Clarke exposed [Archive] - Legion of Lions

Allison

03-24-2004, 06:44 PM

Grundy, I have to disagree with you that Clarke's testimony today was damning. I don't think it was, really.

Firstly, in relation to Al Qaeda, Clarke's primary criticism of the administration is that it was slow to act, not that it didn't act at all, which he fully admits it did. Secondly, supporters of Bush are already doing a fairly good job of making Clarke out to be a disgruntled whacko. Because of this, among other things, Bush supporters won't be swayed at all by Clarke's criticisms.

Eiru, it's true that Clarke has also been critical of Clinton's administration, both in public interviews, and if members of the 9/11 commision are to be believed, in private sessions with them. I think the reason we don't hear more about those criticisms is because Clarke's book focuses more on the Bush administration. (I haven't read the book, but that seems to be the case based on reports I've heard.)

Also, in reference to the book and why it focuses more on the Bush administration ... from what I've heard, Clarke is most critical when it comes to Iraq. He firmly believes that the invasion of Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism, not helped it. Right or wrong, those are his beliefs and, I believe, a primary motivator for why he wrote the book. He honestly believes that the Bush administration has done, and is doing, the wrong things to fight terrorism.

My personal feeling about Clarke is that he has always been a hawk when it comes to counter-terrorism. He always wanted to do more than we were doing, and he has some guilt over the fact that he wasn't able to do more to stop 9/11. But, I think he's sincere in what he says. And I don't think he's just out to settle a score.

On a related topic, what do you guys think of the fact that this background briefing was made "off the record," and only released now as a result of the White House agreeing to retroactively make it "on the record?" Do you think this will have any effect on the ability of the press to obtain candid information from interviewees?

I only ask because, as a one-time journalism major, I take the responsibility of the press very seriously. Any thoughts?

Canidae

03-24-2004, 06:45 PM

This man's heart is clearly full of love and carries the burden of this whole fiasco on his shoulders. Sounds like a Gibson movie.
Please don't try to compare this man to Jesus Christ. I find it a little obsene that you would compare Clark and his role right now to the burden that Jesus had to carry for us.

Kegg OBeer

03-24-2004, 06:45 PM

Why exactly does being a republican mean you're a liar? Does this mean that Democrats are all sincere and honest? Personally I think they're all liars and thieves.

Also, you have to stop and think what the alternative to Bush is... Another Clinton wanna-be? I was in the military when he took office. One more president like that and I think I'm gonna be considering moving to Australia... I shudder to think what would have happened if Gore had been in office on 9/11...

The only real answer is not to trust ANY politician. Period. They're a bunch of self-serving bastards.

Rooster

03-24-2004, 07:28 PM

Yeah, from everything I've read & heard, it was a pretty neutral, if not approving image of Bush & the administration.

I'm not really sure where Grundy's coming from.

The libs in this country are crazy. They go after Bush for acting all cowboy about it, declaring war on terrorism immediately and just going to town on folks, starting pre-emptive strikes.

NOW, they all say he didn't do enough.

You can't have your cake and eat it too folks.

Clinton's the one that got all scared (Mogadishu/Black Hawk Down anyone?) and wouldn't make the tough choices, because it would make him unpopular with his base.

Kegg OBeer

03-24-2004, 07:33 PM

They're just trying to pave the way for Hillary... /em shudders

Eiru

03-24-2004, 08:24 PM

Interesting stuff....

"Fox released the transcript of a 2002 background briefing Clarke gave to reporters about the war on terrorism. In that presentation, delivered at President Bush's request, Clarke notably didn't attack Bush. For some reason, that deference puzzled Republican members of the commission—including Lehman, Fred Fielding and former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson—who asked why Clarke didn't criticize the Bush administration in that briefing.

Asked by Fielding whether he lied during the briefing, Clarke seemed bemused. "I tried," he said, "to highlight the positive and downplay the negative." Asked whether that undermined his integrity, Clarke said: "I don't think of it as a question of integrity. I think it's a question of politics." As the spokesman for the White House, he said, he represented the administration's point of view, and ably so—without lying.

Commissioner Robert Kerrey, the former senator from Kansas, blasted Fox News for releasing the background transcript, noting that background briefings are supposed to remain confidential."

Rooster

03-24-2004, 08:26 PM

Well, personally, when there's a witch hunt going on... I think it shows class to not play along with the blame game.

As Hammer said, those responsible crashed those planes into the buildings - no one else is responsible (in the manner this commisison is looking for).

Allison

03-24-2004, 09:08 PM

The libs in this country are crazy. They go after Bush for acting all cowboy about it ...NOW, they all say he didn't do enough.
Who are all these imaginary liberals you insist on repeatedly misrepresenting? It IS possible to be against the war in Iraq, and still fight the war against terrorism. I think that's an important distinction to make. The "acting all cowboy" criticisms you refer to are primarily aimed at our decision to invade Iraq. The "he didn't do enough" criticisms you refer to are primarily aimed at our counter-terrorism policies prior to 9/11. They are different topics.

Clinton's the one that got all scared (Mogadishu/Black Hawk Down anyone?) and wouldn't make the tough choices, because it would make him unpopular with his base.
First of all, it is absolutely unfair to compair the actions of a pre-9/11 government to the actions of post-9/11 government. No one was prepared before that time to make the kind of sacrifices we are now to fight terrorism. But, that's a whole other topic. Even if Bill Clinton had invited terrorists to the White House for tea, what's the point of bringing it up? Richard Clarke has been just as critical of the Clinton administration as he has the Bush administration when it comes to our efforts against terrorism up until 9/11. The failures or successes of one administration should stand alone and not be judged on the basis of the successes or failures of another's.

And for the record, no one, not even Clarke, has said that either the Bush or the Clinton administration could have prevented 9/11.

Allison

03-24-2004, 09:19 PM

Asked whether that undermined his integrity, Clarke said: "I don't think of it as a question of integrity. I think it's a question of politics."
This is slightly mis-quoted. Not that it matters all that much, but the word used wasn't integrity, it was morality.

Here's a transcript of today's session if anyone is interested in what Clarke had to say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

Morety

03-24-2004, 10:34 PM

Jean Poutine is no longer Prime Minister of Canada. Discuss.

Rooster

03-24-2004, 10:38 PM

who?

Rooster

03-24-2004, 10:45 PM

"The failures or successes of one administration should stand alone and not be judged on the basis of the successes or failures of another's."

But that's not the attitude that is pervasive in the liberal politicians. They feel that even though Clinton did jack squat, and that's okay for them, Bush has to forsee everything and fix stuff BEFORE it happens.

To me, this witchunt, and the liberals trying to point fingers and play the blame game is a joke - they have no credibility when it comes to their dealings with this issue (they probably side with the UN condemning Israel for taking out the Hamas leader that was orchestrating suidcide bombers against innocent Israeli's).

Allison

03-24-2004, 11:29 PM

But that's not the attitude that is pervasive in the liberal politicians. They feel that even though Clinton did jack squat, and that's okay for them, Bush has to forsee everything and fix stuff BEFORE it happens.
Again, who are these liberals you keep misrepresenting? I know of no prominent liberals, or any at all for that matter, who hold this position.

To me, this witchunt, and the liberals trying to point fingers and play the blame game is a joke - they have no credibility when it comes to their dealings with this issue (they probably side with the UN condemning Israel for taking out the Hamas leader that was orchestrating suidcide bombers against innocent Israeli's).
What witchhunt are you referring to? The 9/11 commision? Have you read any of the transcripts? From what I've seen, it's been surprisingly non-partisan. Even outside the commision, most of the people I've seen comment on our counter-terrorism policies prior to 9/11 have been seeking answers not to lay blame, but to try and discover if any mistakes were made ... and if it's posible to learn from those mistakes so that we can better protect ourselves from another 9/11.

As for Israel's decision to assasinate Sheik Yassin, (and I find myself saying this way too often in debates with you) that's a whole other topic.

Honestly, you're being more partisan in this thread than I've seen anyone be in relation to the 9/11 hearings. So far, you've said liberals are "crazy," they have "no credibility," that they're participating in a "witch-hunt," and that they want to "have their cake and eat it too."

But, despite all the off-topic liberal-bashing, you've yet to defend your claim that Clarke's book is "all lies."

Hammer

03-24-2004, 11:57 PM

I know how he could say with a straight face that terrorism was a higher priority during the clinton administration when he plainly says there was no plan and there was no action from 98 until bush took over and began implementing one. Axe. Grind. Also Fox asked permission to use it and it was granted. So they acted properly. It was CBS that failed to mention that their parent company also owns the book publishing company. They devote 2/3 of the show this guy and failed to mention that or do basic research that was obviously available.

Allison

03-25-2004, 01:26 AM

I know how he could say with a straight face that terrorism was a higher priority during the clinton administration when he plainly says there was no plan and there was no action from 98 until bush took over and began implementing one.

Clarke never said that the Clinton administration didn't have a plan for Al Qaeda, or that they hadn't done anything since 1998. He said that there was no plan that was passed from one administration to the next. And in reference to no action being taken since 1998, Clarke was referring to issues on possible strategies that had been on the table since 1998. Those issues included aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and changing our policies on Pakistan. On those particular issues, no action had been taken. But he never claimed that the Clinton administration had taken NO action at all, because in fact, they had.

Perhaps I'm more forgiving of statements a person makes while representing the policies of an administration, as opposed to those statements he makes as an individual. But, regardless, I still don't see where Clarke has contradicted himself. When I read that background briefing, I saw a man choosing his words very carefully, trying to put a positive light on his administration's policies in response to a very critical article from ... Newsweek, I believe it was. But, I didn't see any contradiction to any of his recent statements.

Should he not have acted as a representative of his adminstration when asked? Perhaps. Should he have resigned sooner than later? I'm sure, in retrospect, it would have given his critics less ammunition. But, even if we were to agree that Clarke contradicted himself ... which again, I don't think he has ... I don't think it would be wise to throw out the baby with the bathwater by disregarding everything he says.

What I find really puzzling in all this is why Bush supporters are so upset over this. In relation to counter-terrorism, Clarke's criticisms of the Bush administration are only that they moved too slowly, but they did move. He makes the same criticisms of the Clinton administration. And he flatly states that he doesn't believe the Bush administration could have prevented 9/11 even if they had acted sooner.

If anything, I thought that people would be more upset at the bulk of Clarke's criticisms, which relate to the war on Iraq. But nobody is talking about that.

Hammer

03-25-2004, 10:48 AM

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

Don't see how you read this and conclude that. When questioned during his testimony he made it sound like this background report was just his job and not that important. He was then asked point blank if the points made in the report were true. He said yes. So, I guess discussing what to do about a problem shows greater concern that actually doing something about it. His key charges in the book are that the Bush administration didn't take his warning seriously until after 9/11. And that Bush focused on Iraq immediatiely after 9/11. Read the transcript, he contradicts himself. A more serious approach was implemented by Bush before his people even had there furniture moved in than Clinton had done in the last eight years. Bush can be faulted for many things during his tenure but lack of action? There not talking about Iraq because that was a less creditable charge.

Here's the most troubling part. He wrote a tell all book right in the middle of an election cycle. People use to wait to write this kind of trash after the person was out of office and you had some historical perspective. Quagmire anyone? If the man had simply told his story to the commision yesterday I would have been inclined to believe him. If he went on CNN or did a piece with Time magazine that would have gone down easier. But what we have here is a clear effort to score some bucks, not set the record straight.

Eiru

03-25-2004, 03:04 PM

One quick note on the tell-all book to clarrify. Here's a quote from Clarke on why the book came out when it did. Take it as you will:

"I wanted the book to come out much earlier, but the White House has a policy of reviewing the text of all books written by former White House personnel -- to review them for security reasons. And they actually took a very long time to do that. This book could have come out much earlier. It's the White House that decided when it would be published, not me. I turned it in toward the end of last year, and even though there was nothing in it that was not already obviously unclassified, they took a very, very long time."

Allison

03-25-2004, 03:45 PM

I haven't had my coffee yet, so bear with me.

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

Don't see how you read this and conclude that.JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

First of all, it's ALL about semantics when politicians are trying to spin something. And again, at that time, Clarke was acting as a politician on behalf of the administration. It was a background briefing, and Clarke understood that he was speaking for the administration, not for himself. Those weren't neccessarily his personal feelings or beliefs, so he tried to satisfy his duties as a special assistant to the president without lying. I think he was successful, although it made for a very vague and ambiguous statement.

If you read the whole briefing, Clarke is saying that there was no new "plan" for Al Qaeda that was handed over by the Clinton transition team, meaning that there was no plan for new action. But, he says there was a strategy of things the administration had been doing, which the Bush administration continued, and then a series of options that the Clinton administration had been considering, but hadn't yet acted on.

Clarke doesn't talk about the specifics of the Clinton administration "strategy," or what that involved. He was there to highlight the positives of the current administration.

His key charges in the book are that the Bush administration didn't take his warning seriously until after 9/11. And that Bush focused on Iraq immediatiely after 9/11.I haven't read the book yet, so I can't say what its key charges are. From what I have heard, though, it sounds like the book is more critical of our invasion of Iraq than anything else. And in all fairness, I haven't seen Clarke say that the Bush administration didn't take him sersiously until after 9/11. He has said that the principles signed off on his proposals in early September of 2001. His chief complaint in reference to counter-terrorism and the Bush administration is that they didn't have a proper sense of urgency until after 9/11.

Read the transcript, he contradicts himself. A more serious approach was implemented by Bush before his people even had there furniture moved in than Clinton had done in the last eight years.

I think this is what you're referring to:

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

He is saying that the Bush administration had, in principle, and during a review of the current strategy, agreed to add to the current strategy and increase funding for the CIA. But it wasn't until 8 months later that the principles signed off on this and sent it to the president. And it wasn't until after 9/11 that these things were implemented. Whether true or not, his statements have been consistent that the Bush administration didn't have a sense of urgency.

Here's the most troubling part. He wrote a tell all book right in the middle of an election cycle. People use to wait to write this kind of trash after the person was out of office and you had some historical perspective. Quagmire anyone? If the man had simply told his story to the commision yesterday I would have been inclined to believe him. If he went on CNN or did a piece with Time magazine that would have gone down easier. But what we have here is a clear effort to score some bucks, not set the record straight.I don't know. I think his critics would have been just as vocal without the book. And without it, there would be no clear record of his position, only snippets of this transcript and that. Also, if he truly believes that the Bush administration is hurting the war on terrorism, which I believe he does, he has a moral obligation to make his points before the election. We have to remember that this guy is not some liberal whacko out to get Bush. He has been a hawk in the area of counter-terrorsim and national security for 30 years. He is widely known as being very aggressive in this area, advocating more military force than we've often used, and lesser standards of proof before implementing military force. He's often egotistical in believing his way is the only way. I can fault him for that, but I can't fault him for being sincere and doing what he thinks is right.

Grundy

03-25-2004, 03:50 PM

Burn the Witch!

Allison

03-25-2004, 03:55 PM

They're not talking about Iraq because that was a less creditable charge.

I think they're not talking about Iraq because it's not a topic for the 9/11 commision. But it is a huge topic in Clarke's book, from what I understand.

I think Clarke makes some points worthy of discussion about Iraq. Here's what he had to say on Larry King last night:

KING: What do you mean by that? Why does Iraq diminish the war on terrorism?

CLARKE: In three ways. Number one, it diverts us from reducing the vulnerabilities here at home, like protecting the rails from attacks like the one on Madrid. We're spending $180 billion in Iraq. We should be spending that money reducing our vulnerabilities to terrorism here at home, much more than we are. The railroads, the chemical plants, they are all still unprotected.

The second way it reduces the war on terrorism is by inflaming the Islamic world and helping, as Rumsfeld said in his internal memo, helping create more terrorists more rapidly than we can capture or kill them, because of the hatred in the Islamic world generated against the United States by our needless invasion of Iraq.

And the third way, of course, was it actually took troops and intelligence assets away from the hunt for bin Laden. We'll probably catch bin Laden here shortly, but it's two years too late. In those two years, al Qaeda has morphed into a hydra, a multi-headed organization, so that by the time we catch him now, it won't matter very much, because all of these al Qaeda-like organizations have grown up around the world, like the group that attacked in Madrid.

The point is, the war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. And by going to war with Iraq, we have greatly reduced our possibility to prosecute the war on terrorism. That's what I say in the book

It's a good read : http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/lkl.00.html

Hammer

03-26-2004, 10:39 AM

Ah Larry King, king of the softballs;) I'd like to see him in front of O'Reily or Chris Matthews for that matter. I meant the general press has not run with that side of the story because it isn't as credible. I know the 9/11 commision is focusing on 9/11 and the events that lead up to it.

Iraq, for better or worse is the new front for the war on terror. I don't think I've heard anyone else right or left claim that it isn't. His claim about the money going to Iraq instead of other efforts is completely bogus. The money for those items is asked for and appropriated by Congress seperately. It's not an either/or situation. Intelligence funding under Bush as gone up every year.

Anyway the main thing is the mechanism he chose. As I said before, why not give Time or the NYT an exclusive? No, he chose to write a book and get paid. This guy is self important and self serving. He got passed over at home land security and got reassigned from Cabinet level to staff level.

Here's a interesting counter interview with is Boss.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115170,00.html

Allison

03-26-2004, 02:11 PM

Glad to see you're still in it, Hammer. :)

Ah Larry King, king of the softballs;) Does that mean you didn't read the transcript? :p

The only reason I posted it, along with the transcripts of the 9/11 hearings was not to defend or to support any of Clarke's claims, but so that you could see what he's actually saying as opposed to what people say he's saying. It seems you've confused the two here and there. :)

Iraq, for better or worse is the new front for the war on terror. I don't think I've heard anyone else right or left claim that it isn't. How about me? :p Honestly, a lot of people think that the war in Iraq has severely damaged our credibility in the world, in particular the Islamic world, and that it will generate more hate and more terrorism, both here and abroad. It's a double-edged sword, though. Even those that believe Iraq was a bad idea are glad Saddam is out of power. So, they're crossing their fingers and holding their collective breath that it will all work out for the best.

But I don't know how anyone can say that Iraq hasn't diverted attention from Afghanistan. Congress doesn't control troop deployment. The special forces who found Sadaam are now in Afghanistan looking for OBL. If you ask me, they should have been there all along.

Anyway the main thing is the mechanism he chose. As I said before, why not give Time or the NYT an exclusive? No, he chose to write a book and get paid. This guy is self important and self serving. I'll see your self-important, and I'll raise you an egotistical. He definitely thinks he knows best. And that, along with how he might profit from his claims, should definitely be considered while weighing his statments. But, those things alone do not neccessitate falsehood. Those things alone do not justify a summary dismissal of all his claims.

He got passed over at home land security and got reassigned from Cabinet level to staff level.From what I've read ... He wasn't reassigned. He asked to be reassisned to cyber-security. He wasn't passed over for the position at Homeland Security, he said he didn't want the job, but that he would be willing to help if they needed him.

an nteresting counter interview with is Boss.Yeah, I've read that. I don't find it any more or less credible than Clarke's statements because, just like Clarke has an interest in his book, Rice has an interest in protecting herself, her job, and the administration. Personally, I think she has more to lose if Clarke's criticims are embraced, than he does if they are not.

Basically, to be clear , I'm not trying to argue any of Clarke's points here, even though I do agree with some of them. My main point is that he's being judged unfairly. I don't think it's fair to attack him based on the interpretations of what some people think he said, instead of what he's actually said. I don't think it's fair to assume that his motives are insincere simply because he wrote a book. And my biggest complaint, I don't think it's fair to say he's been "exposed" because of a background briefing he gave on behalf of the administration. I know I've mentioned this before, but I want to be clear on this last point.

I'm not going to debate again whether or not Clarke contradicted himself in that briefing. It's a deliberately ambiguous briefing, and people will read into it what they want to read into it. But I am unwavering in my opinion that it was dirty pool to use it against him because of the following reasons.

First of all, background briefings are given all the time under the promise of anonymity. This was the agreement when Clarke gave this one. Had he known that his words would be attributed to him, and not to the administration as promised, he might have refused to act as "spin-doctor" for them. Or, at the least, he might have used the words, "the administration's position is." But, he did agree. And, he did spin.

But, I can't stress enough that he was acting as a representative of the administration. Holding him accountable for the views presented in that briefing would be no different than saying everytime Scott McLellan goes to the podium in the White House press room he's expressing his own views and not those of the administration. We don't accuse Scott Mclellan in this way because we understand he is acting as a spokesperson. And although a good number of citizens don't seem to be aware of this, the same is true of background briefings.

My problem with Fox is that they are aware of this. Yes, they did ask for permission from the White House to attribute the background briefing after-the-fact. But, the fact that they had to get permission from the White House, and not Richard Clarke goes to prove my point: The statements in that briefing belonged to the White House, not to Richard Clarke. Attributing them to Clarke with the full knowledge of this was either an underhanded attempt by Fox to politically discredit him, or maybe just to grab some ratings. Either way, if it's not unethical, it is, in the least, misleading and unfair.

Swifty_Johnson

03-26-2004, 02:28 PM

Clarke has refused to go on with Bill O'Reily, guess he does have something to hide.

You all know this is the same Clarke that is responsible for the U.S. not getting Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up on a silver platter to us right?

You all know this is the same Clarke that wanted the #2 job at the home land security department, than left when he didn't get it.

You all know this is the same Clarke that is best friends with Kerry's pick to be Secaraty of State?

Clarke is not to be trusted.

Swifty

Hammer

03-26-2004, 02:42 PM

The whitehouse was responsible for making the report 'Background'. The whitehouse lifted that in order to defend it self against the allegations in the book. He was asked if the points made in the briefing were true. He said, "Yes". How is that spin?

I did read it and it was a typical LK interview. Lots of open ended softball questions that basically allow the person to tell whatever story they like.

I'm curious, do you think a book was the proper way for him to tell his side of the story? Also do you think it's appropriate to do this while the principles are still in office?

Rooster

03-26-2004, 03:16 PM

"The point is, the war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. And by going to war with Iraq, we have greatly reduced our possibility to prosecute the war on terrorism. That's what I say in the book"

Way to rely on hindsight and claim you knew it all along. The potential cost/risk was not worth doing nothing. Only those that aren't willing to live with their own decisions go back and question their own judgement. If you do the right thing given the information you have, and have teken reasonable care to ensure you're seeing the big picture -- then you did the right thing. Criticizing based on hindsight is BS.

I'd much rather have terrorists all pissed off over in Iraq trying to blow up military units than civilians here in the states.

Eiru

03-26-2004, 03:20 PM

I'm personally concerned about a trend I think I'm seeing. First there's the Spanish elections. I'm not going to go into why I think the Socialists won. I'm sure there are other reasons besides the explosions. Then there's the Polish president giving us a tongue lashing. I also recently read that Turkey, a long standing ally and a country who in the past has offered to help broker Middle East peace comes out condemming Israel's offing of the Hamas leader as terrorism.

I'm wondering to which tide the "War on Terror" is turning.

Allison

03-26-2004, 03:58 PM

The whitehouse was responsible for making the report 'Background'. The whitehouse lifted that in order to defend it self against the allegations in the book. He was asked if the points made in the briefing were true. He said, "Yes". How is that spin?
I posted earlier that I don't think his statements in the background briefing contradicted anything he's said publicly. I've read it at least four times. It has a positive tone, no doubt. But taken as a whole, it's deliberately ambiguous. And as such, you can read into it whatever you like. The "spin" I referred to was the fact that Clarke was attempting in that briefing to put a positive light on the Bush administrations policies in response to a very negative article in Time.

But let me ask you to respond to some points I made earlier: First, if Fox was required to get permission from the White House to retroactively make that briefing "on the record," and they didn't need Clarke's permission ... don't you think that shows that the content of the briefing belonged to the White House and not to Richard Clarke?

Second, do you think it's fair that the statements made by a spokesperson for an administration, like Scott McLellan, should be attributed to that person as their personal positions? Or do you not accept that Clarke was acting as a spokesperson for the administration?

I'm curious, do you think a book was the proper way for him to tell his side of the story? Also do you think it's appropriate to do this while the principles are still in office?
As for the medium he chose, I personally don't have a problem with it. First of all, everyone is getting paid for their opinions. Second, I think the scope of the subject is too large to reduce to a few pages in a magazine.

As for the timing of the book, any book that makes accusations against an administration takes away resources from that administration that could be better spent on doing the job it was hired to do, and it has the pontential to undermine the authority and credibility of that administration. So, I think in some circumstances, yes, it's better to wait until the administration is gone to print a potentially damning book. The need for credibility in this world is too important to be undermined lightly.

The Clinton administration was a good example of this. The time and money spent on his sexual escapades undermined him to the point that he didn't have the credibility to attack OBL like he wanted. When he tried to take military action, all people could do was to accuse him of trying to divert attention away from his personal scandals. I hope we've learned our lesson from that, but I doubt it.

The question is, when does a topic become so important that it needs to be discussed while the administration is in office? People will always disagree here, largely along party lines. If their party is being attacked, it's an unfair undermining of the presidency. But if it is they who are doing the attacking, it's always a legitimate complaint that needs immediate attention. Again, Clinton is a perfect example. While I believe the sex scandals weakened his presidency and therefore our country, and should have waited until after he was out of office, I'm sure there are people here who would disagree.

In reference to this particular book, if you believe Clarke's motivations are political, or that he's trying to punish the administration for some imagined slight, I can understand why you'd think his book is ill-timed, and if I believed the same, I'd agree with you. But, I really think he believes he's fighting the good fight. I think he really believes the Bush administration is making the world less safe with its actions in Iraq. And as such, I can't fault him for going public while the principles are still in office. Based on his beliefs, right or wrong, it would have been irresponsible for him to do otherwise.

Allison

03-26-2004, 04:05 PM

"The point is, the war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. And by going to war with Iraq, we have greatly reduced our possibility to prosecute the war on terrorism. That's what I say in the book"

Way to rely on hindsight and claim you knew it all along. The potential cost/risk was not worth doing nothing. Only those that aren't willing to live with their own decisions go back and question their own judgement.
Rooster, this has always been Clarke's position. That isn't in dispute. He's not claiming hindsight. And I'm sure he would agree with you that "the potential cost/risk was not worth doing nothing." He has long been an advocate of using military action to fight terrorism. He's wanted to invade Afghanistan since well before 9/11 and has tried for years to get our government to do so. He's not advocating non-action by condeming the war in Iraq, he's saying it's the wrong target. You may disagree with him, but implying that he would have rather done nothing couldn't be farther from the truth.

Allison

03-26-2004, 04:30 PM

Clarke has refused to go on with Bill O'Reily, guess he does have something to hide.
And Condoleeza Rice won't testify in public hearings. Following your logic, she has something to hide too?

You all know this is the same Clarke that is responsible for the U.S. not getting Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up on a silver platter to us right?
You do know that the 9/11 Commision recently found that there is "no evidence" to support Sudan's claim that they ever offered OBL to the U.S.? Even if they had, by what stretch of the imagination do you suppose that Clarke would have been responsible for not receiving him?

You all know this is the same Clarke that wanted the #2 job at the home land security department, than left when he didn't get it.
I haven't seen any evidence to dispute his claim that he did not want that job. I assume you have a link?

You all know this is the same Clarke that is best friends with Kerry's pick to be Secaraty of State?
And John McCain is very close friends with Kerry. Can he not be trusted either? I assume you also know that Clarke has said under oath that he will not accept any job under the Kerry administration, assuming there is one.

Rooster

03-26-2004, 05:06 PM

Actually, John McCain can't be trusted. He managed to enact a law that stifles our 1st Amendment. Conservative my ass. He can rot in Arizona for all I care.

Rooster

03-26-2004, 05:07 PM

Public hearings <> Bill O'Reilly

Hammer

03-26-2004, 05:42 PM

Woot. It caught fire alli;)

But let me ask you to respond to some points I made earlier: First, if Fox was required to get permission from the White House to retroactively make that briefing "on the record," and they didn't need Clarke's permission ... don't you think that shows that the content of the briefing belonged to the White House and not to Richard Clarke?

It did belong to the White House and it's important for it's content as much as the spokes person. It documents that things were being taken as seriously under Bush and further more that Clarke himself knew it.

Second, do you think it's fair that the statements made by a spokesperson for an administration, like Scott McLellan, should be attributed to that person as their personal positions? Or do you not accept that Clarke was acting as a spokesperson for the administration?

Both. They represent both themselves and the administration when they make statements. Clarke was very clear that he would only say things he believed. I think that was kind of low too. It leaves the impression that he was asked to lie. If that's the case, he should have made it.

The question is, when does a topic become so important that it needs to be discussed while the administration is in office?

I personnally would draw that line at illegal activities. If there are actual crimes being committed then that needs to be exposed and the sooner the better. But he seems to be doing this over poor judgement. In his view, the president and his staff are making poor choices, and have set the wrong priorities. Fine, quit, vote for somebody else, but don't attempt to undermine the credibility of the current administration. Write your book after you can place it context. I still have my copy of Newsweek magizine with the big story "QUAGMIRE". Looks silly now cause we know how that turned out.

As for Condi. Congress doesn't have the right to question her in that forum. Seperation of powers and all that. She did meet with them for four hours in private. The only reason to get her in front of the commision is to make her look guilty of something. You look like your on trial when you testify to congress. He's the one selling the book and smearing his former peers.

Does anybody think this will lead to house cleaning in the future? I know I'd have second thoughts about keeping anyone from the previous administration after this.

Allison

03-26-2004, 05:59 PM

For the record, I never said that Condi Rice should submit to public hearings. (Although I'm at a loss to understand how the separation of powers allows her to testify in private but not in public, I don't really care as long as she gives time to the commision, which she's done.) I was just following Swifty's logic that a person's failure to appear here or there is evidence that he or she has something to hide.

Also, Rooster, the point wasn't whether or not John McCain can be trusted, but that a person's positions aren't neccessarily distorted because of who they know.

Hammer, we'll have to agree to disagree on Clarke. You think he's politically and personally motivated, and I think he sincerely believes he's doing the nation a service. If we agreed on his motivations, I think we'd agree on all the rest.

PoxTheSmall

03-26-2004, 06:11 PM

Turkey has condemned a lot of the US policy since 9/11. Essentially, as a country sharing a border with Iraq, Turkey is not only a visible terrorist target, but also a country where refugees are going to run to. This whole situation has been a lose/lose for Turkey in every aspect. They're also a Muslim nation at heart, so a lot of the same belief structures that formed Iraq also are shared by the Turkish people.

It's interesting to see though, how many oddities are taking place in world politics. For example, guy running for president of Taiwan gets shot 2 weeks prior to election and wins. Conspiracy to glean sympathy votes? The bombs on the Spanish railway...terrorism working to upset the balance of power in Spain. What can we expect when our elections roll around and how many other election time stunts are going to happen in other countries?

Allison

03-26-2004, 06:19 PM

It has been an interesting year so far, Pox. And it's bound to get a lot more interesting before it's over.

I'm reminded of the words of the very wise and revered political analyst, George Carlin, "When you're born in this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America, you get a front row seat." ;)

Allison

03-27-2004, 06:28 PM

I'd like to see him in front of O'Reily or Chris Matthews for that matter. l (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115170,00.html)Hardball with Chris Matthews, Monday 3/29, 7 PM. EST. Be there or be square. :)

Swifty_Johnson

03-27-2004, 09:26 PM

There is a BIG differance between Condi Rice not going public and Clarke skipping some talk shows.

To this date, NO National Security advisor has ever had to testify in front of congress in a public fourm.

On the other hand, many people have appears on talk shows to promote books.

The only reason who Clarke skips Fox News is he knows he not going to get softballs tossed at him, he'll get the hardballs thrown at him.

Clarke's book was ready for many months, the only reason to release now is to disgrace the president, and sell more books.

Like I said, Clarke is a democrat with friends that will get postions high in Kerry's cabinate if he wins. He is as dirty as they come.

Swifty

Eiru

03-27-2004, 10:04 PM

Swifty, Clarke is a republican.

EDIT: Quotes from an interview with Clarke:

Q: Is it true that you're a registered Republican, as someone told me yesterday?

A: Well, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance.

Q: Will you tell me whom you voted for in the Republican presidential primary in Virginia in 2000?

A: Yeah, I voted for John McCain.

Rooster

03-27-2004, 10:33 PM

"You think he's politically and personally motivated, and I think he sincerely believes he's doing the nation a service. If we agreed on his motivations, I think we'd agree on all the rest."

So, when someone disagrees with the Bush administration, they're being sincere. When they're supporting the Bush administration, they're just playing politics?

Allison, your posts are more well written than mine. I must admit you also spend more time researching your position - I wish I could, because all I can do is read and disagree (with a lot, not all); but it's pointless for me to try and reply because you want proof of what I know to be true - and I dont have time to dig it all up. But this one was easy... it's a standing theme of yours to point out that people that criticize are doing it do it from the goodness of their own heart. But other politicians can't be trusted. :(

Allison

03-28-2004, 02:27 AM

So, when someone disagrees with the Bush administration, they're being sincere. When they're supporting the Bush administration, they're just playing politics?

Not at all, Rooster. There are a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, who will seek to gain a political advantage by any means neccessary. I find it distasteful, no matter who is doing it. Personally, I don't support Bush, but I will defend him, and have done so, when I think he's being attacked unfairly, just like I will with anyone else.

On a related note, I don't think you and I disagree all that much on the issues, Roo. A lot of times, people think I'm defending a particular position, or on the flip-side, attacking a particular position, when in fact all I'm doing is arguing the fairness or truth of a supporting argument. By truth, I mean that I think people should base their opinions on fact, and not on what they've heard in an editorial or at the water cooler. (Swifty's assertion about Sudan and OBL is a perfect example.) And by fair, I mean that I don't think people should criticise their opponents for something that they wouldn't criticise their own party for. Below the belt is below the belt, in my book.

I'm not saying I have any special abilities in judging truth and fairness. I'm as guilty as the next person of letting things slide, or not noticing hypocricy when I see it. But, sometimes it's hard to recognize "below the belt" hits when whatever-it-is supports your position. (Again, it's all about perspective.) But I do try.

In regards to Clarke, I've never said that all his claims are accurate or fair. On the contrary, I think his views are colored by the fact that he's a counter-terrorism enthusiast, to put it mildy. I doubt any administration could do enough in that area to satisfy him. But, I do think he's sincere, and think he's being attacked, by some, unfairly.

Allison

03-28-2004, 02:55 AM

There is a BIG differance between Condi Rice not going public and Clarke skipping some talk shows.
Yes, it's not the same. But to repeat myself, a person's failure to appear here or there (or where Swifty wants him to) is not evidence that he or she has something to hide. :)

To this date, NO National Security advisor has ever had to testify in front of congress in a public fourm.
That's not true. I know of at least one. Sandy Berger testified before Congress when he was NSA.

Clarke's book was ready for many months, the only reason to release now is to disgrace the president, and sell more books.
You do know that it took the White House 3 months to approve it for publication, right?

Rooster

03-28-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote: Clarke's book was ready for many months, the only reason to release now is to disgrace the president, and sell more books. You do know that it took the White House 3 months to approve it for publication, right?

In Clarke's words of course. Isn't that "water-cooler" talk?

Ivyrielle

03-28-2004, 12:57 PM

Rooster

03-28-2004, 01:05 PM

That was Wesley Clark. The pyscho-general (he got removed from power of NATO forces because of his attitude and instability)

Ivyrielle

03-28-2004, 01:09 PM

Yeah, he was very psycho sounding. Thanks for clarifying that, Rooster. Glad those dots don't actually connect at least! ;) I heard more of his positions/speeches on the radio than I read, so I'm glad to know they aren't the same person.

Grundy

03-28-2004, 02:32 PM

I watch Fox "News" nightly. Dont confuse this for anything other than Republican Gospel eg the Word according to Karl Rove. They are the corner stone of right-wing spin machine. The "fair and balanced" marketing slogan is laughable.

Few days ago I accidently also caught The Oreilly broadcast which had Tony Snow as host tossing softballs to Newt 'The Head' Gingrich. It was hillarious. One rant after another with no rebuttal.

As bad as Fox has become, OReilly is so much worse. He is not credible as a journalist and not credible as a talking head. Basically he is the Heraldo of the right. I am glad we have Al Franken as the antidote. If they were superheroes Al would be Bill's nemesis.

Rooster

03-28-2004, 03:02 PM

My issue is...

Everything else is so far left, even balanced appears to swing wide right.

Allison

03-28-2004, 06:10 PM

In Clarke's words of course. Isn't that "water-cooler" talk?
You're right, Rooster. I should have said, "According to Clarke ..."

I've tried to find someone who can either confirm or deny Clarke's assertion that it took 3 months for the White House to complete its security check of the book, but I haven't found anyone yet. I've also heard that Clarke pushed up the release from April to March, to coincide with his tesitimony before the 9/11 commision. I haven't tried to confirm that yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

Not that I think any of that matters, though. He's talking about national security, and I think that's a totally appropriate topic for an election year. If he timed the release of his book to get a bigger audience, that doesn't neccessarily mean his primary motives aren't pure.

My issue is...

Everything else is so far left, even balanced appears to swing wide right.
I think that's a matter of perception, again. If you lean right, balanced reporting can seem left ... and if you lean left, balanced reporting can seem right.

What really bothers me is that the line between news reporting and news commentary has become so blurred, I don't think people are always able to tell the difference. And a lot of times, people don't even want to know the difference. They want flash and drama with their news.

It's an interesting dilemma for the news agencies. Reporting that is truly fair and balanced is boring as all hell. It doesn't command a very big audience, and the agencies need to think about the bottom line. After all, they can't very well report the news if they go out of business.

Hammer

03-29-2004, 11:24 AM

Glad to see he's at least doing Matthews. He usually will ask at least a few difficult questions and follow them up. Bah, Fox news is one of the few sources of news that's not so far left of center that it appears to be conservative. I think Special Report with Brit Hume is the best Political news show on right now. Still waiting to hear from CBS on the infomercial they ran for Clarke's book. 2/3 of the show was devoted to Clarke and his book and not once did they mention CBS and Clarkes book publisher are owned by the same parent company? Wait that's not all, order now and we'll throw in a copy of Al Franken's book. Since CBS did it, I guess it's just good corporate synergy;)

Swifty_Johnson

03-29-2004, 11:35 AM

Clarke is NOT a Republican.

The only campaign contribuations that he has made have been to Democrats.

This is an election year, and Clarke is exploting 9/11 to attempt to bring down Bush as he will personally profit from it. This man has disgraced all his years of service to this country for politics, just like Kerry did after Vietnam. The two of them go together hand in hand.

Swifty

Allison

03-29-2004, 02:30 PM

Bah, Fox news is one of the few sources of news that's not so far left of center that it appears to be conservative. I'd agree that their news reporting isn't much more slanted than anyone else's. But some of their commentary shows, like Hannity and Colmes and the O'Reilly Factor, are so sensationalized and slanted, I sometimes feel like I'm watching Hard Copy. And like so many commentary shows these days, the fact that they're presented on a "news channel" creates the illusion that these editorials are fact. (Which speaks to my earlier point about lines becoming blurred between news reporting and news commentary.)

Normally, I don't have much of a problem when commentary crosses the line, IF both positions are equally represented. (A news organization has this responsibility.) But, they often aren't. Sometimes, there is a charade of equal representation, with an aggressive ultra con like Hannity pitted against an obviously undermatched Colmes. And sometimes, there isn't even that, like the instance Friday night that Grundy mentioned of Tony Snow throwing softballs to "political anyalyst" Newt Gingrich. Gingrich's remarks came very close to political campaining for George W Bush, and yet it was represented as a balanced political analysis, with zero oppostion. The fact that Fox even employs a drastically partisan personality as a political analyst speaks volumes about its leanings.

I'm not saying Fox is the only network guilty of slant. Maybe I notice it more there because I disagree so strongly with what a lot of their commentators say. Because of this, I'm open to the possibility that it occurs more often than what I notice on other news shows. But it definitely happens frequently on Fox.

Still waiting to hear from CBS on the infomercial they ran for Clarke's book. 2/3 of the show was devoted to Clarke and his book and not once did they mention CBS and Clarkes book publisher are owned by the same parent company? I think everyone agrees that 60 Minutes erred in not disclosing this. If they're going to claim to be a news organization, then they have to act responsibly. They didn't, in this case.

Swifty_Johnson

03-29-2004, 02:58 PM

Well, here is some food for thought on Clarke's credibilty.

He claims that in 2001 he talked to Condi Rice about Al-Qaida and her facial expression told him she has never heard of them before.

In 2000 Condi Rice gave an interview with David Newman on WJR in Detroit and she talked about Al-Qaida in length.

He's other main point, that after 9/11 President Bush asked him to look into Iraq and if they were involved is also pointless. The President would be remiss if he didn't look at all the possibilities. Here Clarke is trying to make the President gathering all the facts before acting a bad thing.

Like I said, this book was written by a democrat to exploit 9/11 to hurt the President.

Swifty

Allison

03-29-2004, 04:24 PM

The only campaign contribuations that he has made have been to Democrats.
I'm not even going to ask you to prove this statement, even though I can't find anything to confirm it. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is a Democrat. Are you saying that Clarke's statements should be disregarded on this basis? Is it impossible for Democrats to have any valid criticisms?

I'll give you this, though: Clarke's responses when asked about his party affiliation were evasive.Well, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance.

It's definitely not something he wants to talk about. It reminded me of when Bush was asked if he had ever used cocaine. His response was that he could pass an FBI clearance both now and when his dad was president. (Before anyone gets defensive, I couldn't care less about that issue. I'm just saying that Clarke's evasive answers reminded me of this.)

He claims that in 2001 he talked to Condi Rice about Al-Qaida and her facial expression told him she has never heard of them before.

Clarke's words:As I briefed Rice on Al Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, "Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organizations with cells in over 50 countries, including the U.S."

I'll add to your argument by pointing out that Condi Rice talked at great length about OBL in a 2000 interview. It's apparant she knew at least that much before 2001. But, in fairness to Clarke, he said his impression was that Rice had not heard "the term" Al Qaeda before. Maybe his impression was wrong. Maybe she was looking at him thinking, "Wtf do you think you are, you arrogant little man?" I'm sure the expressions would be similiar. :)

If you bring this up because you think his statements were made soley for the purpose of attacking Condi Rice, then I would say that you're being hypocritical to attack his assumption about what she knew with your own assumtion about what his motives are. If you have a "feeling" that he's flat-out lying when he says he didn't think Condi Rice was familiar with the term Al Qaeda, then just say so. I don't know how you could emphatically assert this without any facts to support it. But, I've had "feelings" about people's motives before too.

If anything, the criticism here should be that it was improper to even put the idea out there, unless he knew for a fact that Condi hadn't ever heard that term before. I won't go so far as making that criticism yet, though, because I haven't read the book yet, and I don't know in what context the statement was made. If he made it to assert a failure of the Bush administration, I would say that his statement was improper because its foundation is made on assumption. But, if he made the statement in the context of explaining his own behavior, why he believed the administration wasn't doing enough, then its totally proper for him to talk about the things that caused his state of mind.

He's other main point, that after 9/11 President Bush asked him to look into Iraq and if they were involved is also pointless. The President would be remiss if he didn't look at all the possibilities. Here Clarke is trying to make the President gathering all the facts before acting a bad thing.That's not really correct. He doesn't fault Bush for looking at all the possibilites. Clarke asserts that the Bush administration continued to persue an Iraq connection, to the point of bullying, even after all the intelligence agencies had said there was no Iraq connection. And that's not even the main point in his book. (Again, my copy of the book hasn't arrived yet so I can't say for sure.) But, from what I understand, his primary criticism is that the Iraq war has hurt the war on terrorism more than it's helped.

PoxTheSmall

03-29-2004, 05:40 PM

What's annoying is that this tread's entitled Clarke exposed, and yet there's not one nekkid pic in it...not even one!!!

Rooster

03-29-2004, 06:09 PM

Btw, Clarke admitted to voting for Gore in 2000.

Allison

03-29-2004, 08:01 PM

On a related note, I obviously have too much time on my hands. :)

On another related note, I may have changed my position about Condi Rice appearing before the 9/11 commision.

Previously I had said, "Although I'm at a loss to understand how the separation of powers allows her to testify in private but not in public, I don't really care as long as she gives time to the commision, which she's done." But, that was before I knew that she wasn't under oath, and that there was no transcript made of her remarks to the commision. :/

This issue has puzzled me. On the one hand, I'm usually a big fan of "standing on principle," and an even bigger fan of the Constitution. Rice has said that she'd love to testify, except that it's a matter of a Constitutional principle. If this is truly the case, I'd still think it's a dumb political move not to testify, but personally, I'd say fair enough. Principles are important.

But my problem is that I can't really find anything to back this up. The Constitution itself never mentions executive privilege, although it has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as being valid in some circumstances. All of my searches have lead me to the case of The United States v. Nixon, in which the court ruled on executive priviege in relation to the infamous Nixon tapes.

In the opinion, the Supreme Court conceded that there is indeed a privilege for "confidential executive deliberations" about matters of policy having nothing to do with national security. This privilege is constitutionally based, deriving form the separation of powers. However, the Court held that this privilege is not absolute but can be overcome if a judge concludes that there is a compelling governmental interest in getting access to the otherwise privileged conversations, as in the case of the Nixon tapes.

That's an excerpt from http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/privilege.html .

In that decision, the court seems to assert that executive privilege is neccessary in some circumstances, but that it is not absolute, and it has to be weighed against the public's interests. If that's true, I don't see how Rice can say simply that her not testifying is a matter of principle, without citing some national interests.

Maybe someone with more knowlege in this area can enlighten me. I don't get it.

Hammer

03-29-2004, 11:14 PM

I think it's as simple as this. It's a legislative hearing. She's an appointed member of the executive branch. They can't make her testify any more than she can order a congressman to carry out an executive order. Or for that matter order a Justice to do something. They would ask questions that they know she couldn't answer in public, just to make it appear she's covering up something. The details of national security operation do not need to be layed bare for the worlds prying eyes. Not to mention it's a terrible distraction. Not one positive thing will come out of this. Not one.

Allison

03-30-2004, 12:56 AM

Well, it's not like other presidencies haven't been "distracted" before. ;) ;)

Technically, the commision isn't a congressional one, but an independent one created through legislation and the President. That, along with the other things I mentioned before make me wonder whether or not executive privilege applies. Regardless, the commision won't try to compel Rice to testify. It would be interesting, though, to see what the legal conclusion would be if they did. (Not that I think they should.)

I really haven't heard anyone argue the validity of executive privilege in this case, which is why I'm so curious about it. If Rice invokes executive privilege on the grounds of national security, then, from my understanding, it could apply. But to invoke it simply on the basis of principle seems to go against what the Supreme Court has already ruled, namely that executive privilege is not absolute.

But, regardless of my curiosity about the legalities, I'm inclined to believe that a public appearance before the commision is too much to ask of a sitting NSA because of the undermining affect it could have on the presidency. However, I don't see why she can't meet with members of the commision in private, as she's already done, and testify under oath.

Badger

03-30-2004, 05:19 AM

[QUOTE]If Rice invokes executive privilege on the grounds of national security, then, from my understanding, it could apply. But to invoke it simply on the basis of principle seems to go against what the Supreme Court has already ruled, namely that executive privilege is not absolute.[QUOTE]

Clarke invoked this same thing in 1999. I see no reason why Rice should have to play hide the salami in Bush's ass for the Dems...

He (Clarke) is a racist woman-hater (dude hates Rice with a passion) and a scum out to trash Bush while making a million, its politics as usual. Nothing more to see yet the media is having an orgy with it, just like the Bush AWOL stuff and Clinton cum stains.

The "9/11 Investigation" is nothing more than a witch hunt. The Dems have nothing real on Bush other than they dont like him, too bad they cant just come out and say.."Hey Bush is a Republican and we dont like him, vote for us instead, we will give you European style Socialism and crazy high taxes while taking your Bill of Rights away!"

Bush aint perfect, but hes a damn bit better than Kerry is, Kerry has voted 350 times to raise taxes since hes been elected.

Sorry, not for me. Vote Libertarian!!!

Hammer

03-30-2004, 11:17 AM

Looks like Clarke canceled his Hardball appearance and is suppose to be on Wednesday now. Maybe he read this article from the producer of Hardball and figured he need some more prep;) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624813/

Swifty_Johnson

03-30-2004, 12:53 PM

That's not really correct. He doesn't fault Bush for looking at all the possibilites. Clarke asserts that the Bush administration continued to persue an Iraq connection, to the point of bullying, even after all the intelligence agencies had said there was no Iraq connection. And that's not even the main point in his book. (Again, my copy of the book hasn't arrived yet so I can't say for sure.) But, from what I understand, his primary criticism is that the Iraq war has hurt the war on terrorism more than it's helped.

No, Clarke is insisting that Bush tried to link Iraq to 9/11 because he asked Clarke to look into it. The facts prove he is wrong, as several days after Bush asked Clarke to look into any Iraq connnection, Bush decided Iraq wasn't involved, and we hit Afghanastan. All Bush was going was his job, looking at all the suspects before acting.

Clarke is also comming under fire for saying Rumsfeld at a meeting make some comments, and Rumsfeld was never at that meeting. The more people dig into the book, the more people will take it for what it is, a buch of lies. The fact that he attacks Republicans for Clinton failing to get bin Laden is totally false and is covering up not only Clinton's incompentance, but his own.

Under Clinton, Clarke briefed the President, attended high level meetings.

Under Bush, Clarke briefed Rice, and attented mid level meetings.

Clarke wanted the #2 job at homeland security, didn't get it and left the goverment.

Ya, he's totaly unbiased and should be considered a trusted source. :eek:

If you believe that I have some nice valuabel land to sell you in South Florida.

Clarke is a democrat (he voted in the Republican primaries because the democratic one was over.) who's only given campaign contribuations to democrats, and now he's lying trying to bring down the President. That man has no honor.

Swifty

oh, and newsflash, Condi Rice will now appear infront of the commission.

Badger

03-30-2004, 02:43 PM

Bush is pulling a rope-a-dope on the Dems....

Swifty_Johnson

03-30-2004, 03:09 PM

The Democrats just got owned.

If they tear into her, than it proves that they were just after partisan politics.

If they go soft, than people will be like what was the fuss all about.

The just entered a loose-loose situation.

Also, she's one tough cookie, and her verball skills are much better than all of the people on the panel.

Swifty

Allison

03-30-2004, 04:03 PM

Lol, Hammer ... maybe. ;)

Let's see.. where to begin....

I see no reason why Rice should have to play hide the salami in Bush's ass for the Dems... The "9/11 Investigation" is nothing more than a witch hunt. Lol... tell us how you really feel. ;) These statements might hold more water if Republicans didn't have the majority, and if Democrats had pushed HR4628 through over the objections of the Republican minority. But, that's not the case. Republicans have the majority, the bill was introduced by a Republican, both houses passed the bill overwhelmingly, and the president himself signed it into law. How is that a Democratic witch-hunt?

Now, I'm not blind to the fact that our representatives often vote on the basis of some emotional and temporary national outcry. A lot of Dems did it when they gave Bush the authorization to go to war in Iraq. They didn't believe in the war, and now regret it. But at the time they didn't want to be seen as unpatriotic for opposing something that was going to pass anyway. The same may have happened here. I don't know. Maybe a lot of Republicans didn't want the commission, but they didn't want to look like they had something to hide.

The point is, if Republicans really thought it was going to be a witchhunt, they could have stopped it. If they let you down, blame them ... not the democrats.

Besides all of that, have you even seen any of the hearings? Sure, there's a tinge of partisanship here and there, but for the most part, the commision has been amazingly non-partisan and fair. And as far as Rice goes, they haven't tried to compel her to testify, nor have they criticised her for not doing so.

He (Clarke) is a racist woman-hater (dude hates Rice with a passion) and a scum out to trash Bush while making a million, its politics as usual. Nothing more to see yet the media is having an orgy with it, just like the Bush AWOL stuff and Clinton cum stains.I agree with you that partisanship can get really ugly. And accusations fly where they should not. Unfortuantely, we're often left on our own to sort fact from propaganda because the media is too busy with their ratings to actually do their jobs. But come on, a racist, woman-hater scum? What do you base those accusations on? And how does that add to the debate?

The Dems have nothing real on Bush other than they dont like him, too bad they cant just come out and say.."Hey Bush is a Republican and we dont like him, vote for us instead, we will give you European style Socialism and crazy high taxes while taking your Bill of Rights away!"You know very well that Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats of lowering the national debate with negative rhetoric. But, yes, I too wish everyone would start talking about the issues instead of acting like children cheating their way through a game of hopscotch. But again, chill with the name-calling. Democrats are not Socialists, nor do they favor crazy high taxes, nor do they want to take away the Bill of Rights. (I can't imagine where you got that last one.)

Bush aint perfect, but hes a damn bit better than Kerry is, Kerry has voted 350 times to raise taxes since hes been elected.Speaking of rhetoric ... that's not true.

Yes, it's true that there is generally a see-saw effect present in Congress, with Republicans cutting taxes and Democrats raising them. It's a fundamental difference between the two parties. If you'd like to argue the economic results of these policies, or even specific votes, that's great. But don't make it sound like Kerry is some tax-hungry fool by repeating innacurate and misleading statistics. He never voted 350 times to raise taxes.

Here are some sites that talk about that 350 number:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001445.html#more (Yes, I know it's John Kerry's site, but if you're going to quote the Republican party line, you should also take a look at the Democratic response. )

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=159

There's a lot more out there on this topic, if these links don't suit you. Again, argue Kerry's record if you want; argue the economic response of tax cuts; but don't argue about how Democrats unfairly attack Bush and then go and do the same by quoting election-year propaganda.

Allison

03-30-2004, 04:28 PM

I don't want you to feel left out because I'm not responding to you, Swifty. :) But you haven't responded to a number of my earlier points; you've represented your opinions as fact without any attempt to back them up when asked; you've posted at least 2 verfiable untruths and not acknowleged them to be untrue when I pointed them out to you.

If you'd like to debate some facts, or even some theory, I'd be happy to do so. But I'm not going to spend my time responding when thus far, you've all but ignored my arguments. :)

Edit: I'm not trying to be rude or ugly. I apologize if it comes across that way. I'm just saying I don't want to participate in a patisan slug-fest, trading hard-line partisan punches all day, instead of debating the facts. I realize some people enjoy that sort of thing, but I don't.

Swifty_Johnson

03-30-2004, 04:51 PM

But you haven't responded to any of my earlier points; you continue to represent your opinions as fact without any attempt to back them up when asked;

Which facts you want?

you've posted at least 2 verfiable untruths and not acknowleged them to be untrue when I pointed them out to you.

Which ones? The Sudan one? You haven't proven it untrue. There is one book that made the claim that Clarke screwed up when Sudan offered us bin Laden, I haven't seen Clarke sueing them for slander.

What was the other one?

Swifty

Allison

03-30-2004, 06:09 PM

Which ones? The Sudan one? You haven't proven it untrue. There is one book that made the claim that Clarke screwed up when Sudan offered us bin Laden, I haven't seen Clarke sueing them for slander.No, I can't prove it, with an absolute certainty, to be untrue. I also can't prove it's untrue that Bush is a cross-dressing drag-queen, although I'm sure I could find some nutcase somewhere to say it's so. But, I can make factual statements, and in the absense of of that, I can be clear that my statements are based on opinion.

First of all, what book are you referring to? While I have heard the rumors that Sudan offered OBL to us, I've never heard that Clarke was reponsible for not accepting the alleged offer. If it's true that someone has made this claim in a book, then you should have said, "According to ....," instead of representing it as fact. If you had done a little research, you'd know that whether or not Sudan even made the offer is a matter of great dispute .. and that the 9/11 commision has found that there is no evidence for this claim. It would take a huge leap of faith to believe that Sudan ever offered him up, then a bigger leap of faith to believe that we even had any policy in place to receive him at that time, and an even larger leap of faith to assume that Clarke was the final word in it.

Second, how can you quote that book as fact, and then claim that Clarke's book is all lies? From what basis are you drawing your conclusions? It seems you readily believe anything that supports your position and summarily reject anything that doesn't.

Third, I haven't seen the Bush administration suing Clarke for slander either. That doesn't mean a thing.

What was the other one?You said, "To this date, NO National Security advisor has ever had to testify in front of congress in a public forum." I responded, "That's not true. I know of at least one. Sandy Berger testified before Congress when he was NSA." I understand there are others.

If you want a full accounting of the things you've said that I think are unfair, or that you haven't responded to, or that you've asserted as fact instead of opinion. Here you go. I've discussed some of these at great length in earlier posts:

1. Your assertion that Clarke not appearing on O'Reilly means he has something to hide. I'm sure there are some news programs that Condi Rice hasn't been on yet, either, it doesn't mean she has something to hide. Criticising Clarke for not appearing where you want him to, and not applying the same criticism to everyone else is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

2. Your assertion that Clarke applied for a job at Homeland Security, didn't get it, and is disgruntled because of it ... even though he has said he didn't apply for the job, and that he never wanted it. This fact is in dispute and yet you represented it more than once as fact.

3. Your assertion that Clarke isn't credible because he has a friend in the Kerry campaign who will benefit if Bush isn't re-elected. Well, the Bush campaign will benefit if they are re-elected. It doesn't mean everything they say is all lies simply because they have a stake in the election. Again, unfair to apply your criticisms only to Clarke.

4. Your assertion that Clarke is "dirty" because of the timing of his book. There are certainly accusations that he timed the release to coincide with his testimony before the committee, but there are also accusations that it would have come out earlier if the White House would have approved its release sooner. And while I'll agree that the timing does suggest that Clarke was trying to maximize his audience, calling him "dirty" because of that is just name-calling to the nth degree.

5. Your assertion that Clarke's only campaign contributions have been to democrats. While I've seen no evidence of this, and you've offered none, it doesn't follow that he's not credible because of this. If you claim it does, then you'd also have to say that the White House's criticisms of Clarke aren't credible simply because they're Republicans. Again, fairness and consistency.

6. Your assumption that Clarke "is exploting 9/11 to attempt to bring down Bush as he will personally profit from it." Again, you are making assumptions about Clarke's motives. Heck, maybe it'll turn out to be true, But, those are pretty serious character assasinations based on.. what? By ALL accounts, Clarke has been a dedicated, non-partisan, public servant in the area of national security for 30 years. Suddenly he's now an exploiting war-profiteer?

7. Your assumption that Clarke was lying when he said he didn't think Rice was familiar with the term Al Quaeda. See above.

8. Your misrepresentation of what Clarke has said about Bush's immediate response to 9-11 in relation to Iraq. You keep insisting Clarke has criticised Bush for "looking at the options." But that's a severe misrepresentation of what Clarke has actually said.

9. Your assertion that Clarke criticises only Republicans for counter-terrorism failures. He doesn't.

Again, I don't mean to be rude. But you seem all too anxious to believe and repeat anything that puts Clarke in a bad light, and all too anxious to believe and repeat anything that puts the current administration in good one. But, you haven't really debated or refuted any of Clarke's positions. You've only made character attacks.

Edit: As I've said before, if you have a feeling that Clarke is lying, just say so. A lot of people agree with you and it may very well turn out to be true. And we've all had feelings about a person's credibility before. But, what I take exception to is making unfair and inconsistent character attacks based on that feeling.

Swifty_Johnson

03-30-2004, 06:35 PM

You said, "To this date, NO National Security advisor has ever had to testify in front of congress in a public forum." I responded, "That's not true. I know of at least one. Sandy Berger testified before Congress when he was NSA." I understand there are others.

Let me clearify than, To date, NO National Security Advisor has ever had to testify in fron of congress on a POLICY matter. Sandy Berger and Carter's NSA both had to testify on CRIMINAL matters.

Clear now?

1. Your assertion that Clarke not appearing on O'Reilly means he has something to hide. I'm sure there are some news programs that Condi Rice hasn't been on yet, either, it doesn't mean she has something to hide. Criticising Clarke for not appearing where you want him to, and not applying the same criticism to everyone else is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

Again, Condi Rice isn't trying to sell a book. When you sell a book you do the rounds. Clarke is skipping over places where the people will ask him serious questions and attack his credibilty.

2. Your assertion that Clarke applied for a job at Homeland Security, didn't get it, and is disgruntled because of it ... even though he has said he didn't apply for the job, and that he never wanted it. This fact is in dispute and yet you represented it more than once as fact.

As opposed to several people in the Bush administration that said he did ask for the job, and was denied. Again, you choose to believe Clarke, I choose to believe the others. Several press organizations are publishing it.

3. Your assertion that Clarke isn't credible because he has a friend in the Kerry campaign who will benefit if Bush isn't re-elected. Well, the Bush campaign will benefit if they are re-elected. It doesn't mean everything they say is all lies simply because they have a stake in the election. Again, unfair to apply your criticisms only to Clarke.

You said Clarke has nothing to gain from his book, I pointed out that besides lots of money, he helps his friend get one of the top jobs in the country.

4. Your assertion that Clarke is "dirty" because of the timing of his book. There are certainly accusations that he timed the release to coincide with his testimony before the committee, but there are also accusations that it would have come out earlier if the White House would have approved its release sooner. And while I'll agree that the timing does suggest that Clarke was trying to maximize his audience, calling him "dirty" because of that is just name-calling to the nth degree.

Sometime the truth hurts. He's dirty not only in the timing, but in the content and the lies he puts out as truth. He also glosses over the total failures of the Clinton administation, and hammers Regan and Both Bush administrations. If that doens't speak partisan, I don't know what does.

5. Your assertion that Clarke's only campaign contributions have been to democrats. While I've seen no evidence of this, and you've offered none, it doesn't follow that he's not credible because of this. If you claim it does, then you'd also have to say that the White House's criticisms of Clarke aren't credible simply because they're Republicans. Again, fairness and consistency.

Every campaign contribution that people make is tracked. Someone went in and looked at who Clarke gave money to and posted the results. Sorry, I do not have the information handy, next time I see it I'll write it down. He is on the record for only giving money two to campaigns, both democrats.

6. Your assumption that Clarke "is exploting 9/11 to attempt to bring down Bush as he will personally profit from it." Again, you are making assumptions about Clarke's motives. Heck, maybe it'll turn out to be true, But, those are pretty serious character assasinations based on.. what? By ALL accounts, Clarke has been a dedicated, non-partisan, public servant in the area of national security for 30 years. Suddenly he's now an exploiting war-profiteer?

Um, ya. If what he says is true, and he is a "non-partisan, public servant" the correct fourm for him is to go to a congressman, inform the congressman of what happened, congress opens a hearing, and we get the facts. Now, did he go to his comgressman? No, he wrote a book, and went to a publisher as going to your congressman doesn't make you money. Also, you can be loose with the facts to a publisher, but not a congressional hearing.

7. Your assumption that Clarke was lying when he said he didn't think Rice was familiar with the term Al Quaeda. See above.

Again, he was lying. Dr. Rice knew full well about bin Laden and Al-Quaeda. His comments were nothing more than trying to portray her as ignorant of the threat. IF he was a "non-partisan, public servant" those comments he made would have never made it to print. He's not Mrs. Cloe, he doens't know what is going though Dr. Rice's mind, but at that time, after two embassy bombings and the attack on the Cole, to suggest that Dr. Rice's facial expression meant she didn't know what Al-Quaeda was is nothing but a partisan attack on the credibitly of Dr. Rice.

8. Your misrepresentation of what Clarke has said about Bush's immediate response to 9-11 in relation to Iraq. You keep insisting Clarke has criticised Bush for "looking at the options." But that's a severe misrepresentation of what Clarke has actually said.

Actually I am right on target with what Clarke has said. Clarke and I have differant thoughts on why the President would ask that any Iraq connection be looked into.

9. Your assertion that Clarke criticises only Republicans for counter-terrorism failures. He doesn't.

I take it you haven't seen his book yet, you will see.

Again, I don't mean to be rude. But you seem all too anxious to believe and repeat anything that puts Clarke in a bad light, and all too anxious to believe and repeat anything that puts the current administration in good one. But, you haven't really debated or refuted any of Clarke's positions. You've only made character attacks.

This is an election year, you choose to believe Clarke, I choose not too. I also know people claim that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed, I don't give them much credibilty either. I see Clarke in the same view as the others, making partisan attacks on the President. I view Clarke with higher disdane becasue he should know better.

Swifty

Rooster

03-30-2004, 07:36 PM

Clarke's book is making lies about the Bush administration that can generally be disproved by opening up our country's internal policies to the world. And that's not a good option.

You think people the president is going to keep taking advice from liberals now? Even ones that seem to portray trust, when they turn around and lie? You think people are going to want to tell the President how they really feel when they know a Congressional hearing could turn around and have them spill it to the world?

As Hammer said, this will end in nothing accomplished, and only drawbacks.

We're all adults.

If (BIG IF) someone in the (or some part of the) government dropped the ball in preventing 9/11 - they know it - and I would put money that they won't let it happen again. Why do we need to show the world what keystone kops we have in legislature just so some commission can point a finger?

Allison

03-30-2004, 08:08 PM

Rooster, I tend to agree with you that the commision will probably do more harm than good.

But, you know as well as I that that's the way it works. Commisions are formed to study such-n-such so politicians can score political points with their contituents, giving the appearance they're doing everything they can about such-n-such. And sometimes, their motives are more underhanded. I've seen it time and time again that politicians will push certain investigations, even though they have little merit, for no other reason than to discredit their opponents in the public eye. It's shameful, but it happens.

My only defense of the commision is that I think, despite all the politicizing of it in the media and the executive and legislative branches, they're doing a pretty good job of completing the task given them in fair and non-partisan way.

You said Clarke has nothing to gain from his book ... you choose to believe Clarke
I've never said either of those things. Please don't start misrepresenting me, too.

I have said that I think Clarke believes what he's saying.

But you've missed my point altogether. If you think Clarke is lying, I have no problem with you saying so. That's your right. But making character attacks instead of debating the validity of what he's actually said does nothing to further the debate. Representing things that are in dispute as if they're fact, is nothing but partisan politicking. And that's not the sort of debate I care to participate in.

Swifty_Johnson

03-31-2004, 11:03 AM

I've never said either of those things. Please don't start misrepresenting me, too.

Sorry, I had you confused with someone else.

But you've missed my point altogether. If you think Clarke is lying, I have no problem with you saying so. That's your right. But making character attacks instead of debating the validity of what he's actually said does nothing to further the debate.

Clarke's character (or lack thereof) is very much in question here. I am throughly DISGUSTED by his actions, lack of class, and partisan politics, and his blantent use of 9/11 tragedy to try and assult the president. He even goes on to try and excuse Clinton's failure to act on his critics and the whole Monica fiasco. Lets face it, if the democrats in the senate had any credibilty Clinton should have been impeached, although Gore prob would have been a bigger diaster.

Clinton's failure to act on bin Laden had more to do with Somila and the critism of his attacking on an asprine factory than anything his critics said. How presidental is someone who makes decisions on what to do, not on weither it's right or wrong, but on what the polls say? Not very. This is why Bush upsets so many people, he does what HE thinks is right, not what the polls say. THAT is a president. Leaders lead the country, not polls.

Clinton's lack of effective leadership can be directly traced to the loss of U.S. personel in Somila and the dragging of a dead U.S. soldier though the streets. His failure to act properly to the requests of the troops on the ground and lighting the candle from both ends, lead to us getting burned. After that he was really hesitent to place people on the ground. Look at Kosovo, he pounded Serbia, killed hundreds of innocent Serbs from the air, just becasue he was afraid to put troops on the ground in Kosovo.

Clinton was extreamly vulnerable over his actions in Somila. The people who knew what really happened respected the office of the President, the dead soldiers, and this country enough not to write a tell all book that would have gotten Bob Dole elected if released right before the election.

That's why I have a total disdane for Richard Clarke. He's more than willing to smear the memory of those on 9/11, the troops that died in Iraq, and fill his pocket with coin just to forward a political agenda, based in innenudio, lies, and half-truths.

If he really cared about the U.S., he would have contacted congress, briefed them, testifyed, THAN wrote the book.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

03-31-2004, 05:48 PM

Here is a short summary of what Clarke will say tonight on Hardball

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4639380/

Any doubts to his agenda have now been removed,

Richard Clarke, President Bush’s former chief counterterrorism adviser, said Wednesday that it was possible that he and his team could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks if the Bush administration had paid more attention ahead of time to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.

So after 8 years of Clinton stumbling, Bush should have in 7 months routed Al-Qaida and saved the twin towers.

Swifty

Eiru

03-31-2004, 06:35 PM

I was pretty young at the time and in a different country so maybe someone else can refresh my memory: was there this much controversy over the Iran-Contra hearings?

Rooster

03-31-2004, 06:36 PM

2 words: Oliver North

He was used a scape-goat to protect the politicians. I think it was a lesser of two evils plan that didn't work out. When are people (not persons) going to realize that sometimes things dont go perfectly and sometimes it's not pretty?

Allison

03-31-2004, 08:03 PM

To answer your question, Eiru, yes, the Ira-Contra hearings were very controversial. Much more so than the 9/11 hearings. They involved much more serious allegations than the ones being made now.

Swifty, I'll be interested to see what Clarke actually says tonight. What you posted is not a quote from him, but a paraphrase, at best. His position has always been that 9-11 probably couldn't have been prevented, that he'd like to think we could have done something to prevent it if all the pertinent intelligence had been made available prior to 9/11 (though he's very understanding as to why it wasn't available), but that there's just no way to know for sure. I don't see anything in that article that contradicts Clarke's previous statements, although, it's a bit of shoddy reporting to assert that Clarke's Jan. 25th recommendations had anything to do with intelligence coordination. I'll explain.

It's true, that in response to a question that asked, "Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001 ...had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?," Clarke responded, "No."

There is no contradtion in that response. No, he doesn't think 9/11 could have been prevented soley on the basis of his Jan 25th recommendations, which didn't include recommendations about intelligence coordination. Yes, he hopes that his team might have been able to do something if the intelligence we had at the time had been better coordinated. (For example, had he known there was a jihadist who was identified, apprehended in the United States before 9/11 who was in flight school acting erratically.)

His responses differ because the question of what might have prevented 9/11 differs. One question is about his specific recommendations, the other question is about intelligence coordination.

And Swifty, your assertion that the Clinton adminstration stumbled for 8 years is simplistic and misleading. Even Rice and Hadley have admitted before the commision that the Clinton administration worked very hard on Al Qaida issues. For the record, they also said that the old policies had "run out of gas."

Rooster

03-31-2004, 08:32 PM

and weren't willing to take a more hardline approach because it would have "tarnished" Clinton's PR machine.

Allison

04-01-2004, 01:51 AM

Anyone see Clarke on Hardball? As I suspected, he didn't contradict anything that he had testified to, as that MSNBC article suggested.

and weren't willing to take a more hardline approach because it would have "tarnished" Clinton's PR machine.I think that's a bit simplistic too, Roo.

Yes, people have said, and I tend to agree, that because of all the scandals surrounding Clinton during his presidency, he didn't have the political clout to take serious military steps toward eliminating Al Qaida, even if it had been warranted. But that doesn't mean that the terrorist threat during his administration ever did warrant putting troops on the ground. And, now that more of the facts are becoming known, I don't think anyone other than shock-jocks and extreme right-wingers are contending that Clinton was soft on terrorism. We can hash through everything accomplished in the area of counter-terrorism during the Clinton years, if you want. But that's not the point.

Look, terrorism has changed greatly over the years. Al Qaida in particular has grown from a few thugs to a worldwide, well-financed, well-networked organization. What worked before won't work now. But there is no one date in the past 12 years that one can point to and say, ok, this is the day that Al Qaida changed, and that is the day that our policies should have changed too. You can't then look at that date, check to see who was in office, and then say, OK, that's the administration to blame.

This isn't an Us vs. Them situation. The 9/11 commision isn't about laying blame. It's about finding out what went wrong, if anything, and about making reccomendations about how things could be done better in the future to prevent another 9/11. That's their task, and that's what the public debate should be, not "My Dad's better than your Dad."

Swifty_Johnson

04-01-2004, 12:22 PM

Iran-contra turned out to be a big joke and a total waste of taxpayers money. In order to get him to testify, as they figured he'd roll on the president, Olie North got total immunity.

He than went on to basically say "I did it, I broke the law, I destroyed all the evidence, I am the man to blame." ( really short version) This left the Iran-Contra hearing with all the information, but noone to charge as Lt. Col. North was given total immunity. A real big DOH!

And Swifty, your assertion that the Clinton adminstration stumbled for 8 years is simplistic and misleading.

Simplistic, but not misleading.

Yes, people have said, and I tend to agree, that because of all the scandals surrounding Clinton during his presidency, he didn't have the political clout to take serious military steps toward eliminating Al Qaida, even if it had been warranted.

And who is to blame for the scandals? That's right, Bill Clinton. When it comes right down to it, Clinton was responsible for his actions, and the fallout from them. The only reason he was never charged in the real estate scandle was the one person what was going to roll on him and tell all died before he could. If Clinton had any respect for the office of the President, he would have resigned before he was impeached. If the democtats in the Senate had any repsect for the laws of this country, they would have impeached him.

But that doesn't mean that the terrorist threat during his administration ever did warrant putting troops on the ground. And, now that more of the facts are becoming known, I don't think anyone other than shock-jocks and extreme right-wingers are contending that Clinton was soft on terrorism.

Of course Clinton was soft on terrorism. He consulted the polls and the polls indicated there wasn't the support for taking hard action, so he didn't. Clinton was more consearned with poll numbers and legacy that he failed to do the right thing. I would certaintly call the bombings of two U.S. embassays, and the hundreds of deaths that resulted enough to warrent serious action. Action more than lobbing a few cruise missles at deserted training camps.

The problem is the "solutions" that were put in place were wrong, and they stressed tecnology vs human methods. People were not put into harms way, for fear of another Somalia type incident. The last year of the Clinton presidancy the country was placed on cruise controll while he strived for a positive legacy. The economy collasped, terrorism florished, and we as a country lost direction. The Clinton administration may have worked "hard" on Al-Qaida issues, but their efforts were in the wrong direction, and they lacked the resolve to do the right thing, take MILITARY action.

The 9/11 commision isn't about laying blame. It's about finding out what went wrong, if anything, and about making reccomendations about how things could be done better in the future to prevent another 9/11.

What went wrong is we grew fat, lazy, and compliacant. We never thought 9/11 could happen here. (So soon we forget Pearl Harbor.) We didn't realise that militants had decleared WAR on America, so we didn't treat it like a war.

And this is an election year. The 9/11 commision and report will be used to lay blame. Hopefully some of the stuff they did find wrong (failure to share information between goverment officers, no cordination between differant branches,ect) will get fixed in all the finger pointing that will go on after the report is issued.

I'll finish with this. Bush is 100X the President that Clinton ever was, nor could ever be. Bush is willing to do what is right for America, despite what the polls say, despite any objections from our "allies". He's seen what to do, and he did it. When the polls said it might not be a good idea, he did it anyway. He's shown more moral courage in the last 4 years than most people do in a lifetime. Bush is less consearned with his legacy, more with the United States. That speaks volumes.

Swifty

]LoL[Harm

04-01-2004, 01:07 PM

...Clarke's character (or lack thereof) is very much in question here. I am throughly DISGUSTED by his actions, lack of class...
Class and honor...yes; I too value these things. Lets take a look at the honor of our esteemed President and his Administration.

"I have no ambition whatsoever to use [the 9/11 attacks] as a political issue". So says President Bush sometime prior to his current campaign ads. He also uses a flag draped coffin carried by hired actors portraying Firefighters that worked at ground zero denying the honor to the actual Firefighters that are still struggling from lung infections and other ailments from honorably risking their lives for others. This lacks class.

When Ambassador Joe Wilson, after being sent to Nigeria to investigate claims that Iraq had purchased enriched uranium from Nigeria, came to his conclusion on July of 2003: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat" (This quote was lifted from www.nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com)) Shortly after it was revealed through major media outlets that his wife was a CIA Agent. There are speculations on how undercover she was, however why was this fact even published in papers such as The Washington Post? I am not blaming the Administration for leaking this information since that cannot be backed with proof, I'm blaming them for not publically condemning this and looking into acts of Treason and for not pressing in on the Washington Post for dissimination of confidential information that would fall under National Security. I find it dishonorable to ignore such breaches of protocol.

I as an American was promised some form of tax relief. I currently pay 33% in taxes, the highest amount of taxes I have ever payed. For the past two years I have OWED taxes when my tax returns were complete and I filed with 0 claims. This is more taxes then I payed when I made more money in 2002. I do remember getting a single check for $300 back in 2001 I think. Boy that sure made a difference. Thank you for your tax relief program President Bush. Lies are dishonorable. In fact who of you who read this board have seen tax relief in your paychecks, in your tax returns?

I was promised that this war on terror would make me feel more secure. I, and the majority of the people I know and talk to, do not. Killing people rarely does. Just ask the Isreali peoples.

The Afghanistan war was supposed to end in the rebuilding of its infrastructure in order to help it achieve a state of stability that would allow it to become a secure and democratic state within the Middle East. Or so says the current Administration. Instead we have spent some $180 billion dollars on another war before we were even done with the frist, leaving with incomplete objectives. Are we such irresponsible children that we can't even clean up after ourselves proplerly before creating even more of a mess stretching our resources thin? Why have we not done what we did with Japan after WWII in order to fulfill our promises? Did we not learn from our past successes?

I'm tired of war, I'm tired of people dying for causes that will not be best served for it. I'm tired of our policies regarding the Afghan nation. I'm tired of this so called economic reform that doesn't seem to be having a positive impact on me, my family or my friends. I'm tired of gutter politics on both sides of this stupid, fucked up partisan system that is old and tired and blind. Honor and class belongs to neither side of the spectrum, in fact the current, partisan, system has insured that neither of those belong in politics at all.

As for the topic, Clarke is as is the majority of America; always looking out for his own comfort and survival. However believing that to be an indication of falsehood or proof of a classless, dishonorable individual is unfounded.

Hammer

04-01-2004, 01:55 PM

I didn't think he would contradict himself because he basically testified to both sides being true. Hard to be contradicted when you can take both sides. Anyway, my beef here is that it's clear what wrong and there are no need for this type of public hearing about POLICY issues. If you disagree with the policy choices then vote against him again Richard. And write your book when it doesn't undermine the credibitily of the people currently charged with protecting us.

I could save them some time.

What went wrong:
1. Islamic extremist thought it would be great to make some symbolic strikes against the great Satan. Like flying some airplanes into key landmarks.

2. Americans either didn't believe they would actually do this or didn't have the capability to pull it off.

3. Americans handle terrorist the same way they handle a convience store robbery.

4. At the time, there were laws that actually prevented the CIA and FBI from working together. If it was on our terf it was an FBI issue and the FBI has always been set up to investigate crimes that have already occured. They did very little if any thing to prevent future crimes.

5. Security for Domestic flights was basically was pretty weak and easily defeated.

6. No one aboard the planes could imagine that they were part of some suicide mission. At worse they wind up in Cuba or someplace.

7. Airport security Czar Al Gore sold out to the airlines for a half million in soft money contributions from the airlines.

Actually I don't hold Al to blame. It just goes to show the mind set of Americans prior to 9/11. He was appointed to come up with new security guidelines for the nations airports. He wrote a rough draft that was pretty good and of course it was released the airlines for feedback. They of course screamed bloody murder about what it would do to profits. The final report was gutted of any expensive suggestions and the DNC coffers were filled nicely by the airlines. No way Al could have imagined that 9/11 could have happened.

Finally, the biggest problem of them all. The size of the government itself. There are about 18 departments the president has to oversee. Only 3 of which actually pertain to national security. The federal government has become too large to focus on it's primary responsibility. It's only going to get worse and I fear that regardless of who occupies the whitehouse there will be more attacks in our future.

Hammer

04-01-2004, 01:59 PM

Well Harm, if you payed 33% federal tax then you are officially rich my friend;) Expect a tax increase if Kerry wins cause he has promised only to raise taxes on the rich. You're not paying your fair share and he plans to address that.

Swifty_Johnson

04-01-2004, 02:24 PM

So says President Bush sometime prior to his current campaign ads. He also uses a flag draped coffin carried by hired actors portraying Firefighters that worked at ground zero denying the honor to the actual Firefighters that are still struggling from lung infections and other ailments from honorably risking their lives for others. This lacks class.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The flag draped body was actual footage of a recovery. Those were real firefighters and that was a real body under that sheet. (Yes, I felt that was a bit tacky.) The firefighters at the end of another segment sitting on a firetruck were actors.

I as an American was promised some form of tax relief. I currently pay 33% in taxes, the highest amount of taxes I have ever payed. For the past two years I have OWED taxes when my tax returns were complete and I filed with 0 claims. This is more taxes then I payed when I made more money in 2002. I do remember getting a single check for $300 back in 2001 I think. Boy that sure made a difference. Thank you for your tax relief program President Bush. Lies are dishonorable. In fact who of you who read this board have seen tax relief in your paychecks, in your tax returns?

Sounds like you have your withholdings messed up. Weither or not you get a refund or pay is not an indication of weitehr or not you got any tax relief. You need to look at how much you paid in % of your income between the years. Are you paying 33% in income tax, or are you counting as 33% the amount social security takes out.

I was promised that this war on terror would make me feel more secure. I, and the majority of the people I know and talk to, do not.

I feel much more secure today than I did on 9/12. With every militant flocking to Iraq instead of the USA, I feel much safer.

Instead we have spent some $180 billion dollars on another war before we were even done with the frist, leaving with incomplete objectives. Are we such irresponsible children that we can't even clean up after ourselves proplerly before creating even more of a mess stretching our resources thin? Why have we not done what we did with Japan after WWII in order to fulfill our promises? Did we not learn from our past successes?

Japan wasn't rebuild overnight, neither will Afganistan. We are very active there, unfortuantly there are millions of land mines and other hazzards that need to be cleared, roads need to be rebuilt, and all the warlords bought under control. This doesn't happen overnight.

I'm blaming them for not publically condemning this and looking into acts of Treason and for not pressing in on the Washington Post for dissimination of confidential information that would fall under National Security. I find it dishonorable to ignore such breaches of protocol.

The administration is helping fully with the FBI looking into the matter, what more can they do? The only person who knows who leaked the informaiton isn't talking, so an invesgitation is being launched. Guess what, it prob won't find out who it was. So the administration is doing everything in it's power to find out who it was. IF the person who did it is found, they will be punished. This also happens all the time, nothing new there.

Swifty

]LoL[Harm

04-01-2004, 03:10 PM

Sorry, but you are wrong. The flag draped body was actual footage of a recovery. Those were real firefighters and that was a real body under that sheet. (Yes, I felt that was a bit tacky.) The firefighters at the end of another segment sitting on a firetruck were actors.
Gotcha, the articles I read blurred the facts I guess. Either way the entire line of ads lacks class.

Sounds like you have your withholdings messed up. Weither or not you get a refund or pay is not an indication of weitehr or not you got any tax relief. You need to look at how much you paid in % of your income between the years. Are you paying 33% in income tax, or are you counting as 33% the amount social security takes out.
I haven't consulted an accountant but my withholdings are simple, I claim 0 giving the Feds as much money as possible out of my check with the idea that I would get a return at the end of the year. Also the 33% is a combined total of Fed Income, SS, MedC and State Income. I'll state exactly how much of that is Fed Income when I get my check today. And Hammer, I soooo wish I was rich. I'm just a middle class gimp.

I feel much more secure today than I did on 9/12. With every militant flocking to Iraq instead of the USA, I feel much safer.
I was working and still do work at high risk targets for terrorism. I do not feel safer. There is absolutely ZERO resources being used to secure the hospital I currently work in from any type of terrorist activity. The government building I worked at in Seattle went through moderate security improvements, none made me feel adequately safe. The rail system we implemented did not have adequate security and what happened in Madrid could easily happen to that system. I was also a firefighter during the 9/11 attacks, during the months following our department didn't get any money, no new equipment for HAZMAT incidents, no new HAZMAT or Mass Casuatly training, in fact we lost money and were shut down due to lack of funding. I feel LESS safe traveling outside of the United States, even to European countries. Safe you say, maybe locked inside your own home, that's not what the World should be about.

Japan wasn't rebuild overnight, neither will Afganistan. We are very active there, unfortuantly there are millions of land mines and other hazzards that need to be cleared, roads need to be rebuilt, and all the warlords bought under control. This doesn't happen overnight.
I completely agree, however destabalzing another country while still dealing with the rebuilding of another seems to be counterproductive. Resources need to stay centered and focused in order to achieve goals in an efficient manner. If a meager community college undergrad, middle class joe such as myself understands this basic principal I fail to see how these Ivy League guys fail to maybe they don't teach Project Management or Efficient Ways of Leadership in those expensive colleges.

The administration is helping fully with the FBI looking into the matter, what more can they do? The only person who knows who leaked the informaiton isn't talking, so an invesgitation is being launched. Guess what, it prob won't find out who it was. So the administration is doing everything in it's power to find out who it was. IF the person who did it is found, they will be punished. This also happens all the time, nothing new there.
I couldn't find anything indicating this in my earlier search, I blame google and yahoo. ;) If this is true, this is good, however a public announcement of disdain over this breach in protocol should be made by someone who is big on National Security...say the President? I haven't read anything about it (BBC, USAToday, MSNBC or CNN) and last I saw issues concerning National Security and Treason are hot issues that the Media would be glad to report on.

Allison

04-01-2004, 05:21 PM

I didn't think he would contradict himself because he basically testified to both sides being true. Can you show me in his testimony, or even paraphrase, where Clarke "testified to both sides being true?" I saw Clarke testify, and I have since read the transcript. He didn't.

Swifty, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how Clinton's presidency was undermined and weakened. It serves no purpose in this debate other than partisan bickering and finger-pointing.

But, as for Clinton's counter-terrorism record, the information is out there, if you care to do a little research. As early as 1995 Clinton was advocating counter-terrorism measures that were only passed after 9/11/2001, like amending federal law to ease the restrictions of electronic surveillance and the creation of an inter-agency counter-terrorsim center. These sorts of measures and many many others were repeatedly blocked by Congress throughout his presidency.

He was very focused on counter-terrorism, giving speech after speech on the subject, arguing with Congress to give him the tools he needed to fight terrorism. Despite his battles with congress, and the fact that both the American people and the Congress wouldn't tolerate "boots on the ground," he was able to accomplish a lot.

He tripled the FBI's counter-terrorism budget, and stockpiled masses of smallpox and anthrax vaccine. A dozen or more terrorist attacks were thwarted, including targets such as the Lincoln tunnel, the Los Angeles airport, a hotel in Jordan, the Pope, a U.S. embassy in Albania and also a plan to simultaneously blow up 12 civilian airliners.

He blew up Al Qaida training camps in Afgahistan, and targets in Sudan. He authorized the killing of OBL (although the CIA says they were unlear on this point. *boggle*). He stationed attack class subarines off the coast of Pakistan for 2 years to aid in this goal. From 1996 to 2000, counter-terrorism funding was increased by 43%. He had Taliban and OBL assets frozen. Realizing more had to be done, he created a bi-partisan committe which resulted in the Hart-Rudman report, which, among other things, suggested policies to ensure our national security, many of which were instituted after 9/11.

There's a lot more. And as I said, the information is out there, from credible sources, if you care to look.

I don't point this stuff out to say, "Hey, look at Clinton, he's great! Bush sucks!" But to refute the assertion that Clinton was "soft on terrorism." He wasn't. The simple fact is, I beleive he did all he could in the absense of support from Congress and the American public. And don't give me that "leads by polls" nonsense. No president, in recent memory, has ever committed ground troops in the presense of significant opposition. Not even GWB. If you think he would have done anything in Afghanistan or Iraq without the support of the American people, you're deluding yourself.

You can continue to maintain that Clinton's focus was in the wrong place, that he should have used more military force, and he should have done it sooner. In retrospect, that's an easy thing to say. But, during most of his presidency, Al Qaida wasn't perceived as something that warranted large-scale military action. Add to that the fact that there was no support at home for such action, and I think he did OK. If you want to point fingers for what you say are Clinton's counter-terrorism failures, point them at Congress and the American people for not taking Clinton seriously when he said, time and time again that terrorism is a problem we need to deal with.

Bush is willing to do what is right for America, despite what the polls say, despite any objections from our "allies". I'll give you this much, he doesn't care what our allies think. Personally, I think that's to his discredit. I believe if we are to win the war on terrorism, we need the help of our allies, and a world resolve to act together. Alienating our allies, I think, has hurt our credibility in the world, and furthers the world view that Americans seek to impose their will on the rest of the world.

But, please don't say that Bush does what he thinks is right, despite what America thinks. Can you name one policy or stance he's taken that the majority of Americans didn't agree with? Because I can name a couple of times he's given in to popular opinion just recently. One, the 9/11 commision itself was originally opposed by the Bush administration. And two, allowing Condi Rice to testify before the 9/11 commision. In both cases, the Bush administration gave in to public outcry. I don't fault them for this, but I guess you do, since you think that a president should never give in to public opinion.

]LoL[Harm

04-01-2004, 05:29 PM

What went wrong is we grew fat, lazy, and compliacant. We never thought 9/11 could happen here. (So soon we forget Pearl Harbor.) We didn't realise that militants had decleared WAR on America, so we didn't treat it like a war.
I totally agree.

And this is an election year. The 9/11 commision and report will be used to lay blame. Hopefully some of the stuff they did find wrong (failure to share information between goverment officers, no cordination between differant branches,ect) will get fixed in all the finger pointing that will go on after the report is issued.I feel many want the commission to lay blame but currently I don't know if they'll have any definitive info to do so. But I have the same hopes if/when the finger pointing begins. If something good comes from it I'll appreciate the commission.

I'll finish with this. Bush is 100X the President that Clinton ever was, nor could ever be. I won't put one against the other, because for every year I've been able to vote there has not been a single president in power that has represented 1/10th of my views or my wants. Therefore they have all had flaws that have made them non-desirable in my view. I am awaiting the day that some non-Ivy League mommas boy that hasn't had a silver spoon planted firmly in his ass for the last 5 decades of his life to gain the Presidency.

Bush is willing to do what is right for America, despite what the polls say, despite any objections from our "allies". He's seen what to do, and he did it. When the polls said it might not be a good idea, he did it anyway. He's shown more moral courage in the last 4 years than most people do in a lifetime. Bush is less consearned with his legacy, more with the United States. That speaks volumes.What is right for America? Since you like to downplay Clarke's "reports" on how things are due to his motives perhaps you should look into the peripheral motives of the Iraq War, always ask the question; "Who is benefiting the most?" Answer that truthfully and considering all angles and many American corporations will be on the top of that list. These same corporations will be the ones that will also top the monetary donations to the Republican re-election campaign. Where I come from, giving money to those who make decisions in hopes that those you give money to will make the decisions that benefit you is considered bribery. Where is the honor and class in that?

Jammer

04-01-2004, 05:52 PM

I'm not going to question the veracity of your claim, Harm, but it is surprising to me that anyone wouldn't notice at least some help from the recent tax cuts. I'm just a middle class schmuck, too, (well, like Hammer says we're all rich according to Kerry :)) and the difference was definitely noticable. Maybe all the procreation my wife and I've been participating in has helped us take more advantage or something. :) Regardless, in my view, the last thing you can criticize Bush on is cutting taxes. That's one of the things he actually followed through on.

Jammer

Allison

04-01-2004, 07:05 PM

Jammer sighting! :D

Run away, Jammer, while there's still time!

]LoL[Harm

04-01-2004, 08:43 PM

I'm currently at 17.6% Fed Income, 1.5% Medicare, 6.2% OASDI which I assume is SS. Overall over 25% of my salary goes to Uncle Sam. Ohio takes another 6.2% which is just over 31%. Sorry for the 2% exaggeration. ;)

Now depending on how much I get back this year will be how much real bitching I do :).

Rooster

04-01-2004, 09:41 PM

"I as an American was promised some form of tax relief. I currently pay 33% in taxes, the highest amount of taxes I have ever payed. For the past two years I have OWED taxes when my tax returns were complete and I filed with 0 claims. This is more taxes then I payed when I made more money in 2002. I do remember getting a single check for $300 back in 2001 I think. Boy that sure made a difference. Thank you for your tax relief program President Bush. Lies are dishonorable. In fact who of you who read this board have seen tax relief in your paychecks, in your tax returns?"

I pay 0% Federal Tax. I also get about $1500 back in Federal a year (when I'm fully employed!). You tell me I'm not benefitting!

FICA is social security Harm, I have NO idea what OASDI is. Uncle Sam <> Medicare.. That's the older generations milking the current ones because they didn't plan ahead. Don't blame the US Gov't - they were told they had to by the voters, that's entitlement... not tax.

Swifty_Johnson

04-02-2004, 11:06 AM

"Who is benefiting the most?" Answer that truthfully and considering all angles and many American corporations will be on the top of that list. These same corporations will be the ones that will also top the monetary donations to the Republican re-election campaign. Where I come from, giving money to those who make decisions in hopes that those you give money to will make the decisions that benefit you is considered bribery. Where is the honor and class in that?

So soon we forget the 400,000 dead Iraqi laying in mass graves.

So soon we forget the rape rooms.

So soon we forget the torture chambers.

So soon we forget the children's prisons.

So soon we forget the masses of dead Kurds, killed by mustard gas.

So soon we forget the actions of Saddam's two sons.

If you really think this was a war for oil, you've been blind to everything that has been going on in Iraq. My biggest critism of Geroge Bush Sr. is he caved to international pressure and left Saddam in power, we were 11 years to late in getting ride of him. One can easily say that those who opposed the war supported Saddam's mass killings.

The French weren't blind, as a matter of fact French oil companies wanted to explore in an area and didn't want interferance, Saddam took care of the problem. As long as Saddam's oil money lined French pockets, the French were not going to let him get out of power. Kerry is running around telling people he could have gotten the French on board, ya right. The French were not comming on board ever, their hands were too bloody.

Udai was a sex starved pervert. He's rape than kill women who caught his fancy. Saddam was a major funder of terrorism, he paid $25,000 to the families of bombers.

The biggest falliacy is from the left. When Serbia was killing thousands, we had to go in and help those poor people. When Saddam is killing hundreds of thousands, we have to sit back and watch. Clinton did not get the U.N. involved with Serbia, and that was okay. Bush didn't get the U.N. invloved with Iraq, and that is now a bad thing.

Of course U.S. and other coliation partners are going to get the benifates of the contracts. We did the fighting, we did the dying, so we get the rewards.

Swifty

Hammer

04-02-2004, 11:11 AM

Can you show me in his testimony, or even paraphrase, where Clarke "testified to both sides being true?" I saw Clarke testify, and I have since read the transcript. He didn't.

I didn't read the transcript, not all of anyway. I didn't need to because I saw it on video. The member of the commitee held up his book and a copy of the 2002 report and asked which version was true. Clarke responded that he was putting a positive spin on things in the report. The member asked point blank, if the points made in the breifing were true. Clarke said "Yes". If that's not in the transcript then it's one of those funny "I reserve the right to edit or change my remarks" dealios you see all the time in congress. It's my opinion that the book and briefing contradict each other.

]LoL[Harm

04-02-2004, 11:45 AM

If you really think this was a war for oil, you've been blind to everything that has been going on in Iraq. My biggest critism of Geroge Bush Sr. is he caved to international pressure and left Saddam in power, we were 11 years to late in getting ride of him. One can easily say that those who opposed the war supported Saddam's mass killings.
That's why my initial statement included this: "peripheral motives of the Iraq War". Not the primary motive, the primary motive was to get Saddam out. I was attempting to show that even though you can have a right and just cause as your primary motive doesn't necessarily indicate that your peripheral motives will not be self serving. This should hold true for Clarke as well. Just because he is benefitting from his book, his testimony should not be seen as a lie. I do not believe the primary reason we went into Iraq was for oil...I do believe that it was a peripheral motive however. But me accepting that oil was a peripheral motive should in no way make the motive of getting Saddam out of power a lie. Does that make sense?

Swifty_Johnson

04-02-2004, 12:51 PM

That's why my initial statement included this: "peripheral motives of the Iraq War". Not the primary motive, the primary motive was to get Saddam out. I was attempting to show that even though you can have a right and just cause as your primary motive doesn't necessarily indicate that your peripheral motives will not be self serving. This should hold true for Clarke as well. Just because he is benefitting from his book, his testimony should not be seen as a lie.

Apples and oranges. The U.S. tried for 10 years to use the U.N. to force Saddam to change.

Clarke wrote a book as the first resort.

Clarke did not contact congress, Clarke did not call for an invesgation, he did not try anything that would have resulted in getting his information to the people, without him lineing his pockets. If he really cared about the U.S.A., is taking the time to write a book in the U.S.A. best intrest? In the time it took to write his book, several more terrorist attacks could have happened.

Why write a book? You can lie in a book, in a hearing under oath, that gets you in jail. (Unless your Bill Clinton.)

Swifty

Eiru

04-02-2004, 02:20 PM

If Clinton had any respect for the office of the President, he would have resigned before he was impeached.

Like Nixon.

Allison

04-02-2004, 04:45 PM

So soon we forget the 400,000 dead Iraqi laying in mass graves... One can easily say that those who opposed the war supported Saddam's mass killings.Let's please try and keep this civil. Lord knows I'm trying really hard after reading that. Your statement that anyone who opposed the war supports mass killings is akin to me saying anyone who supported the war is a war-monger. Both statements are inflammatory and untrue.

The biggest falliacy is from the left. When Serbia was killing thousands, we had to go in and help those poor people. When Saddam is killing hundreds of thousands, we have to sit back and watch. Again, untrue and inflammatory. You make it sound like Saddam was commiting acts of genocide days before we went in. It was 15 years ago. And as the facts became known, the "left" that you love to bash was demanding a stop to it. We never did anything to help those people until after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and even then, it was merely an after-effect.

You're insulting people who don't share your position on the war in Iraq based on ... I'm not sure what. You know, there are differing opinions as to what will justify a large-scale military campaign designed to overthrow the leader of a sovereign nation. If you want to argue what justifies overthrowing a government, that's where your disagreement seems to lie. But please don't imply that "the left" supports mass killings, or advocates we all "sit back and watch" them, when that is not the case.

Eiru

04-02-2004, 04:52 PM

Allison

04-02-2004, 06:25 PM

Swifty, you keep harping on the fact that Clarke is profitting from his book. And yet, just the other day you made an unverified claim about Clarke, citing as your source, " ... there is one book that made the claim." I assume the author of that unnamed book also received profits, no? So, profitting from the sale of a book doesn't affect the credibility of your unnamed author, but it does affect the credibility of Clarke?

You say Clarke isn't credible because:

You claim he's a Democrat. (Even is this is true, you'd then have to say Condi Rice's assertions about Clarke aren't credible because she's a Republican.)

He hasn't appeared on O'Reilly yet. (I don't think Rice has scheduled time on The O'Franken Factor yet. Does she have something to hide?)

He has a friend who will benefit if Bush loses the election. (Condi Rice has a lot of friends that will benefit if Bush wins the election, so I guess you think she's not credible, too.)

He is being paid for the opinions in his book. (Condi Rice is being paid for her opinions, too. Also, after Rice leaves office and writes her book, I'll be sure to remember that it's a bunch of lies ... unless of course, she donates all the proceeds to charity.)

Sorry if I missed anything.

So, if Clarke donates all the proceeds of his book, goes on O'Reilly, proves he's a Republican, and his friend quits the Kerry campaign, then Clarke will suddenly be totally credible? Do you see the fallacies here?

Debate his statements on their merits, not on ad Hominem attacks.

I'm curious, what in Clarke's testimony or in his book was a lie? Bush has said himself that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Bin Laden. Also, that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. That's all according to Bob Woodward. I'm not sure of Woodward's party affiliation, but I guess if he's a Democrat he's lying.

Eiru

04-02-2004, 06:41 PM

Remember, too, the entire book was vetted by a Republican White House, meaning the White House, with a sitting Republican president, found nothing classified or objectionable in the text of the book.

My own personal paranoid conspiracy theory is this: the White House sat on the book until right about now, allowing them to use the context of the release to more effectively tar Clarke as a disgruntalled ex-employee.

Then I take my meds and drink a big glass of water and everything's fine.

Swifty_Johnson

04-05-2004, 01:06 PM

Let's please try and keep this civil. Lord knows I'm trying really hard after reading that. Your statement that anyone who opposed the war supports mass killings is akin to me saying anyone who supported the war is a war-monger. Both statements are inflammatory and untrue.

You missed my point. I was saying that the claim "we went to war just to benifate American corporations" is like saying "if you opposed the war you support genocide" neither is true.

Again, untrue and inflammatory. You make it sound like Saddam was commiting acts of genocide days before we went in. It was 15 years ago. And as the facts became known, the "left" that you love to bash was demanding a stop to it. We never did anything to help those people until after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and even then, it was merely an after-effect.

Saddam was doing mass murder for OVER 15 years, and yes he was killing people right up until we went in. The U.S. cutoff support of Saddam after the gassing of the Kurds, but we lacked any support to topple Saddam until after 9/11. We tried in gulf war one, and was stopped from removing him.

I'll give you this much, he doesn't care what our allies think. Personally, I think that's to his discredit. I believe if we are to win the war on terrorism, we need the help of our allies, and a world resolve to act together. Alienating our allies, I think, has hurt our credibility in the world, and furthers the world view that Americans seek to impose their will on the rest of the world.

So, we should have listened to our "allies" who were getting blood money from Iraq to be on Iraq's side? Now that Saddam has fallen, how deep France, Germany, Russia and others that opposed the war, were in Saddams pockets is becomming clear. When the invisgation of the U.N. Oil for food program is finished, expect many French,German and Russian people to be charge with crimes for their role in padding their own and Saddam's pockets while the Iraqi people starved.

If you want to argue what justifies overthrowing a government, that's where your disagreement seems to lie.

Please explain to me how one can support using force aginst Serbia, and not Iraq.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-05-2004, 01:11 PM

Really, Swifty. By your logic, for the years when we WERE Saddam's friend and when we WERE providing the gas he used on Kurds and the Swamp Arabs and when we DID turn a blind eye to his internal genocide, were we for or against those mass graves?

The U.S. NEVER provided the mustard gas used on the Kurds. Several U.S. companies provided parts for the dual use factories that were used to produced the gas, but all the parts used had non-mass-murder use. The claim the U.S. provide the gas used on the Kurds is wrong (and why do the Kurds look to the U.S. as their best buddies today if that was true.)

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-05-2004, 01:21 PM

I assume the author of that unnamed book also received profits, no? So, profitting from the sale of a book doesn't affect the credibility of your unnamed author, but it does affect the credibility of Clarke?

The author of the other book didn't have the resources that Clarke had at his disposal. (I already stated this several times. Clarke had other methods to try and out this information, but they would have required him to testify under oath, you can lie in a book and not under oath.)

He hasn't appeared on O'Reilly yet. (I don't think Rice has scheduled time on The O'Franken Factor yet. Does she have something to hide?)

Rice has appeared on 60 minutes (which has a vested intrest in the book) and other media outlets hostile to the administration, while Clarke is still avoiding the places that would be hostile to him.

He is being paid for the opinions in his book. (Condi Rice is being paid for her opinions, too. Also, after Rice leaves office and writes her book, I'll be sure to remember that it's a bunch of lies ... unless of course, she donates all the proceeds to charity.)

Depends on what the book is about, Rice has too much class to write a book that hammers an administration that takes liberities with the truth, and is released right befor and election. BUT if she does feel free to call it filled with lies like Clarke's book.

Remember, too, the entire book was vetted by a Republican White House, meaning the White House, with a sitting Republican president, found nothing classified or objectionable in the text of the book.

The bookwas not vetted by the White House, there are some serious factual errors in that would have been quickly exposed on day one if they did.

Swifty

Eiru

04-05-2004, 02:20 PM

Swifty, the book was vetted. I could be wrong about who vetted it, but it was vetted.

From a "liberal" media outlet, this is an information piece, describing what everyone who works with the White House has to go through if they decide to publish, with a link to the form Clarke had to sign when he started his government job: http://slate.msn.com/id/2097995/

Interesting response from the White House, while confirming that Clarke's book did go through the normal vetting process: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0324_cbs_delayed.shtml

Swifty_Johnson

04-05-2004, 03:50 PM

Allison

04-05-2004, 05:09 PM

The National Security Council, not the White House would have been the ones to look and see if any classifyed information was released. That's a far cry from the White House holding up the book.

SwiftyLol, Swifty. If a Republican said the Earth was flat, I think you'd try to argue the point.

Let's not split hairs here. The term The White House is commonly used to refer to both the executive mansion and the executive branch of government. I think it's safe to assume that Eiru meant the latter when he said the White House vetted the book. (Unless Eiru is insane and thinks that a mansion can animate itself long enough to read a book.)

And since The National Security Council falls under the Executive Office of the President, and is in fact chaired by the president, if the NSC vetted the book, then it wouldn't be incorrect to say, in more general terms, that The White House vetted the book.
Edit: And in fact, without any confirmation as to exactly which department or agency did the vetting, it is actually more appropriate to use the more general term White House.

Eiru

04-05-2004, 05:17 PM

RedBeard

04-05-2004, 06:37 PM

Just had to chime in here about the Kurds (since this is something I actually know something about).

Since I suck at quoting, I'll just copy paste:

"...and why do the Kurds look to the U.S. as their best buddies today if that was true..."

The Kurds want the US in Iraq as long as possible, because they know that when the US leaves and the eyes of the world move to the next hotspot, Turkey will just "accidentally invade" Kurdistan and that'll be the end of that.

Damn all politics in any event.

Swifty_Johnson

04-06-2004, 10:42 AM

Lol, Swifty. If a Republican said the Earth was flat, I think you'd try to argue the point.

Nope, not at all, thanks for the personal attack though. I stive for the truth, and I not about to blame other "factors" for someones failures.

Expect if you read what the Clarke supporters say, it's Bush and his team of advisors that held up the book, not some burocrats in the National Security Council. Also, Clarke could have held up his own book by placing classifyed information in the book, than disputing the removal request. Intresting eh?

Anyone who's been a burocrat as long as Clarke has knows how to play the game. He knows exactly how long it will take to clear, and hey he gets an extra attack on the Whitehouse to boot.

If the "Whitehouse" (Bush's close advisors) really vette the book like some claim, than it would not have taken so long to come up with responces to some of it. That shows that unlike the Clinton Whitehouse, people did their jobs and information wasn't "accidently" leaked from departements to the President's personal staff.

Swifty

Michellea

04-06-2004, 11:58 AM

I normally do not post on topics of this nature but I just have to this time.
What people fail to realize is that in the intell world things move slow,
information pre-9/11 was gathered from different sources and focus was at different areas.
There wasn't as much multi department communication as there is now (pre Homeland Security).
What the American public sees is the Government sitting on its ass,
what the people who are actually doing the work see is that we can't filter the critical from the non-critical fast enough.
There seems to be a Cover Your Ass operation going on at the moment. BUT the big picture really is who's at fault.
I guarantee you there is not a single politician to blame, there are these people that Hate us because we have our freedom and would stop at nothing to see us without it.
I do not see this happening Ever, but I do not see the Red, White, and Blue haters disappearing anytime soon either.
So Clarke could have said whatever he wants about himself, the administrations of Bush, or Clinton, but it doesnt matter.
9/11 was a threat to our way of life and people can't believe it happened, so therfore we as American's want someone to blame.
I blame the terrorists who decided to use our planes as weapons. Not Bush's Admn. not CLinton's Admn, Thoes Freaking Terrorists.
We have become so "Let's Play the Blame Game" we loose focus about the real issues.
The real problem isn't American's it's our way of life that a threat to them,
we are all individuals who have the freedom to do what we wish with our lives, and that in itself is a threat to others,
Why?
Because the hate us because they envy us.
They can't have what we have and they hate the fact that we do as we please and we let our women do so much.
We're friends with Israel and since al-Qaeda which was started by you know who in 1988, (and his closest friend and advisor is Ayman al-Zawahiri the Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader aka Terrorist Ass Hole), because Osama was a rich kid who no one liked and he hates Americans because we pay the taxes that buy the weapons our government uses, and the taxes that support our Mid-Eastern Allies (via oil export)
so since he hates our freedoms and our govenment and our allies, he uses money (and religious beliefs as propaganda) to pay for what he wants and that is kinda what our freedoms are about
paying for what we want and to get what we want, so he's a Hypocrite IMHO.

The media gives us all a rose-colored image of the whole thing, they only report what is good for them.
If American's knew what the real truth was they wouldn't believe it and they would laugh.
I'm not saying all people of certian area's of the world hate us, there are many that would give their lives to help us.
I'm just saying don't loose focus of the real issue and let it get over shadowed by the media trying to make money,
since they are in the business to make money, it's not their fault either.
Terrorists are to blame and no security in the world at the time would have prevented 9/11, but our country needs to change how we view the rest of the world.
Terrorism is at our doorstep knocking and we need to sick the dogs on it.