Clarke on 60 minutes

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, I'm sure there will be a concerted YABA effort to divert, deflect and attack the integrity of Clarke. It's a foregone conclusion.

You are fully aware, Clarke has made ALOT of enemies on both sides of the asile over the past 30 years? There will be alot more than just the Bush admin, and republicans attacking his credibility.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Clarke claims Condi Rice did not know who Al Qaeda was before 9/11, which is quite false. Hes going to start running into credibility problems once people go through all his book and his past comments/interviews. I will say right now, from some of the excerpts I've seen, hes contradicting some of his past statements...

You mean Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice? The same Rice who said:

I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"
-- National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

EDIT: By the way, do you have a link or direct quote for the claim about Rice not knowing who AQ was before 9/11?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, I'm sure there will be a concerted YABA effort to divert, deflect and attack the integrity of Clarke. It's a foregone conclusion.

You are fully aware, Clarke has made ALOT of enemies on both sides of the asile over the past 30 years? There will be alot more than just the Bush admin, and republicans attacking his credibility.

Okay, let me know when that happens.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Robert -
I do not disagree that the 60 minutes interview is focused on Bush foibles but Clarke certainly implies that blame should be shared. By definition when he implicates himself . . . that should include the administrations he's served in. I'm not trying to be fair . . . I'm doing a Dave Chapelle . . . keeping it real.

Clinton isn't on the ballot but Clarke certainly highlighted a Bushie failing that should not be repeated when Kerry wins. According to Clarke, Bush the Lesser and his Bush the Greater retreads basically brought a Cold War mentality to DC which is one reason why they dropped the ball on terrorism. If Kerry doesn't have a realistic plan for addressing our old problems (plus the new ones created by Bush) . . . we might as well keep going with the current dumbarse in the White House.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Here would probably be CkG's reponse...

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Boy this guy has a lot of finger pointing going on . . .


--------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CLINTON<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<----------------------------------------------------------



















Bush
Rice
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: alchemize
Sounds like both sides will be talking about clarke for a few weeks

Weak attack on Clark. He's probably right about a cyberattack, but that doesn't mean he has ignored attacks of other kinds, which seems to be proven by his actions concerning Intel concerning imminent attacks.

You do realise that article was from a year ago? Right?

Not sure why that's relevant.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: alchemize
Sounds like both sides will be talking about clarke for a few weeks

Weak attack on Clark. He's probably right about a cyberattack, but that doesn't mean he has ignored attacks of other kinds, which seems to be proven by his actions concerning Intel concerning imminent attacks.

You do realise that article was from a year ago? Right?

Not sure why that's relevant.

Actually I think it makes the article nuch more relevant. If Biden says the guy is fos, Id say he is. Biden is one partisan mofo.

 

[chess9]

Biden is pro war, but that may not be the point. Clarke has a strong personality and is very smart. He's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way, particularly in Washington where ego massages are the order of the day. Biden is one of the worst because he thinks he's a Prince, when if fact, he's the frog who didn't turn into a Prince.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Anyone watching Condoleeza Rice on Fox and Friends?

She sounds incredibly nervous. I've always thought of her as rather solid and a very good public speaker but she sounds very nervous and defensive.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone watching Condoleeza Rice on Fox and Friends?

She sounds incredibly nervous. I've always thought of her as rather solid and a very good public speaker but she sounds very nervous and defensive.

Wow she must have been demoted to have to appear on a show with the 3 stooges.

 

[chess9]

Red:

She's been in a traveling circus made up entirely of stooges, so she should have been very comfortable.

-Robert

 

[classy]

I think he has some legitmate complaints. But I also believe a lot of this is rhetoric. I have a hard time buying any of our Presidents would in anyway allow what happened 9/11 if they could have at any cost prevented it. I think Bush is a far better man than this. I don't agree with a lot of things he has done, but he is clearly beyond accusations when it comes to this. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

classy:
I think you are missing the point of some Gore criticisms against Bush: 1) lack of international experience/knowledge, 2) lack of intellectual curiosity, 3) beholden to the ideas of others, and 4) would form an administration largely consisting of Bush/Reagan retreads.

It's not that Bush wanted 9/11 to happen . . . I doubt even bottom of the barrel neocons are truly that deprave. Bushies came into office and made it abundantly clear that everything Clinton did (or had in motion) would be re-evaluated . . . with a bias towards chunking it. IMHO, that's the reason why North Korea's October surprise . . . was a surprise and why Clarke's urgency was not reflected in the chain command . . . despite the fact he was the ONE person most likely to know.

The Bushies double talk all the time. Clinton said he gave Bush a heads up on Al Qaeda (not sure I believe it either), while Bushies said no such thing happened . . . yet according to Hadley, Al Qaeda was their first international priority (despite nary a mention in the campaign). In addition, we have TWO independent voices (O'Neill/Clarke) claiming Iraq was the administration's international priority.

I think one of the more telling statements: "At one point the president became somewhat impatient with us," Hadley said, "and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where is my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Bushies move as quickly possible from describing what they did before 9/11 to talking about after 9/11. But only the Taliban/Afganistan Al Qaeda spanking really seems relevant or effective. Yet Bush and his minions clearly conflated Iraq with everything during the earliest days of the administration (O'Neill), through 9/11 (Clarke/O'Neill), and up to the War in Iraq (Clarke).

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Clarke claims Condi Rice did not know who Al Qaeda was before 9/11, which is quite false. Hes going to start running into credibility problems once people go through all his book and his past comments/interviews. I will say right now, from some of the excerpts I've seen, hes contradicting some of his past statements...

You mean Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice? The same Rice who said:

I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"
-- National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

EDIT: By the way, do you have a link or direct quote for the claim about Rice not knowing who AQ was before 9/11?

From here. (Very weak at best)

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," wrote Richard A. Clarke in a new book that is scathingly critical of Bush's response to the 2001 terror attacks against New York and Washington. The Associated Press obtained a copy of Clarke's book before its Monday publication.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Clarke said within one week of the Bush inauguration he "urgently" sought a meeting of senior Cabinet leaders to discuss "the imminent al-Qaida threat." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy secretaries. During that meeting, he wrote, the Defense Department's Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, "You give bin Laden too much credit," and he said Wolfowitz sought to steer the discussion to Iraq (news - web sites).

Doesn't that sound just like O'Neill? Isn't it funny how two people produce independent accounts of identical behavior?!

 

[Morbius]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

I don't think Clarke will be easy to dismiss either with a 30-year career working for Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and now Bush Jr. As the terrorism 'czar' this guy really knew what was going on. It sure makes sense all of the administration's secrecy given what an abysmal failure they've been on virtually every issue.

And yet, under his watch, we had attack after attack on US interests (World Trade Center, USS Cole, embassies in Africa, etc). Oh yeah, he really knew what was going on.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Morbius

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

I don't think Clarke will be easy to dismiss either with a 30-year career working for Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and now Bush Jr. As the terrorism 'czar' this guy really knew what was going on. It sure makes sense all of the administration's secrecy given what an abysmal failure they've been on virtually every issue.

And yet, under his watch, we had attack after attack on US interests (World Trade Center, USS Cole, embassies in Africa, etc). Oh yeah, he really knew what was going on.

i watched the interview, what was funny is it was obvious he was reading from a script. if someone has taped it you can see his eye movements.

i was rolling on the floor laughing.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Morbius

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

I don't think Clarke will be easy to dismiss either with a 30-year career working for Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and now Bush Jr. As the terrorism 'czar' this guy really knew what was going on. It sure makes sense all of the administration's secrecy given what an abysmal failure they've been on virtually every issue.

And yet, under his watch, we had attack after attack on US interests (World Trade Center, USS Cole, embassies in Africa, etc). Oh yeah, he really knew what was going on.

i watched the interview, what was funny is it was obvious he was reading from a script. if someone has taped it you can see his eye movements.

i was rolling on the floor laughing.

That's a pretty bold assertion.

 

[burnedout]

Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Clarke's book, is owned by CBS parent Viacom. I wonder why "See BS" didn't disclose this FACT. Hmmmm

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Clarke's book, is owned by CBS parent Viacom. I wonder why "See BS" didn't disclose this FACT. Hmmmm

Viacom owns everything. Clarke has been through multiple administrations (Democratic and Republican, brought in by Reagan) serving this country for 30 years. I hope you can come up with something better then Viacom has financial stake in a lot of pies to come back at the damaging information he revealed.

Hell, the Republicans are even pushing (and have already passed legislation) that helps Viacom and other media companies (Clear Channel) to have lesser restrictions in how much media they own.

 

[maluckey]

The guys a hacked off disgruntled employee with a book deal burning in his pocket. On his shift, the terrorists reigned virtually free. He was not appointed as chief of homeland Security, and now has an axe to grind. He is supported by CBS, and they are the driving force to keep his absurd accusations alive till he sells enough books to make things worthwhile.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Clarke's book, is owned by CBS parent Viacom. I wonder why "See BS" didn't disclose this FACT. Hmmmm

They did.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Clarke's book, is owned by CBS parent Viacom. I wonder why "See BS" didn't disclose this FACT. Hmmmm

LOL they DID disclose this fact:

"His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom"

^--- on the website and radio transmission.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: maluckey
The guys a hacked off disgruntled employee with a book deal burning in his pocket. On his shift, the terrorists reigned virtually free. He was not appointed as chief of homeland Security, and now has an axe to grind. He is supported by CBS, and they are the driving force to keep his absurd accusations alive till he sells enough books to make things worthwhile.

How do you explain Paul O'Neill (probably the most honest man in politics), Richard Clarke, former senior CIA analyst Ray McGovern and former National security advisor on terrorism for Bush, Rand Beers... all said the same thing about Bush and his merry band of conmen.

All of them high level administration officials, or terrorism advisors that were fired or quit. They have said the same thing! Not all of them have book out...

try and explain that away...

 

[Hacksaaw]

>Has Clinton gone before the commission to explain why he decided not to go after Al Qaeda in Afgahinstan when Clarke begged and pleaded him to.

sure, its simple, The republicans would not have supported any military action of the scale needed. Its that simple, if the GOP would have been willing to see past their political vendetta against Clinton, and accept that AQ was actually a threat something might have been done.

then again we saw when Dubya became president, the war on terror ended from that day until 9/11. This isnt new news, we have had FBI agents come forth explaining how they had been pulled off terror leads during the summer of 2001. Afterall more important threats to the nation like medical marijuana and pornography had to be combated.