I watched every minute of his testimony. And he basically said that he was asked to exaggerate or sell the bush standpoint and that this is just what you do when a president asks you to. He also said he has done this for other presidents.
I am not posting a link because his testimony is readily available and I don't want to participate in a "link" war that happens so many times.
Basically, is not a justification. He said he followed the party line while working for the WH. I already linked the transcript. He said he did what most people in politics do. They accentuate the positve, elliminate the negative.. As Baloo would say.
Basically, is not a justification. He said he followed the party line while working for the WH. I already linked the transcript. He said he did what most people in politics do. They accentuate the positve, elliminate the negative.. As Baloo would say.
But if he was 180 degrees from what he was saying why would he not just assign the job to his assistant or his assistant. The more he defend either stance the deeper he digs his hole IMO.
Again, I'll raise the question. If Clake is so untrustworthy then why do his statements follow those said by O'Neill?
To use that line of thinking then you would have to concede that Bush is in the right because more than one person agrees with what he says and supports it.
They both agree, I am not sure that makes them right. It may justify further digging.
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
But if he was 180 degrees from what he was saying why would he not just assign the job to his assistant or his assistant. The more he defend either stance the deeper he digs his hole IMO.
Because the August 2002 statement was put out by the WH where Clarke was the assigned "annonymous" source. The WH asked Clarke to follow the part line, and Clarke did. The WH outed Clarke the other day as the source of the statements true (again I linked to an article about the outing). I don't think it was a smart thing to do, but I know Clarke wasn't the first, wasn't the only and wont be the last Special assistante asked to tow the part line by focusing on the good things done by the administration while minimizing the negatives. I'm sure Powell has done the same. He was a noted advocate of diplomacy, yet he is on record making statements both for diplomacy, and war. I'll bet dollars to dougnuts (my opinion) Powell wasn't as warm to war as others in the administration, yet Powell being the good employee went ahead and spread the word for his employer nontheless.
Before I went back to school, I was an Engineer. To keep my projects going I had to resort to presenting the positive aspects while not focusing on the negatives as much. Most people do this. When you buy a used car do you expect someone to say "yeah its a rust bucket." No you expect "this is a classic" and "the engine purrs like a kitten."
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Again, Clarke said he and both administrations failed. He's critical of Bush not for 911, but for the fixation on Iraq, and a preception of inaction toward terrorism from Al Qua'ida in general.
To use that line of thinking then you would have to concede that Bush is in the right because more than one person agrees with what he says and supports it.
They both agree, I am not sure that makes them right. It may justify further digging.
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.
Because the August 2002 statement was put out by the WH where Clarke was the assigned "annonymous" source. The WH asked Clarke to follow the part line, and Clarke did. The WH outed Clarke the other day as the source of the statements true (again I linked to an article about the outing). I don't think it was a smart thing to do, but I know Clarke wasn't the first, wasn't the only and wont be the last Special assistante asked to tow the part line by focusing on the good things done by the administration while minimizing the negatives. I'm sure Powell has done the same. He was a noted advocate of diplomacy, yet he is on record making statements both for diplomacy, and war. I'll bet dollars to dougnuts (my opinion) Powell wasn't as warm to war as others in the administration, yet Powell being the good employee went ahead and spread the word for his employer nontheless.
Before I went back to school, I was an Engineer. To keep my projects going I had to resort to presenting the positive aspects while not focusing on the negatives as much. Most people do this. When you buy a used car do you expect someone to say "yeah its a rust bucket." No you expect "this is a classic" and "the engine purrs like a kitten."
No, i don't agree with your assessment of why he did it. The WH could have gotten enyone to do that. If clarke disagreed and requested to be excused from that responsibility, what difference would that have made? I say none. It was from an anonymous source.
"I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me."
this statement to me shows he personally agrees with what is being said because he does not react as if he was speaking for anyone else there.
Throughout the interview he injects his opinion rather than just quoting from canned reasons and answers. Once again, that's the way I read it.
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.
That is not true. Clark and O'neil both get notorious mention and TV time and they both have Books to sell, this all helps. Money is money and it motivates, so does fame and power. All of these are in play here.
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
That is not true. Clark and O'neil both get notorious mention and TV time and they both have Books to sell, this all helps. Money is money and it motivates, so does fame and power. All of these are in play here.
You honestly believe these guys are glory hounds? I serously doubt it. You thike they were banking on vast amounts of revenue from their books? Again, I dobt it. Both books will be off the national radar in a couple of weeks, and off the book selves in a year. They are not going to be $$$ makers except for the publishers. If these guys were motived as much as you think by the almighty $$$ then they would have stayed in corporate america (O'Neill) or left politics for CA (Clarke). Government jobs pay well, but executive jobs pay better. Royalties from one book may come in, but more money can be made (and with less public attention) in the business world. These guys could have taken multi-million $$ lobbiest jobs, but they didn't. They both went into less lucrative persuits and wrote books about what they felt their days with BushCo amounted to.
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
If they Indict Clarke they'll have to indict ever WH SA because if you believe Condi, and Perle, and McClellan haven't done the same, then your diluding yourself.
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
The White House would be awfully foolish to let that sort of prosecution get underway since the discovery requests from Clarke's attorneys could prove rather uncomfortable for the White House.
Now, with respect to that backgrounder, Clarke has said that he was following orders to tell the truth, but with a spin, and did so. And it's worth noting that if that were a crime this White House would be emptied out pretty quickly. But let's set that aside for the moment.
Back up for a moment and look at what's happening here.
What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.
This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch.
We don't know what Condi Rice did because the documents haven't been released; nor have the minutes of meetings. Nor will she testify in public or even privately under oath.
You honestly believe these guys are glory hounds? I serously doubt it. You thike they were banking on vast amounts of revenue from their books? Again, I dobt it. Both books will be off the national radar in a couple of weeks, and off the book selves in a year. They are not going to be $$$ makers except for the publishers. If these guys were motived as much as you think by the almighty $$$ then they would have stayed in corporate america (O'Neill) or left politics for CA (Clarke). Government jobs pay well, but executive jobs pay better. Royalties from one book may come in, but more money can be made (and with less public attention) in the business world. These guys could have taken multi-million $$ lobbiest jobs, but they didn't. They both went into less lucrative persuits and wrote books about what they felt their days with BushCo amounted to.
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?
The White House would be awfully foolish to let that sort of prosecution get underway since the discovery requests from Clarke's attorneys could prove rather uncomfortable for the White House.
Now, with respect to that backgrounder, Clarke has said that he was following orders to tell the truth, but with a spin, and did so. And it's worth noting that if that were a crime this White House would be emptied out pretty quickly. But let's set that aside for the moment.
Back up for a moment and look at what's happening here.
What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.
This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch.
We don't know what Condi Rice did because the documents haven't been released; nor have the minutes of meetings. Nor will she testify in public or even privately under oath.
This 9/11 board has no intentions of finding the truth, or fixing anything. These are just more politicians making a big spectacle of pretending to care.
The difference in the Bush administration, Clarke says, is that it didn't consider the threat urgent, even though he and others were saying it needed immediate attention. Bush said as much to journalist Bob Woodward.*"I was not on point" on terrorism, he said. "I didn't feel the sense of urgency."
*Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
I watched every minute of his testimony. And he basically said that he was asked to exaggerate or sell the bush standpoint and that this is just what you do when a president asks you to. He also said he has done this for other presidents.
I am not posting a link because his testimony is readily available and I don't want to participate in a "link" war that happens so many times.
Basically, is not a justification. He said he followed the party line while working for the WH. I already linked the transcript. He said he did what most people in politics do. They accentuate the positve, elliminate the negative.. As Baloo would say.
Originally posted by faust9
Basically, is not a justification. He said he followed the party line while working for the WH. I already linked the transcript. He said he did what most people in politics do. They accentuate the positve, elliminate the negative.. As Baloo would say.
But if he was 180 degrees from what he was saying why would he not just assign the job to his assistant or his assistant. The more he defend either stance the deeper he digs his hole IMO.
Originally posted by faust9
Again, I'll raise the question. If Clake is so untrustworthy then why do his statements follow those said by O'Neill?
To use that line of thinking then you would have to concede that Bush is in the right because more than one person agrees with what he says and supports it.
They both agree, I am not sure that makes them right. It may justify further digging.
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
CLARKE: No.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
Originally posted by NaplesX
But if he was 180 degrees from what he was saying why would he not just assign the job to his assistant or his assistant. The more he defend either stance the deeper he digs his hole IMO.
Because the August 2002 statement was put out by the WH where Clarke was the assigned "annonymous" source. The WH asked Clarke to follow the part line, and Clarke did. The WH outed Clarke the other day as the source of the statements true (again I linked to an article about the outing). I don't think it was a smart thing to do, but I know Clarke wasn't the first, wasn't the only and wont be the last Special assistante asked to tow the part line by focusing on the good things done by the administration while minimizing the negatives. I'm sure Powell has done the same. He was a noted advocate of diplomacy, yet he is on record making statements both for diplomacy, and war. I'll bet dollars to dougnuts (my opinion) Powell wasn't as warm to war as others in the administration, yet Powell being the good employee went ahead and spread the word for his employer nontheless.
Before I went back to school, I was an Engineer. To keep my projects going I had to resort to presenting the positive aspects while not focusing on the negatives as much. Most people do this. When you buy a used car do you expect someone to say "yeah its a rust bucket." No you expect "this is a classic" and "the engine purrs like a kitten."
Originally posted by rageous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Again, Clarke said he and both administrations failed. He's critical of Bush not for 911, but for the fixation on Iraq, and a preception of inaction toward terrorism from Al Qua'ida in general.
Originally posted by NaplesX
To use that line of thinking then you would have to concede that Bush is in the right because more than one person agrees with what he says and supports it.
They both agree, I am not sure that makes them right. It may justify further digging.
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.
Originally posted by faust9
Because the August 2002 statement was put out by the WH where Clarke was the assigned "annonymous" source. The WH asked Clarke to follow the part line, and Clarke did. The WH outed Clarke the other day as the source of the statements true (again I linked to an article about the outing). I don't think it was a smart thing to do, but I know Clarke wasn't the first, wasn't the only and wont be the last Special assistante asked to tow the part line by focusing on the good things done by the administration while minimizing the negatives. I'm sure Powell has done the same. He was a noted advocate of diplomacy, yet he is on record making statements both for diplomacy, and war. I'll bet dollars to dougnuts (my opinion) Powell wasn't as warm to war as others in the administration, yet Powell being the good employee went ahead and spread the word for his employer nontheless.
Before I went back to school, I was an Engineer. To keep my projects going I had to resort to presenting the positive aspects while not focusing on the negatives as much. Most people do this. When you buy a used car do you expect someone to say "yeah its a rust bucket." No you expect "this is a classic" and "the engine purrs like a kitten."
No, i don't agree with your assessment of why he did it. The WH could have gotten enyone to do that. If clarke disagreed and requested to be excused from that responsibility, what difference would that have made? I say none. It was from an anonymous source.
"I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me."
this statement to me shows he personally agrees with what is being said because he does not react as if he was speaking for anyone else there.
Throughout the interview he injects his opinion rather than just quoting from canned reasons and answers. Once again, that's the way I read it.
Originally posted by faust9
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.
That is not true. Clark and O'neil both get notorious mention and TV time and they both have Books to sell, this all helps. Money is money and it motivates, so does fame and power. All of these are in play here.
Originally posted by faust9
No because Clarke and O'Neill have nothing to gain or lose by making these statements (O'Neill especially). Bush does have a vested interest in keeping his image spit shined. Rumsfeld admited he said what Clake attributed to him. Rice has admited Clarke was doing his job. Clarke's assertions about pre-ordained war plans are backed by others now outside the adminstration and Rumsfled said yesterday the they reevaluated all of the contengency plans when he took over the pentegon. Many menbers within the admin are know for their hawkish beleifs concerning Iraq. Its not a huge leap of faith to think the administration want the war, and the statements by both O'Neil, and Clarke back the idea of preordained war.
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
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.
That is an understatement. The 2002 thing will haunt him if not sink him altogether.
No one likes weaseling people like this. He is a yes man.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is not true. Clark and O'neil both get notorious mention and TV time and they both have Books to sell, this all helps. Money is money and it motivates, so does fame and power. All of these are in play here.
You honestly believe these guys are glory hounds? I serously doubt it. You thike they were banking on vast amounts of revenue from their books? Again, I dobt it. Both books will be off the national radar in a couple of weeks, and off the book selves in a year. They are not going to be $$$ makers except for the publishers. If these guys were motived as much as you think by the almighty $$$ then they would have stayed in corporate america (O'Neill) or left politics for CA (Clarke). Government jobs pay well, but executive jobs pay better. Royalties from one book may come in, but more money can be made (and with less public attention) in the business world. These guys could have taken multi-million $$ lobbiest jobs, but they didn't. They both went into less lucrative persuits and wrote books about what they felt their days with BushCo amounted to.
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.
If they Indict Clarke they'll have to indict ever WH SA because if you believe Condi, and Perle, and McClellan haven't done the same, then your diluding yourself.
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.
The White House would be awfully foolish to let that sort of prosecution get underway since the discovery requests from Clarke's attorneys could prove rather uncomfortable for the White House.
Now, with respect to that backgrounder, Clarke has said that he was following orders to tell the truth, but with a spin, and did so. And it's worth noting that if that were a crime this White House would be emptied out pretty quickly. But let's set that aside for the moment.
Back up for a moment and look at what's happening here.
What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.
This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch.
We don't know what Condi Rice did because the documents haven't been released; nor have the minutes of meetings. Nor will she testify in public or even privately under oath.
Talking Points Memo
Originally posted by faust9
You honestly believe these guys are glory hounds? I serously doubt it. You thike they were banking on vast amounts of revenue from their books? Again, I dobt it. Both books will be off the national radar in a couple of weeks, and off the book selves in a year. They are not going to be $$$ makers except for the publishers. If these guys were motived as much as you think by the almighty $$$ then they would have stayed in corporate america (O'Neill) or left politics for CA (Clarke). Government jobs pay well, but executive jobs pay better. Royalties from one book may come in, but more money can be made (and with less public attention) in the business world. These guys could have taken multi-million $$ lobbiest jobs, but they didn't. They both went into less lucrative persuits and wrote books about what they felt their days with BushCo amounted to.
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?
Originally posted by Northgate
The White House would be awfully foolish to let that sort of prosecution get underway since the discovery requests from Clarke's attorneys could prove rather uncomfortable for the White House.
Now, with respect to that backgrounder, Clarke has said that he was following orders to tell the truth, but with a spin, and did so. And it's worth noting that if that were a crime this White House would be emptied out pretty quickly. But let's set that aside for the moment.
Back up for a moment and look at what's happening here.
What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.
This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch.
We don't know what Condi Rice did because the documents haven't been released; nor have the minutes of meetings. Nor will she testify in public or even privately under oath.
Talking Points Memo
This 9/11 board has no intentions of finding the truth, or fixing anything. These are just more politicians making a big spectacle of pretending to care.
The difference in the Bush administration, Clarke says, is that it didn't consider the threat urgent, even though he and others were saying it needed immediate attention. Bush said as much to journalist Bob Woodward.*"I was not on point" on terrorism, he said. "I didn't feel the sense of urgency."
*Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"
Edit: emphasis mine.