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?
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.
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 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!!
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.
YOU AGAIN!
didn't you get it through your head allready . . . the White house must ok books etc . . . read what was said yesterday!!!
Quote:
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.
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"?
Quote:
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.
Useless conjecture which disregards his position, his station, you might say, and his JOB.
Quote:
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.
but I suppose that is a joke . . .
Quote:
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.[/B]
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
Quote:
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.
I know this is off topic but I will return, bare with me.
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.
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
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
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
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.
When was "counter terrorism czar" ever a cabinet level position?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by faust9
"They were out of the loop." Why is that? Why was the counter terrorism czar?
]Originally posted by Fellowship
This is a fantastic question that I have wondered as well.
Because he wasn't Bush's "counter terrorism czar'. He no longer held a cabinet-level position he enjoyed with Clinton.
Originally posted by dviant
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?
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
Originally posted by dviant
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 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!!
I know this is off topic but I will return, bare with me.
Originally posted by NaplesX
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.
YOU AGAIN!
didn't you get it through your head allready . . . the White house must ok books etc . . . read what was said yesterday!!!
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.
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"?
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.
Useless conjecture which disregards his position, his station, you might say, and his JOB.
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.
but I suppose that is a joke . . .
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.[/B]
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
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
Links? quotes?
Originally posted by NaplesX
pflam, do you believe in capitalism?
I know this is off topic but I will return, bare with me.
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
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.
Originally posted by giant
Goodbye thread...
Oh lord, you got right.
Originally posted by giant
Goodbye thread...
something I said?
Originally posted by pfflam
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
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.
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
Originally posted by pfflam
something I said?
Not you, dude....
Originally posted by pfflam
something I said?
No, not you.
Originally posted by pfflam
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
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.
Originally posted by Scott
When was "counter terrorism czar" ever a cabinet level position?
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).
Originally posted by NaplesX
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.
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.
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.
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.
All your thread are belong to us!