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 New Book (Check It Out )

  1. Mar 22, 2004 #1

    “They died for the US President’s own agenda.”
    Richard Clarke, talking about Bush’s reasons for sending US soldiers to Afghanistan. Mr Clarke was President George Bush’s (Former) White House Terrorism Adviser and Counter-terrorism Director.

    Also, he was the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council. Refer;

    At last, An American calls it.
    I’ve been saying that ever since the Kamikazes became Cherry Blossoms…
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 22, 2004 #2

    CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

    60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!


    CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

    It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.
  4. Mar 22, 2004 #3
    Rebuttals by the whitehouse:
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site__032204/content/stack_a.guest.html [Broken]
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html [Broken]

    Now, what I really love is things like this:

    So this whole blame game is based on the tone YOU THINK he took and what you THINK he meant by it?
    Then you return the report, and just assume that people don't give the president things YOU think he wouldn't like to hear?

    Real convincing.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. Mar 22, 2004 #4
  6. Mar 22, 2004 #5
    hahahahaha :D I didn't think there would anyone would accuse me of any slant, considering it's just quotes from the whitehouse in response. I only posted so people could hear both sides
  7. Mar 22, 2004 #6
    Just the Rush link is REALLY funny...:wink:
  8. Mar 22, 2004 #7
    Oh, and mentioning CBS's being owned by Viacom...might as well not even bother with that, the media is so consolodated at this point that he would have had to go though a publisher linked to one of the networks no matter what.
  9. Mar 22, 2004 #8
    Interviewing someone on their book without giving a disclaimer as to your financial interests in that book is a pretty serious deal. It has to make you wonder why certain questions weren't asked, while he sat accusing the president and the rest of the administration.

    Perhaps, Mr. Clarke could put to rest the idea that he has the proverbial axe to grind, and simply answer some questions about his past.

    Question number 1: Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

    Question number 2: Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

    Question number 3: Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?

    Question number 4: When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exactly advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

    Question number 5: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?

    Question number 6: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?

    Question number 7: Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

    Question number 8: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?

    Question number 9: Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?

    Question number 10: Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic?
  10. Mar 22, 2004 #9
    Ah yes, and let's not get started about the suggestion of sonic booms over libya to 'scare them' into submission.
  11. Mar 22, 2004 #10
    Right on the button Phatmonkey! CBS disguises a plug for books sales on a TV news interview with out divulging the financial connection.

    Before someone gives too much credence to Clark's words, they should be aware of some of his past security recommendations. My favorite was where he advised President Reagan to scare Omar Khadafi with the sonic booms of F-111 aircraft. Maybe that’s why President Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant. After all BC had two Clarks to ill-advise him.
  12. Mar 22, 2004 #11
    Whats That Say Then?

    I love how the Nationalists ignore the facts!

    He WAS APPOINTED BY BUSH, as his most SENIOR counter-terrorism official.
    I repeat
    George Bush’s (Former) White House Terrorism Adviser and Counter-terrorism Director.

    Also, he was the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council. Refer;

    Ok, if the guy IS LYING, what does that say for the President of the USA’s choice of the MOST CRITICAL position in his Administration, regarding “The War On Terrorism”?
  13. Mar 22, 2004 #12
    There's almost enough spinning here to make you dizzy. Almost.

    CLAIM vs. FACT: Administration Officials Respond to Richard Clarke Interview by David Sirota
    In the wake of Richard Clarke's well-supported assertions that the Bush Administration neglected counterterrorism in the face of repeated terror warnings before 9/11, the Bush Administration has launched a frantic misinformation campaign - often contradicting itself in the process.
    CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
    CLAIM #2: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection.
    CLAIM #3: "(Clarke) was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
    FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
    CLAIM #4: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high we were at battle stations. The fact of the matter is (that) the administration focused on this before 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" - Washington Post, 3/22/04
    CLAIM #5: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." - Washington Post, 3/22/04
    CLAIM #6: "Well, (Clarke) wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04
    FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period." - White House Press Release, 3/21/04
    CLAIM #7: "(Bush) wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with (terrorism), and that process was in motion throughout the spring." - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
    FACT: "Bush said (in May of 2001) that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." - Washington Post, 1/20/02
  14. Mar 22, 2004 #13
    Re: Whats That Say Then?

    When did I ignore the facts? I stated there are other views as well to think about. And I'm the one sided one? How dare I question the intentions of this man! I must just be a ravenous irrational nationalistic republican pig!

    Lose the rhetoric if you want me to continue this. Until then, I'm out. [zz)]
  15. Mar 23, 2004 #14


    User Avatar

    Yeah, Phatmonkey perhaps you should abstain...

    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.
  16. Mar 23, 2004 #15

    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.
  17. Mar 23, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    Note - Clarke was rescheduled for 4/24/04

    Its sort of obvious that Bushco will tout a lot of lies to discredit Clarke because he practically caught them red-handed and with their pants down.
  18. Mar 23, 2004 #17
    Re: Note - Clarke was rescheduled for 4/24/04

    I for one would like to know why are they lying about 9-11 and what is it they're covering up?
  19. Mar 23, 2004 #18
    Re: Re: Note - Clarke was rescheduled for 4/24/04

    Who knows? They could just be lying because that is what those slimeballs do, instinctively. I have it on good authority that Cheney hasn't spoken a public, on the record truth since 1987. :wink:
  20. Mar 23, 2004 #19

    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...
  21. Mar 23, 2004 #20
    Re: Yep.

    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.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook