Proof that Clarke is full of it!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, Mar 24, 2004.

  1. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #1
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

    Yea, it is fox news, so what ;)

    It is a transcript of an interview with Clarke. Read this, and then tell me if the book, published by, who? Simon and Schuster (who also published O'Neal's book) is a direct contradition to this interview. Look at it with an open mind. Just for a second forget that Bush is the President, pretend it was Gore. Or Clinton. Would you then think the attack was political? Just because he is a republican doesn't mean crap. There are democrats out there that vote republican, and republicans that vote democrat.

    Keep in mind the way he was scorned, and passed over. He has a crudge.

    Period.
     
  2. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #2
    I read the whole thing and I have a question: why did you post this to support your point? It says nothing about Iraq, which is at the heart of Clarke's accusations.

    If the point was that Clarke said something positive about the Bush administration, and you say he's full of it, then are you saying this proves that there is nothing positive about the Bush administration? I doubt it, so what is your point?

    Clarke is a career bureaucrat that has served three Republican administrations and one Democratic. His accusation is that the Bush administration, and Bush himself, was more interested in going to Iraq than fighting the war on terror. In about 12 minutes he is going before the 9/11 commission -- we'll certainly learn more then.
     
  3. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #3
    I haven't read his book, but I heard him interviewed on Terry Gross this afternoon, and nothing he said today contradicted this interview. Bush did not make fighting Al Qaeda a major priority. The push to eliminate Al Qaeda was not even being made at the cabinet level, let alone the presidential level. Bush's top three priorities in foreign policy pre 9/11 were Iraq, Russia, and Star Wars. Whereas the Clinton Administration (and Clarke) had urged him to focus on Al Qaeda, Israel/Palestine, and North Korea. Imagine if Bush had followed that advice!

    None of this is contradicted by the earlier interview. It was Clarke's job to fight terrorism, and he did the best job he could. His point in the book is that he could have done it better if he had more support from the president. Clarke gives an example of how Clinton behaved when he had similar intelligence about possible terror threats related to the millennium/Y2K. There were presidential meetings with DOJ/intelligence officials every other day, where the president asked what was being done to prevent an attack. The result was the prevention of three attacks (most notably the L.A. airport attack) planned for the millennium.
     
  4. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #4
    Oh man, how about the point that Condi did not even know who Al Qeada was. That Bush had a plan to execute Al Qeada and did not do it.

    The purpose for the war in Iraq was simple. To send a message to nations like N. Korea, Lybia, and Iran, that we will come knocking on the door. It was designed to setup a democracy in the middle east to combat terrorism in the region. It is designed to see benifits in 50 years, not 5 months.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    in true b2tm fashion, i submit this:

    a cousin of a friend of mine dated clarke for a long time. she says that he's overzealous in his pursuit of terrorism and is convinced he's absolutely telling the truth.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    So the purpose of the war had nothing to do with what the administration said the war was for?
     
  7. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #7
    Like I said, I haven't read the book, but that's not what he said in the interview I heard today. He said that the President told Condi he wanted a solution, not swatting at flies. Condi relayed this info to him, and he told her he had written a counterterrorism plan and wanted a cabinet level meeting to address the plan. She said she'd get back to him. But Al Qaeda got to us first.
    Well, if that's the purpose, it has done just about the exact opposite. It's also not what Bush said the purpose was going into the attack.
     
  8. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8

    LOL. I love you too buddy.

    Actually, I think there are many fronts to political actions. However, I am sick of all of the politics in Washington. Now, that being said, I would have done the same thing in Bush's shoes, and I think Gore would have as well, and Clinton would have also. I think they did the best they could do under circumstances that they were not ready for.
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../20040324/ts_nm/security_commission_clarke_dc
     
  10. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #10
    That's strange. I seem to remember being told it was to rid Iraq of its WMD.
     
  11. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #11
    Exactly, your right. you are 100% right. I wish they would just say what everything really is about. At least them people can form opinions of facts.

    But again, I contest that the world thought he had them.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    What? You want honesty? "We went in to make sure we had control of the oil reserves (look out Venezuela: you're next!) and could set up long-term military bases in the Middle East. We went in using borrowed money so we could line the pockets of our friends. We went in because the ends justify the means. We went in because the American Way is the Only Way, and we don't care HOW many bystanders we kill to bring freedom to them, and corporate profits back to us." Sounds good.

    "They make a desert, and they call it peace".
     
  13. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #13
    I agree with you here. If the US had gone to the UN & the world with their real agenda, which I'm sure you rightly outline in part above, then everyone (especially the UK & other "coalition" countries) could have made their minds up on that basis.

    But that's not what happened and that's why everyone is in deep s**t now.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    If that's proof that Clarke is full of it, then I can probably provide 'proof' that pretty much everyone in Washington is 'full of it'.

    Just off the top of my head, Rummy saying Iraq wasn't an imminent threat should put him in the 'full of it' catagory. Same with Bush for saying he wouldn't get involved in nation-building, also for his stance on the so-called 'patients bill of rights'. Cheney is 'full of it' for saying he thinks the issue of gay marriage should be up to individual states, as well as a host of other comments he's made about WMDs in Iraq.

    If this transcript is the standard of proof for being 'full of it' I think most of Washington DC is 'full of it'.
     
  15. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #15
  16. Savage Henry macrumors 65816

    Savage Henry

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    in a one horse, two house, three pub town.
    #16
    Darn-tootin.

    This side of the pond, and in the same context, Blair is so far full of it it's shooting out his ears like a fire hydrant. Sadly thought, at least Bush will be out at the next election. We've got Blair for another 5 years cos his only political threat is his own chancellor.
     
  17. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #17
    Not so quick there, SH. I reckon there's a lot more political fall-out for Blair in the next few months, sparked off by the enquiries going on in the US.

    This would be one substantiation for the rumour of an early election this autumn, though (ie before Kerry is elected and starts distancing himself from Blair's Iraq strategy).
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    Aw come on, you're full of it.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    Well, she certainly was.... :p
     
  20. Savage Henry macrumors 65816

    Savage Henry

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    in a one horse, two house, three pub town.
    #20
    You speak the truth sir. But I can't see regular Joe Blow voting in droves for an alternative party (and I sadly can't really blame them!). I absolutely agreewith you, but I fear Bliar will still get in, but with his majority halved.
     
  21. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #21
    I'm sorry that those of you who are overseas could not see the Clarke testimony live. It was extraordinary. Two Republican attack dogs attempted to go after Clarke for what they saw as inconsistencies between his testimony and book, and a background briefing he gave (the original excerpt that stated this thread). I think it only served to call into question whether Fox is really media, or an arm of the Federal government.

    In any case, I think this will be of interest:

    Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth
    Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism.
    By Fred Kaplan
    Posted Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 3:22 PM PT

    I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National Security Council official who has launched a broadside against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is telling the truth about every single charge. There are three reasons for this confidence.

    First, his basic accusations are consistent with tales told by other officials, including some who had no significant dealings with Clarke.

    Second, the White House's attempts at rebuttal have been extremely weak and contradictory. If Clarke were wrong, one would expect the comebacks—especially from Bush's aides, who excel at the counterstrike—to be stronger and more substantive.

    Third, I went to graduate school with Clarke in the late 1970s, at MIT's political science department, and called him as an occasional source in the mid-'80s when he was in the State Department and I was a newspaper reporter. There were good things and dubious things about Clarke, traits that inspired both admiration and leeriness. The former: He was very smart, a highly skilled (and utterly nonpartisan) analyst, and he knew how to get things done in a calcified bureaucracy. The latter: He was arrogant, made no effort to disguise his contempt for those who disagreed with him, and blatantly maneuvered around all obstacles to make sure his views got through.

    The key thing, though, is this: Both sets of traits tell me he's too shrewd to write or say anything in public that might be decisively refuted. As Daniel Benjamin, another terrorism specialist who worked alongside Clarke in the Clinton White House, put it in a phone conversation today, "Dick did not survive and flourish in the bureaucracy all those years by leaving himself open to attack." . . .​

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
     
  22. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #22
    Just a side note on all of this. Fox News has released this briefing that was given on background. It is interesting that they would make a decision that is clearly politically helpful to the President in the face of long standing tradition that such background briefings are never exposed. Seems like Fox is fine in divulging sources if it helps a conservative agenda. Journalistic integrity be damned. Not that it wasn't clear already, but it is very blatant in this case.

    I've read the Fox report and it doesn't seem to contradict any facts in Clarke's recent statements, but it does give a positive spin for the administration on them. I would not expect anything different from someone giving such a briefing on behalf of the administration. Remember Clarke was a member of the administration at the time. Lastly, none of the comments on background touch on the greatest criticisms of Bush by Clarke - his decision to launch an invasion of Iraq.
     
  23. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #23
    You keep harping on the report that said Clark thought your best friend "Condi" did not know who Al Qeada was. Where is this report?

    &

    The second hand report I read said "she acted as if ..."

    I can act as if I have never heard of MacRumors. It's easy and different from not actually knowing about MacRumors. So until you come up with something where he said Rice never heard of Al Qeada you should get off that kick. Besides he also stated that he briefed her about the previous administrations dealings with them soon after the election.

    He readily admits he probably made some mistakes with the events leading up to 9/11. He does not say that Clinton was so great on it either. He says several simple things that you refuse to acknowledge. Paul O'Neill said the same thing - Another republican insider.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    The other night when Clarke was on the NewsHour, his interview was followed one with White House spinmeister Dan Bartlett. When the Bartlett interview was done, my wife turned to me and said, "I didn't understand any of that."

    I told her, "You're not supposed to."

    One of the oldest rules in politics: if you can't respond factually, obfuscate. We're witnessing a frantic effort to make the water so muddy that we won't be able to see the noses in front of our faces, let alone the bigger picture being described by the facts. I'm sorry to see that anyone buys the administration's distraction campaign. It sure doesn't work for me -- but then I suppose I'm not in the target audience. I'm not grasping for a reason to believe that Bush is wise and good.
     
  25. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #25

    GIve me a break! The purpose of the war with Iraq was to raise the price of oil and so Shrubby could get "revenge" for his daddy...
     

Share This Page