When Tony Blair was elected (I was allowed -- and did -- vote for him), I was exstatic. We had a progressive, smart, humane human as leader of the country I live in. And a pro-European too. A friend of similar, progressive leaders all over the planet. I stuck up for him when ever anyone said things like, "He's a dangerous guy because he believes his own lies" or "he's an opportunist from hell you know."
It took me a good 4 years to realise that he wasn't what I thought he was. It took the war on Iraq for me to really open my eyes and see that for whatever reason, he'd aligned himself with the most right-wing leader of the US in its history, and was an appalling deciever of himself and the world, and was engaged in a path of incredible danger.
Some of y'all should try opening your eyes, thinking for yourself. It's liberating.
It's not just TWO heads of counter-terrorism, a cabinet sec., a Pentagon official and a bunch of other people saying it, *THE NEO-CONS PUBLISHED A PAPER ON IT* saying that Iraq should be a priority. They TOLD you THEMSELVES and still you don't believe you were lied to about WMD -- where are they by the way? -- and you actually think invading Iraq diminished the threat from al Qaeda. You actually believe this.
THEY WEREN'T THERE BEFORE WE INVADED.
Astonishing.
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?
Then why does he stroke the Clinton administration? To me theres clearly some other motives here...
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.
Then why does he stroke the Clinton administration? To me theres clearly some other motives here...
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.
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.
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.
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 contradictions 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.
Except Clarke's statements are in lin with what Paul O'Neile said as well.
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?
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?
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.
Oh, oh....and I almost forgot: The man "fought" terror for eight years under Clinton, was in power when the US was attacked in 1993, 1998 and 2000. But I'm sure Bush is the problem.
OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
If not the problem, then the solution? If this were the case, the entire Bush administration should have resigned 9/12/01.
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.
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?"
Oh, oh....and I almost forgot: The man "fought" terror for eight years under Clinton, was in power when the US was attacked in 1993, 1998 and 2000. But I'm sure Bush is the problem.
OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
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.
Well, the CBS articles where 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?"
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"
Speaking of the PR machine and its viciousness and character assasination strategies, Daschle had some things to say:
Quote:
``Some things are more important that politics, and Sept. 11 ought to be at the top of the list,'' Daschle said. ``We need the facts on Sept. 11, not spin and character assassination.''
Daschle's comments extend the controversy ignited by Clarke's criticism, but they went well beyond the White House's response to the case of the former aide.
Referring to the Bush campaign's attacks against McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries, he said, ``I will never forget the distortions, the recklessness, and the viciousness of those attacks. They were wrong and they impugned one of our great patriots.'' McCain spent several years as a prison of war in Vietnam.
Daschle said Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam war veteran, had his ``reputation and patriotism smeared'' in a losing campaign for re-election in 2002. His rival ran an ad including images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and accusing him of voting against Bush's plan to create a new Department of Homeland Security.
Daschle also said that when Wilson challenged a key claim Bush made about Iraq's efforts to seek weapons of mass destruction, the White House ``put his wife in danger by disclosing publicly that she was a deep cover agent for the CIA.''
but never mind . . . Daschle has allready been proven to be discreditted by that same machine . . . so why listen to him either?!?!
Clarke wasn't demoted when Bush took office. He was RE-HIRED! Jeebus!
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
Quote:
Apparently, an honest debate about the "War on Terror" can only be had between Republicans...liberals need not apply (after all...they're liberals)
What debate? I hear no liberals debating. It's all about we're right and Bush is wrong. Par for the course.
Quote:
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.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by dviant
Also I did know who wrote that article above.
Then you know it has absolutely no legitimacy
I thought it was appropriate given subject Clarke and his book. :P
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.
Originally posted by Harald
When Tony Blair was elected (I was allowed -- and did -- vote for him), I was exstatic. We had a progressive, smart, humane human as leader of the country I live in. And a pro-European too. A friend of similar, progressive leaders all over the planet. I stuck up for him when ever anyone said things like, "He's a dangerous guy because he believes his own lies" or "he's an opportunist from hell you know."
It took me a good 4 years to realise that he wasn't what I thought he was. It took the war on Iraq for me to really open my eyes and see that for whatever reason, he'd aligned himself with the most right-wing leader of the US in its history, and was an appalling deciever of himself and the world, and was engaged in a path of incredible danger.
Some of y'all should try opening your eyes, thinking for yourself. It's liberating.
It's not just TWO heads of counter-terrorism, a cabinet sec., a Pentagon official and a bunch of other people saying it, *THE NEO-CONS PUBLISHED A PAPER ON IT* saying that Iraq should be a priority. They TOLD you THEMSELVES and still you don't believe you were lied to about WMD -- where are they by the way? -- and you actually think invading Iraq diminished the threat from al Qaeda. You actually believe this.
THEY WEREN'T THERE BEFORE WE INVADED.
Astonishing.
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?
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..."
[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?
Originally posted by dviant
Then why does he stroke the Clinton administration? To me theres clearly some other motives here...
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.
Originally posted by dviant
Then why does he stroke the Clinton administration? To me theres clearly some other motives here...
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.
Originally posted by faust9
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!
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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 contradictions 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.
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?
Originally posted by faust9
"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
Originally posted by faust9
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?
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh yes...he explained it. Right. Case closed.
Oh, oh....and I almost forgot: The man "fought" terror for eight years under Clinton, was in power when the US was attacked in 1993, 1998 and 2000. But I'm sure Bush is the problem.
OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
If not the problem, then the solution? If this were the case, the entire Bush administration should have resigned 9/12/01.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
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?"
Originally posted by faust9
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh yes...he explained it. Right. Case closed.
Oh, oh....and I almost forgot: The man "fought" terror for eight years under Clinton, was in power when the US was attacked in 1993, 1998 and 2000. But I'm sure Bush is the problem.
OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
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.
Originally posted by faust9
Well, the CBS articles where 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?"
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
``Some things are more important that politics, and Sept. 11 ought to be at the top of the list,'' Daschle said. ``We need the facts on Sept. 11, not spin and character assassination.''
Daschle's comments extend the controversy ignited by Clarke's criticism, but they went well beyond the White House's response to the case of the former aide.
Referring to the Bush campaign's attacks against McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries, he said, ``I will never forget the distortions, the recklessness, and the viciousness of those attacks. They were wrong and they impugned one of our great patriots.'' McCain spent several years as a prison of war in Vietnam.
Daschle said Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam war veteran, had his ``reputation and patriotism smeared'' in a losing campaign for re-election in 2002. His rival ran an ad including images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and accusing him of voting against Bush's plan to create a new Department of Homeland Security.
Daschle also said that when Wilson challenged a key claim Bush made about Iraq's efforts to seek weapons of mass destruction, the White House ``put his wife in danger by disclosing publicly that she was a deep cover agent for the CIA.''
but never mind . . . Daschle has allready been proven to be discreditted by that same machine . . . so why listen to him either?!?!
Northgate said
Clarke wasn't demoted when Bush took office. He was RE-HIRED! Jeebus!
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.
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.
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?
Apparently, an honest debate about the "War on Terror" can only be had between Republicans...liberals need not apply (after all...they're liberals)
What debate? I hear no liberals debating. It's all about we're right and Bush is wrong. Par for the course.
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.
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.