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

Richard Clarke - Page 6

post #201 of 402
The worst thing you can say about Bush is that he didn't fire Clarke when he took office.
post #202 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of the article, though. From the article:
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.

Maybe what I should have said is he was distancing himself.

You may be right.
post #203 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
The worst thing you can say about Bush is that he didn't fire Clarke when he took office.

You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.

They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.

Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.
post #204 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?

This wasn't a personal attack in any way. And, I stand by my statement. As for your subsequent post, that IS a personal attack. I did not name call.
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 #205 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.

They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.

Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.

You are clearly delluded. . . .solidarity?!?!? you must be kidding

are all of the perceptions this far off base?
"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 #206 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
You are clearly delluded. . . .solidarity?!?!? you must be kidding

are all of the perceptions this far off base?

Yeah, pretty much.
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 #207 of 402
Now it "turns" out the guy who was obviously good enough to serve in 2 previous Republican administrations should've been fired and not trusted ...simply because he also served under Clinton. LMAO
Nevermind he's a Republican who voted Republican as late as 2000. ....Oh, ok, but...uh, but...
post #208 of 402
Clarke's a liar!

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 #209 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Clarke's a liar!



No he's not!!




OMG I'm arguing with myself!!

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 #210 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Now it "turns" out the guy who was obviously good enough to serve in 2 previous Republican administrations should've been fired and not trusted ...simply because he also served under Clinton. LMAO
Nevermind he's a Republican who voted Republican as late as 2000. ....Oh, ok, but...uh, but...

He said his state's law required him to register that way for some weird reason, but he did not make a clear statement about which party he is in.

As far as being good enough, Bush was good enough when he went into afghanistan, everyone loved him and now that has changed. Just because this guy survived through a couple of administrations does not mean that he still cuts the mustard.
post #211 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
He said his state's law required him to register that way for some weird reason, but he did not make a clear statement about which party he is in.

As far as being good enough, Bush was good enough when he went into afghanistan, everyone loved him and now that has changed. Just because this guy survived through a couple of administrations does not mean that he still cuts the mustard.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that the man does not box himself into his party affiliation . . .


some people find that defining themselves by what they most recently voted for is stifling to one's own thought processes
. . . and some people find it idiotic to be defined by the 'party line'

and yes, I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan
I would today as well
I think that yet another reason that the war in Iraq was a drastic mistake WAS because of Afghanistan . . . because it pulled resources and focus away from that country and our mission there . . . . so yes, naturally that changed . . .

. . especially when it looks everyday a little more like he invaded and rallied support on what they knew was false, and did so because the real reasons would never fly: the motivations expressed in the Pax Americana document . . . signed on to by many big-wigs in the admin.
"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 #212 of 402
Okay, here is something "serious" for a change:


......has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.
------------------------------

and from the same unnamed web site:

------------------------------
.....as we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag -- you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"
--------------------------------

I'll leave the name-calling in these quotes for those who need it for emphasis, but if the good Doctor had a leg up on the big AQ in 2000, then Clarke is not sounding his superiors anywhere near their depth.

Not a summary judgement, thought I would pass it along.

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 #213 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
You seem to have a problem with the fact that the man does not box himself into his party affiliation . . .


some people find that defining themselves by what they most recently voted for is stifling to one's own thought processes
. . . and some people find it idiotic to be defined by the 'party line'

and yes, I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan
I would today as well
I think that yet another reason that the war in Iraq was a drastic mistake WAS because of Afghanistan . . . because it pulled resources and focus away from that country and our mission there . . . . so yes, naturally that changed . . .

. . especially when it looks everyday a little more like he invaded and rallied support on what they knew was false, and did so because the real reasons would never fly: the motivations expressed in the Pax Americana document . . . signed on to by many big-wigs in the admin.


This guy is a petty, and self-absorbed idiot. He should have been fired long ago.

Why would you want to box yourself into an area such as Afghanistan, where the topographical features (largely inaccessible mountains, caves, hidden tunnels) put you at a strong disadvantage, when you can fight the terrorists in an area where topographical features (such as flat open desert) give you in a distinct advantage?



(Btw, my statement in the Minister Dominique de Villepin thread regards body odor was a general statement pertaining to a universal and natural human condition. I'm sorry you took offense at it. I haven't realized this is a sensitive issue for you).
post #214 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by DeManON
Why would you want to box yourself into an area such as Afghanistan, where the topographical features (largely inaccessible mountains, caves, hidden tunnels) put you at a strong disadvantage, when you can fight the terrorists in an area where topographical features (such as flat open desert) give you in a distinct advantage?

Hmm... The WOT recast as the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight. When the cop asked him if that was where he lost them, he said: "No, but this is where the light is."
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 #215 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see that is what they get for trying to show solidarity with with the Clinton white house.

They should have know it was going to bite them, in the end.

Oh well, you would think that republicans would learn that doesn't work with democrats. This kind of thing happens so often. No offense intended but they fall for it every time.

I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.

Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.

Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.
Take this seriously, but don't take the serious, seriously.
Reply
Take this seriously, but don't take the serious, seriously.
Reply
post #216 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by FaydRautha
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.

Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.

Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.

OMFG.

1. There isn't evidence that Bush WAS focused on Iraq immediately. The WH has denied that time and time again. The only thing that speaks to the contrary is the word of two former officials...both of which have axes to grind.

2. Fundamentalist Christianity? Do you even know the meaning of this term? Bush is not a "fundamentalist" in any way. Secondly, what the hell are you talking about? Because Bush supports faith-based programs (translation: not excluding religous charities and social-works groups from federal funding) he's an extremist? Because he opposes gay marriage? Because he believes in God? Why is it fine for a Joe Libermann to reference religion every third step of his campaign, but not fine for Bush to speak of his faith? Why is it fine for Bill Clinton to talk about researching infidelity in the Bible, but not fine for Bush to speka how he believes the bible fully?

3. Protecting the ideals of the nation? It seems from your post you don't even know what they are. The nation was founded by people who generally believed in God and were quite religious. The Constitution referenced the establishment of religion only so that Congress could not establish a state religion. It wasn't meant to prevent people from expressing their faith. It wasn't meant to remove all religion from all public life. What other ideals do you speak of? The country's ideals are under attack alright....they're under attack from the LEFT. The complete cleansing of religion from public life, the destruction of international borders so we can be a part of "global community", revisionist interpretations of the Constitution, "blame America first," peace at any cost, a bloated government which taxes its citizens at confiscatory rates, ineffective social programs that destroy work incentive, hatred of the military,......THESE are the problems.

Your last statement is pretty meaningless. If I was under attack by a guy ike Clarke, I'd expose him for the two bit liar he is too.
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 #217 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by FaydRautha
I'm not sure what's worse. That you spew this garbage or that you believe it.

Maybe, just maybe, if this administration had been focused on doing it's JOB and not so fixated on IRAQ things would be different. Maybe, just maybe, if instead of trying to legislate fundamentalist Christianity through congress they PROTECTED the ideals the this country was based on things would be different.

Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for what was done. It's amazing that all republicans can do is point fingers while saying "He did it" like a three year old in a sand box. It's pathetic, really it is. Maybe we just need to send Bush and Cheney to their rooms without dinner.

No offense, I am not a republican, or a so called "Bush Lover", so please quit trying to pigeon hole me into some right wing hole.

I think what Bush did in Iraq was right because we would have had to deal with SH or UH or KH eventually and the longer we waited the bolder they would have gotten and the more costly it would have been.

I think the Democrats have honed in on the WMD thing because it is an election year. And because the is one of the few thing that are left to pick on. And hey that would be fine with me. I just find it silly that they cant just say he was wrong, just as many of us are sometimes, instead of leaping to the conclusion that he knowingly and purposefully misled the world.
post #218 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think what Bush did in Iraq was right because we would have had to deal with SH or UH or KH eventually and the longer we waited the bolder they would have gotten and the more costly it would have been.

I think the Democrats have honed in on the WMD thing because it is an election year.

But you're not arguing with 'the Democrats,' you're arguing with people who were against this war before it happened because we knew the WMD claim was the steamy pile of bullshit that it's turned out to be. If we knew it, Bush knew it.
"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 #219 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
But you're not arguing with 'the Democrats,' you're arguing with people who were against this war before it happened because we knew the WMD claim was the steamy pile of bullshit that it's turned out to be. If we knew it, Bush knew it.

You knew it huh?

You had all of the info the president did, now did you?

You had and have access to to top secret and classified info?

And the powers that be let you disseminate this at your discretion?

WOW.

By the way who is this "we".

That last post was, no offense, just points to the self-assuming, dismissive, and outright unreasonableness that is being pushed by proponents of your view of this president.
post #220 of 402
Well this topic continues...

Clarke made an appearance on Meet The Press today, discussing the relevant issues surrounding his criticisms of the Bush administration. Like most officials at his level he was well-spoken and seemed to have all of his information in front of him. He asked that this national dialogue be elevated above personal attacks and called Condi Rice a "good person". He claimed that Rice would not allow him to brief the President on terrorism, only on CyberCrime/Terror. His accusation(s) now seem directed not at Bush, but at Bush's staff.
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #221 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You knew it huh?

Yeah, he knew it.
Quote:
You had all of the info the president did, now did you?

The only info we did not have *full* access to (although we certainly had more than enough) were the reports from INC, INA, and we knew they weren't credible. However, we did have the actual reports, we just didn't have the transcripts of CIA interviews, if they existed:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

All of the credible info was gathered from the UN inspection processes and other open sources.
Quote:
You had and have access to to top secret and classified info?

As just explained, we had more than enough access to that classified information to know it was not credible, and this was further enforced when it was put into the larger picture painted by the actual verified information that was publicly available.

In short, yes we did have access to the intel, as we almost always do. If you know how to look for information and use the resources at you local major library, then you can find out everything you need to.

Just to give an example of how much info was out there, visit ccr:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/iraqwmd.html
And this outline hasn't even been updated for a year. Click on any of the other outlines to see that there was simply a TON of information to work with.

Welcome to the information age. There's a lot more where that came from.
post #222 of 402
Thread Starter 
I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).

He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.

Quote:
From the NYT:
"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there," Mr. Clarke said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony."


This is going to get interesting real quick.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #223 of 402
giant, that site you linked to is predisposed to read the news in a biased fashion.


Aren't there groups like FAIR that come across as clearing houses for a more fair selection of information?

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 #224 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).

He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.




This is going to get interesting real quick.

It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.

There is new evidence being found almost on a daily basis.

I agree it will be interesting.
post #225 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.

There is new evidence being found almost on a daily basis.

I agree it will be interesting.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. "The new evidence" is hardly that; just anything the white house can find to throw into the mix.

The strategy here is to overwhelm the channel with as much confusing and condradictory "information" as possible, in the hopes that most people will just write it off as a partisan slap fight. Talk of indictments for perjury are, I would guess, just another vigorous shake of the snow globe.

However, Clarke's public demand to declassify all the testimony is a very smart move. (By the way Naples, why would a guy who presumably knows if he lied make this call? Crazy? Bluffing? Against the white house that clearly would love to see him put down like a rabid dog?)

So now he has made it harder for the white house to release redacted bits and pieces to bolster their case, which they no doubt would prefer to do. He also strengthens the perception that he has nothing to hide, and is in fact telling the truth.

I hope the Dems step up their call for more widespread declassifications, since the Bush white house has really hurt their usual "you can't know anything, national security" argument by the release of all this "get Clarke" material.
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 #226 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I wouldn't get your hopes up. "The new evidence" is hardly that; just anything the white house can find to throw into the mix.

The strategy here is to overwhelm the channel with as much confusing and condradictory "information" as possible, in the hopes that most people will just write it off as a partisan slap fight. Talk of indictments for perjury are, I would guess, just another vigorous shake of the snow globe.

However, Clarke's public demand to declassify all the testimony is a very smart move. (By the way Naples, why would a guy who presumably knows if he lied make this call? Crazy? Bluffing? Against the white house that clearly would love to see him put down like a rabid dog?)

So now he has made it harder for the white house to release redacted bits and pieces to bolster their case, which they no doubt would prefer to do. He also strengthens the perception that he has nothing to hide, and is in fact telling the truth.

I hope the Dems step up their call for more widespread declassifications, since the Bush white house has really hurt their usual "you can't know anything, national security" argument by the release of all this "get Clarke" material.

You may be right, but all I see is his own words contradicting themselves, over and over. The problem is he looks less believable by the day.

As far as him calling for declassification, it is the safest thing he can say. Think about it.
post #227 of 402
I can't wait . . . hahaha


by the way . . . more people step forward . . . why are you refusing to see it?!?!
"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 #228 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
I can't wait . . . hahaha


by the way . . . more people step forward . . . why are you refusing to see it?!?!

I see it, I just don't see anyone with NO motive to speak out. I see some arguably disgruntled people that just HAPPEN to be selling books. Of course there are other reasons. I may be wrong but that is the way I see it.
post #229 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, he knew it.

The only info we did not have *full* access to (although we certainly had more than enough) were the reports from INC, INA, and we knew they weren't credible. However, we did have the actual reports, we just didn't have the transcripts of CIA interviews, if they existed:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

All of the credible info was gathered from the UN inspection processes and other open sources.

As just explained, we had more than enough access to that classified information to know it was not credible, and this was further enforced when it was put into the larger picture painted by the actual verified information that was publicly available.

In short, yes we did have access to the intel, as we almost always do. If you know how to look for information and use the resources at you local major library, then you can find out everything you need to.

Just to give an example of how much info was out there, visit ccr:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/iraqwmd.html
And this outline hasn't even been updated for a year. Click on any of the other outlines to see that there was simply a TON of information to work with.

Welcome to the information age. There's a lot more where that came from.

giant, I don't want to get in it with you over this, so I will say it in this way:

I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.

There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.
post #230 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
giant, I don't want to get in it with you over this, so I will say it in this way:

I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.

There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.

This 'information' that you hold in blind confidence that they had but cannot show due to its 'secret nature' was shown to the head of a number of large nations . . . . most of whom refused to believe that it was solid information or that it justified the aggressive invasion of another country


kind of like when the nations of Europe believed that Germany's excuse that it was 'liberating' the German's of the Sudatenland was merely an excuse for an aggressive invasion of another country. both were excuses . . . and many people and other countries knew it!
"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 #231 of 402
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.

Uh... where'd you get that from??

Which oath, IYHO, would he be indicted for lying under? The latest one, or the one two years ago?

What basis do you have for this (I'm almost afraid to ask since no one has brought a shred of proof, AFAICT, but rather just sling mud at him).
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #232 of 402
Quote:
From SDW:
3. Protecting the ideals of the nation? It seems from your post you don't even know what they are. The nation was founded by people who generally believed in God and were quite religious. The Constitution referenced the establishment of religion only so that Congress could not establish a state religion. It wasn't meant to prevent people from expressing their faith. It wasn't meant to remove all religion from all public life. What other ideals do you speak of? The country's ideals are under attack alright....they're under attack from the LEFT. The complete cleansing of religion from public life, the destruction of international borders so we can be a part of "global community", revisionist interpretations of the Constitution, "blame America first," peace at any cost, a bloated government which taxes its citizens at confiscatory rates, ineffective social programs that destroy work incentive, hatred of the military,......THESE are the problems.

No.

Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


We are not a christian nation.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #233 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.

There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.

Naples, listen carefully. This is a situation where it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Fact: it's estimated that 90-95% of intel is from open sources. Fact: OSP was created to examine open sources and Iraqi defectors. Fact: Any claim that was made by the defectors was also put into open channels in order to build a case for war. Fact: When looking at the big picture, it was clear there were not large stocks of WMD. Fact: the only thing pointing to an armed Iraq was speculation coupled with unbelievable stories from horrible sources.

I understand you've watched films. I understand that maybe you even read a spy novel or two. But in the real world intelligence is not something done in the shadows. What little information you might not have can be figured out so long as you look at it logically and always try to prove your conclusions wrong.

And, of course, the more you know about how intel agencies work and understand sound intel practices, the better you are at understanding what is going on.

So you can go on believing in all of this mystery information that only a few people in the government have, but if you actually bothered to look at what it is as it's declassified or leaked, you realize that 99.9% of the time (literally) it is not sexy or even new or earth-shattering. And you can look. There are archives online. You can go to your local government depository library (like the one I work at).

The fact is that it has been estimated that even during the cold war something like 80-85% of intel was from open sources. Of course, back then people and sources were still very disconnected. These days I can go look up a Polish newspaper and have today's news translated in 30 seconds. I can use Interlibrary Loan to get conference papers from a conference in Japan or sweden or India (hell, you can find a zillion conference papers from US intel conferences just by looking online). In fact, you can use ILL to get basically anything that exists anywhere. That is a recent development.

Intelligence is far more about analysis than collection. The hard parts are making it easier to consume and being able to see the bigger picture. That's exactly what projects like CCR and individuals like Glen Rangwala aim to do. Other sources, like fas, cryptome, global security, wikipedia and the american presidency act as archives. And those are miniscule compared to what's in a University Library and Government Depository.

But all that is useless without background knowledge, which requires getting an education and reading as much as possible about that particular subject.

So, to say it again, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. This is just the way it is. It's as complex as anything out there, so trying to make it a straight black and white issue is insane.

In the end, however, we are able to get a pretty clear picture of what is going on in the world. Sure you can't know everything that's going on everywhere in the world unless you are a large organization with a few thousand people, but in terms of overall trends and specific well-documented cases (like Iraq) we have a ton of info. In almost every other case you could get a hold of the information if you needed it and had a librarian help you locate the sources.

In fact, the only thing standing in the way is the same kind of bias that leads people to think Clarke is saying anything new.
post #234 of 402
you say X + giant says Y = you lose.
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 #235 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
you say X + giant says Y = you lose.

wwhne Naples is the X-sayer then you can count on it
"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 #236 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
No.

Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


We are not a christian nation.

Yes we are, for all practical purposes. But that's besides the point, because my point was that the Constitution was not intended to remove all religion from public life. Quite the opposite.....the framers of the document intended to preserve religious freedom, which includes the expression of beliefs. As for being Christian, many of our laws are indeed based on Christian principles. This cannot be ignored. My point is simply that the intent of "Congress shall make no law respecting the etsbalishment of relgion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been twisted.

Do you realize that the children I teach often think that the word "God" is not allowed to be said in school? That's how bad things have gotten. The ONLY intent of the separation clause is to prevent the US Government from establishing an official state religion. It doesn't say that the government or government employees cannot display religous symbols. It doesn't say employees of schools cannot lead prayer. These are interpretations....and liberal ones at that.
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 #237 of 402
Thread Starter 
Let's just wait and see what happens, people. I'm sure Clarke is no saint (saints don't hold those kind of positions in our government), but I am willing to bet whatever double-talk he might eventually be suspected of, those six hours of testimony are quite damning to certain individuals in the administration.

What's the point of bad-mouthing public servants without basis (slinging mud if you prefer), if you have no reason to believe your words will ever be heard by the general public? The only thing that makes sense is that there is a basis for it, but not very many people have the balls to spell it out -- even in private testimony.

What do you want to bet the GOP will back off the demand to "open the files" now? Because even if they take Clarke down, they'll go down with him if the general public is finally slapped in the face with what this administration is all about....
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #238 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
wwhne Naples is the X-sayer then you can count on it

I see. So under no circumstances, in your opinion, has Naples ever been nor will he ever be "right"?

Well that sure lays a solid foundation for some level headed debates in the future.
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 #239 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Naples, listen carefully. This is a situation where it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Fact: it's estimated that 90-95% of intel is from open sources. Fact: OSP was created to examine open sources and Iraqi defectors. Fact: Any claim that was made by the defectors was also put into open channels in order to build a case for war. Fact: When looking at the big picture, it was clear there were not large stocks of WMD. Fact: the only thing pointing to an armed Iraq was speculation coupled with unbelievable stories from horrible sources.

I understand you've watched films. I understand that maybe you even read a spy novel or two. But in the real world intelligence is not something done in the shadows. What little information you might not have can be figured out so long as you look at it logically and always try to prove your conclusions wrong.

And, of course, the more you know about how intel agencies work and understand sound intel practices, the better you are at understanding what is going on.

So you can go on believing in all of this mystery information that only a few people in the government have, but if you actually bothered to look at what it is as it's declassified or leaked, you realize that 99.9% of the time (literally) it is not sexy or even new or earth-shattering. And you can look. There are archives online. You can go to your local government depository library (like the one I work at).

The fact is that it has been estimated that even during the cold war something like 80-85% of intel was from open sources. Of course, back then people and sources were still very disconnected. These days I can go look up a Polish newspaper and have today's news translated in 30 seconds. I can use Interlibrary Loan to get conference papers from a conference in Japan or sweden or India (hell, you can find a zillion conference papers from US intel conferences just by looking online). In fact, you can use ILL to get basically anything that exists anywhere. That is a recent development.

Intelligence is far more about analysis than collection. The hard parts are making it easier to consume and being able to see the bigger picture. That's exactly what projects like CCR and individuals like Glen Rangwala aim to do. Other sources, like fas, cryptome, global security, wikipedia and the american presidency act as archives.

And those are miniscule compared to what's in a University Library and Government Depository.

So, to say it again, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. This is just the way it is. It's as complex as anything out there, so trying to make it a straight black and white issue is insane.

In the end, however, we are able to get a pretty clear picture of what is going on in the world.

In fact, the only thing standing in the way is the same kind of bias that leads people to think Clarke is saying anything new.

Thanks for that info. I will look into it.

I will ask that you please not talk down to me though, I don't think that you strengthen you argument or appear any smarter in any way by doing so. I think that it is counterproductive to those ends.

Have a good evening.
post #240 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).

He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.
Quote:
From the NYT:
"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there," Mr. Clarke said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony

This is going to get interesting real quick.

I'm extremely interested in seeing this as well. He also said they should declassify rice's testimony and a bunch of correspondence.

He's probably the first person to stand up to them to this degree.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Richard Clarke