People have done worse for less. You cannot count it out.
I have heard people say that Cheney promoted this war so his buddies would profit. That is much less a reason than money in pocket. Yet this theory is constantly brought up in these forums. Look at what people do to get their mug on TV, like survivor and Idol and the like. Do you think that clarke is being sought by any media outlets for his sheer good looks?
Again, your assuming these guys are glory hounds. I don't think either man is an American Idol, or Survivor. I think one was a career politician, and the other was an on again off again politician/businessman.
Again, your assuming these guys are glory hounds. I don't think either man is an American Idol, or Survivor. I think one was a career politician, and the other was an on again off again politician/businessman.
But you cannot honestly write off the allure of fame and the prestige of being a best selling author.
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.
Yeah, Clarke just wants publicity. I'm sure he's "loving" the Administration's incesant character assassination attacks.
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
Think it through, sparky. In the time frame that Clarke would have been writing his book, Bush was riding high. His approval ratings were up. There was still wide-spread support for the invasion of Iraq. Polls showed that if nothing else, the American public saw him as an effective leader in the war on terror.
So Clarke thinks to self: "Hmmm, I'll think I'll write a book to make lots of money. Let's see, I'll make it fly in the face of the popular mood, and rag on a popular president. Yeah! that's the ticket!".
And O'Neil? A wealthy man, who decided book profits would be just the thing to redecorate his bedroom, I guess.
And the other Bush insiders that tell the same story, as Faust9 keeps tirelessly pointing out? Did they all get together in a secret cave, or something, and conspire to bring down the pres?
Most of you aren't really arguing anymore, there's just this robotic contentiousness. People who criticize Bush are full of shit, greedy, sex-starved geeks (?), dupes of the DNC, liars, and fools. To a man. Regardless of there past, their ideology , their record of service, or corraborating accounts .
The truth can't be known because things are complicated and everybody makes mistakes and it remains to seen and Bush bashers just wanna have fun.
Fox news in an unimpeachable primary source while the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and anybody other than Fox I left out are all part of the liberal media conspiracy and can be safely dismissed out of hand.
Like I said in a previous post, we've reached the la la part of supporting these polices, where larger and larger chunks of what we used to think of as reality have to be dismissed, refuted, slandered or denied in order to keep on believing.
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.
What are we going to do from here on out?
Right-O. The only cognative solution to 911 thus far was posting the pictures of the two wanted terrorist in every building and airport. That didn't happen, so the attack occured (No fault of Bush BTW).
What are we going to do? Elect someone else (abstain from voting in my case as a protest because I don't feel right about voting for Kerry, but I defenetly dislike Bush). Get the US out of Iraq, and the UN in order to help foot the bill (don't bitch about UN corruption either. We have corruption here as well.) Hopefully enact sweeping socio-political change in order to weaken the drift toward islamic fundamentalism (READ tell Saudi Arabia straighten up or face UN sanctions beleive me SA would not like sanctions). Take all steps possible to end the intefada (I don't know how we'll do this though). Try to get industry into the middle east. These are some of my crazy ideas.
Think it through, sparky. In the time frame that Clarke would have been writing his book, Bush was riding high. His approval ratings were up. There was still wide-spread support for the invasion of Iraq. Polls showed that if nothing else, the American public saw him as an effective leader in the war on terror.
So Clarke thinks to self: "Hmmm, I'll think I'll write a book to make lots of money. Let's see, I'll make it fly in the face of the popular mood, and rag on a popular president. Yeah! that's the ticket!".
And O'Neil? A wealthy man, who decided book profits would be just the thing to redecorate his bedroom, I guess.
And the other Bush insiders that tell the same story, as Faust9 keeps tirelessly pointing out? Did they all get together in a secret cave, or something, and conspire to bring down the pres?
Most of you aren't really arguing anymore, there's just this robotic contentiousness. People who criticize Bush are full of shit, greedy, sex-starved geeks (?), dupes of the DNC, liars, and fools. To a man. Regardless of there past, their ideology , their record of service, or corraborating accounts .
The truth can't be known because things are complicated and everybody makes mistakes and it remains to seen and Bush bashers just wanna have fun.
Fox news in an unimpeachable primary source while the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and anybody other than Fox I left out are all part of the liberal media conspiracy and can be safely dismissed out of hand.
Like I said in a previous post, we've reached the la la part of supporting these polices, where larger and larger chunks of what we used to think of as reality have to be dismissed, refuted, slandered or denied in order to keep on believing.
Most insider books do well. So it matters not when he started writing.
Regardless of his reasons, he has a history that contradicts with other points in time. He may be a smart person in one aspect but that does not automatically make everything he does smart.
He is not credible if you have to say " that did not count, just ignore that" or "he only said that to keep his job". If he lied to save a job then he will lie to fill his pockets. So lets move on. He is not credible, and I really don't care why he said what.
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.
See, Naples, this is the kind of thing that gets so tiresome. Gilsch alludes to the character assasinations that Clarke is enduring. As anybody with a pulse can attest, these have been constant, have taken many forms, and come almost too fast to keep track of.
Your response? "But Fox found the transcript..." as if that were the beginning and end of the white house attack. You've simultaneously truncated and deformed (the white house putting a name on an anonymous backgrounder is the actual problem) the subject, encouraging yet another side bar into pointlessness.
You are free to argue your point as you see fit, but this stuff is like pouring mud on trail we're trying to hike.
Most insider books do well. So it matters not when he started writing.
Regardless of his reasons, he has a history that contradicts with other points in time. He may be a smart person in one aspect but that does not automatically make everything he does smart.
He is not credible if you have to say " that did not count, just ignore that" or "he only said that to keep his job". If he lied to save a job then he will lie to fill his pockets. So lets move on. He is not credible, and I really don't care why he said what.
Define "well". How much money can he expect to make?
Your assertion is that his motivation is greed, or some unintelligable conflation of what you consider his credibility "problems" and greed. So what's the going price of ending 30 years of public service by publishing a book full of lies?
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.
What are we going to do from here on out?
Your guess is as good, or bad as anyone's. You simply don't know. We simply don't know. No one will ever know if 9/11 could've been prevented.
And I agree, we would not have invaded Iraq then because the american public would not have gone along with it then. Unless......
Quote:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor..."
"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ?target? specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
-- from "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September, 2000.
Go read up on PNAC. Their blue-print is still there. [QUOTE]PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.
See, Naples, this is the kind of thing that gets so tiresome. Gilsch alludes to the character assasinations that Clarke is enduring. As anybody with a pulse can attest, these have been constant, have taken many forms, and come almost too fast to keep track of.
Your response? "But Fox found the transcript..." as if that were the beginning and end of the white house attack. You've simultaneously truncated and deformed (the white house putting a name on an anonymous backgrounder is the actual problem) the subject, encouraging yet another side bar into pointlessness.
You are free to argue your point as you see fit, but this stuff is like pouring mud on trail we're trying to hike.
The white house has a right to defend itself. This guy clarke is very questionable. When you come out against any presidency, right or wrong, you can expect the same. Look at some of the detractors of the clinton WH. This is what happens. The reaction by the white house does not automatically mean it is in the wrong.
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.
wtf are you talking about? Every Republican, on every tv show was bashing him even before Fox "found" anything.
The white house has a right to defend itself. This guy clarke is very questionable. When you come out against any presidency, right or wrong, you can expect the same. Look at some of the detractors of the clinton WH. This is what happens. The reaction by the white house does not automatically mean it is in the wrong.
I take exception to that. There are weaker strawmen out there. I asked the question rhetorically because the actual answer is Syria didn't have the name brand recognition as Iraq. Gadaffi had drifder from the radar years ago. Iran has a ineffectual elected president so justifying invasion would be tough. Iraq was easy. Iraq was in the radar prior to 911. That's why Iraq.
...
No that's not why at all. You forget your history.
No that's not why at all. You forget your history.
No, I did NOT forget my history. To what history are YOU elluding too BTW. I love these shallow assertions without justification. I take the time to justify myself why don't you?
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
People have done worse for less. You cannot count it out.
I have heard people say that Cheney promoted this war so his buddies would profit. That is much less a reason than money in pocket. Yet this theory is constantly brought up in these forums. Look at what people do to get their mug on TV, like survivor and Idol and the like. Do you think that clarke is being sought by any media outlets for his sheer good looks?
Again, your assuming these guys are glory hounds. I don't think either man is an American Idol, or Survivor. I think one was a career politician, and the other was an on again off again politician/businessman.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"
He says he didn't FEEL the urgency. That says nothing to the facts.
Originally posted by faust9
Again, your assuming these guys are glory hounds. I don't think either man is an American Idol, or Survivor. I think one was a career politician, and the other was an on again off again politician/businessman.
But you cannot honestly write off the allure of fame and the prestige of being a best selling author.
What are we going to do from here on out?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, Clarke just wants publicity. I'm sure he's "loving" the Administration's incesant character assassination attacks.
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.
Originally posted by rageous
Naples isn't claiming it is without a doubt his motives. He's saying how about it gets taken into consideration?
Thank you.
edit: and not dismissed because none of us know.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
Think it through, sparky. In the time frame that Clarke would have been writing his book, Bush was riding high. His approval ratings were up. There was still wide-spread support for the invasion of Iraq. Polls showed that if nothing else, the American public saw him as an effective leader in the war on terror.
So Clarke thinks to self: "Hmmm, I'll think I'll write a book to make lots of money. Let's see, I'll make it fly in the face of the popular mood, and rag on a popular president. Yeah! that's the ticket!".
And O'Neil? A wealthy man, who decided book profits would be just the thing to redecorate his bedroom, I guess.
And the other Bush insiders that tell the same story, as Faust9 keeps tirelessly pointing out? Did they all get together in a secret cave, or something, and conspire to bring down the pres?
Most of you aren't really arguing anymore, there's just this robotic contentiousness. People who criticize Bush are full of shit, greedy, sex-starved geeks (?), dupes of the DNC, liars, and fools. To a man. Regardless of there past, their ideology , their record of service, or corraborating accounts .
The truth can't be known because things are complicated and everybody makes mistakes and it remains to seen and Bush bashers just wanna have fun.
Fox news in an unimpeachable primary source while the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and anybody other than Fox I left out are all part of the liberal media conspiracy and can be safely dismissed out of hand.
Like I said in a previous post, we've reached the la la part of supporting these polices, where larger and larger chunks of what we used to think of as reality have to be dismissed, refuted, slandered or denied in order to keep on believing.
Originally posted by rageous
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.
What are we going to do from here on out?
Right-O. The only cognative solution to 911 thus far was posting the pictures of the two wanted terrorist in every building and airport. That didn't happen, so the attack occured (No fault of Bush BTW).
What are we going to do? Elect someone else (abstain from voting in my case as a protest because I don't feel right about voting for Kerry, but I defenetly dislike Bush). Get the US out of Iraq, and the UN in order to help foot the bill (don't bitch about UN corruption either. We have corruption here as well.) Hopefully enact sweeping socio-political change in order to weaken the drift toward islamic fundamentalism (READ tell Saudi Arabia straighten up or face UN sanctions beleive me SA would not like sanctions). Take all steps possible to end the intefada (I don't know how we'll do this though). Try to get industry into the middle east. These are some of my crazy ideas.
Originally posted by addabox
Think it through, sparky. In the time frame that Clarke would have been writing his book, Bush was riding high. His approval ratings were up. There was still wide-spread support for the invasion of Iraq. Polls showed that if nothing else, the American public saw him as an effective leader in the war on terror.
So Clarke thinks to self: "Hmmm, I'll think I'll write a book to make lots of money. Let's see, I'll make it fly in the face of the popular mood, and rag on a popular president. Yeah! that's the ticket!".
And O'Neil? A wealthy man, who decided book profits would be just the thing to redecorate his bedroom, I guess.
And the other Bush insiders that tell the same story, as Faust9 keeps tirelessly pointing out? Did they all get together in a secret cave, or something, and conspire to bring down the pres?
Most of you aren't really arguing anymore, there's just this robotic contentiousness. People who criticize Bush are full of shit, greedy, sex-starved geeks (?), dupes of the DNC, liars, and fools. To a man. Regardless of there past, their ideology , their record of service, or corraborating accounts .
The truth can't be known because things are complicated and everybody makes mistakes and it remains to seen and Bush bashers just wanna have fun.
Fox news in an unimpeachable primary source while the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and anybody other than Fox I left out are all part of the liberal media conspiracy and can be safely dismissed out of hand.
Like I said in a previous post, we've reached the la la part of supporting these polices, where larger and larger chunks of what we used to think of as reality have to be dismissed, refuted, slandered or denied in order to keep on believing.
Most insider books do well. So it matters not when he started writing.
Regardless of his reasons, he has a history that contradicts with other points in time. He may be a smart person in one aspect but that does not automatically make everything he does smart.
He is not credible if you have to say " that did not count, just ignore that" or "he only said that to keep his job". If he lied to save a job then he will lie to fill his pockets. So lets move on. He is not credible, and I really don't care why he said what.
Originally posted by NaplesX
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.
See, Naples, this is the kind of thing that gets so tiresome. Gilsch alludes to the character assasinations that Clarke is enduring. As anybody with a pulse can attest, these have been constant, have taken many forms, and come almost too fast to keep track of.
Your response? "But Fox found the transcript..." as if that were the beginning and end of the white house attack. You've simultaneously truncated and deformed (the white house putting a name on an anonymous backgrounder is the actual problem) the subject, encouraging yet another side bar into pointlessness.
You are free to argue your point as you see fit, but this stuff is like pouring mud on trail we're trying to hike.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Most insider books do well. So it matters not when he started writing.
Regardless of his reasons, he has a history that contradicts with other points in time. He may be a smart person in one aspect but that does not automatically make everything he does smart.
He is not credible if you have to say " that did not count, just ignore that" or "he only said that to keep his job". If he lied to save a job then he will lie to fill his pockets. So lets move on. He is not credible, and I really don't care why he said what.
Define "well". How much money can he expect to make?
Your assertion is that his motivation is greed, or some unintelligable conflation of what you consider his credibility "problems" and greed. So what's the going price of ending 30 years of public service by publishing a book full of lies?
Originally posted by rageous
And it was good of Bush to admit that. I applaud him for at least saying this. But again, we act like had he been utterly on point and focused solely on terrorism, we wouldn't be here today. The fact is we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but nothing Bush could've done in the short time he was in office would've stopped 9/11. So here we are.
What are we going to do from here on out?
Your guess is as good, or bad as anyone's. You simply don't know. We simply don't know. No one will ever know if 9/11 could've been prevented.
And I agree, we would not have invaded Iraq then because the american public would not have gone along with it then. Unless......
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor..."
"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ?target? specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
-- from "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September, 2000.
Go read up on PNAC. Their blue-print is still there. [QUOTE]PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.
Originally posted by addabox
See, Naples, this is the kind of thing that gets so tiresome. Gilsch alludes to the character assasinations that Clarke is enduring. As anybody with a pulse can attest, these have been constant, have taken many forms, and come almost too fast to keep track of.
Your response? "But Fox found the transcript..." as if that were the beginning and end of the white house attack. You've simultaneously truncated and deformed (the white house putting a name on an anonymous backgrounder is the actual problem) the subject, encouraging yet another side bar into pointlessness.
You are free to argue your point as you see fit, but this stuff is like pouring mud on trail we're trying to hike.
The white house has a right to defend itself. This guy clarke is very questionable. When you come out against any presidency, right or wrong, you can expect the same. Look at some of the detractors of the clinton WH. This is what happens. The reaction by the white house does not automatically mean it is in the wrong.
Originally posted by NaplesX
But it was Fox that found the transcript involving Clarke not the WH. Clarke shot himself in the foot. Maybe he forgot it or just figured no-one would notice. Who knows.
wtf are you talking about? Every Republican, on every tv show was bashing him even before Fox "found" anything.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The white house has a right to defend itself. This guy clarke is very questionable. When you come out against any presidency, right or wrong, you can expect the same. Look at some of the detractors of the clinton WH. This is what happens. The reaction by the white house does not automatically mean it is in the wrong.
Fine.
However, that has nothing to do with what I said.
Originally posted by faust9
I take exception to that. There are weaker strawmen out there. I asked the question rhetorically because the actual answer is Syria didn't have the name brand recognition as Iraq. Gadaffi had drifder from the radar years ago. Iran has a ineffectual elected president so justifying invasion would be tough. Iraq was easy. Iraq was in the radar prior to 911. That's why Iraq.
...
No that's not why at all. You forget your history.
Originally posted by addabox
Fine.
However, that has nothing to do with what I said.
It does, you say they are character assassinations, I say they are the white house defending itself, or a little of both.
The transcript that fox produced brought this all to a head, that is why I use that as a reference.
Originally posted by Scott
No that's not why at all. You forget your history.
No, I did NOT forget my history. To what history are YOU elluding too BTW. I love these shallow assertions without justification. I take the time to justify myself why don't you?