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

Richard Clarke - Page 5

post #161 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
No that's not why at all. You forget your history.

No, I did NOT forget my history. To what history are YOU elluding too BTW. I love these shallow assertions without justification. I take the time to justify myself why don't you?
"[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 #162 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
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.

This transcript did not bring this to a head. The Bush "Defense" to Clarke's "Alligations" brought this to a head. The Bush administration releasing the name of an annonomous source brought this to a head (remember Mrs. Plame?)
"[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 #163 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
[/B]

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #164 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
No that's not why at all. You forget your history.

P.S. there are other reasons such as the Neo-Con ideal of rebuilding the Middle East by establishing a US friendly democracy.
"[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 #165 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
P.S. there are other reasons such as the Neo-Con ideal of rebuilding the Middle East by establishing a US friendly democracy.

The US government helping promote US-friendly democracy?
Sounds good to me.

Unless it is like: "We're friends, right?"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #166 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
The US government helping promote US-friendly democracy?
Sounds good to me.

Unless it is like: "We're friends, right?"

Yeah, kind of like we used to be friends with Saddam.
"[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 #167 of 402
IF the enemy of my enemy is my friend, we are in bed with Saddam.
(Re: Iran, early 80s)


"Strange bedfollows" doesn't even START to describe that fscked up situation.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #168 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
No, I did NOT forget my history. To what history are YOU elluding too BTW. I love these shallow assertions without justification. I take the time to justify myself why don't you?

Please? You're taking a position and then gathering sand to support it. See if you can tell me. What country did the US fight a war against back in the early 90's? What country was in violation of cease fire agreements and UN resolution? What country did the US and UK have to patrol no fly zones over? What country was the US able to get support from its neighbors to invaded to end the rule of a dangerous dictator?

Answer all those questions and never again ask the stupid question of, " Why not Iran, Syria, Libya" and the like.
post #169 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Please? You're taking a position and then gathering sand to support it. See if you can tell me. What country did the US fight a war against back in the early 90's? What country was in violation of cease fire agreements and UN resolution? What country did the US and UK have to patrol no fly zones over? What country was the US able to get support from its neighbors to invaded to end the rule of a dangerous dictator?

Answer all those questions and never again ask the stupid question of, " Why not Iran, Syria, Libya" and the like.

OK killer, see if you van teel me which country in the history of the world has ended terrorism by acts of war? Which country is responsible for 911 (hint killer, its not Iraq). Which terrorsit group did we all but elliminate by not using war? This is all inconsequential because I asked a silly rhetorical question which you honed in on instead of addressing the issue of Clarke. Subterfuge...

Also, lets look back at the actual context of the question:

my initial respone:

Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did

was rhetorical in nature to:

According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

posted by deviant.

We had Saddam contained. He had no weapons programs as we have found, nor will they. The UN inspectors had said the same thing yet we still attacked.

Wow this sounds a lot like what Clarke is saying because we did focus our attention on a two-bit dictator instead of looking for and diisrupting global terrorism.

So, when was the last time you said to yourself "Saddam is the biggest threat to world safety." My guess is pretty often, but up to and following 911 most people would have pointed a finger at Al Qua'ida. Rember the Cole. An attack not carried out by Saddam. Rember the airbase in Saudi Arabia? Again not Saddam. Rember Kenya? Not Saddam. Rember the first WTC? Not Saddam.
"[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 #170 of 402
Oh you're still stuck on the whole Iraq==911 thing.

How about this. What country was the US in defending it against Iraq that got bin Laden so pissed off at us in the first place?
post #171 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
...
We had Saddam contained.


Your opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9

...

He had no weapons programs as we have found, nor will they. The UN inspectors had said the same thing yet we still attacked.

...

We did find weapons programs. Real and imagined. There's no doubt that Saddam was pursuing programs and would again as soon as he had the UN off his back and EU dollars from oil sales.
post #172 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Oh you're still stuck on the whole Iraq==911 thing.

How about this. What country was the US in defending it against Iraq that got bin Laden so pissed off at us in the first place?

No, our defense of Kuwait isn't what torqued Saddam. Or staying in Saudi Arabia after the war is what mad OBL mad. Why did Saddam enter Kuwait? Hmmmm. A little more history. Saddam attacked Kuwait because of the debts he encured during the war with Iran. The war were we played both sides of the fence...

My opinion was SH was contained. In the face of current evidence it seems he was also. How many WMD did we find? How many UAV's did we find. How many ICBM's did we find?

Also, you said Iraq == 911: That is counter to what I've stated. Iraq != 911. Saddam's harboring of one terrorist wanted by the US is no different than Syria, and Iran harboring terrorists.

Again, this is not about Clarke now is it? You seem to have a pention for diverting the conversation toward other ends.
"[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 #173 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Your opinion.



We did find weapons programs. Real and imagined. There's no doubt that Saddam was pursuing programs and would again as soon as he had the UN off his back and EU dollars from oil sales.

What weapons. The UN found weapons.... Hmmm, the UN inspections were working imagine that. Wait, lets not focus ourselves on the WOT and attack Iraq. Also, we were sold a war on immenenent threat. Asperations for weapons programs (BushCo shift in focus when they realized there were no programs) is not an immenent threat... N.Korea and Iran, now there are some weapons programs. I ask my question again. Why didn't we invade Iran? They harbor terrorists. They abducted US citizens. They had/have WMD programs. Why not Iran?
"[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 #174 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
No, our defense of Kuwait isn't what torqued Saddam. Or staying in Saudi Arabia after the war is what mad OBL mad.

OBL was pretty pissed off that we were desecrating the holly land.

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Why did Saddam enter Kuwait? Hmmmm. A little more history. Saddam attacked Kuwait because of the debts he encured during the war with Iran. The war were we played both sides of the fence...

Both sides? We helped Saddam with some intel. What did we do for Iran? Hostages for weapons?

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
My opinion was SH was contained. In the face of current evidence it seems he was also. How many WMD did we find? How many UAV's did we find. How many ICBM's did we find?

We found one rather unimpressive UAV and we all know about Saddam's missile program with North Korea. Not to mention the other weapons programs Saddam was trying to support while his people were suctioning off the money while doing nothing. That aint no contained. You're just saying that now to use as an excuse to be against the war. It's one of the lamest arguments going.

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Also, you said Iraq == 911: That is counter to what I've stated. Iraq != 911. Saddam's harboring of one terrorist wanted by the US is no different than Syria, and Iran harboring terrorists.

I didn't say Iraq==911. I said you are stuck on Iraq=911.

Also (and I already made this point) we didn't have troops and major air fields ready to go against those countries. Nor did we have neighboring countries that wanted to be rid ... do I have to go over it again?

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Again, this is not about Clarke now is it? You seem to have a pention for diverting the conversation toward other ends.

This thread was off track long ago. You're the one that mentioned all those other countries. So I answered you. Don't point the finger at me and call me off topic.
post #175 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
What weapons. The UN found weapons.... Hmmm, the UN inspections were working imagine that. Wait, lets not focus ourselves on the WOT and attack Iraq. Also, we were sold a war on immenenent threat. Asperations for weapons programs (BushCo shift in focus when they realized there were no programs) is not an immenent threat... N.Korea and Iran, now there are some weapons programs. I ask my question again. Why didn't we invade Iran? They harbor terrorists. They abducted US citizens. They had/have WMD programs. Why not Iran?

he said weapons programs, not weapons. you can have a program without having physical weapons to show for it.
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 #176 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
OBL was pretty pissed off that we were desecrating the holly land.



Both sides? We helped Saddam with some intel. What did we do for Iran? Hostages for weapons?



We found one rather unimpressive UAV and we all know about Saddam's missile program with North Korea. Not to mention the other weapons programs Saddam was trying to support while his people were suctioning off the money while doing nothing. That aint no contained. You're just saying that now to use as an excuse to be against the war. It's one of the lamest arguments going.



I didn't say Iraq==911. I said you are stuck on Iraq=911.

Also (and I already made this point) we didn't have troops and major air fields ready to go against those countries. Nor did we have neighboring countries that wanted to be rid ... do I have to go over it again?



This thread was off track long ago. You're the one that mentioned all those other countries. So I answered you. Don't point the finger at me and call me off topic.

Another point of history. Iran-Contra was significantly AFTER the Iran hostage situation. Plus we gave weapons as well as intel. We played both sides so that one wouldn't win with enough authory thus swinging the middle east one way or the other. Read my entire post also.
"[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 #177 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
he said weapons programs, not weapons. you can have a program without having physical weapons to show for it.

I know he said programs. And yes you can have a program without the weapon. My point was we were told it was an immenent treat because SH HAD the weapons. We had inspectors on the ground already. Sh had asperations for programs just like most two-bit dictators.
"[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 #178 of 402
Yes and Saddam was hiding the programs from them. 1441 violation!
post #179 of 402
I wasn't trying to substantiate either of your arguments, just clarifying what was said.
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 #180 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Yes and Saddam was hiding the programs from them. 1441 violation!

1441 wasn't authorization for war. If we had waited we could have gotten UN backing thus no 150BILLION debt paid for you and me.
"[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 #181 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I wasn't trying to substantiate either of your arguments, just clarifying what was said.

Ok, Thanks.
"[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 #182 of 402
Lets see what the Kay report says

Quote:
Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. Pretty un-immenent. Lets focus our attention on Iraq instead of OBL or other terrorist organizations (exactly what Clarke was complaining about).
"[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 #183 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Lets see what the Kay report says



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. ...

The UN? You gotta be kidding me. Saddam's own people were hurting the effort more than the UN. Shit the UN was FUNDING him with oil for "food".
post #184 of 402
If you want to throw around 1441 then you should remain consistent, no?!?!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #185 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
1441 wasn't authorization for war. If we had waited we could have gotten UN backing thus no 150BILLION debt paid for you and me.

Not while France and Russia had huge oil deals ready to go with Saddam.
post #186 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
The UN? You gotta be kidding me. Saddam's own people were hurting the effort more than the UN. Shit the UN was FUNDING him with oil for "food".


Right.... Who am I supposed to believe, the one time hawk turn Iraq war detractor Dr. David Kay, or some guy on the net.... My vote is to believe what Kay says. And Clarke, and 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 #187 of 402
Well you can look at what they found. Saddam actively pursuing weapons programs and waiting for the world to get bored with him. France and Russia were ready to fund Saddam's effort once the UN was off his back.

That stand off could only go one way. No more North Korea style stalemates in the post 9-11 era.
post #188 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Lets see what the Kay report says



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. Pretty un-immenent. Lets focus our attention on Iraq instead of OBL or other terrorist organizations (exactly what Clarke was complaining about).

I am going to say a little something on this subject, I know I am in for it, but:

Everyone, I mean everyone thought SH had weapons and programs. The UN did because they were conducting what? Say it with me. WEAPONS INSPECTIONS. They thought he had them.

The UN resolutions dictated that SH disarm in a verifiable manner. He did not. I think we all could agree about that.

If Saddam was bluffing to intimidate his enemies or his people or both, that is nobody's fault but SH's. There is no way to control that type of thing. If he actually thought that he could win against a full blown US military attack, that only proves he was delusional. Also note, who could control that? The fact was he WAS obstructing inspectors, breaking the ceasefire agreement, and supporting terrorists namely palestinian ones.

I don't know if I totally missed it or what, but when I heard Bush speak, it sounded like, to me, that risk was too great that this psycho, SH would pass off WMDs to terrorist groups.

Put yourself in GWB's shoes for a moment:

1. 9/11 happened. Those nuisance terror groups just became a real and visible threat. We found out in a real way that they were not just confined to overseas attacks. We also were just taught that these rag-tag band of thugs is a worldwide threat that was backed by rogue states. This war was now on our doorstep.

2. GWB already had this guy attempt to assassinate a president, no less than his father. I personally would use any power that I had to bring SH to justice if it was my father. So I see a good son in GWB. I may be way off in this one, but I don't see a problem with it, in light of everything else we know. Not to mention that SH has somehow avoided responsibility for so long.

3. SH has already used WMDs on no less than his own countrymen, no less. I don't think this can be stressed enough. Using them on an enemy that you are at war with is one thing, but inside his own country on people that are under his care. This frames his mindset very well. So using them on the "infidel" "devils" would not be to difficult a decision for him to make.

4. SH had already unprovoked attacked one of, if not more of our allies, namely Israel. This showed that he was willing to lash out against not only the US but our allies even if they had nothing to do with the US/Iraq conflict. Also goes to state of mind.

5. Terrorists had at least some degree of immunity in Iraq. In a big brother type state it is very unbelievable that SH did not know that they were there. And the new evidence showing that the 90's WTC bomber was put on the payroll, certainly points that he did. It is not unreasonable to think he may provide WMDs to them to assist. We know that Iraq provided training to terrorists.

6. SH vowed revenge for the first Gulf War. Given the other facts there is no reason not to believe he meant it or would follow through.

7. The UN felt he was hiding something. The US had every reason to believe that he was, since he would not fully disclose. Once again, how can you justify taking the chance that he did have them? As president that truly wanted to protect the US from this new threat, you can't.

Anti-war people here are saying bush was wrong to preemptively attack Iraq. I am not so sure. Because of the uncertainty of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver WMDs, coupled with the obvious risk of ignoring it, I contend that GWB had little choice but to rid the world of the threat, perceived or real.

If a man take you and your family hostage, makes it clear that he is willing to kill your whole family if need be, with a gun he has hidden behind his shirt, he is a legitimate threat even if his weapon is fake. There is no court in the free world that would hold you responsible for killing the guy if you got the chance. (minus the circuit court of appeals in San Fran.)

Just like that father that has a responsibility to protect his family from a threat real or perceived, GWB had that responsibility for a whole nation on his shoulders. Sometime if not many times preemptive action is what is needed.

If GWB had not gone and dealt with Iraq and an attack sponsored by them hit the US, the same people that are accusing the president of not doing enough about Al Qaeda before 9/11 would be doing the same thing about Iraq, not to mention the further damage to the economy. I think if you are honest you will agree.
post #189 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
[B]What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.

Definitely.

Quote:
Again, I agree to some extent. Rember, Islam is not some fly-by-night religion. It's been around for some time now, and has a sizeable following.

It's not that it's fly by night, it just seems to be having trouble adjusting---or maybe isn't built to make the jump---to a more individualistic culture. Christianity had it's reformation, which helped it away from the Romish model---I'm not certain Islam can "recompile" itself succesfully.

Quote:
Kudos. O'Neile had no real vested interest in releasing his documents for publication. He was old, and wealthy already.

I'll bet money O'Neil told Bush to shove it up his ass. (that might just be the thirtysomething in me)


On the Glue pict---I checked back a couple of times, and it wasn't until later that I noticed you post---no offense.

That photo had me in tears in and of itself.

Also, the Amercian Spectator had an interesting piece on GW before he was the favorite in 2000. It had some unflattering things to say about his days as a Texas Ranger owner, and how he drives a hard, hard bargain.

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 #190 of 402
Quote:
What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.
[/B]

The only problem is neither country has UN resolutions requiring full disclosure.
post #191 of 402
NaplesX:

Your arguments are of course reasonable and realistic with regard to invading Iraq. I wouldn't bother with reason here, though.

The drum beat is growing. Clarke may be going down. The GOP is not going to come out and basically accuse him of lying under oath without being damn sure. This man has repeatedly contradicted himself. However, the Bush haters are so desperate for someone to confim their ridiculous image of Bush, they'll listen to any "insider".

When one adds up the facts, Clarke is not credible. Nether is O'Neill. Clarke stands to profit from his allegations, as does the network that aired the 60 minutes interview. It's a complete crock of shit. Clarke was on the watch when many terror attacks happened, and now....let me get this straight...it's Bush's fault? Please.

As for O'Niell, the man was FIRED. Hmmm, perhaps he has some motivation to trash Bush? And let me ask....what exactly does the Treasury Secretary have to do with converstations about Iraq and Terrorism? He may have been at cabinet meetings, but does anyone really think this man knew the score on everything concerning the WOT? I don't think so.

Edit: Of course we all remember this same drill was repeated with O'Neill? 60 minutes interviewed him too...and gee, he had a book being published by a Viacom subsidiary too. Hmmm.
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 #192 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And let me ask....what exactly does the Treasury Secretary have to do with converstations about Iraq and Terrorism?

That's a good question.

Quote:
Edit: Of course we all remember this same drill was repeated with O'Neill? 60 minutes interviewed him too...and gee, he had a book being published by a Viacom subsidiary too. Hmmm.



I don't think that CBS or any of the old-timey latency media outlets could pass up so much as a disgruntled houskeeper. I can see it now---a three-segment expose on Slippery Minutes---


"now are you saying, that on multiple occasions that the president DID NOT clean his plate before dessert?....

[the camera tightens in as the subject contemplates the question---you can see the bottom lip start to tremble, ending in a hoarse answer..]

"...yes, multiple times."



At any rate, O'Neil apologized to some extent over the quotes. I don't think he backpeddeled on what he said, but I do think he was "hurt" by how viciously they were used agianst W.

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 #193 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
However, the Bush haters are so desperate for someone to confim their ridiculous image of Bush, they'll listen to any "insider".

Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #194 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?

That wasn't personal.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #195 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?

I'm not sure that is a personal attack, since noone specific is mentioned, unless you are a self identified "Bush hater".
post #196 of 402
I found this and I am digging for more info:

WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Seems it goes back even further.

This does not look good for clarke.

Seems kerry is backing away at light speed.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...3424CF47443FDE
post #197 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I'm not sure that is a personal attack, since noone specific is mentioned, unless you are a self identified "Bush hater".

I can non-specifically say that Bush lovers are blind morons that all derseve to be dropped into a pile of sheep poop. That would be part of the new banning rules.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #198 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
This does not look good for clarke.

Seems kerry is backing away at light speed.

Kerry's in good shape with this though. If Clarke lied under oath, Kerry's on the right side of the law. If the Republicans can't prove Clarke lied under oath then Kerry gets to share in the limelight.

Besides, if the Republicans prove he lied, he was their man too. He lied for them. That's not good for them anyway.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #199 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Besides, if the Republicans prove he lied, he was their man too. He lied for them. That's not good for them anyway.

Excellent point.
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 #200 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I found this and I am digging for more info:

WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Seems it goes back even further.

This does not look good for clarke.

Seems kerry is backing away at light speed.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...3424CF47443FDE [/B]

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of the article, though. From the article:
Quote:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says if the Bush administration can prove that former White House counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke lied under oath, then it should press charges.

During a television interview late Friday, Mr. Kerry challenged the administration to prove Mr. Clarke committed perjury.

I would not call that backing away, and definitely not backing away at light speed. I'd call that a challenge to put-up-or-shut-up.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Richard Clarke