it gets taken into consideration?

Thank you.

edit: and not dismissed because none of us know.
post #150 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.

Think it through, sparky. In the time frame that Clarke would have been writing his book, Bush was riding high. His approval ratings were up. There was still wide-spread support for the invasion of Iraq. Polls showed that if nothing else, the American public saw him as an effective leader in the war on terror.

So Clarke thinks to self: "Hmmm, I'll think I'll write a book to make lots of money. Let's see, I'll make it fly in the face of the popular mood, and rag on a popular president. Yeah! that's the ticket!".

And O'Neil? A wealthy man, who decided book profits would be just the thing to redecorate his bedroom, I guess.

And the other Bush insiders that tell the same story, as Faust9 keeps tirelessly pointing out? Did they all get together in a secret cave, or something, and conspire to bring down the pres?

Most of you aren't really arguing anymore, there's just this robotic contentiousness. People who criticize Bush are full of shit, greedy, sex-starved geeks (?), dupes of the DNC, liars, and fools. To a man. Regardless of there past, their ideology , their record of service, or corraborating accounts .

The truth can't be known because things are complicated and everybody makes mistakes and it remains to seen and Bush bashers just wanna have fun.

Fox news in an unimpeachable primary source while the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and anybody other than Fox I left out are all part of the liberal media conspiracy and can be safely dismissed out of hand.

Like I said in a previous post, we've reached the la la part of supporting these polices, where larger and larger chunks of what we used to think of as reality have to be dismissed, refuted, slandered or denied in order to keep on believing.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #151 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.

What are we going to do from here on out?

Right-O. The only cognative solution to 911 thus far was posting the pictures of the two wanted terrorist in every building and airport. That didn't happen, so the attack occured (No fault of Bush BTW).

What are we going to do? Elect someone else (abstain from voting in my case as a protest because I don't feel right about voting for Kerry, but I defenetly dislike Bush). Get the US out of Iraq, and the UN in order to help foot the bill (don't bitch about UN corruption either. We have corruption here as well.) Hopefully enact sweeping socio-political change in order to weaken the drift toward islamic fundamentalism (READ tell Saudi Arabia straighten up or face UN sanctions beleive me SA would not like sanctions). Take all steps possible to end the intefada (I don't know how we'll do this though). Try to get industry into the middle east. These are some of my crazy ideas.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #152 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Think it through, sparky. In the time frame that Clarke would have been writing his book, Bush was riding high. His approval ratings were up. There was still wide-spread support for the invasion of Iraq. Polls showed that if nothing else, the American public saw him as an effective leader in the war on terror.

So Clarke thinks to self: "Hmmm, I'll think I'll write a book to make lots of money. Let's see, I'll make it fly in the face of the popular mood, and rag on a popular president. Yeah! that's the ticket!".

And O'Neil? A wealthy man, who decided book profits would be just the thing to redecorate his bedroom, I guess.

And the other Bush insiders that tell the same story, as Faust9 keeps tirelessly pointing out? Did they all get together in a secret cave, or something, and conspire to bring down the pres?

Most of you aren't really arguing anymore, there's just this robotic contentiousness. People who criticize Bush are full of shit, greedy, sex-starved geeks (?), dupes of the DNC, liars, and fools. To a man. Regardless of there past, their ideology , their record of service, or corraborating accounts .

The truth can't be known because things are complicated and everybody makes mistakes and it remains to seen and Bush bashers just wanna have fun.

Fox news in an unimpeachable primary source while the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and anybody other than Fox I left out are all part of the liberal media conspiracy and can be safely dismissed out of hand.

Like I said in a previous post, we've reached the la la part of supporting these polices, where larger and larger chunks of what we used to think of as reality have to be dismissed, refuted, slandered or denied in order to keep on believing.

Most insider books do well. So it matters not when he started writing.

Regardless of his reasons, he has a history that contradicts with other points in time. He may be a smart person in one aspect but that does not automatically make everything he does smart.

He is not credible if you have to say " that did not count, just ignore that" or "he only said that to keep his job". If he lied to save a job then he will lie to fill his pockets. So lets move on. He is not credible, and I really don't care why he said what.
post #153 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.

See, Naples, this is the kind of thing that gets so tiresome. Gilsch alludes to the character assasinations that Clarke is enduring. As anybody with a pulse can attest, these have been constant, have taken many forms, and come almost too fast to keep track of.

Your response? "But Fox found the transcript..." as if that were the beginning and end of the white house attack. You've simultaneously truncated and deformed (the white house putting a name on an anonymous backgrounder is the actual problem) the subject, encouraging yet another side bar into pointlessness.

You are free to argue your point as you see fit, but this stuff is like pouring mud on trail we're trying to hike.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #154 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Most insider books do well. So it matters not when he started writing.

Regardless of his reasons, he has a history that contradicts with other points in time. He may be a smart person in one aspect but that does not automatically make everything he does smart.

He is not credible if you have to say " that did not count, just ignore that" or "he only said that to keep his job". If he lied to save a job then he will lie to fill his pockets. So lets move on. He is not credible, and I really don't care why he said what.

Define "well". How much money can he expect to make?

Your assertion is that his motivation is greed, or some unintelligable conflation of what you consider his credibility "problems" and greed. So what's the going price of ending 30 years of public service by publishing a book full of lies?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #155 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.

What are we going to do from here on out?

Your guess is as good, or bad as anyone's. You simply don't know. We simply don't know. No one will ever know if 9/11 could've been prevented.

And I agree, we would not have invaded Iraq then because the american public would not have gone along with it then. Unless......
Quote:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor..."

"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

-- from "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September, 2000.

Go read up on PNAC. Their blue-print is still there. [QUOTE]PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.
post #156 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
See, Naples, this is the kind of thing that gets so tiresome. Gilsch alludes to the character assasinations that Clarke is enduring. As anybody with a pulse can attest, these have been constant, have taken many forms, and come almost too fast to keep track of.

Your response? "But Fox found the transcript..." as if that were the beginning and end of the white house attack. You've simultaneously truncated and deformed (the white house putting a name on an anonymous backgrounder is the actual problem) the subject, encouraging yet another side bar into pointlessness.

You are free to argue your point as you see fit, but this stuff is like pouring mud on trail we're trying to hike.

The white house has a right to defend itself. This guy clarke is very questionable. When you come out against any presidency, right or wrong, you can expect the same. Look at some of the detractors of the clinton WH. This is what happens. The reaction by the white house does not automatically mean it is in the wrong.
post #157 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.

wtf are you talking about? Every Republican, on every tv show was bashing him even before Fox "found" anything.
post #158 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The white house has a right to defend itself. This guy clarke is very questionable. When you come out against any presidency, right or wrong, you can expect the same. Look at some of the detractors of the clinton WH. This is what happens. The reaction by the white house does not automatically mean it is in the wrong.

Fine.

However, that has nothing to do with what I said.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #159 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
I take exception to that. There are weaker strawmen out there. I asked the question rhetorically because the actual answer is Syria didn't have the name brand recognition as Iraq. Gadaffi had drifder from the radar years ago. Iran has a ineffectual elected president so justifying invasion would be tough. Iraq was easy. Iraq was in the radar prior to 911. That's why Iraq.

...

No that's not why at all. You forget your history.
post #160 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Fine.

However, that has nothing to do with what I said.

It does, you say they are character assassinations, I say they are the white house defending itself, or a little of both.

The transcript that fox produced brought this all to a head, that is why I use that as a reference.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Richard Clarke