Because he wasn't Bush's "counter terrorism czar'. He no longer held a cabinet-level position he enjoyed with Clinton.
counter-terrorism czar was never cabinet level. Cabinet level positions are created and confirmed by the Senate. The President nominates who he believs should fill these positions and has the right to fire the individuals at will.
Clarke's actual positional title with BushCo was National Security Council special assistant.
My question however was why was the counter-terrorism czar out of the loop. The counter-terrorism czar wasn't Richard Clarke, it was Dick Cheney. Richard Clarke was an advisor to the NSC with extensive background in terrorism. Also, Condi was on every newsnetwork on the 23rd trying to piss on the Clarke fire. She said on CNN I believe (I could be wrong about which news network I was watching at the time) that Clarke was in the loop. This is contrary to Cheney's statement one day prior on Rush Limbaugh. Bush said on May 8, 2001. Read the Wh press release and you'll find this paragraph http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20010508.html
Quote:
Therefore, I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.__I have also asked Joe Allbaugh, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to create an Office of National Preparedness.__This Office will be responsible for implementing the results of those parts of the national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney that deal with consequence management.__Specifically it will coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies.__The Office of National Preparedness will work closely with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed.__FEMA will also work closely with the Department of Justice, in its lead role for crisis management, to ensure that all facets of our response to the threat from weapons of mass destruction are coordinated and cohesive.__I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.
This was the closest thing to homeland security task force BushCo had prior to 911. Now protecting our homeland seems like an important topic doesn't it, but it wasn't important enough for the group supposidly headed by Cheney to meet even once.
Sorry if some of these points have already been made. I was working on this and got called away.
counter-terrorism czar was never cabinet level. Cabinet level positions are created and confirmed by the Senate. The President nominates who he believs should fill these positions and has the right to fire the individuals at will.
I was just going off of the articles I found online. They all seem to refer to it as "cabinet-level". Perhaps they just meant the prestige and responsibility placed on the job rather than the actual designation? Or maybe they're all just errorneous, I don't know. For instance:
When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.
Quote:
Clarke's actual positional title with BushCo was National Security Council special assistant.
Oct. 9 ? Richard A. Clarke was appointed today by President Bush to be the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council.
Here is what is funny (not in a ha ha kind of way but a hmmm kinda way):
People that are making a shaky case at best against this current president. They are accepting many things as fact that are questionable. These same people are willing to jump to the position that GWB is a liar, not to mention, Condi, Rummy, Cheney, and anybody else that has ever talk to GWB. So the bar is pretty low that someone is a liar.
At the very same time people like this Clarke guy and J. Kerry who directly contradicts themselves many many times, and in verifiable ways. Yet these people are held as honorable.
So the only thing that makes someone honest and trustworthy is if they support your political views. This whole thing smacks politics. Precious few of the people on the 9/11 commission and even fewer here are even looking to solve any problems or finding any solutions or truth as they claim.
Yet they will expect everyone else to accept their motives as pure.
Here is what is funny (not in a ha ha kind of way but a hmmm kinda way):
People that are making a shaky case at best against this current president. They are accepting many things as fact that are questionable. These same people are willing to jump to the position that GWB is a liar, not to mention, Condi, Rummy, Cheney, and anybody else that has ever talk to GWB. So the bar is pretty low that someone is a liar.
At the very same time people like this Clarke guy and J. Kerry who directly contradicts themselves many many times, and in verifiable ways. Yet these people are held as honorable.
So the only thing that makes someone honest and trustworthy is if they support your political views. This whole thing smacks politics. Precious few of the people on the 9/11 commission and even fewer here are even looking to solve any problems or finding any solutions or truth as they claim.
Yet they will expect everyone else to accept their motives as pure.
That is funny.
I have only seen what the Spin Machine has made out of Kerry's remarks . . . they were by no means contradictions . . . but through in Rove's eyes . . then you get evilness incarnate . . .
Whereas, I have seen Rummy shown to be flat out lying and caught doing so on national television
I have heard of the numerous bits of evidence that point to a lack of reliability with regards to Terror, to motivations and Iraq etc . . . NUMEROUS is too small . . it is an increasing mountain of evidence from many people including people once in teh very group that you now defend . . and this evidence supports an increasingly difficult position to dismiss: that the admin either lied, had its head up its ass with regards to Iraq, and/or was operating according to a guide book set up in advance of 911 with regards to Iraq that somehow allowed 911 to happen in order to set its plans into action.
. . . of course the latter version is 'off limits' to thought, as that would make one into a 'conspiracy nut' . . . .
And, disounting the very real possibility that Bush has done a seriously terrible job, gotten us into a war for ulterior motives that were long held in mind, and, generally made the World a more dangerous place for Americans for 'smacking of politics' is simply trite . . . as is the endless character assasinations of a man who is doing what he feels is right despite the groundswell of negativity and slander coming from BushCo
I have only seen what the Spin Machine has made out of Kerry's remarks . . . they were by no means contradictions . . . but through in Rove's eyes . . then you get evilness incarnate . . .
Whereas, I have seen Rummy shown to be flat out lying and caught doing so on national television
I have heard of the numerous bits of evidence that point to a lack of reliability with regards to Terror, to motivations and Iraq etc . . . NUMEROUS is too small . . it is an increasing mountain of evidence from many people including people once in teh very group that you now defend . . and this evidence supports an increasingly difficult position to dismiss: that the admin either lied, had its head up its ass with regards to Iraq, and/or was operating according to a guide book set up in advance of 911 with regards to Iraq that somehow allowed 911 to happen in order to set its plans into action.
. . . of course the latter version is 'off limits' to thought, as that would make one into a 'conspiracy nut' . . . .
And, disounting the very real possibility that Bush has done a seriously terrible job, gotten us into a war for ulterior motives that were long held in mind, and, generally made the World a more dangerous place for Americans for 'smacking of politics' is simply trite . . . as is the endless character assasinations of a man who is doing what he feels is right despite the groundswell of negativity and slander coming from BushCo
You see there that is exactly what I am talking about.
Discounting the fact that just maybe GWB has done a good job is just as closed minded.
All presidents, all people in fact, have their strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that both sides fail to concede those facts. No longer is reaching a common ground a goal.
You see there that is exactly what I am talking about.
Discounting the fact that just maybe GWB has done a good job is just as closed minded.
All presidents, all people in fact, have their strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that both sides fail to concede those facts. No longer is reaching a common ground a goal.
Evaluating the evidence at hand is not closed minded. We are not obliged to give every elected official "the benifit of the doubt" out of some odd sense of "balance".
The evidence at hand shows that Bush assured the American people that he had 100%, no doubt, you can take it to the bank evidence of Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and bio weapons stockpiles and programs. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had ties to Al Quiada.
We now know the intellegence at best was full of caveats and at worst flatly contadicts these assertions (as in the case of nuclear weapons). We now know that the WOMD were not there. We now know that there was no evidence whatsoever, and in fact repeated assertion to the contrary, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or Al Quiada.
There is simply no way to reconcile the fact that Bush mischaracterized the available intelligence on Iraq to justify a war that draws resources away from any coherent WOT, has cost over 500 American lives, and seems likely to damage our standing in the international community and moderate Arab states for years to come wtih "doing a good job".
These facts are on longer seriously in dispute. I know you want to bury this thread in tortured explications of where people are coming from, the mind-set of "Bush haters", accustaions of "spin" and irrelevant links.
There is simply no way to reconcile the fact that Bush mischaracterized the available intelligence on Iraq to justify a war that draws resources away from any coherent WOT, has cost over 500 American lives, and seems likely to damage our standing in the international community and moderate Arab states for years to come wtih "doing a good job".
Not to mention spawning more and more terrorists, and giving them more reason to hate us.
The thing is, you can't really do a 'good' job fighting(in a conventional sense, i.e. the way bush is going about with it) 'terror' because terror is not a physical thing, it's a state of mind, I would argue that US citizens fear terrorism far more today than they ever did during GHWB or clinton's administrations. What used to be more or less "out of sight, out of mind" is now being rubbed in our faces.
You can't 'win' a war on terror, but you can lose it, as soon as people start submitting to their fears, they have lost, no matter how many muslims you kill, you can never defeat terrorism, nor can you prevent people from fearing it.
Evaluating the evidence at hand is not closed minded. We are not obliged to give every elected official "the benifit of the doubt" out of some odd sense of "balance".
The evidence at hand shows that Bush assured the American people that he had 100%, no doubt, you can take it to the bank evidence of Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and bio weapons stockpiles and programs. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had ties to Al Quiada.
We now know the intellegence at best was full of caveats and at worst flatly contadicts these assertions (as in the case of nuclear weapons). We now know that the WOMD were not there. We now know that there was no evidence whatsoever, and in fact repeated assertion to the contrary, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or Al Quiada.
There is simply no way to reconcile the fact that Bush mischaracterized the available intelligence on Iraq to justify a war that draws resources away from any coherent WOT, has cost over 500 American lives, and seems likely to damage our standing in the international community and moderate Arab states for years to come wtih "doing a good job".
These facts are on longer seriously in dispute. I know you want to bury this thread in tortured explications of where people are coming from, the mind-set of "Bush haters", accustaions of "spin" and irrelevant links.
But the facts remain, and they are damning.
You see again, I made my observations from a middle of the road standpoint and criticized both extremes. I also pointed to the lack of effort to come to conclusions other than "Bush Lied" here and in other venues.
Your post can be summed up in these words; "Bush Lied. End os story".
There are too many facets of this issue to go straight to that conclusion. But that is, once again, my point. There are so many ways to sum up what happened over this issue, other than "Bush lied. End of story."
If you want to focus on that, then you totally miss out on what is really important.
I am fine with the fact that you may not like this president, or you don't want him reelected. You have your reasons, I am sure. But what is wrong with participating in a meaningful and productive debate about the FACTS without just the intention of pointing the finger at one person?
Not to mention spawning more and more terrorists, and giving them more reason to hate us.
The thing is, you can't really do a 'good' job fighting(in a conventional sense, i.e. the way bush is going about with it) 'terror' because terror is not a physical thing, it's a state of mind, I would argue that US citizens fear terrorism far more today than they ever did during GHWB or clinton's administrations. What used to be more or less "out of sight, out of mind" is now being rubbed in our faces.
You can't 'win' a war on terror, but you can lose it, as soon as people start submitting to their fears, they have lost, no matter how many muslims you kill, you can never defeat terrorism, nor can you prevent people from fearing it.
The people that want to kill you, are motivated by hatred for you because you stand in their way of establishing a taliban style world state. The only way to combat it is to fight it. Much like germany sought to spread it's empire, these fundies wish to do the same.
How would you fight them putting aside military options?
These facts are on longer seriously in dispute. I know you want to bury this thread in tortured explications of where people are coming from, the mind-set of "Bush haters", accustaions of "spin" and irrelevant links.
Generalize some more please if it makes you feel better.
According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
You see again, I made my observations from a middle of the road standpoint and criticized both extremes. I also pointed to the lack of effort to come to conclusions other than "Bush Lied" here and in other venues.
Your post can be summed up in these words; "Bush Lied. End os story".
There are too many facets of this issue to go straight to that conclusion. But that is, once again, my point. There are so many ways to sum up what happened over this issue, other than "Bush lied. End of story."
If you want to focus on that, then you totally miss out on what is really important.
I am fine with the fact that you may not like this president, or you don't want him reelected. You have your reasons, I am sure. But what is wrong with participating in a meaningful and productive debate about the FACTS without just the intention of pointing the finger at one person?
Actually, my point is that we are no longer in this vague realm that you seem to favor, where multiple interpretations are not only possible but a mark of "reasonableness".
The evidence is clear, readily available, and without ambiguity.
Bush told the nation that the proof was iron clad, that there was no doubt, that there could no longer be any question.
The intellegence absolutely, positively did support these claims.
The only "meaningful and productive debate" possible at this juncture is whether or not you think it's OK for the president to have done this, and there really isn't any point in trading opinions aboout our relative tolerance for mischaracterizing the intel at hand to drum up support for the first preemptive invasion of a country in America's history.
If you're OK with that, I doubt there is anything at all this administration could do that would concern you.
On the other hand, there are any number of initiatives that Bush could undertake that I would applaud.
So please stop acting like its all a matter of open mindedness and willingness to debate. That's true of very many things. Not this.
Actually, my point is that we are no longer in this vague realm that you seem to favor, where multiple interpretations are not only possible but a mark of "reasonableness".
The evidence is clear, readily available, and without ambiguity.
Bush told the nation that the proof was iron clad, that there was no doubt, that there could no longer be any question.
The intellegence absolutely, positively did support these claims.
The only "meaningful and productive debate" possible at this juncture is whether or not you think it's OK for the president to have done this, and there really isn't any point in trading opinions aboout our relative tolerance for mischaracterizing the intel at hand to drum up support for the first preemptive invasion of a country in America's history.
If you're OK with that, I doubt there is anything at all this administration could do that would concern you.
On the other hand, there are any number of initiatives that Bush could undertake that I would applaud.
So please stop acting like its all a matter of open mindedness and willingness to debate. That's true of very many things. Not this.
I think you are accepting things as fact that are not. I would like to see where anyone in this admin said it was 100% certain or absolute. I think you are parsing or selectively adopting pieces of what was said.
But there is also evidence that contradicts your point of view that also have the mark of reasonableness.
I have plenty of problems with this admin. But what is your point? You and I will have problem with the next admin also. You can't please everyone all of the time. Such is life.
When they impeach Bush for this so called "lying" then you can respectably make the claim. The reality is that plenty of blame is there to be had on both sides of the isle. If bush lied then so many other people did also, if you apply your criticisms fairly.
Context police: What your read (BTW your link doesn't work)
Quote:
On Wednesday, he told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative indicted who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.
"He was an Iraqi," Clarke observed. "Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq." While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.
"The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists."
KERREY: And secondly, I don't see it as you do, that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism. I honestly don't.
Unless you say that the threat of terrorism in Iraq is unquestionably gone up as a consequence of Al Qaida feeling even more opposition to freedom in Iraq than they do in freedom in the United States.
They feel much more threatened by having an Arab democracy than they do by having a democracy in the United States.
I mean, what conclusions do you draw by the fact that we have an individual who we believe was part of the conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center I in February of 1993 associated with Ramzi Yousef, who was connected at least indirectly to the second attack. I wonder what conclusions you draw from the fact that Yasin has been given, at the very least, a place that it could hang out, and he is on the lam again. We're still hunting him and trying to find out where he is in Iraq today.
CLARKE: Let me go back into the history of 1993, which is when we first heard about this man.
In 1993, when the truck bomb exploded at the World Trade Center, we didn't know there was an Al Qaida. No one had ever said that. In the initial reports, and I mean initial by the sense of about a year or two, the initial reports from the FBI's investigation of that attack, suggested that the attackers were somehow a gang of people from five or six different countries who had found each other and come together almost like a pick-up basketball team, that there was no organization behind it.
Eventually, in retrospect, the FBI and CIA were able to discover that there was an organization behind it and that organization is what we now call Al Qaida.
Most of the people directly involved in that conspiracy were identified and tracked down by the FBI and CIA, were arrested or snatched and brought back to the United States. Mr. Yasin was the one who wasn't. And the reason he wasn't was he was an Iraqi. He was the only Iraqi in the group. There were Egyptians and there were other nationalities. He was an Iraqi and therefore when the explosion took place and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq.
But the investigation, both the CIA investigation and the FBI investigation, made it very clear in '95 and '96 as they got more information, that the Iraqi government was in no way involved in the attack.
And the fact that one of the 12 people involved in the attack was Iraqi hardly seems to me as evidence that the Iraqi government was involved in the attack. The attack was Al Qaida; not Iraq. The Iraqi government because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists.
But the allegation that has been made that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was done by the Iraqi government I think is absolutely without foundation.
KERREY: Can you see where a reasonable person might say that if Yasin is given a safe haven inside of Iraq, prior to 9/11, that the Iraqis are at least unwilling to do what is necessary to bring someone that we believe is responsible for killing Americans in 1993 to justice?
CLARKE: Absolutely. The Iraqis were providing safe haven to a variety of Palestinian terrorists, as well. Absolutely -- as were the Iranians, as were the Syrians.
KERREY: Thank you.
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
FYI if you go to the source you are better able to formulate your own ideas than if you read an opinion piece from a publication know to lean either right or left.
I read the national review, and it appears you do as well so you know the NR doesn't do a lot of investigative reporting (The NR is the MotherJones of the right wing). The NR formulates opinion articles based on selectively culling news reports from other publications. The NR, like MotherJones, is an opinion publication.
Also, Clarks Title was Special assistant to the president. His Job description was Special assistant in charge of cyber security.
Once you cut through the spin and personal attacks you find that Clarke you find that Clarke is being praised by republicans and democratas on the 911 panel. They are thanking him for his 15 hours of closed door hearings with the panel. They are thanking him for his candor in placing the blame firmly on both administrations and his own shoulders.
Quote:
CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Because I have submitted a written statement today, and I've previously testified before this commission for 15 hours, and before the Senate-House Joint Inquiry Committee for six hours, I have only a very brief opening statement.
I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance.
I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.
To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.
And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness.
You can spin that all you want, but he did say we failed, that HE failed. I know this point has already been made but I feel it need to be brought up again nontheless to dispell the idea that the man is placing all the blame on the beloved BushCo. He's not.
He's angry with BushCo because of their fixation with Iraq. He's angry with BushCo because we invaded a soverign nation instead of focusing the required manpower on OBL.
Another point, all of you "Pro-premptive war" guru's out there. What are you going to do when China decides to invade Tiawan pre-emptivly? Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.The reasons we gave for invading Iraq (every last reason) can be applied to the US, or any other country around the world for that matter. There is a political philosophy called MacBethism which means once I do unto another, I should expect the same to done unto myself. For those that have never read MacBeth, Lady MacBeth, and her hubby conspired to, and did, kill the kind. MacBeth became the king. At the end of the story, MacBeth was killed by conspirators himself which begged the question "Would MacBeth have been killed had he not ascended under nefarious circumstances."
MacBethism applies to the US now. We are no angles by any means, and though we feel justified our actions are not universaly thought of as such. China is an up-and-coming political/economical/military power who may decide our actions as a nation threaten it. China may decide to attack us using the same logic we used in Iraq. Though it's not likely it is possible (about as possible as finding WMD in Iraq).
Another point: Did Bush lie? That's a tough question because Bush himself has never made many statements attributed to him. Bush has made numerous implications though which can be just as damning when public opinion is concerned. When BushCo has repeatedly used OBL, WMD, and Iraq in the very same sentences the words may not have said OBL=SH=WMD=Terrorism, but the implication was there nonthe less. Hell at the begininning of the Iraq conflict, 70% of the nation though SH was involved in 911. This strong belief was not due to the clear presentation of facts by the administration, but rather the linking was derived from the implications and nuances supplied to us by the administration.
So what is the point then? The administration came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. Not a five YO contengency plan but a full fledged ideological driven plan to turn the Middle East around. The administration did not focus time and attention on Al Qua'ide as much as Clarke thought was necessary. Clarke raised this issue while in the WH, and Condi backed this a couple of days ago in one of her 20 TV interviews (I'm looking for the transcript) in that she conceided that Clarke was raising flags. All of this is in line with the expressied views of other BushCo expatriots who were attacked in the exact manner as Clarke is. The first response to 911 from Rummy wasn't "lets get Al Qua'ida" but rather lets get SH because he has better targets. Even after the attack, the administration was still fixated on Iraq thus giving Clarke the impression that BushCo was weak on terrorism.
You guys/gals can berate the man all you want, but he formed his own opinion. His opinion was important enough to bring him before the panel investigation 911. He was praised by members of both parties for his forthrightness and candor. Clarke held his own when Tommy Thompson asked some tough questions, and replied to many question by pointing to a staff paper prepared by the 911 commission staffers about the 2002 press release. Clarke said that the 2002 release wasn't a lie, rather it was put out to excentuate the positives of BushCo while minimizing the negatives. That doesn't sound like an off the wall thing for an administration to do. Remember, Clarke was a BushCo staff member at the time so it would have behouved him to spin the story toward BushCo. Another thing to note about this was the administration authorized the press release on annonymous grounds (an undetermined source supplied the story) yet outed Clarke 18 months later for it because it was such a political football. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cord-fox_x.htm
Personal attacks don't minimize the general feeling among Americans (and this feeling is growing) that BushCo misplaced and mishandled the WOT by attacking SH. Defer and decry all you want but BushCo's character is under question now (the one thing he had going for him) because of all the implications, and the misguided war. Will Iraq turn around and become a model society. Who knows, but we can look back at other "Model Societs" built in our image in that region and see that they have failed. Iran was not a religious dictatorship until the revolution in the late 70's. We, the US, placed a puppet government in power in Iraq which was overthrown some 4 years later which eventually led to SH taking the throne. We have a very poor record in reguards to nation building (Japan being the noted exception for extenuating circumstances like 40% of the male population was killed during WWII).
I love reading and responding to these threads because there are a handful of people out there who STILL linke SH to OBL. If that link truely existed, it would be in the Bush ads rather than the image of a dead fireman being removed from the WTC rubble. BushCo would be jumping for joy that the link was found. They are not though. The only "Link" they have is a single terrorist who took refuge in Iraq. This same link can be applied to 10 other countries thus weakening BushCo's position.
Finally, if Clarke is such a liar then why are his comments in line with those made by O'Neile? Do you think O'Neile the former CEO of Alcoa needed the money? No. Did he do it for attention? No. Did he do it because he felt it was the right thing to do? Yes. Why is it that two high ranking exofficials would do this. Neither of them were meida hogs to begin with. Both had distinguished careers to begin with. Why?
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
FYI if you go to the source you are better able to formulate your own ideas than if you read an opinion piece from a publication know to lean either right or left.
I read the national review, and it appears you do as well so you know the NR doesn't do a lot of investigative reporting (The NR is the MotherJones of the right wing). The NR formulates opinion articles based on selectively culling news reports from other publications. The NR, like MotherJones, is an opinion publication.
Also, Clarks Title was Special assistant to the president. His Job description was Special assistant in charge of cyber security.
Once you cut through the spin and personal attacks you find that Clarke you find that Clarke is being praised by republicans and democratas on the 911 panel. They are thanking him for his 15 hours of closed door hearings with the panel. They are thanking him for his candor in placing the blame firmly on both administrations and his own shoulders.
You can spin that all you want, but he did say we failed, that HE failed. I know this point has already been made but I feel it need to be brought up again nontheless to dispell the idea that the man is placing all the blame on the beloved BushCo. He's not.
He's angry with BushCo because of their fixation with Iraq. He's angry with BushCo because we invaded a soverign nation instead of focusing the required manpower on OBL.
Another point, all of you "Pro-premptive war" guru's out there. What are you going to do when China decides to invade Tiawan pre-emptivly? Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.The reasons we gave for invading Iraq (every last reason) can be applied to the US, or any other country around the world for that matter. There is a political philosophy called MacBethism which means once I do unto another, I should expect the same to done unto myself. For those that have never read MacBeth, Lady MacBeth, and her hubby conspired to, and did, kill the kind. MacBeth became the king. At the end of the story, MacBeth was killed by conspirators himself which begged the question "Would MacBeth have been killed had he not ascended under nefarious circumstances."
MacBethism applies to the US now. We are no angles by any means, and though we feel justified our actions are not universaly thought of as such. China is an up-and-coming political/economical/military power who may decide our actions as a nation threaten it. China may decide to attack us using the same logic we used in Iraq. Though it's not likely it is possible (about as possible as finding WMD in Iraq).
Another point: Did Bush lie? That's a tough question because Bush himself has never made many statements attributed to him. Bush has made numerous implications though which can be just as damning when public opinion is concerned. When BushCo has repeatedly used OBL, WMD, and Iraq in the very same sentences the words may not have said OBL=SH=WMD=Terrorism, but the implication was there nonthe less. Hell at the begininning of the Iraq conflict, 70% of the nation though SH was involved in 911. This strong belief was not due to the clear presentation of facts by the administration, but rather the linking was derived from the implications and nuances supplied to us by the administration.
So what is the point then? The administration came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. Not a five YO contengency plan but a full fledged ideological driven plan to turn the Middle East around. The administration did not focus time and attention on Al Qua'ide as much as Clarke thought was necessary. Clarke raised this issue while in the WH, and Condi backed this a couple of days ago in one of her 20 TV interviews (I'm looking for the transcript) in that she conceided that Clarke was raising flags. All of this is in line with the expressied views of other BushCo expatriots who were attacked in the exact manner as Clarke is. The first response to 911 from Rummy wasn't "lets get Al Qua'ida" but rather lets get SH because he has better targets. Even after the attack, the administration was still fixated on Iraq thus giving Clarke the impression that BushCo was weak on terrorism.
You guys/gals can berate the man all you want, but he formed his own opinion. His opinion was important enough to bring him before the panel investigation 911. He was praised by members of both parties for his forthrightness and candor. Clarke held his own when Tommy Thompson asked some tough questions, and replied to many question by pointing to a staff paper prepared by the 911 commission staffers about the 2002 press release. Clarke said that the 2002 release wasn't a lie, rather it was put out to excentuate the positives of BushCo while minimizing the negatives. That doesn't sound like an off the wall thing for an administration to do. Remember, Clarke was a BushCo staff member at the time so it would have behouved him to spin the story toward BushCo. Another thing to note about this was the administration authorized the press release on annonymous grounds (an undetermined source supplied the story) yet outed Clarke 18 months later for it because it was such a political football. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cord-fox_x.htm
Personal attacks don't minimize the general feeling among Americans (and this feeling is growing) that BushCo misplaced and mishandled the WOT by attacking SH. Defer and decry all you want but BushCo's character is under question now (the one thing he had going for him) because of all the implications, and the misguided war. Will Iraq turn around and become a model society. Who knows, but we can look back at other "Model Societs" built in our image in that region and see that they have failed. Iran was not a religious dictatorship until the revolution in the late 70's. We, the US, placed a puppet government in power in Iraq which was overthrown some 4 years later which eventually led to SH taking the throne. We have a very poor record in reguards to nation building (Japan being the noted exception for extenuating circumstances like 40% of the male population was killed during WWII).
I love reading and responding to these threads because there are a handful of people out there who STILL linke SH to OBL. If that link truely existed, it would be in the Bush ads rather than the image of a dead fireman being removed from the WTC rubble. BushCo would be jumping for joy that the link was found. They are not though. The only "Link" they have is a single terrorist who took refuge in Iraq. This same link can be applied to 10 other countries thus weakening BushCo's position.
Finally, if Clarke is such a liar then why are his comments in line with those made by O'Neile? Do you think O'Neile the former CEO of Alcoa needed the money? No. Did he do it for attention? No. Did he do it because he felt it was the right thing to do? Yes. Why is it that two high ranking exofficials would do this. Neither of them were meida hogs to begin with. Both had distinguished careers to begin with. Why?
See you have officially turned this into a "Bush Bash" thread.
How many Democratic talking points did you regurgitate, or better yet how many didn't you?
So your argument also breaks down to "Bush lied. Case closed"
I guess if it is said enough in a myriad of ways, it becomes true.
See you have officially turned this into a "Bush Bash" thread.
How many Democratic talking points did you regurgitate, or better yet how many didn't you?
So your argument also breaks down to "Bush lied. Case closed"
I guess if it is said enough in a myriad of ways, it becomes true.
What's your point? I feel he lied if not directly then via implication. I've made no bones about hiding my views. The thread is about Clarke who is in the spotlight because of his views about the administration. I didn't bring up the Bash Bush stuff. It was raised earlier and propigated by yourself, so don't play sheep and whine to the contrary. Clarke has raised point about BushCo. We are discussing said points as they relate to BushCo and how they relate to Clarkes credability. I addresses both issues in my post yet as usual you honed in on the insignificant and are arguing that instead of "Why would O'Neil and Clarke come forward?"
Most of my post was spend addressing Clarke's credability but you just saw "Bash Bush".
My post discussed the global implications of pre-emptive war, and all you saw was "bash Bush".
My post delved lightly into the history of the Middle East, and the lackluster histor of Nation building but all you saw was "Bash Bush".
My post refered to the fact that many people believed one thing, and still do, though the weight of evidence is counter that belief and all you saw was "Bash Bush".
My post addressed the idea that personall attacks are noting more than diversionary tactics and all you saw was "Bash Bush".
Man alive. You criticize others for being Bush Haters, yet you immediatly attack those who say anything desparaging about the man. "OMG you said something bad!!!" Face it, the guy is a polotician who has us involved in an largely unpopular war. He's going to be criticized. You can defend all you want, I'm not telling to stop, but you should do so with an eye to what you say as well. You are no less culpable for the direction of the thread than anyone else killer. I really wish I could read things and not pick up context. I wish I could boil the world down to good and evil as easily as you.
You know, instead of just constantly dismissing any post that cirticizes Bush
as being the product of "Bush bashing" why don't you take a stab at refuting the points made in the post?
Because throwing around "Bush Basher" is a lot easier. I'm gonna resort to that tactic from now on I guess. My new phrase will be "Evil lying regime, war loving, people killing, devisive presidential protectionist." So instead of presenting my arguments in a cognative manner, I'll simply reply to all protectionist with the above.
You know, instead of just constantly dismissing any post that cirticizes Bush
as being the product of "Bush bashing" why don't you take a stab at refuting the points made in the post?
That would be a good idea except just like you say that I am dismissing others will do exactly the same.
However the rules here are a little strange:
The fact that you can't use FNC or anything deemed as a "Neo-Con" this being decided by the prevailing group think that exists here.
The fact that anything off the topic of "Bush lied. End of story" is dismissed and used to marginalize those as "not willing to move on"
Many here bring up constant objections, in effect forcing one to reword their posts to make a given point clearer. This is then parsed and used against that poster to discredit him and marginalize him/her.
Rarely is one point discussed and resolved, rather a flurry of non-fluent points are lobbed to further dissipate focus.
Comments
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.
counter-terrorism czar was never cabinet level. Cabinet level positions are created and confirmed by the Senate. The President nominates who he believs should fill these positions and has the right to fire the individuals at will.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bushcabinet.html
Clarke's actual positional title with BushCo was National Security Council special assistant.
My question however was why was the counter-terrorism czar out of the loop. The counter-terrorism czar wasn't Richard Clarke, it was Dick Cheney. Richard Clarke was an advisor to the NSC with extensive background in terrorism. Also, Condi was on every newsnetwork on the 23rd trying to piss on the Clarke fire. She said on CNN I believe (I could be wrong about which news network I was watching at the time) that Clarke was in the loop. This is contrary to Cheney's statement one day prior on Rush Limbaugh. Bush said on May 8, 2001. Read the Wh press release and you'll find this paragraph http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20010508.html
Therefore, I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.__I have also asked Joe Allbaugh, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to create an Office of National Preparedness.__This Office will be responsible for implementing the results of those parts of the national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney that deal with consequence management.__Specifically it will coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies.__The Office of National Preparedness will work closely with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed.__FEMA will also work closely with the Department of Justice, in its lead role for crisis management, to ensure that all facets of our response to the threat from weapons of mass destruction are coordinated and cohesive.__I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.
This was the closest thing to homeland security task force BushCo had prior to 911. Now protecting our homeland seems like an important topic doesn't it, but it wasn't important enough for the group supposidly headed by Cheney to meet even once.
Sorry if some of these points have already been made. I was working on this and got called away.
Originally posted by faust9
counter-terrorism czar was never cabinet level. Cabinet level positions are created and confirmed by the Senate. The President nominates who he believs should fill these positions and has the right to fire the individuals at will.
I was just going off of the articles I found online. They all seem to refer to it as "cabinet-level". Perhaps they just meant the prestige and responsibility placed on the job rather than the actual designation? Or maybe they're all just errorneous, I don't know. For instance:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml
CBS News says:
When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.
Clarke's actual positional title with BushCo was National Security Council special assistant.
Was he now?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...rs_clarke.html
ABC News says:
Oct. 9 ? Richard A. Clarke was appointed today by President Bush to be the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council.
People that are making a shaky case at best against this current president. They are accepting many things as fact that are questionable. These same people are willing to jump to the position that GWB is a liar, not to mention, Condi, Rummy, Cheney, and anybody else that has ever talk to GWB. So the bar is pretty low that someone is a liar.
At the very same time people like this Clarke guy and J. Kerry who directly contradicts themselves many many times, and in verifiable ways. Yet these people are held as honorable.
So the only thing that makes someone honest and trustworthy is if they support your political views. This whole thing smacks politics. Precious few of the people on the 9/11 commission and even fewer here are even looking to solve any problems or finding any solutions or truth as they claim.
Yet they will expect everyone else to accept their motives as pure.
That is funny.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Here is what is funny (not in a ha ha kind of way but a hmmm kinda way):
People that are making a shaky case at best against this current president. They are accepting many things as fact that are questionable. These same people are willing to jump to the position that GWB is a liar, not to mention, Condi, Rummy, Cheney, and anybody else that has ever talk to GWB. So the bar is pretty low that someone is a liar.
At the very same time people like this Clarke guy and J. Kerry who directly contradicts themselves many many times, and in verifiable ways. Yet these people are held as honorable.
So the only thing that makes someone honest and trustworthy is if they support your political views. This whole thing smacks politics. Precious few of the people on the 9/11 commission and even fewer here are even looking to solve any problems or finding any solutions or truth as they claim.
Yet they will expect everyone else to accept their motives as pure.
That is funny.
I have only seen what the Spin Machine has made out of Kerry's remarks . . . they were by no means contradictions . . . but through in Rove's eyes . . then you get evilness incarnate . . .
Whereas, I have seen Rummy shown to be flat out lying and caught doing so on national television
I have heard of the numerous bits of evidence that point to a lack of reliability with regards to Terror, to motivations and Iraq etc . . . NUMEROUS is too small . . it is an increasing mountain of evidence from many people including people once in teh very group that you now defend . . and this evidence supports an increasingly difficult position to dismiss: that the admin either lied, had its head up its ass with regards to Iraq, and/or was operating according to a guide book set up in advance of 911 with regards to Iraq that somehow allowed 911 to happen in order to set its plans into action.
. . . of course the latter version is 'off limits' to thought, as that would make one into a 'conspiracy nut' . . . .
And, disounting the very real possibility that Bush has done a seriously terrible job, gotten us into a war for ulterior motives that were long held in mind, and, generally made the World a more dangerous place for Americans for 'smacking of politics' is simply trite . . . as is the endless character assasinations of a man who is doing what he feels is right despite the groundswell of negativity and slander coming from BushCo
Originally posted by pfflam
I have only seen what the Spin Machine has made out of Kerry's remarks . . . they were by no means contradictions . . . but through in Rove's eyes . . then you get evilness incarnate . . .
Whereas, I have seen Rummy shown to be flat out lying and caught doing so on national television
I have heard of the numerous bits of evidence that point to a lack of reliability with regards to Terror, to motivations and Iraq etc . . . NUMEROUS is too small . . it is an increasing mountain of evidence from many people including people once in teh very group that you now defend . . and this evidence supports an increasingly difficult position to dismiss: that the admin either lied, had its head up its ass with regards to Iraq, and/or was operating according to a guide book set up in advance of 911 with regards to Iraq that somehow allowed 911 to happen in order to set its plans into action.
. . . of course the latter version is 'off limits' to thought, as that would make one into a 'conspiracy nut' . . . .
And, disounting the very real possibility that Bush has done a seriously terrible job, gotten us into a war for ulterior motives that were long held in mind, and, generally made the World a more dangerous place for Americans for 'smacking of politics' is simply trite . . . as is the endless character assasinations of a man who is doing what he feels is right despite the groundswell of negativity and slander coming from BushCo
You see there that is exactly what I am talking about.
Discounting the fact that just maybe GWB has done a good job is just as closed minded.
All presidents, all people in fact, have their strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that both sides fail to concede those facts. No longer is reaching a common ground a goal.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see there that is exactly what I am talking about.
Discounting the fact that just maybe GWB has done a good job is just as closed minded.
All presidents, all people in fact, have their strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that both sides fail to concede those facts. No longer is reaching a common ground a goal.
Evaluating the evidence at hand is not closed minded. We are not obliged to give every elected official "the benifit of the doubt" out of some odd sense of "balance".
The evidence at hand shows that Bush assured the American people that he had 100%, no doubt, you can take it to the bank evidence of Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and bio weapons stockpiles and programs. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had ties to Al Quiada.
We now know the intellegence at best was full of caveats and at worst flatly contadicts these assertions (as in the case of nuclear weapons). We now know that the WOMD were not there. We now know that there was no evidence whatsoever, and in fact repeated assertion to the contrary, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or Al Quiada.
There is simply no way to reconcile the fact that Bush mischaracterized the available intelligence on Iraq to justify a war that draws resources away from any coherent WOT, has cost over 500 American lives, and seems likely to damage our standing in the international community and moderate Arab states for years to come wtih "doing a good job".
These facts are on longer seriously in dispute. I know you want to bury this thread in tortured explications of where people are coming from, the mind-set of "Bush haters", accustaions of "spin" and irrelevant links.
But the facts remain, and they are damning.
Originally posted by addabox
There is simply no way to reconcile the fact that Bush mischaracterized the available intelligence on Iraq to justify a war that draws resources away from any coherent WOT, has cost over 500 American lives, and seems likely to damage our standing in the international community and moderate Arab states for years to come wtih "doing a good job".
Not to mention spawning more and more terrorists, and giving them more reason to hate us.
The thing is, you can't really do a 'good' job fighting(in a conventional sense, i.e. the way bush is going about with it) 'terror' because terror is not a physical thing, it's a state of mind, I would argue that US citizens fear terrorism far more today than they ever did during GHWB or clinton's administrations. What used to be more or less "out of sight, out of mind" is now being rubbed in our faces.
You can't 'win' a war on terror, but you can lose it, as soon as people start submitting to their fears, they have lost, no matter how many muslims you kill, you can never defeat terrorism, nor can you prevent people from fearing it.
Originally posted by addabox
...
He repeatedly implied that Iraq had ties to Al Quiada.
...
Can you document these?
BTW you do know about Clarke's linking of Iraq and Bin Laden right?
CLARKE LIED!!!!
Originally posted by addabox
Evaluating the evidence at hand is not closed minded. We are not obliged to give every elected official "the benifit of the doubt" out of some odd sense of "balance".
The evidence at hand shows that Bush assured the American people that he had 100%, no doubt, you can take it to the bank evidence of Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and bio weapons stockpiles and programs. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had ties to Al Quiada.
We now know the intellegence at best was full of caveats and at worst flatly contadicts these assertions (as in the case of nuclear weapons). We now know that the WOMD were not there. We now know that there was no evidence whatsoever, and in fact repeated assertion to the contrary, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or Al Quiada.
There is simply no way to reconcile the fact that Bush mischaracterized the available intelligence on Iraq to justify a war that draws resources away from any coherent WOT, has cost over 500 American lives, and seems likely to damage our standing in the international community and moderate Arab states for years to come wtih "doing a good job".
These facts are on longer seriously in dispute. I know you want to bury this thread in tortured explications of where people are coming from, the mind-set of "Bush haters", accustaions of "spin" and irrelevant links.
But the facts remain, and they are damning.
You see again, I made my observations from a middle of the road standpoint and criticized both extremes. I also pointed to the lack of effort to come to conclusions other than "Bush Lied" here and in other venues.
Your post can be summed up in these words; "Bush Lied. End os story".
There are too many facets of this issue to go straight to that conclusion. But that is, once again, my point. There are so many ways to sum up what happened over this issue, other than "Bush lied. End of story."
If you want to focus on that, then you totally miss out on what is really important.
I am fine with the fact that you may not like this president, or you don't want him reelected. You have your reasons, I am sure. But what is wrong with participating in a meaningful and productive debate about the FACTS without just the intention of pointing the finger at one person?
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Not to mention spawning more and more terrorists, and giving them more reason to hate us.
The thing is, you can't really do a 'good' job fighting(in a conventional sense, i.e. the way bush is going about with it) 'terror' because terror is not a physical thing, it's a state of mind, I would argue that US citizens fear terrorism far more today than they ever did during GHWB or clinton's administrations. What used to be more or less "out of sight, out of mind" is now being rubbed in our faces.
You can't 'win' a war on terror, but you can lose it, as soon as people start submitting to their fears, they have lost, no matter how many muslims you kill, you can never defeat terrorism, nor can you prevent people from fearing it.
The people that want to kill you, are motivated by hatred for you because you stand in their way of establishing a taliban style world state. The only way to combat it is to fight it. Much like germany sought to spread it's empire, these fundies wish to do the same.
How would you fight them putting aside military options?
Originally posted by addabox
These facts are on longer seriously in dispute. I know you want to bury this thread in tortured explications of where people are coming from, the mind-set of "Bush haters", accustaions of "spin" and irrelevant links.
Generalize some more please if it makes you feel better.
Heres more fuel for the fire I don't think we've bashed our heads against the wall enough on this thread. It's an article from your favorite conservative site illustrating some things Clarke has said regarding Iraq, al Qaeda and terrorism.
According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
(EDIT: fixed the busted link)
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see again, I made my observations from a middle of the road standpoint and criticized both extremes. I also pointed to the lack of effort to come to conclusions other than "Bush Lied" here and in other venues.
Your post can be summed up in these words; "Bush Lied. End os story".
There are too many facets of this issue to go straight to that conclusion. But that is, once again, my point. There are so many ways to sum up what happened over this issue, other than "Bush lied. End of story."
If you want to focus on that, then you totally miss out on what is really important.
I am fine with the fact that you may not like this president, or you don't want him reelected. You have your reasons, I am sure. But what is wrong with participating in a meaningful and productive debate about the FACTS without just the intention of pointing the finger at one person?
Actually, my point is that we are no longer in this vague realm that you seem to favor, where multiple interpretations are not only possible but a mark of "reasonableness".
The evidence is clear, readily available, and without ambiguity.
Bush told the nation that the proof was iron clad, that there was no doubt, that there could no longer be any question.
The intellegence absolutely, positively did support these claims.
The only "meaningful and productive debate" possible at this juncture is whether or not you think it's OK for the president to have done this, and there really isn't any point in trading opinions aboout our relative tolerance for mischaracterizing the intel at hand to drum up support for the first preemptive invasion of a country in America's history.
If you're OK with that, I doubt there is anything at all this administration could do that would concern you.
On the other hand, there are any number of initiatives that Bush could undertake that I would applaud.
So please stop acting like its all a matter of open mindedness and willingness to debate. That's true of very many things. Not this.
Originally posted by addabox
Actually, my point is that we are no longer in this vague realm that you seem to favor, where multiple interpretations are not only possible but a mark of "reasonableness".
The evidence is clear, readily available, and without ambiguity.
Bush told the nation that the proof was iron clad, that there was no doubt, that there could no longer be any question.
The intellegence absolutely, positively did support these claims.
The only "meaningful and productive debate" possible at this juncture is whether or not you think it's OK for the president to have done this, and there really isn't any point in trading opinions aboout our relative tolerance for mischaracterizing the intel at hand to drum up support for the first preemptive invasion of a country in America's history.
If you're OK with that, I doubt there is anything at all this administration could do that would concern you.
On the other hand, there are any number of initiatives that Bush could undertake that I would applaud.
So please stop acting like its all a matter of open mindedness and willingness to debate. That's true of very many things. Not this.
I think you are accepting things as fact that are not. I would like to see where anyone in this admin said it was 100% certain or absolute. I think you are parsing or selectively adopting pieces of what was said.
But there is also evidence that contradicts your point of view that also have the mark of reasonableness.
I have plenty of problems with this admin. But what is your point? You and I will have problem with the next admin also. You can't please everyone all of the time. Such is life.
When they impeach Bush for this so called "lying" then you can respectably make the claim. The reality is that plenty of blame is there to be had on both sides of the isle. If bush lied then so many other people did also, if you apply your criticisms fairly.
Originally posted by dviant
Generalize some more please if it makes you feel better.
Heres more fuel for the fire I don't think we've bashed our heads against the wall enough on this thread. It's an article from your favorite conservitive site illustrating some things Clarke has said regarding Iraq, al Qaeda and terrorism.
Context police: What your read (BTW your link doesn't work)
On Wednesday, he told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative indicted who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.
"He was an Iraqi," Clarke observed. "Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq." While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.
"The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists."
What was said http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04085/290935.stm
KERREY: And secondly, I don't see it as you do, that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism. I honestly don't.
Unless you say that the threat of terrorism in Iraq is unquestionably gone up as a consequence of Al Qaida feeling even more opposition to freedom in Iraq than they do in freedom in the United States.
They feel much more threatened by having an Arab democracy than they do by having a democracy in the United States.
I mean, what conclusions do you draw by the fact that we have an individual who we believe was part of the conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center I in February of 1993 associated with Ramzi Yousef, who was connected at least indirectly to the second attack. I wonder what conclusions you draw from the fact that Yasin has been given, at the very least, a place that it could hang out, and he is on the lam again. We're still hunting him and trying to find out where he is in Iraq today.
CLARKE: Let me go back into the history of 1993, which is when we first heard about this man.
In 1993, when the truck bomb exploded at the World Trade Center, we didn't know there was an Al Qaida. No one had ever said that. In the initial reports, and I mean initial by the sense of about a year or two, the initial reports from the FBI's investigation of that attack, suggested that the attackers were somehow a gang of people from five or six different countries who had found each other and come together almost like a pick-up basketball team, that there was no organization behind it.
Eventually, in retrospect, the FBI and CIA were able to discover that there was an organization behind it and that organization is what we now call Al Qaida.
Most of the people directly involved in that conspiracy were identified and tracked down by the FBI and CIA, were arrested or snatched and brought back to the United States. Mr. Yasin was the one who wasn't. And the reason he wasn't was he was an Iraqi. He was the only Iraqi in the group. There were Egyptians and there were other nationalities. He was an Iraqi and therefore when the explosion took place and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq.
But the investigation, both the CIA investigation and the FBI investigation, made it very clear in '95 and '96 as they got more information, that the Iraqi government was in no way involved in the attack.
And the fact that one of the 12 people involved in the attack was Iraqi hardly seems to me as evidence that the Iraqi government was involved in the attack. The attack was Al Qaida; not Iraq. The Iraqi government because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists.
But the allegation that has been made that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was done by the Iraqi government I think is absolutely without foundation.
KERREY: Can you see where a reasonable person might say that if Yasin is given a safe haven inside of Iraq, prior to 9/11, that the Iraqis are at least unwilling to do what is necessary to bring someone that we believe is responsible for killing Americans in 1993 to justice?
CLARKE: Absolutely. The Iraqis were providing safe haven to a variety of Palestinian terrorists, as well. Absolutely -- as were the Iranians, as were the Syrians.
KERREY: Thank you.
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
FYI if you go to the source you are better able to formulate your own ideas than if you read an opinion piece from a publication know to lean either right or left.
I read the national review, and it appears you do as well so you know the NR doesn't do a lot of investigative reporting (The NR is the MotherJones of the right wing). The NR formulates opinion articles based on selectively culling news reports from other publications. The NR, like MotherJones, is an opinion publication.
Also, Clarks Title was Special assistant to the president. His Job description was Special assistant in charge of cyber security.
Once you cut through the spin and personal attacks you find that Clarke you find that Clarke is being praised by republicans and democratas on the 911 panel. They are thanking him for his 15 hours of closed door hearings with the panel. They are thanking him for his candor in placing the blame firmly on both administrations and his own shoulders.
CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Because I have submitted a written statement today, and I've previously testified before this commission for 15 hours, and before the Senate-House Joint Inquiry Committee for six hours, I have only a very brief opening statement.
I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance.
I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.
To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.
And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness.
You can spin that all you want, but he did say we failed, that HE failed. I know this point has already been made but I feel it need to be brought up again nontheless to dispell the idea that the man is placing all the blame on the beloved BushCo. He's not.
He's angry with BushCo because of their fixation with Iraq. He's angry with BushCo because we invaded a soverign nation instead of focusing the required manpower on OBL.
Another point, all of you "Pro-premptive war" guru's out there. What are you going to do when China decides to invade Tiawan pre-emptivly? Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.The reasons we gave for invading Iraq (every last reason) can be applied to the US, or any other country around the world for that matter. There is a political philosophy called MacBethism which means once I do unto another, I should expect the same to done unto myself. For those that have never read MacBeth, Lady MacBeth, and her hubby conspired to, and did, kill the kind. MacBeth became the king. At the end of the story, MacBeth was killed by conspirators himself which begged the question "Would MacBeth have been killed had he not ascended under nefarious circumstances."
MacBethism applies to the US now. We are no angles by any means, and though we feel justified our actions are not universaly thought of as such. China is an up-and-coming political/economical/military power who may decide our actions as a nation threaten it. China may decide to attack us using the same logic we used in Iraq. Though it's not likely it is possible (about as possible as finding WMD in Iraq).
Another point: Did Bush lie? That's a tough question because Bush himself has never made many statements attributed to him. Bush has made numerous implications though which can be just as damning when public opinion is concerned. When BushCo has repeatedly used OBL, WMD, and Iraq in the very same sentences the words may not have said OBL=SH=WMD=Terrorism, but the implication was there nonthe less. Hell at the begininning of the Iraq conflict, 70% of the nation though SH was involved in 911. This strong belief was not due to the clear presentation of facts by the administration, but rather the linking was derived from the implications and nuances supplied to us by the administration.
So what is the point then? The administration came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. Not a five YO contengency plan but a full fledged ideological driven plan to turn the Middle East around. The administration did not focus time and attention on Al Qua'ide as much as Clarke thought was necessary. Clarke raised this issue while in the WH, and Condi backed this a couple of days ago in one of her 20 TV interviews (I'm looking for the transcript) in that she conceided that Clarke was raising flags. All of this is in line with the expressied views of other BushCo expatriots who were attacked in the exact manner as Clarke is. The first response to 911 from Rummy wasn't "lets get Al Qua'ida" but rather lets get SH because he has better targets. Even after the attack, the administration was still fixated on Iraq thus giving Clarke the impression that BushCo was weak on terrorism.
You guys/gals can berate the man all you want, but he formed his own opinion. His opinion was important enough to bring him before the panel investigation 911. He was praised by members of both parties for his forthrightness and candor. Clarke held his own when Tommy Thompson asked some tough questions, and replied to many question by pointing to a staff paper prepared by the 911 commission staffers about the 2002 press release. Clarke said that the 2002 release wasn't a lie, rather it was put out to excentuate the positives of BushCo while minimizing the negatives. That doesn't sound like an off the wall thing for an administration to do. Remember, Clarke was a BushCo staff member at the time so it would have behouved him to spin the story toward BushCo. Another thing to note about this was the administration authorized the press release on annonymous grounds (an undetermined source supplied the story) yet outed Clarke 18 months later for it because it was such a political football. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cord-fox_x.htm
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8555.shtml
Personal attacks don't minimize the general feeling among Americans (and this feeling is growing) that BushCo misplaced and mishandled the WOT by attacking SH. Defer and decry all you want but BushCo's character is under question now (the one thing he had going for him) because of all the implications, and the misguided war. Will Iraq turn around and become a model society. Who knows, but we can look back at other "Model Societs" built in our image in that region and see that they have failed. Iran was not a religious dictatorship until the revolution in the late 70's. We, the US, placed a puppet government in power in Iraq which was overthrown some 4 years later which eventually led to SH taking the throne. We have a very poor record in reguards to nation building (Japan being the noted exception for extenuating circumstances like 40% of the male population was killed during WWII).
I love reading and responding to these threads because there are a handful of people out there who STILL linke SH to OBL. If that link truely existed, it would be in the Bush ads rather than the image of a dead fireman being removed from the WTC rubble. BushCo would be jumping for joy that the link was found. They are not though. The only "Link" they have is a single terrorist who took refuge in Iraq. This same link can be applied to 10 other countries thus weakening BushCo's position.
Finally, if Clarke is such a liar then why are his comments in line with those made by O'Neile? Do you think O'Neile the former CEO of Alcoa needed the money? No. Did he do it for attention? No. Did he do it because he felt it was the right thing to do? Yes. Why is it that two high ranking exofficials would do this. Neither of them were meida hogs to begin with. Both had distinguished careers to begin with. Why?
Originally posted by faust9
Context police: What your read (BTW your link doesn't work)
What was said http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04085/290935.stm
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
FYI if you go to the source you are better able to formulate your own ideas than if you read an opinion piece from a publication know to lean either right or left.
I read the national review, and it appears you do as well so you know the NR doesn't do a lot of investigative reporting (The NR is the MotherJones of the right wing). The NR formulates opinion articles based on selectively culling news reports from other publications. The NR, like MotherJones, is an opinion publication.
Also, Clarks Title was Special assistant to the president. His Job description was Special assistant in charge of cyber security.
Once you cut through the spin and personal attacks you find that Clarke you find that Clarke is being praised by republicans and democratas on the 911 panel. They are thanking him for his 15 hours of closed door hearings with the panel. They are thanking him for his candor in placing the blame firmly on both administrations and his own shoulders.
You can spin that all you want, but he did say we failed, that HE failed. I know this point has already been made but I feel it need to be brought up again nontheless to dispell the idea that the man is placing all the blame on the beloved BushCo. He's not.
He's angry with BushCo because of their fixation with Iraq. He's angry with BushCo because we invaded a soverign nation instead of focusing the required manpower on OBL.
Another point, all of you "Pro-premptive war" guru's out there. What are you going to do when China decides to invade Tiawan pre-emptivly? Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.The reasons we gave for invading Iraq (every last reason) can be applied to the US, or any other country around the world for that matter. There is a political philosophy called MacBethism which means once I do unto another, I should expect the same to done unto myself. For those that have never read MacBeth, Lady MacBeth, and her hubby conspired to, and did, kill the kind. MacBeth became the king. At the end of the story, MacBeth was killed by conspirators himself which begged the question "Would MacBeth have been killed had he not ascended under nefarious circumstances."
MacBethism applies to the US now. We are no angles by any means, and though we feel justified our actions are not universaly thought of as such. China is an up-and-coming political/economical/military power who may decide our actions as a nation threaten it. China may decide to attack us using the same logic we used in Iraq. Though it's not likely it is possible (about as possible as finding WMD in Iraq).
Another point: Did Bush lie? That's a tough question because Bush himself has never made many statements attributed to him. Bush has made numerous implications though which can be just as damning when public opinion is concerned. When BushCo has repeatedly used OBL, WMD, and Iraq in the very same sentences the words may not have said OBL=SH=WMD=Terrorism, but the implication was there nonthe less. Hell at the begininning of the Iraq conflict, 70% of the nation though SH was involved in 911. This strong belief was not due to the clear presentation of facts by the administration, but rather the linking was derived from the implications and nuances supplied to us by the administration.
So what is the point then? The administration came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. Not a five YO contengency plan but a full fledged ideological driven plan to turn the Middle East around. The administration did not focus time and attention on Al Qua'ide as much as Clarke thought was necessary. Clarke raised this issue while in the WH, and Condi backed this a couple of days ago in one of her 20 TV interviews (I'm looking for the transcript) in that she conceided that Clarke was raising flags. All of this is in line with the expressied views of other BushCo expatriots who were attacked in the exact manner as Clarke is. The first response to 911 from Rummy wasn't "lets get Al Qua'ida" but rather lets get SH because he has better targets. Even after the attack, the administration was still fixated on Iraq thus giving Clarke the impression that BushCo was weak on terrorism.
You guys/gals can berate the man all you want, but he formed his own opinion. His opinion was important enough to bring him before the panel investigation 911. He was praised by members of both parties for his forthrightness and candor. Clarke held his own when Tommy Thompson asked some tough questions, and replied to many question by pointing to a staff paper prepared by the 911 commission staffers about the 2002 press release. Clarke said that the 2002 release wasn't a lie, rather it was put out to excentuate the positives of BushCo while minimizing the negatives. That doesn't sound like an off the wall thing for an administration to do. Remember, Clarke was a BushCo staff member at the time so it would have behouved him to spin the story toward BushCo. Another thing to note about this was the administration authorized the press release on annonymous grounds (an undetermined source supplied the story) yet outed Clarke 18 months later for it because it was such a political football. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cord-fox_x.htm
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8555.shtml
Personal attacks don't minimize the general feeling among Americans (and this feeling is growing) that BushCo misplaced and mishandled the WOT by attacking SH. Defer and decry all you want but BushCo's character is under question now (the one thing he had going for him) because of all the implications, and the misguided war. Will Iraq turn around and become a model society. Who knows, but we can look back at other "Model Societs" built in our image in that region and see that they have failed. Iran was not a religious dictatorship until the revolution in the late 70's. We, the US, placed a puppet government in power in Iraq which was overthrown some 4 years later which eventually led to SH taking the throne. We have a very poor record in reguards to nation building (Japan being the noted exception for extenuating circumstances like 40% of the male population was killed during WWII).
I love reading and responding to these threads because there are a handful of people out there who STILL linke SH to OBL. If that link truely existed, it would be in the Bush ads rather than the image of a dead fireman being removed from the WTC rubble. BushCo would be jumping for joy that the link was found. They are not though. The only "Link" they have is a single terrorist who took refuge in Iraq. This same link can be applied to 10 other countries thus weakening BushCo's position.
Finally, if Clarke is such a liar then why are his comments in line with those made by O'Neile? Do you think O'Neile the former CEO of Alcoa needed the money? No. Did he do it for attention? No. Did he do it because he felt it was the right thing to do? Yes. Why is it that two high ranking exofficials would do this. Neither of them were meida hogs to begin with. Both had distinguished careers to begin with. Why?
See you have officially turned this into a "Bush Bash" thread.
How many Democratic talking points did you regurgitate, or better yet how many didn't you?
So your argument also breaks down to "Bush lied. Case closed"
I guess if it is said enough in a myriad of ways, it becomes true.
Originally posted by NaplesX
See you have officially turned this into a "Bush Bash" thread.
How many Democratic talking points did you regurgitate, or better yet how many didn't you?
So your argument also breaks down to "Bush lied. Case closed"
I guess if it is said enough in a myriad of ways, it becomes true.
You know, instead of just constantly dismissing any post that cirticizes Bush
as being the product of "Bush bashing" why don't you take a stab at refuting the points made in the post?
Originally posted by NaplesX
See you have officially turned this into a "Bush Bash" thread.
How many Democratic talking points did you regurgitate, or better yet how many didn't you?
So your argument also breaks down to "Bush lied. Case closed"
I guess if it is said enough in a myriad of ways, it becomes true.
What's your point? I feel he lied if not directly then via implication. I've made no bones about hiding my views. The thread is about Clarke who is in the spotlight because of his views about the administration. I didn't bring up the Bash Bush stuff. It was raised earlier and propigated by yourself, so don't play sheep and whine to the contrary. Clarke has raised point about BushCo. We are discussing said points as they relate to BushCo and how they relate to Clarkes credability. I addresses both issues in my post yet as usual you honed in on the insignificant and are arguing that instead of "Why would O'Neil and Clarke come forward?"
Most of my post was spend addressing Clarke's credability but you just saw "Bash Bush".
My post discussed the global implications of pre-emptive war, and all you saw was "bash Bush".
My post delved lightly into the history of the Middle East, and the lackluster histor of Nation building but all you saw was "Bash Bush".
My post refered to the fact that many people believed one thing, and still do, though the weight of evidence is counter that belief and all you saw was "Bash Bush".
My post addressed the idea that personall attacks are noting more than diversionary tactics and all you saw was "Bash Bush".
Man alive. You criticize others for being Bush Haters, yet you immediatly attack those who say anything desparaging about the man. "OMG you said something bad!!!" Face it, the guy is a polotician who has us involved in an largely unpopular war. He's going to be criticized. You can defend all you want, I'm not telling to stop, but you should do so with an eye to what you say as well. You are no less culpable for the direction of the thread than anyone else killer. I really wish I could read things and not pick up context. I wish I could boil the world down to good and evil as easily as you.
Originally posted by addabox
You know, instead of just constantly dismissing any post that cirticizes Bush
as being the product of "Bush bashing" why don't you take a stab at refuting the points made in the post?
Because throwing around "Bush Basher" is a lot easier. I'm gonna resort to that tactic from now on I guess. My new phrase will be "Evil lying regime, war loving, people killing, devisive presidential protectionist." So instead of presenting my arguments in a cognative manner, I'll simply reply to all protectionist with the above.
Originally posted by addabox
You know, instead of just constantly dismissing any post that cirticizes Bush
as being the product of "Bush bashing" why don't you take a stab at refuting the points made in the post?
That would be a good idea except just like you say that I am dismissing others will do exactly the same.
However the rules here are a little strange:
The fact that you can't use FNC or anything deemed as a "Neo-Con" this being decided by the prevailing group think that exists here.
The fact that anything off the topic of "Bush lied. End of story" is dismissed and used to marginalize those as "not willing to move on"
Many here bring up constant objections, in effect forcing one to reword their posts to make a given point clearer. This is then parsed and used against that poster to discredit him and marginalize him/her.
Rarely is one point discussed and resolved, rather a flurry of non-fluent points are lobbed to further dissipate focus.