Richard Clarke - Page 2

Your statement was pretty broad. I was looking for specifics.

Then you know it has absolutely no legitimacy

If Clarke was in it for the money he could have gone to the private sector any time in the past 15 years and made millions upon millions.

Then why does he stroke the Clinton administration? To me theres clearly some other motives here...

Indeed. The Bush-Can-Do-No-Wrong crowd on this board are too busy convincing themselves that Clarke is a hack rather than actually "hearing" what the man has to say. A hack, by the way, that was credible enough to work for TWO Reagan terms, Daddy Bush's term, both of Bubba's terms and Bunnypants.

Then you've got guys like DVIANT on this board who makes statements like, "Could it be that he was demoted when Bush took office? Nawwww..." I mean, guys like this don't even bother with the actual FACTS before making these types of snap judgments. Clarke wasn't demoted when Bush took office. He was RE-HIRED! Jeebus! He must only get his news from Fox, Rush and Hannity.

Then they go on illogical rants like "First Bushies are criticized for their policies of preemption and unilateralism and now the bandwagon is criticizing them for not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda." ****! How did the argument about OBL and Iraq get fused into one? Is it really that hard to understand that Iraq has NOTHING to do with Afghanistan and al Qaeda and that you can argue about tactic and policy separately? Apparently not.

Again, they resort to the same tired "anti-Bush" rhetoric. The cataclysmic failure of the federal government on 9/11 apparently is not open for discussion to guys like DVIANT. Apparently, an honest debate about the "War on Terror" can only be had between Republicans...liberals need not apply (after all...they're liberals).

Apparently when a Republican terror Czar complains about the administration it's okay to lie, distort and revise history in order to tar and feather a great patriots reputation. Apparently that type of gross behavior is acceptable to the right.

How many Republicans made millions off their BLOWJOBGATE tell-alls?

THE LOOP....Was Dick Clarke an integral part of the White House's counterterrorism team or wasn't he? Let's go to the tape:

Dick Cheney, Monday: "Well, he wasn't -- he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff....It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on."

Condoleezza Rice, Wednesday: "I would not use the word 'out of the loop'....He was in every meeting that was held on terrorism. All the deputies' meetings, the principals' meeting that was held and so forth, the early meetings after Sept. 11."

A "senior official," later Wednesday: A senior official also said Rice twice complained directly to Clarke about his rare appearances at her senior staff meetings. In one e-mail, Clarke responded he was "too busy" and that after he missed another meeting Rice responded that he would have a "problem" if he did not start attending.

Which is it? Was he in all the meetings or wasn't he?

Of course, it's still possible that he was in "every meeting that was held on terrorism" and yet still missed lots of meetings, isn't it? It's possible, that is, if there weren't very many meetings about terrorism. Washington Monthly

But, wait, I forget. Republicans are the only ones allowed to present "contradictory" statements. Clarke explained his easily, "I was spinning for the president like I've done for other presidents." Doh! Rice and Cheney's explanations, "umm, err, ummm..."

LEAKY....Several other people have already mentioned this in passing today some more directly than others but it's something that's worth saying plainly: what is the Bush administration's policy about leaking/releasing classified information? They seem to have no problem with routinely leaking or releasing selected portions of classified data if it helps them or hurts their opponents. Just off the top of my head, here's what they've done recently:
[list=1]In response to Joe Wilson's allegation last year that George Bush deceived the country about Iraq's supposed attempts to get uranium yellowcake from Africa, two "senior administration officials" outed his wife Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative.

A few days later the White House declassified and released carefully selected portions of an October 2002 CIA report that bolstered its case against Wilson.

High-res video of Osama bin Laden taken in late 2000 was leaked to NBC's Lisa Meyers last week, apparently in a preemptive attempt to show that Bill Clinton had a chance to take bin Laden out but didn't. This is a guess on my part, but isn't this kind of video among the most sensitive intelligence data we possess? Despite this, the White House seemed remarkably unconcerned that it showed up on the evening news.

On Wednesday, in response to charges in Dick Clarke's recently published book, the White House took the unusual step of allowing Fox News to publish an August 2002 briefing that was originally done off the record.

Also on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice read to reporters the "unclassified sentences" of an email Clarke sent to her shortly after 9/11.[/list=1]

I'm sure I've missed some examples, so feel free to fill them in in comments. Kevin Drum

And Richard Clarke is the one with credibility problems?

Well, he doesn't "stroke" the Clinton administration, particularly.

He's made it clear that there is more than enough blame to go around.

However, he believes that the Bush white house has dropped the ball and that their policies have made us less secure rather than more.

He obviously doesn't think that about the Clinton white house, but the issue here is his dismay at Bush's WOT, not his fondness for Clinton. It only looks like support in contrast.

He didn't. Did you watch his testimony? Most of the comission members praised him for his scathing review of both adminsitrations behind closed doors. Clarke's book focuses on Bush because of BushCo's focus on Iraq rather than on the war on terror.

Bingo!

As I've said:

Clarke is utterly full of shit. His explanation for his blatant contradictory statements is actually funny. Look at the facts here. I'm not sure there is a better example of a politically motivated attack on record.

One simply CANNOT explain Clarke's contradtictions in his 2002 briefing. Much of what he says is nothing but conjecture (i.e. "He (Bush) didn't say make it up...but it was clear that he wanted me to come back and tell him Saddam did this"). That's unsubstantiated shit!

The truth there is no support for anything he is saying other than his own word...which contradicts itself constantly. Clarke was also "on duty" during some of the worst terror attacks we've faced...and what was done about them? Nothing. Embassy bombings? Let's launch a cruise missile. USS Cole? Nothing. WTC 1993? Let's have a trial.

This is the man who was trying to convince Clinton that cyber attacks were the "real" threat.

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

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

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.

Except Clarke's statements are in lin with what Paul O'Neile said as well.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml

BushCo was looking for a way to invade Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

Read what Clarke attributed to Rumsfeld and what Rumsfeld agrees he said (though Rumsfeld says Clarke is taking his comments out of context).
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/

Something I find odd is Clarke said "We all messed up." Clarke isn't denying his own culpability. He appologized to the victums for his own failings. He came forward and said we (both administrations) did things wrong.

Now it seems Bushies are upset over what Clarke said in his book. "Why was BushCo singled out" bellows the endless whine of Bushies... "Our fearless leader did nothing wrong." Clarke isn't singling Bush out for the 911. Clarke is singleing BushCo out for their response to 911 and his preception that BushCo was unwilling to act on real terrorsit threats. Clarke's book is about BushCo's fixation with Iraq.

These two guys are not the only ones to come forward, but the administration response always seems to be the same. "They were out of the loop." Why is that? Why was the counter terrorism czar NOT in the loop?

This is a fantastic question that I have wondered as well.

Fellows

First, I completely discredit CBS as a source on this. But besides that, you're not posting anything new. O'Neill was disgruntled just as Clarke was, and carries no more credibility. The man was fired.

As for his testimony and taking part of the blame, I have one word: Performance. That's what it was.

Honestly, Clarke is perhaps the least credible person I've seen in a long time. There is absolutely no basis for anything he is saying.

If not the problem, then the solution? If this were the case, the entire Bush administration should have resigned 9/12/01.

Well, the CBS articles were the one's that popped up at the top on google. The same articles can be found at most reputible news agencies. I find it funny though that you simply discredit CBS. Why is that? Silly.

The CBS thing is a red herring argument though. Your trying to discredit the news bearer (who as I've already stated was not the only source for the story the same stories) instead of addressing the issues. Why would a career politician do this? Why would Clarke and O'Neile, and Foster step forward? Why would members of the 911 committee sing Clarke's praises if he was so disreputible? Why does the administration hide the real question with personal attacks in every instance to date? The tough question that the administration doesn't want asked "Why was the anti-terrorism czar out of the loop?"

Yeah, like scheduling meetings around him..."out of the loop" for good.

Clarke was also there to thwart the Millinium bombers. What's your point? Clarke's not downplaying his own failings (watch the 911 commission intervies on CSPAN and see what panel members say about Clarke). He's attacking BushCo's Iraq War Lust.

I'm beginning to believe that you simply should not bother asking anything of SDW if it is even remotely critical of the Bush administration

Someone who's 30 year career just doesn't have the cred's . . . someone who was kept on 'because he was the best' just doesn't have the creds . . . why? because the damage control PR machine pressed the loyalty buttons and all of Pavlov's little doggies salivate on que


BTW, notice Rummy's testimony: "I couldn't do anything about terrorism inside the United States, because I was focusing on terrorism outside the US"

a great article here: Further Dispatches from Planet Rummy

Speaking of the PR machine and its viciousness and character assasination strategies, Daschle had some things to say:
but never mind . . . Daschle has allready been proven to be discreditted by that same machine . . . so why listen to him either?!?!

He was Clintons Counter Terrorism Coordinator (a Cabinet-level position), and then under Bush was given less overarching responsibility as the Director of Cybersecurity. Demotion.


Clark claims Bush "squandered the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda". If there had been any action prior to 9/11 that would sure as hell have been considered preemptive. With all the cries against the Iraq how do you think that woulda gone over prior to 9/11?


What debate? I hear no liberals debating. It's all about we're right and Bush is wrong. Par for the course.


That really depends on who you believe. I like how people keep citing how much of a "Republican" Clarke is. This guy seems so biased me. He goes on tirades about Bush's 8 months and excuses the 8 years under Clinton, while al Qaeda was formed, bombed two of embassies and attacked the USS Cole? In 2002 Clark stated that the Bush adminstration had decided in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Yet nowhere is this mentioned in his book. I guess he was just lying when he said that.

The things that COULD have been done by Bush administration that would have possibly helped to prevent 9/11 would have been to set up things like the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. This could have helped us follow up on leads that were undeveloped (terrorists taking flying lessons). But again, hindsight is 20/20.

Because he wasn't Bush's "counter terrorism czar'. He no longer held a cabinet-level position he enjoyed with Clinton.

So how reasurred are we supposed to be that the first thing Bush does is downgrade the chief counter-terror postition from cabinet level?

Doesn't it strike you as a good thing Clinton made the position cabinet level? Doesn't it strike you as a somewhat less than prudent that Bush undid that?

When was "counter terrorism czar" ever a cabinet level position?

Clarke's publisher would be the one that controls release dates. That would be Viacom. They moved it up to sell more books and to generate a buzz.

Clarke seems like a guy that just wants his place in history and to say I told you so. The stuff that was dug up on him makes him seem like an opportunist. But hey, make some money, sell some books, spin a little bit to make it a controversy, sell a load more books. Sounds like he is pretty smart.

I hear people say that he is not doing this for the money. I am not sure how they conclude that. Maybe he was not very smart with the healthy income he made. Who knows. Money is money and the more the better. He might like money, I see nothing wrong with that.

Look at the poor guy, he is a uber-geek that spends his time analyzing monotonous crap all day. He sits in front of a computer all day. He is no movie star, that is for sure. If he is not married, what are his chances of getting laid? Harsh, I will admit, but come on. The democrats are treating this guy like a celebrity, and for now he is. Let him enjoy it. He is on every talk show I think.

He is not being 100% honest and that opens him up to scrutiny. He wanted the spotlight, so he's got it now. he will learn that it cuts both ways.

But the fact that he says he basically lied for this and other administrations, like it was just no big deal, makes what he says very questionable. The problem is if he lied then how do you know he is telling the truth now or vise versa.

My .02

He only seems biased to you because you can only see partisan lines. Where he seems to praise Clinton he sites situations that where actions were taken.

If you'll care to notice, based on other threads of the same topic, many of the people with whom you are arguing are anything but the big bad evil "Liberal"

As far as some of things that COULD have been done: perhaps you could start by listening to the head of the CIA when he brings up a large terrorist group everyday . . . and then follow through after you give some sound byte little phrase by caring about the issue like it matters!

ANd when everybody keeps citing that earlier interview: the only seemingly damning evidence is that Clarke discusses the 'plan' . . . he even goes on to mention how it includes Uzbeckistan, the Northern Aliance and others . . . due to his position at the time perhaps, it was not expeditious to point out that the the "plan" did not FOCUS and was way too broad to be effective, focus which he, apparently, wanted, and because of its broadness it was ineffectual
. . . this is FOX news's attack?!?! meaningless

and another thing: it is funny how yesterday nobody on these boards was using the phrase . . 'for eight years this guy blah blah blah' and it just so happens that that is the rhetoric that has become ubiquitous on FOX news TODAY .. . not yesterday, but today . .
it just shows where you get your ability to think!!

pflam, do you believe in capitalism?

I know this is off topic but I will return, bare with me.

YOU AGAIN!
didn't you get it through your head allready . . . the White house must ok books etc . . . read what was said yesterday!!!


That is idiotic. And if there is something to say "I told you so" about then he is still right.

and what stuff have they "dug up on him"?

Useless conjecture which disregards his position, his station, you might say, and his JOB.


but I suppose that is a joke . . .


Useless conjecture and opinion.
Besides he obviously knew what a visiouse attack-dog PR machine the BushCo has . . . he knew what he was in for


Links? quotes?

Do I 'believe' in Capitalism?!

it exists, it is the best that we have, it is the best that we can have at this point, it will probably be the best possible human culture for the forseeable future.
There are many ways to be a capitalist, and there are many forms of workable Capitalism . . . I have my ideas as to what makes some forms better than others.

In history humans had many different forms of cultural and social organization . . it isn't necessary that we remain capitalist . . and we never know in what fashion humanity will evolve

Chances are, though, as far as I can see, that if we change systems and the human part of us has not somehow changed, it will probably be a change for the worse

You know, I have never seen another subject online that has required me to repeat my posts time and time again. It would be nice to have a real discussion about this, but Bushites are stuck in default mode and can't seem to deal with new information as it is presented.

For instance: how many times does it need to be repeated that the white house delayed the book? How many times does it need to be repeated that not one but two of Bush's chief terror advisors are speaking out against their administration? How many times does it need to be repeated that essentially every element of what clarke has said is corroborated by a number of individuals from the highest positions in the admin? And finally, when are people going to deal with the fact that his explanation for the 2002 transcript is not only totally reasonable, but also most likely to be completely true? Hell, acknowledging that he actually spoke about it would be a step in the right direction.

And this is not a problem limited to appleinsider. Every forum and list I visit has Bushites exhibiting the same denial.

Oh lord, you got right.

something I said?

I am glad to see that you approve.

The reason I ask is because you and others constantly and consistently dismiss Fox News as a non-credible source. I am curious as to why if you know how capitalism works. Fox is the number one news channel. There is a reason for that. I watch Fox because they seem to be way ahead of the other networks. I work on computers in a lot of lawyers and brokers and financial people, I would guess 80% have FNC going and the ither 20% CNN. These are not dumb misguided people, so please don''t come back with that weak argument.

This clarke thing really shows it. It was fox that dug up tapes of Clarke and reviewed them. You know there were other networks there, they did nothing. Fox caught it. Say what you want that was good reporting.

there are so many factors at play in something like a news channel being number one . . . lots of things and lots of things having to do with corporate power

likeI said, I do have my beliefsas to what kind of Capitalism I like and it is one where there are some sort of regulations with regards to corporate power

anyway, let's let this thread get back on topic

Not you, dude....

No, not you.

Let's do.

But this kind of thing is what I will speak out about because it is dishonest, for example when you assume that if someone watches fox they are right wing or a neo-con, or that any news that comes from FNC is false simply for being from Fox.

BTW, they are number one in ratings. that means more people are watching fox than the others.

During the Clinton administration. Clinton took terrorism so seriously that he made his anti-terror coordinator a cabinet level position (not an actual cabinet post, but at that level in the staff chart).

Pfflam simply pointed out that a phrase gets used on Fox and within minutes that exact phrase is being used by Bush defenders here and around the country.

He said nothing about the veracity of Fox news, or whether or not their fans are "right-wing or neocon"; his point was in regards to the creepy lock-step lip-sync thing that happens when a new talking point is introduced on the network.

As far as being number one, if someone put on a newscast featuring the Swedish Bikini team being raped and eaten by baboons, I can assure you that newcast would be "number one".

Success in the market place is hardly a measure of edification, or romance novels would be the great literature of our day.

Since we're arbitrarily discrediting people, I'll discredit you. Nyahh nyahh!
Any particular reason or is it... let me guess "liberal media bias"? You ditto heads need to find a new mantra. One with some common sense involved.

How can you say there is no basis for anything he says? the man spent 30 years working in public office. Under several different administrations (Reagan on up), so obviously someone thought he was qualified (several someones actually even your repub demigod Reagan).

Admit what it is. You simply don't like what he has to say. I've heard him criticize several administrations, not just Bush. The only reason you can't see the obvious is because you simply do not WANT to. they had been looking for a reason to attack Iraq from the beginning. And 9/11 was the excuse, as poor as it was. it has nothing to do with the WoT, it was a vendetta passed down from father to son. That's all.