Seems to me no one is dicrediting Clarke but Clarke. He made that phony apology saying he had failed us blah blah, then continues on to blame everyone one but himself in his testimony and every interview he's given since. Oh I don't know, quoting Rummy form a meeting that Rummy didn't attend, that statement about Condi's facial expression, contradicting things he himself had said, take your pic. He's got issues.
Well I certainly have more confidence in Clarke than I do in Bush, even if he has other agendas and his behavior is multi-determined. Most important behavior is driven by more than one single factor.
I can see why you would have confidence in Clarke, I mean, seeing how effective he was in the last administration and all...
Effective in accomplishing what in the last administration? Thwarting LAX plot? Seattle? Millenium? Atlanta Olympics? WHich? And how would we know since the Bush admin won't release relevant documents from that time period?
Quote:Seems to me no one is dicrediting Clarke but Clarke.
Fuk...you guys are in deep deep **** down there, if this passes for a reasonable or coherent perception of reality.
Effective in keeping Al Qaeda/Laden in check, beginning a war on terror.
This government lied to us to start a war, so how can we ever believe them again? Ever since all the propaganda they fed us to try to convince us how important attacking Iraq was, I don't trust this government to be forthcoming about anything. In my mind, they are the ones who aren't credible, no matter what this panel finds out about 9/11.
And just for the record, I am not a liberal, and I'm not anti-republican. This is a non-partisan attack on a bunch of lying murderers. If this was a Democratic white house, I'd be just as disgusted if they lied to get away with murder. F*ck them. I hope they all get what they deserve.
Gee k.c. you've become so political lately I hardly recognize ya! What happened to my beloved horndog?
I'm a many-faceted man, Caprice. Don't worry, I just started a new thread that is total fluff. Check it out.
By the way, you shouldn't call me "your beloved" on here. We don't want our secret love affair getting out, do we? :wink: LOL
Secret love affair?? I thought it was just pure sex.
What? You were only using me!?
I would so loooove to bat this back and forth with you for awhile, but this is definitely not the right thread for it. I'll meet you in the A2K broom closet. :wink:
The question that no one has asked yet is this:
If Richard Clarke is such a credible and believable witness, then why has no one else come forward to corroborate his story?
If the President and his staff had acted in a certain way, then everyone close to them would have seen it and would be able to tell the same story. It seems that everyone IS telling the same story, but there's just this one guy whose story is different from everyone else's. And his name is Richard Clarke.
So what's wrong with this picture?
It makes no sense for him to be lying. He's one guy against the whole white house, basically.
I mean, say you're Clarke. You're disgruntled. You hate these people!
That is not enough motivation to take on the whole administration, including the president, knowing that the only place you could possibly land in the end is jail. You would not be stupid enough to think that you could libel the U.S. government without ending up in a cell somewhere for a long time.
So what other reason could he have for doing it?
Money? What good does money do him in jail? I've heard him speak. He's not that stupid.
Could he possibly be insane?
Or maybe he's just telling the truth. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
What are you talking about, T?
Cheney says Clarke was "out of the loop" on Limbaugh's show (I guess he thought we wouldn't be listening) (and how come Rush didn't ask Dick if he thought it was a good idea to have your senior anti-terror guy be out of the loop////??) and the next day both Powell and Rice came out to say well, no, I mean yeah, he was in the loop.... Poor Dick, out of the loop.
And first the White House says: naw, that little meeting with the President never happened, until two members of the staff said Uh, um, yeah, I was there....
My favorite is the guy who objected to Clarke saying in his book that he would have said "I guess I'm working for you today" meaning Clarke, No, no, says he, I would have said "What can I do to help?" Stunning.
Joe
Tarantulas wrote:The question that no one has asked yet is this:
If Richard Clarke is such a credible and believable witness, then why has no one else come forward to corroborate his story?
If the President and his staff had acted in a certain way, then everyone close to them would have seen it and would be able to tell the same story. It seems that everyone IS telling the same story, but there's just this one guy whose story is different from everyone else's. And his name is Richard Clarke.
So what's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with this picture? The viewer of it. You could step in a pile of elephant **** and then remark on how clean your city was, but be bemused that you'd put on one black shoe and one brown shoe that morning.
No one, you say, has corroborated Clarke. This claim, coming after what has appeared on these threads, and in the press, over the last week tips the scale on any wish I have had to even bother talking with you.
Careful there, bern...
When you stir up that spiders' nest you're likely to be reading another dozen comments copied and pasted from Freeperville disagreeing with you.
Or pictures of your avatar and Adolph.
Or some similarly enlightening, and simultaneously revolting, attempt at rebuttal.
One of Clarke's colleagues (on his staff) has corroborated much of the tone and texture of the WH and its staff vis-a-vis counter-terrorism activities.
Perhaps other people want to keep their jobs.
Clarke wanted to keep his job too, that's why the sour grape vine hanging around his neck.
He did not want to keep his job in a vacuum - only if he was accomplishing something. The WH stonewalled him left and right. As he said, it was pointless to stay and beat his head against the wall that was (and is) the WH. Time to move on.
I disagree with you, Brand X.
And another turnabout. This time, the Clinton documents will be open to the commission's staff to read and review, but maybe not copy (national security concerns, don't ya know). At least one commissioner voiced surprise that so much had been withheld. Supposedly, the commission agreed to let the WH make the decision as to what was relevant to the commission's charge, and what was not. How stupid would that be?
Quote:But the final decision on whether the documents could be handed over was left to the Bush White House, which decided to block transfer of three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of material, said former Clinton aides who say they were concerned that so many documents had been withheld.
"This is very disturbing," said Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor who is a Democratic member of the commission.
The White House said on Thursday that it decided to withhold the Clinton documents because they duplicated other documents, were not relevant to the commission's requests or involved national security and were "highly sensitive."
Mr. Ben-Veniste and other commission members said they were surprised to learn that any Clinton documents had been withheld.
Since all of the commissioners and most of the staff have security clearances at the very highest level," Mr. Ben-Veniste said, "it puzzles me as to what would be withheld on the basis of national security concerns."
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said on Friday that the Bush administration had been "fully responsive to the commission's requests and any allegation to the contrary is simply ridiculous."
and further down in the same article:
Quote:The public debate over the commission's access to the Clinton documents followed complaints to the commission from Bruce Lindsey, Mr. Clinton's former deputy White House counsel and his liaison to the National Archives. Mr. Lindsey said he feared that the commission was making judgments about the Clinton administration's actions in dealing with terrorist threats without full access to its papers.
Mr. Lindsey said he had reviewed many of the 10,800 documents gathered by the National Archives, where Mr. Clinton's files are stored, and found them to be valuable to the commission's work. He said they included many documents about Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the government's counterterrorism policies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/03/politics/03PANE.html
