The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

Sofia
Sofia, why do you continue to use the bait and switch tactic to avoid learning more about what Clarke is talking about.

The issue is NOT what I think of Clarke's information. The issue IS the information he has provided to the American people.

I'm not going to engage in a useless bait and switch game with you. Again, I suggest you read the book. Why do you resist doing so?

I've read about 1/4 of the book as of this moment. It is money well-spent.

BBB

0 Replies

This is why I'm asking for specific quotes from the testimony, or the book, which you or others believe proves Bush neglected the terrorist threat pre-911.

From the testimony, I heard a lot of Clarke opinion, and language that could be twisted to seem damning.

No one seems willing to step up and say exactly why they believe Clarke is revealing a neglectful Bush administration.

As Clinton aptly proved, you can sit in front of a judge and craft your words to suit you.

What was Clarke's smoking gun evidence?

0 Replies

He thought he had a smoking gun but the juice from the sour grapes snuffed it out.

0 Replies

Re: Sofia

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Sofia, why do you continue to use the bait and switch tactic to avoid learning more about what Clarke is talking about.

The issue is NOT what I think of Clarke's information. The issue IS the information he has provided to the American people.

I'm not going to engage in a useless bait and switch game with you. Again, I suggest you read the book. Why do you resist doing so?

I've read about 1/4 of the book as of this moment. It is money well-spent.

BBB

Actually, the issue IS what you think about Clarke's information. This is a locale for debate, hence opinions and facts are rather necessary. How can we debate it, when no one will commit to a Clarke-ism? Crafty dodge to avoid backing up your opinion, though.

No matter, though. The silence speaks convincingly. :wink:

0 Replies

Sofia
Sofia, you get the rolling eyes again for your non response response.

BBB

0 Replies

BBB--
I know you are no coward.
In the book you have read, haven't you found one Clarke accusation that you will bring forward for debate?

Anybody?

0 Replies

Sofia, I too urge you to read the book. It is not as simple as you seem to think it is. it is not a collection of "sound bites." It is a carefully crafted internally consistent whole.

0 Replies

Sofia
Sofia,, you are right, I'm not a coward. But I'm also not stupid.

When you have read Clarke's book and care to dispute any of his statements, and when I've finished reading it, then maybe we can have a discussion. Until then, you are just playing time-wasting games.

BBB

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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.

As you wish. I know it would make me happy if I didn't have to read your hostile responses.

Why don't you go one step further and start ignoring everyone you disagree with? That way the rest of us would be able to discuss the issues in a rational way without having to read your personal attacks all the time. It would certainly make this forum a much friendlier place to hang out.

0 Replies

This is surreal. For asking someone on this thread, which is entirely about Clarke's accusations, and where many are buying it hook, line and sinker-- for specifics <trembling lip> I am accused of all manner of baits, switches, not using my time wisely, and games, and being a non reader of those thingamajigs with pages and letters...

<bock> <bock>

0 Replies

sofia

How much time would you spend discussing "To Kill a Mockingbird" with someone who's never read it, and who doesn't intent to? What value would you give that person's opinions on the book (say, if she'd maybe heard about it, or read some short commentary by another who didn't much like it)?

Nice to see you, but the copout here is yours. You are either too lazy or too prejudiced to go to the trouble of adequately familiarizing yourself with the subject at hand.

0 Replies

That's an absurd premise Blatham.

This isn't even a thread about the book and is a thread about an interview.

Furthermore one does not need to read the book, one person's interpretation, in order to have an opinion about current events.

0 Replies

I haven't read the book either. I won't put my dollars into Mr. Clarke's pocket. And I don't think we all need to have a copy so we can discuss the third paragraph on page 121. If people can't post a link to information in this forum or post the information itself, then it's not possible to have a rational discussion.

0 Replies

I agree Tarantulas. Once someone brings a point, we get busy reading up and researching. I have already found Clarke's testimony, and planned to read it (once I take a course) because of interest. I'll be watching or reading others' testimony as well.

But, since this thread is here, and so many were convinced, I thought it was quite normal to ask someone about a point they felt Clarke made.

The response was quite unusual for a debate board. IMO, anyway.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

That's an absurd premise Blatham.

This isn't even a thread about the book and is a thread about an interview.

Furthermore one does not need to read the book, one person's interpretation, in order to have an opinion about current events.

I don't think it's absurd.

The discussion to my understanding is about Clarke's contentions, evidence of which is contained in both his testimony before the commission (and BTW, Bumble Bee Boogie posted that in its entirety in this forum; use the Search function to find it) and his book.

If I understand Sofia's postulate correctly, she wants to know what is it Clarke has said that we believe.

I haven't encountered anything he said that I have good reason to doubt.

I belive that Bush, guided by his surrogates, didn't fully comprehend the threat. And Bush himself has admitted as much, as recounted by Bob Woodward in his book Bush at War:

Quote:

"I didn't feel the sense of urgency," about terrorism before 9/11.

0 Replies

Is the 9/11 commission posting transcripts of testimony online? Or do some of the news organizations have selected transcripts on their websites?

0 Replies

I'll get it.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

That's an absurd premise Blatham.

This isn't even a thread about the book and is a thread about an interview.

Furthermore one does not need to read the book, one person's interpretation, in order to have an opinion about current events.

Hardly absurd, given sofia's first post...

Quote:

Sounds like he was pissed about being passed over for a plumb job, and wanted to cash in and exact revenge.

Sure, discussion can be limited to the interview, but if sofia has read the transcript, then she already knows the charges that Clarke has made. She'll know the questions put to Clarke by the commission members, and his answers. If she reads further back in this thread, she'll have other charges to address.

How did her opinion, noted in her quote above, get formed? I think we might assume that she's taken the view of Frist, or some other spokesperson engaging in that ad hominem. It is, of course, completely irrelevant to any of the charges.

Everyone can engage in current events discussions. But what establishes the value of such discussions?

0 Replies

Clarke's testimony
I haven't read it yet, blatham. I've seen part of his testimony. Why all the tension?

My initial opinion, which you quoted above, isn't set in stone. The Commission isn't even finished. No one's opinion should be fully formed yet.

0 Replies

My opinion about Clarke's credibility is not fully formed yet.

My opinion that the government is the one that's not credible here, is.

That's one of the reasons why I'm kind of leaning towards believing this guy. :wink:

0 Replies

The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know