Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Clarke's Book has support

  1. Mar 31, 2004 #1


    User Avatar

    In the Tuesday, March 30 2004 NY Times, Paul Krugman writes “… an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassan said “This isn’t America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack.” So even in Israel, George Bush’s America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power.” He cites Bob Woodward’s ‘Bush at War’ as a confirmation of Clark’s allegations that the Bush admin dropped the ball. He adds that new evidence keeps emerging such as yesterdays USA TODAY: “In 2002, troops from Fifth Special Forces Group …middle east specialists…pulled out of hunt for Osama… to prepare for …Iraq. Krugman writes “In his new book ‘Worse than Watergate’ John Dean of Watergate fame, says “I’ve been watching the elements fall into place for two possible catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy”. “

    A point Fred Kaplan makes in regards to the Bush admin disregard for the importance of vigilance against terrorism to wit 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 under funded.

    Finally, Sunday on Meet the Press Richard Clarke produced a letter from the Prez glowing with praise and admiration.

    Some links that throws doubt on Rice's crediblity.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml






    http://www.axcessnews.com/national_032804a.shtml [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 31, 2004 #2
    Everyone sort of knows that Clarke is telling the truth, in general...seriously, it is plainly obvious that the gist of it is basically common knowledge, confirmed by ever non-rightwing apologist.
  4. Mar 31, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Of course Zero still believes that Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

  5. Mar 31, 2004 #4
    No, we know he did, and we know that Bush wasn't focused on terrorism, and that Bush wanted to invade Iraq and used 9-11 as an excuse.
  6. Mar 31, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    We also know...

    that intelligence was suppressed-if it didn't agree with the notion to pre-empt Iraq and distorted - generalized to the point of becoming false. The courious thing is that credible, competent people were removed from vital agencies and groups in the defense-intelligence community and replaced with neo-cons who provided many of the reports and assesments used to decieve congress and the American populace.

    links- from thread bad political influence


    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2004
  7. Mar 31, 2004 #6
    The way that it has been described is this: ""They used exclamation marks instead of question marks."
  8. Mar 31, 2004 #7
    It's despicable to me how they tried to tar and feather Clarke as making it all up, when clearly Bush did not attack Bin Laden until it was too late. They seem to have calmed down a bit on it, because they know it goes nowhere. They use the terror attacks as an excuse for everything, then attack the guy who points out that they could've stopped it. Pretty sad.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook