Register to reply

Clarke's New Book (Check It Out...)

by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Tags: book, check, clarke
Share this thread:
Nommos Prime (Dogon)
#19
Mar23-04, 07:08 PM
Nommos Prime (Dogon)'s Avatar
P: 383
Phatmonkey, will you stop pretending that you know about things you obviously have no idea about.
Its nice that you try to chime in (as much as possible, when ANYTHING ant-establishment pops up), but simply doing a quick "Yahoo Search", then regurgitating admin lies, really does discredit you.
Check things out before you start raving like a HAWK...
phatmonky
#20
Mar23-04, 07:58 PM
P: 1,528
Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Phatmonkey, will you stop pretending that you know about things you obviously have no idea about.
Its nice that you try to chime in (as much as possible, when ANYTHING ant-establishment pops up), but simply doing a quick "Yahoo Search", then regurgitating admin lies, really does discredit you.
Check things out before you start raving like a HAWK...
I believe this counts as a personal attack. Continuing this will result in a lock of this thread, and a possible banning of you(both would stop my amusement) Zero hates my politics, but loves my input. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks your post is anything but worthless.

Let's try to keep this thread on track. If you still wish to continuing losing an argument, we can go back to the alien martian thread, and you can finish telling me about how I am trying to make us the United States of the Universe.
phatmonky
#21
Mar23-04, 07:59 PM
P: 1,528
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Oh, Mr. Clarke answers those questions in his book. He completely debunks it. It's a bunch of partisan propaganda and has no basis in reality. It was further debunked today (4/23) under oath in front of the 9-11 commission.
Could you further expand on this? I won't be buying his book, if nothing else because I am disgusted by the underhanded way he got help to promote it.
phatmonky
#22
Mar23-04, 08:06 PM
P: 1,528
Originally posted by amp
one would think your on the Whitehouse payroll the way your trying to do spin-control. There is now substantial evidence the the assertions in Clarke's book are credible. (Thanks Chemicalsuperfreak) Paul O'Neil assertions about the Bush admin are supportive of Mr. Clarke's allegations. In fact, they reinforce each other. "Thou doth protest to much" as the Bush admin is now doing seems to shows they are probably fearful that more truth will come into the light. And Americans are seeing first hand how the current admin distorts the facts and manipulates the truth.
Why should I abstain? because I point out the conflict of interest in his interview? Because I ask some questions? If they are all so OBVIOUS there wouldn't be a 9/11 commission at all right now. We woudln't need them.
Thinking different doesn't make you right. So drop the "you shouldn't be posting here" attitude [zz)]

O neil has his own axe to grind, you can't deny that. Not to mention, he has openly said that he doesn't understand or condone the idea of preemption - thus, he has admitted his prejudice against the act against Saddam beforehand.


What I find FULLY amazing is that is I ask questions, point out conflicts of interest, or mention that some guy's firing might play into his reasonings for some of the things he is saying, I am on Bush's payroll. However, every single person in this thread that has launched a personal attack on me believes EVERYTHING that these two guys (O'neil and Clarke) have said. So, instead of wondering where the grey area between is, you just jump to one side and assume "if it isn't the 'system', then it must be true! " And somehow, I'm the one who is 'blind'.
phatmonky
#23
Mar23-04, 08:42 PM
P: 1,528
Clarke's resignation letter praises Bush:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...er_3&printer=1

Doesn't really mean anything to me, since I believe him to be a good politician. However, those of you who believe him to be of high integrity then have to wonder why he would do this? Or admit that he isn't that he too can do things for his own personal gain - just like everyone else.
Nommos Prime (Dogon)
#24
Mar23-04, 09:00 PM
Nommos Prime (Dogon)'s Avatar
P: 383
God, you're a whinger!
Stop crying phatmonkey!

Ban me! (just like Carlos and Bloodsucker)
See if I give a flying root!
Nommos Prime (Dogon)
#25
Mar23-04, 09:02 PM
Nommos Prime (Dogon)'s Avatar
P: 383
Don't worry, I reported myself "as an inappropriate post".

It was worth it to call you an idiot once more,
because that is what you are.

See you later fool!
RageSk8
#26
Mar23-04, 10:34 PM
RageSk8's Avatar
P: 118
Dick Clarke is Telling the Truth

By Fred Kaplan

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."

Clarke did suffer one setback in his 30-year career in high office, though he doesn't mention it in his book. James Baker, the first President Bush's secretary of state, fired Clarke from his position as director of the department's politico-military bureau. (Bush's NSC director, Brent Scowcroft, hired him almost instantly.) I doubt we'll be hearing from Baker on this episode: He fired Clarke for being too close to Israel—not a point the Bush family's political savior is likely to make in an election season. (For details on this unwritten chapter and on why Clarke hasn't talked to me for over 15 years, click here.)

But on to the substance. Clarke's main argument—made in his new book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, in lengthy interviews on CBS's 60 Minutes and PBS's Charlie Rose Show, and presumably in his testimony scheduled for tomorrow before the 9/11 Commission—is that Bush has done (as Clarke put it on CBS) "a terrible job" at fighting terrorism. Specifically: In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. This move not only distracted us from the real war on terrorism, it fed into Osama Bin Laden's propaganda—that the United States would invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country—and thus served as the rallying cry for new terrorist recruits.

Clarke's charges have raised a furor because of who he is. In every administration starting with Ronald Reagan's, Clarke was a high-ranking official in the State Department or the NSC, dealing mainly with countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Under Clinton and the first year of George W. Bush, he worked in the White House as the national coordinator for terrorism, a Cabinet-level post created specifically for his talents. When the terrorists struck on Sept. 11, Condi Rice, Bush's national security adviser, designated Clarke as the "crisis manager;" he ran the interagency meetings from the Situation Room, coordinating—in some cases, directing—the response.

Clarke backs up his chronicle with meticulous detail, but the basic charges themselves should not be so controversial; certainly, they're nothing new. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote in his book, The Price of Loyalty, that Bush's top officials talked about invading Iraq from the very start of the administration. Jim Mann's new book about Bush's war Cabinet, Rise of the Vulcans, reveals the historic depths of this obsession.

Most pertinent, Rand Beers, the official who succeeded Clarke after he left the White House in February 2003, resigned in protest just one month later—five days before the Iraqi war started—for precisely the same reason that Clarke quit. In June, he told the Washington Post, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terror. They're making us less secure, not more." And: "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged, and generally underfunded." (For more about Beers, including his association with Clarke and whether there's anything pertinent about his current position as a volunteer national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, click here.)

Clarke's distinction, of course, is that he was the ultimate insider—as highly and deeply inside, on this issue, as anyone could imagine. And so his charges are more credible, potent, and dangerous. So, how has Team Bush gone after Clarke? Badly.

To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop.

Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."

It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)

In a further effort to minimize Clarke's importance, a talking-points paper put out by the White House press office states that, contrary to his claims, "Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank." At the same time, the paper denies—again, contrary to the book—that he was demoted: He "continued to be the National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism."

Both arguments are deceptive. Clarke wasn't a Cabinet secretary, but as Clinton's NCC, he ran the "Principals Committee" meetings on counterterrorism, which were attended by Cabinet secretaries. Two NSC senior directors reported to Clarke directly, and he had reviewing power over relevant sections of the federal budget.

Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.

Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. (One less-noted aspect of Clarke's book is its detailed description of the major steps that Clinton took to combat terrorism.)

The White House talking-points paper is filled with these sorts of distortions. For instance, it notes that Bush didn't need to meet with Clarke because, unlike Clinton, he met every day with CIA Director George Tenet, who talked frequently about al-Qaida.

But here's how Clarke describes those meetings:

"[Tenet] and I regularly commiserated that al Qaeda was not being addressed more seriously by the new administration. ... We agreed that Tenet would insure that the president's daily briefings would continue to be replete with threat information on al Qaeda."
The problem is: Nothing happened. (It is significant, by the way, that Tenet has not been recruited—not successfully, anyway—to rebut Clarke's charges. Clarke told Charlie Rose that he was "very close" to Tenet. The two come off as frustrated allies in Clarke's book.)

The White House document insists Bush did take the threat seriously, telling Rice at one point "that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaeda."

Here's how Clarke describes that exchange:

"President Bush, reading the intelligence every day and noticing that there was a lot about al Qaeda, asked Condi Rice why it was that we couldn't stop "swatting flies" and eliminate al Qaeda. Rice told me about the conversation and asked how the plan to get al Qaeda was coming in the Deputies' Committee. "It can be presented to the Principals in two days, whenever we can get a meeting," I pressed. Rice promised to get to it soon. Time passed."
....




Responses from the right? Seriously?
phatmonky
#27
Mar23-04, 11:09 PM
P: 1,528
Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Don't worry, I reported myself "as an inappropriate post".

It was worth it to call you an idiot once more,
because that is what you are.

See you later fool!
phatmonky
#28
Mar23-04, 11:29 PM
P: 1,528
Originally posted by RageSk8
Dick Clarke is Telling the Truth




Responses from the right? Seriously?
Since I am consider a extremist republican on this site, I'll say that I have not responded because I am hoping to wait for Clarkes testimony tomorrow. I'll be happy to then. Until that point, I fear that I will be rehashing a subject that has been beat to death on several boards.
Tomorrow things go under oath. I am curious to see what we'll get then.
phatmonky
#29
Mar23-04, 11:31 PM
P: 1,528
Originally posted by The_Professional
This is wha
Delete that! They have a picture to cover people stealing bandwidth!! YUCK! :p

And I mean nothing else. Our pal Nommos has some issues that I addressed in another thread. Let's not make this thread into that as well.
Delete your post and I will be deleting this one as well :)
ShawnD
#30
Mar24-04, 03:52 AM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 986
Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
will you stop pretending that you know about things you obviously have no idea about.
Pot an kettle syndrome strikes again!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Answer didnt check with back of book Introductory Physics Homework 2
Particle Data Book, as a BOOK High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 14
Clarke's Book has support Current Events 6