Interesting logic. Let's see. So Bush kept this man in office , even though he has no credibility?
Not only that, but he used the agency this man runs, the man with no credibility, to gather and provide intelligence to see if going to war with Iraq was necessary to remove an "immediate" threat.
Edit: Removed the smilies because on second thought, it's not funny when a president uses someone with no credibility to provide "intelligence" necessary to take the nation to war.
...as much credibility as Perle, Clarke et al. I wasn't referring to Tenet, I was referring to you.
I'm confused. Weren't you arguing that Tenet would have as much credibility as someone who didn't run the CIA and had no government experience in the intelligence community? Even if you were simply attempting to insult pfflam by suggesting that he, in general, has no credibility, then why bother with the comparison to George Tenet (director of CIA, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council, Clinton's National Security transition team, 4 years as the Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Richard Perle (Chairman of the DOD's Defense Policy Board and an asst. Secretary of Defense under Reagan), and Richard Clarke (National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, former nuclear weapons analyst for the DOD, Senior Analyst for State Dept., a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, a staffer for the NSC, and Special Assistant to the President for Global Affairs) unless you wanted to imply that Tenet, Perle and Clarke don't know anything more than your average guy posting on a discussion forum?
I'm confused. Weren't you arguing that Tenet would have as much credibility as someone who didn't run the CIA and had no government experience in the intelligence community? Even if you were simply attempting to insult pfflam by suggesting that he, in general, has no credibility, then why bother with the comparison to George Tenet (director of CIA, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council, Clinton's National Security transition team, 4 years as the Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Richard Perle (Chairman of the DOD's Defense Policy Board and an asst. Secretary of Defense under Reagan), and Richard Clarke (National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, former nuclear weapons analyst for the DOD, Senior Analyst for State Dept., a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, a staffer for the NSC, and Special Assistant to the President for Global Affairs) unless you wanted to imply that Tenet, Perle and Clarke don't know anything more than your average guy posting on a discussion forum?
OK. My long day/week has obviously caused me to be unclear. I was poking fun at pfflam...that's all. I was trying to say that a book by pfflam would have about as much credibility as Clarke and Perle, which despite their history, I conisder to be next to zero. I went back and reread and I can see I didn't make that clear. If Tenet comes out with a book, that would be a different story.
It was foolish for GWB to let a Clinton man stay on in the first place.
You mean a Reagan man. Tenet first appeared as a serious intelligence guy in 1985 under Reagan.
Edit: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that when Tenet appeared on the scene, it was working for Republican Senator Heinz (Kerry's wife's first husband, who died in a bizarre airplane/helicopter crash).
I was trying to say that a book by pfflam would have about as much credibility as Clarke and Perle, which despite their history, I conisder to be next to zero. I went back and reread and I can see I didn't make that clear. If Tenet comes out with a book, that would be a different story.
OK. I mean, I got that you were poking fun at pfflam. But your statement that Clarke and Perle have no credibility makes no sense. What, precisely, is lacking from their experience/expertise that you think gives them "zero credibility" when they talk about foreign policy, national security and intelligence? Seriously. What about their resumes/history suggests to you that they don't know what they're talking about?
You mean a Reagan man. Tenet first appeared as a serious intelligence guy in 1985 under Reagan.
Edit: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that when Tenet appeared on the scene, it was working for Republican Senator Heinz (Kerry's wife's first husband, who died in a bizarre airplane/helicopter crash).
Hey cut him some slack. He's been alive only a month longer than I've been at my current job so he probably doesn't remember.
Hey cut him some slack. He's been alive only a month longer than I've been at my current job so he probably doesn't remember.
I know, I know, A Common Man was -3 when Tenet first appeared on the scene. And I know, I know, they usually hide information like all this in books.
If only, you know, there were some way for people use their computers to publish information on whatever they have information on in a way that could be accessible to anyone who wanted it. Can you imagine it? It'd be like a million million monkeys at a million million typewriters. What'd be even more amazing would be if, for instance, all of this information could somehow be linked together on this "network" of computers, so that relevant information about a subject could be accessed with absolute ease! Ooh! And imagine if there were some way to search for this information? You could just go to some search "site" in this "network" (which, for lack of a better metaphor, would really be more like a kind of "world wide web" than anything else) and type in something like "George Tenet bio" or "Richard Perle bio" or "Richard Clarke bio" and POOF! You'd get a list of those "sites" which feature some kind of biographical information about these people.
I know, I know, A Common Man was -3 when Tenet first appeared on the scene. And I know, I know, they usually hide information like all this in books.
If only, you know, there were some way for people use their computers to publish information on whatever they have information on in a way that could be accessible to anyone who wanted it. Can you imagine it? It'd be like a million million monkeys at a million million typewriters. What'd be even more amazing would be if, for instance, all of this information could somehow be linked together on this "network" of computers, so that relevant information about a subject could be accessed with absolute ease! Ooh! And imagine if there were some way to search for this information? You could just go to some search "site" in this "network" (which, for lack of a better metaphor, would really be more like a kind of "world wide web" than anything else) and type in something like "George Tenet bio" or "Richard Perle bio" or "Richard Clarke bio" and POOF! You'd get a list of those "sites" which feature some kind of biographical information about these people.
Nice to see what could have been an entertaining debate be muddled by the group mentality to go at each other's throats.
What do you know?! You were FIVE when Tenet appear on the scene, and we all know that if you weren't there and didn't live through it you can't talk about it or know anything about it!
OK. I mean, I got that you were poking fun at pfflam. But your statement that Clarke and Perle have no credibility makes no sense. What, precisely, is lacking from their experience/expertise that you think gives them "zero credibility" when they talk about foreign policy, national security and intelligence? Seriously. What about their resumes/history suggests to you that they don't know what they're talking about?
Clarke is simply not credible. The man was passed over in the Bush Administration. He then left, and praised Bush on his way out. Then, he comes out with a Tell-All book and rips everyone he was formerly associated with. Clarke's comments have been full of interpretations and according many in the administration, his statments are sometimes blatant falsehoods. For example, one of his most damning pieces of Bushlore is that immediately after 9/11, Bush pulled him aside and said "I want you to find whether Iraq did this." He then launched into an aside that essentially conveyed that "it was clear what Bush meant". Those are the kind of inferences Clarke made that damage his account and its credibility. In addition, did anyone really buy his patronizing and sickening "apology" to the 9/11 commission?
What do you know?! You were FIVE when Tenet appear on the scene, and we all know that if you weren't there and didn't live through it you can't talk about it or know anything about it!
You, sir, are spot on correct. What was I thinking indeed!
Then why was he a crucial figure in gov't antiterrorism for so long?
Quote:
The man was passed over in the Bush Administration.
For what? He served under what, 8 administrations? Under Bush he was in the high-level principals meetings. He reported directly to Condi Rice. Iin what way, exactly, was he passed over?
Quote:
He then left, and praised Bush on his way out.
This is what people do when they leave gov't office. It's courteous and gracious.
Quote:
Then, he comes out with a Tell-All book and rips everyone he was formerly associated with.
That's not what the book is about at all. Have you even read it? Or are you just spouting off the various idiotic claims about it and him that got bandied about in the right-wing echo chamber?
Quote:
Clarke's comments have been full of interpretations
Huh? He's commenting on the institutional and cultural problems in the CIA and the FBI and the Pentagon that allowed al Qaeda to become what it is right under our noses. Of course he's interpreting. That is, in the end, how we function from day to day.
Quote:
and according many in the administration, his statments are sometimes blatant falsehoods.
So, in other words, he's said something unflattering about the admin and the admin says he's lying. So it's their word against his.
Quote:
For example, one of his most damning pieces of Bushlore is that immediately after 9/11, Bush pulled him aside and said "I want you to find whether Iraq did this." He then launched into an aside that essentially conveyed that "it was clear what Bush meant".
That's a relatively small part of the book, and occurs when he is attempting to explain the theories under which the neo-cons running the show operate. And guess what? We *did* invade Iraq, just like they wanted, under the pretext of WMD in Iraq and a connection to "al Aqaeda like organizations."
Quote:
Those are the kind of inferences Clarke made that damage his account and its credibility.
So when he says something that all evidence suggests is likely to have happened, it damages his credibility? And when he makes a remark like this as a SMALL part of a much larger book ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, his credibility is damaged? I ask again, have you even read the thing?
Quote:
In addition, did anyone really buy his patronizing and sickening "apology" to the 9/11 commission?
The book is an apology for cultural and institutional failures in the intelligence community.
Then why was he a crucial figure in gov't antiterrorism for so long?
I'm not sure how that's relevant. His statements are directly contradictory re: Bush and his administration. See the letter he wrote upon his departure. I wasn't talking about his technical expertise.
For what? He served under what, 8 administrations? Under Bush he was in the high-level principals meetings. He reported directly to Condi Rice. Iin what way, exactly, was he passed over?
He was passed over for the #2 spot at homeland security.
This is what people do when they leave gov't office. It's courteous and gracious.
"What they do?" You mean, say the exact opposite of what you will say two years later? Oh, OK.
That's not what the book is about at all. Have you even read it? Or are you just spouting off the various idiotic claims about it and him that got bandied about in the right-wing echo chamber?
I have not read it. I have seen his interviews and I was talking about statements he has made about the book...all documented on video.
Huh? He's commenting on the institutional and cultural problems in the CIA and the FBI and the Pentagon that allowed al Qaeda to become what it is right under our noses. Of course he's interpreting. That is, in the end, how we function from day to day.
You're not listening. When Clarke says "I knew what the President meant, that's an interpretation, not a fact. Bush asking if Iraq sponsored 9/11 does not mean Bush wanted him to prove it.
So, in other words, he's said something unflattering about the admin and the admin says he's lying. So it's their word against his.
All I can tell you is that he's inconsistent, and trying to sell a book that stands to make him a lot of money. That's enough to make anyone doubt his motives. Some of what he says may be true. It's not just his word vs. theirs...it's his word vs. HIS word too!
That's a relatively small part of the book, and occurs when he is attempting to explain the theories under which the neo-cons running the show operate. And guess what? We *did* invade Iraq, just like they wanted, under the pretext of WMD in Iraq and a connection to "al Aqaeda like organizations."
Except that, um....Iraq did have at least some terror ties. There's a new book about this now, though I do not recall the title. We already know Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers....does that not count?
So when he says something that all evidence suggests is likely to have happened, it damages his credibility? And when he makes a remark like this as a SMALL part of a much larger book ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, his credibility is damaged? I ask again, have you even read the thing?
You don't seem to understand. The book isn't even the point. I'm not reviewing it. I am talking about Clarke's ridiculous public performances such as his 9/11 commission apology, his 60 minutes interview, etc. Compare this to his prior statements, take into account his being passed over and his profit motive, and tell me that he has credibility.
The book is an apology for cultural and institutional failures in the intelligence community.
I can't comment on that. It certainly wasn't marketed that way, now was it?
I'm not sure how that's relevant. His statements are directly contradictory re: Bush and his administration. See the letter he wrote upon his departure. I wasn't talking about his technical expertise.
You said he had no credibility. I'm asking you to please detail what, precisely, about his experience gives him no credibility when talking about the US intelligence community, which is what got all of this started.
Quote:
He was passed over for the #2 spot at homeland security.
Source?
Quote:
"What they do?" You mean, say the exact opposite of what you will say two years later? Oh, OK.
Yup. That's pretty much it.
Quote:
I have not read it.
Then you probably ought not talk about it, since this thread is about the credibility of gov't people who write books about their experiences.
Quote:
I have seen his interviews and I was talking about statements he has made about the book...all documented on video.
Maybe you ought to read the book, since we're talking about books and what's in them and whether their authors are credible.
Quote:
You're not listening. When Clarke says "I knew what the President meant, that's an interpretation, not a fact. Bush asking if Iraq sponsored 9/11 does not mean Bush wanted him to prove it.
Maybe you ought to read that whole section of the book, which describes a long process whereby the long-time intelligence staffers found themselves in meeting after meeting after meeting where Wolfowitz, Rice, Feith and Cheney all insisted that there must be an Iraqi connection.
Quote:
All I can tell you is that he's inconsistent,
About what? Are you still holding on to that moronic "he praised Bush when he left and look what he did!" If that's the case, I suspect you better jump all over W's ass for praising George Tenet left and right and then firing his ass.
Quote:
and trying to sell a book that stands to make him a lot of money.
So making a profit renders one's motives suspect, huh? You sure you want to make that argument? With THIS administration? Regardless, if making a profit means you can't tell the truth, you'd better just hole up in your house and never come out again.
Quote:
That's enough to make anyone doubt his motives.
Enough of what? And, as I have said, the book is about the cultural and institutional problems in the intelligence community. Maybe you ought to read it?
Quote:
Some of what he says may be true. It's not just his word vs. theirs...it's his word vs. HIS word too!
Please find as many quotes as you can from the book where he contradicts himself.
Quote:
Except that, um....Iraq did have at least some terror ties. There's a new book about this now, though I do not recall the title. We already know Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers....does that not count?
Had you read the book you're trying to talk about, you'd know that he deals in quite a bit of detail with Iraq's terror ties and the Clinton strategy for dealing with them.
And no, paying a pension to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers does not count.
Quote:
You don't seem to understand. The book isn't even the point. I'm not reviewing it.
No, YOU don't seem to understand. You changed the topic of this thread to the credibility of those who write books when they leave office. You attempted to suggest that pfflam has as much credibility as Tenet, Clarke, and Perle. I'm calling you on it and am asking you to explain why, in as much detail as you can muster, Clarke has no credibility. You have already admitted that you didn't even read the book you're talking about, and so now you're desperately trying to change the subject to something you can talk about, which is the interviews with him, which is not what you stared this discussion with. I'm trying to keep this on track. You're trying to avoid answering the question.
Quote:
I am talking about Clarke's ridiculous public performances such as his 9/11 commission apology, his 60 minutes interview, etc. Compare this to his prior statements, take into account his being passed over and his profit motive, and tell me that he has credibility.
Please provide sources for "his prior statements" and your claim that he was "passed over." Your comments about 60 minutes and the commission are, of course, interpretations and by your own logic are therefore immediately suspect if not outrageous lies.
Quote:
I can't comment on that.
No. You can't, can you?
Quote:
It certainly wasn't marketed that way, now was it?
No, it wasn't. It was marketed as the tell all book of an intelligence official with 30 years in public service and who had worked in intel under 3 presidents. That's why I bought it.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
Interesting logic. Let's see. So Bush kept this man in office , even though he has no credibility?
Not only that, but he used the agency this man runs, the man with no credibility, to gather and provide intelligence to see if going to war with Iraq was necessary to remove an "immediate" threat.
Edit: Removed the smilies because on second thought, it's not funny when a president uses someone with no credibility to provide "intelligence" necessary to take the nation to war.
You misread....go back one post.
Originally posted by SDW2001
...as much credibility as Perle, Clarke et al. I wasn't referring to Tenet, I was referring to you.
I'm confused. Weren't you arguing that Tenet would have as much credibility as someone who didn't run the CIA and had no government experience in the intelligence community? Even if you were simply attempting to insult pfflam by suggesting that he, in general, has no credibility, then why bother with the comparison to George Tenet (director of CIA, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council, Clinton's National Security transition team, 4 years as the Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Richard Perle (Chairman of the DOD's Defense Policy Board and an asst. Secretary of Defense under Reagan), and Richard Clarke (National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, former nuclear weapons analyst for the DOD, Senior Analyst for State Dept., a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, a staffer for the NSC, and Special Assistant to the President for Global Affairs) unless you wanted to imply that Tenet, Perle and Clarke don't know anything more than your average guy posting on a discussion forum?
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm confused. Weren't you arguing that Tenet would have as much credibility as someone who didn't run the CIA and had no government experience in the intelligence community? Even if you were simply attempting to insult pfflam by suggesting that he, in general, has no credibility, then why bother with the comparison to George Tenet (director of CIA, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council, Clinton's National Security transition team, 4 years as the Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Richard Perle (Chairman of the DOD's Defense Policy Board and an asst. Secretary of Defense under Reagan), and Richard Clarke (National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, former nuclear weapons analyst for the DOD, Senior Analyst for State Dept., a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, a staffer for the NSC, and Special Assistant to the President for Global Affairs) unless you wanted to imply that Tenet, Perle and Clarke don't know anything more than your average guy posting on a discussion forum?
OK. My long day/week has obviously caused me to be unclear. I was poking fun at pfflam...that's all. I was trying to say that a book by pfflam would have about as much credibility as Clarke and Perle, which despite their history, I conisder to be next to zero. I went back and reread and I can see I didn't make that clear. If Tenet comes out with a book, that would be a different story.
Originally posted by Common Man
It was foolish for GWB to let a Clinton man stay on in the first place.
You mean a Reagan man. Tenet first appeared as a serious intelligence guy in 1985 under Reagan.
Edit: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that when Tenet appeared on the scene, it was working for Republican Senator Heinz (Kerry's wife's first husband, who died in a bizarre airplane/helicopter crash).
Originally posted by SDW2001
I was trying to say that a book by pfflam would have about as much credibility as Clarke and Perle, which despite their history, I conisder to be next to zero. I went back and reread and I can see I didn't make that clear. If Tenet comes out with a book, that would be a different story.
OK. I mean, I got that you were poking fun at pfflam. But your statement that Clarke and Perle have no credibility makes no sense. What, precisely, is lacking from their experience/expertise that you think gives them "zero credibility" when they talk about foreign policy, national security and intelligence? Seriously. What about their resumes/history suggests to you that they don't know what they're talking about?
Originally posted by midwinter
You mean a Reagan man. Tenet first appeared as a serious intelligence guy in 1985 under Reagan.
Edit: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that when Tenet appeared on the scene, it was working for Republican Senator Heinz (Kerry's wife's first husband, who died in a bizarre airplane/helicopter crash).
Hey cut him some slack. He's been alive only a month longer than I've been at my current job so he probably doesn't remember.
Originally posted by jimmac
Hey cut him some slack. He's been alive only a month longer than I've been at my current job so he probably doesn't remember.
I know, I know, A Common Man was -3 when Tenet first appeared on the scene. And I know, I know, they usually hide information like all this in books.
If only, you know, there were some way for people use their computers to publish information on whatever they have information on in a way that could be accessible to anyone who wanted it. Can you imagine it? It'd be like a million million monkeys at a million million typewriters. What'd be even more amazing would be if, for instance, all of this information could somehow be linked together on this "network" of computers, so that relevant information about a subject could be accessed with absolute ease! Ooh! And imagine if there were some way to search for this information? You could just go to some search "site" in this "network" (which, for lack of a better metaphor, would really be more like a kind of "world wide web" than anything else) and type in something like "George Tenet bio" or "Richard Perle bio" or "Richard Clarke bio" and POOF! You'd get a list of those "sites" which feature some kind of biographical information about these people.
Man. It'd be amazing.
Originally posted by midwinter
I know, I know, A Common Man was -3 when Tenet first appeared on the scene. And I know, I know, they usually hide information like all this in books.
If only, you know, there were some way for people use their computers to publish information on whatever they have information on in a way that could be accessible to anyone who wanted it. Can you imagine it? It'd be like a million million monkeys at a million million typewriters. What'd be even more amazing would be if, for instance, all of this information could somehow be linked together on this "network" of computers, so that relevant information about a subject could be accessed with absolute ease! Ooh! And imagine if there were some way to search for this information? You could just go to some search "site" in this "network" (which, for lack of a better metaphor, would really be more like a kind of "world wide web" than anything else) and type in something like "George Tenet bio" or "Richard Perle bio" or "Richard Clarke bio" and POOF! You'd get a list of those "sites" which feature some kind of biographical information about these people.
Man. It'd be amazing.
For the 8,768,976,5978,567th time.
Originally posted by rageous
Nice to see what could have been an entertaining debate be muddled by the group mentality to go at each other's throats.
What do you know?! You were FIVE when Tenet appear on the scene, and we all know that if you weren't there and didn't live through it you can't talk about it or know anything about it!
Originally posted by jimmac
Hey cut him some slack. He's been alive only a month longer than I've been at my current job so he probably doesn't remember.
I was waiting for the age baiting to begin. Now my day can go on.
Originally posted by midwinter
OK. I mean, I got that you were poking fun at pfflam. But your statement that Clarke and Perle have no credibility makes no sense. What, precisely, is lacking from their experience/expertise that you think gives them "zero credibility" when they talk about foreign policy, national security and intelligence? Seriously. What about their resumes/history suggests to you that they don't know what they're talking about?
Clarke is simply not credible. The man was passed over in the Bush Administration. He then left, and praised Bush on his way out. Then, he comes out with a Tell-All book and rips everyone he was formerly associated with. Clarke's comments have been full of interpretations and according many in the administration, his statments are sometimes blatant falsehoods. For example, one of his most damning pieces of Bushlore is that immediately after 9/11, Bush pulled him aside and said "I want you to find whether Iraq did this." He then launched into an aside that essentially conveyed that "it was clear what Bush meant". Those are the kind of inferences Clarke made that damage his account and its credibility. In addition, did anyone really buy his patronizing and sickening "apology" to the 9/11 commission?
Originally posted by midwinter
What do you know?! You were FIVE when Tenet appear on the scene, and we all know that if you weren't there and didn't live through it you can't talk about it or know anything about it!
You, sir, are spot on correct. What was I thinking indeed!
*slaps forehead*
Originally posted by SDW2001
Clarke is simply not credible.
Then why was he a crucial figure in gov't antiterrorism for so long?
The man was passed over in the Bush Administration.
For what? He served under what, 8 administrations? Under Bush he was in the high-level principals meetings. He reported directly to Condi Rice. Iin what way, exactly, was he passed over?
He then left, and praised Bush on his way out.
This is what people do when they leave gov't office. It's courteous and gracious.
Then, he comes out with a Tell-All book and rips everyone he was formerly associated with.
That's not what the book is about at all. Have you even read it? Or are you just spouting off the various idiotic claims about it and him that got bandied about in the right-wing echo chamber?
Clarke's comments have been full of interpretations
Huh? He's commenting on the institutional and cultural problems in the CIA and the FBI and the Pentagon that allowed al Qaeda to become what it is right under our noses. Of course he's interpreting. That is, in the end, how we function from day to day.
and according many in the administration, his statments are sometimes blatant falsehoods.
So, in other words, he's said something unflattering about the admin and the admin says he's lying. So it's their word against his.
For example, one of his most damning pieces of Bushlore is that immediately after 9/11, Bush pulled him aside and said "I want you to find whether Iraq did this." He then launched into an aside that essentially conveyed that "it was clear what Bush meant".
That's a relatively small part of the book, and occurs when he is attempting to explain the theories under which the neo-cons running the show operate. And guess what? We *did* invade Iraq, just like they wanted, under the pretext of WMD in Iraq and a connection to "al Aqaeda like organizations."
Those are the kind of inferences Clarke made that damage his account and its credibility.
So when he says something that all evidence suggests is likely to have happened, it damages his credibility? And when he makes a remark like this as a SMALL part of a much larger book ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, his credibility is damaged? I ask again, have you even read the thing?
In addition, did anyone really buy his patronizing and sickening "apology" to the 9/11 commission?
The book is an apology for cultural and institutional failures in the intelligence community.
Then why was he a crucial figure in gov't antiterrorism for so long?
I'm not sure how that's relevant. His statements are directly contradictory re: Bush and his administration. See the letter he wrote upon his departure. I wasn't talking about his technical expertise.
For what? He served under what, 8 administrations? Under Bush he was in the high-level principals meetings. He reported directly to Condi Rice. Iin what way, exactly, was he passed over?
He was passed over for the #2 spot at homeland security.
This is what people do when they leave gov't office. It's courteous and gracious.
"What they do?" You mean, say the exact opposite of what you will say two years later? Oh, OK.
That's not what the book is about at all. Have you even read it? Or are you just spouting off the various idiotic claims about it and him that got bandied about in the right-wing echo chamber?
I have not read it. I have seen his interviews and I was talking about statements he has made about the book...all documented on video.
Huh? He's commenting on the institutional and cultural problems in the CIA and the FBI and the Pentagon that allowed al Qaeda to become what it is right under our noses. Of course he's interpreting. That is, in the end, how we function from day to day.
You're not listening. When Clarke says "I knew what the President meant, that's an interpretation, not a fact. Bush asking if Iraq sponsored 9/11 does not mean Bush wanted him to prove it.
So, in other words, he's said something unflattering about the admin and the admin says he's lying. So it's their word against his.
All I can tell you is that he's inconsistent, and trying to sell a book that stands to make him a lot of money. That's enough to make anyone doubt his motives. Some of what he says may be true. It's not just his word vs. theirs...it's his word vs. HIS word too!
That's a relatively small part of the book, and occurs when he is attempting to explain the theories under which the neo-cons running the show operate. And guess what? We *did* invade Iraq, just like they wanted, under the pretext of WMD in Iraq and a connection to "al Aqaeda like organizations."
Except that, um....Iraq did have at least some terror ties. There's a new book about this now, though I do not recall the title. We already know Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers....does that not count?
So when he says something that all evidence suggests is likely to have happened, it damages his credibility? And when he makes a remark like this as a SMALL part of a much larger book ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, his credibility is damaged? I ask again, have you even read the thing?
You don't seem to understand. The book isn't even the point. I'm not reviewing it. I am talking about Clarke's ridiculous public performances such as his 9/11 commission apology, his 60 minutes interview, etc. Compare this to his prior statements, take into account his being passed over and his profit motive, and tell me that he has credibility.
The book is an apology for cultural and institutional failures in the intelligence community.
I can't comment on that. It certainly wasn't marketed that way, now was it?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not sure how that's relevant. His statements are directly contradictory re: Bush and his administration. See the letter he wrote upon his departure. I wasn't talking about his technical expertise.
You said he had no credibility. I'm asking you to please detail what, precisely, about his experience gives him no credibility when talking about the US intelligence community, which is what got all of this started.
He was passed over for the #2 spot at homeland security.
Source?
"What they do?" You mean, say the exact opposite of what you will say two years later? Oh, OK.
Yup. That's pretty much it.
I have not read it.
Then you probably ought not talk about it, since this thread is about the credibility of gov't people who write books about their experiences.
Quote:
I have seen his interviews and I was talking about statements he has made about the book...all documented on video.
Maybe you ought to read the book, since we're talking about books and what's in them and whether their authors are credible.
You're not listening. When Clarke says "I knew what the President meant, that's an interpretation, not a fact. Bush asking if Iraq sponsored 9/11 does not mean Bush wanted him to prove it.
Maybe you ought to read that whole section of the book, which describes a long process whereby the long-time intelligence staffers found themselves in meeting after meeting after meeting where Wolfowitz, Rice, Feith and Cheney all insisted that there must be an Iraqi connection.
All I can tell you is that he's inconsistent,
About what? Are you still holding on to that moronic "he praised Bush when he left and look what he did!" If that's the case, I suspect you better jump all over W's ass for praising George Tenet left and right and then firing his ass.
Quote:
and trying to sell a book that stands to make him a lot of money.
So making a profit renders one's motives suspect, huh? You sure you want to make that argument? With THIS administration? Regardless, if making a profit means you can't tell the truth, you'd better just hole up in your house and never come out again.
Quote:
That's enough to make anyone doubt his motives.
Enough of what? And, as I have said, the book is about the cultural and institutional problems in the intelligence community. Maybe you ought to read it?
Quote:
Some of what he says may be true. It's not just his word vs. theirs...it's his word vs. HIS word too!
Please find as many quotes as you can from the book where he contradicts himself.
Except that, um....Iraq did have at least some terror ties. There's a new book about this now, though I do not recall the title. We already know Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers....does that not count?
Had you read the book you're trying to talk about, you'd know that he deals in quite a bit of detail with Iraq's terror ties and the Clinton strategy for dealing with them.
And no, paying a pension to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers does not count.
You don't seem to understand. The book isn't even the point. I'm not reviewing it.
No, YOU don't seem to understand. You changed the topic of this thread to the credibility of those who write books when they leave office. You attempted to suggest that pfflam has as much credibility as Tenet, Clarke, and Perle. I'm calling you on it and am asking you to explain why, in as much detail as you can muster, Clarke has no credibility. You have already admitted that you didn't even read the book you're talking about, and so now you're desperately trying to change the subject to something you can talk about, which is the interviews with him, which is not what you stared this discussion with. I'm trying to keep this on track. You're trying to avoid answering the question.
Quote:
I am talking about Clarke's ridiculous public performances such as his 9/11 commission apology, his 60 minutes interview, etc. Compare this to his prior statements, take into account his being passed over and his profit motive, and tell me that he has credibility.
Please provide sources for "his prior statements" and your claim that he was "passed over." Your comments about 60 minutes and the commission are, of course, interpretations and by your own logic are therefore immediately suspect if not outrageous lies.
I can't comment on that.
No. You can't, can you?
Quote:
It certainly wasn't marketed that way, now was it?
No, it wasn't. It was marketed as the tell all book of an intelligence official with 30 years in public service and who had worked in intel under 3 presidents. That's why I bought it.