2
   

The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:55 pm
damn, Clarke may very well live up to his party affiliation-Republican-
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:10 pm
nimh wrote:
I'm sure there were many people who "believed" Iraq probably still had WMD. But there were only a few countries - namely, the US, the UK, Spain - that were "absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD".

This is what's known as revisionist history. You make a statement and hope that the other guy didn't keep good records. Well I keep good records. Very Happy

Quote:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Eh, I was going to go through and make the important points bold, but it's not worth the trouble. If you read through this resolution (and you should, as it appears that a history refresher course is in order here), you should come up with a few interesting points:

1. The United Nations believed that Saddam still had WMD and was very concerned about that, and
2. The United Nations "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement" this and all previous UN resolutions concerning Iraq, and to "restore international peace and security in the area," and
3. The United Nations was concerned not only about Iraqi WMD, but also Iraq's ties to terrorism, and the repression of its civilian population, and provision of humanitarian aid to its population, and accounting for Kuwaiti prisoners and property.

The Iraq war was not all about the WMD, which the UN (and by extension, a majority of its member states) were convinced Iraq still possessed. It was also about the other issues mentioned in my item #3 above. So the conclusion is, yes, the majority of UN member nations were in agreement that Iraq possessed WMD, and no, just because they haven't found any WMD yet doesn't make the basis for the war "illegal" in any way.

EDIT - Check the President's speech just prior to the war for his reasons and justification. WMDs were part of it but not all of it. And the US authority to go to war was unquestionable.

Quote:
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Under UN Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - we are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority; it is a question of will.

On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm. Today, no nation claims that Iraq has disarmed.

Some permanent members of the Security Council announced they will veto any resolution that compels disarmament. The Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities - so we will rise to ours.

As for the other stuff, you guys just picked different sources than I did, but your sources are mostly assertions, like mine were previous to this post. And since you two don't seem 100% unbiased either, e.g., "Shrub," why should I trust your sources any further than you trust mine?

I would be curious to hear what you guys think of the briefing transcript where Clarke contradicts his current assertions:

Clarke now wrote:
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Clarke then wrote:

This is an unimpeachable source - the man himself. Your opinions?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:29 pm
Tarantulas wrote:

This is what's known as revisionist history. You make a statement and hope that the other guy didn't keep good records. Well I keep good records. Very Happy


Apparently not. As you've just practiced revisionism yourself.

Tarantulas wrote:
The United Nations "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement" this and all previous UN resolutions concerning Iraq, and to "restore international peace and security in the area,"



False. In fact there was great opposition to including that trigger phrase in the resolution and this stalled the resolution until the US agreed to remove any such trigger phrase referencing the current resolution (implying that a second resolution would be called for if the US were to decide to push for finding Iraq in violation of that resolution) and they settled for simply "recalling" that in the past a trigger phrase had been used in reference to a past resolution.

Your claim that the trigger phrase "all necessary means" was included for THIS resolution is simply a falsehood and an example of revisionist history on your part.

Regards
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:38 pm
Read the resolution again. This is verbatim text from the resolution:

Quote:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:43 pm
Did you read 660 and 678 , Tarantulas?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:50 pm
I've read it many many times, Tarantulas.

That phrase was included as a compromise and was to represent removal of a trigger phrase from the resolution.

That reference is to a trigger phrase that was written in 1990 and the trigger phrase that the US tried to insert this time around was rejected.

If your point was that back in 1990 the UN had included a trigger phrase then it stands, but you were trying to contradict nimh's opinion about the latest resolution, not the one in 1990.

And in the latest resolution a trigger phrase was rejected outright and the US ceded.

The UN members did not, as you said, include a trigger phrase in this resolution to support all previous resolutions and you are spinning a reference to a trigger phrase from 1990 about subsequent resolutions.

At that time, peace and security were things like not invading other nations and not the ghost of WMDs.

In this resolution UN members were very careful and very adamant about rejecting any wording that could serveas a trigger phrase.

To say that they were all on board with a trigger phrase that grandfathered older resolutions is simply a lie. They did nothing of the sort and it was at this precise juncture that negotiations on the draft stalled.

To pre-empt a European resolution the US removed the trigger prases and settled for referencing the trigger phrase from 1990.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:51 pm
Yes. And 687.

Craven, you mention "trigger phrase" 9 times but don't explain what you mean. And you talk about it being removed. Can you speak about the text of the resolution instead? Or at least explain what phrase you're talking about and what it was removed from?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:56 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Read the resolution again. This is verbatim text from the resolution:

Quote:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,


Right, thats what Craven says. 1441 did not "authorize Member States to use all necessary means" - it simply "recalled" that in the past (1990) that trigger phrase had been used in reference to a past resolution (i.e., 660).
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:57 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Yes. And 687.


And why don't you understand it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:59 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
Yes. And 687.


And why don't you understand it?


C'mon Walter, you can do better than this. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:59 pm
I hate to break up the fun, but back on the subject of Clarke and his allegations:
Quote:


Now, Clarke began his testimony today asking for forgiveness because "he and our government have failed us".

The Clinton admin. didn't wat to do anything beacuse, "they were tough issues", so when Bush finally got into office after being delayed by the Florida debacle he told Clarke " we need to do something and stop swating at flies". There was no plan for dealing with Al Qaeda handed over to Bush so Bush began immediatley working on a game plan of elimination, not rollback.

Sandy Berger said in the 9/11 hearing that Clinton had permission to take bin Laden out.

CBS gave this guy two segments to spew a lot of screed that can't be backed up because of their own agenda and it's going to backfire. Clarke's book is turning out to be an application for a job with an assumed Kerry admin.

Yes, Fox, get over it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 02:03 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
Yes. And 687.


And why don't you understand it?


C'mon Walter, you can do better than this. Rolling Eyes


As nimh already said: it recalls - something, which has to be done in treaties, if I remember my International Law classes correctly. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 02:05 pm
Yeah, I posted that transcript a little earlier on the page, and no one has said anything about it until now.

Quote:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Are you guys seriously saying that resolution 1441 isn't a relevant resolution subsequent to resolution 678?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 02:12 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Yes. And 687.

Craven, you mention "trigger phrase" 9 times but don't explain what you mean. And you talk about it being removed. Can you speak about the text of the resolution instead? Or at least explain what phrase you're talking about and what it was removed from?


Sorry, sometimes I assume people are initimately familiar with the way resolutions are couched and what exactly constitutes a trigger phrase. Since you said you kept good records I assumed that you were aware of the negotiations behind 1441.

I am, I know of each word that was removed and I can help point you to what I was talking about.

The trigger phrase the US had tried to include in 1441 was "serious consequences", this is generally read as a euphemism for a clearer trigger phrase ("all means" is the clearest trigger phrase when it comes to these nuanced resolutions).

Paragraph 4 is where the reall tricky wording took place. The trigger of this resolution wasn't even false documents in the submission and was careful to use the logical operator "and" (i.e. AND failure to cooperate in the future) to tie a finding of "material breach" (of that resolution) to future cooperation.

The US and UK had initially wanted "or" and this was rejected to tie the finding of a breach to a future lack of cooperation.

The UN nations rejected the mild trigger phrase outright and the US removed it and presented what the US claimed was a resolution free of trigger phrases.

British ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock said that the no-fly violations would not be used as a trigger for a breach and John Negroponte agreed.

If you do not wish to take my word for it please take the US ambassador to the UN's word for it.

John Negroponte (US Ambassador to the UN) specifically said on November the 8th in reference to 1441:

John Negroponte wrote:
As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed.


Edited for clarity and to include the quote I was responding to.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 02:14 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
This is what's known as revisionist history. You make a statement and hope that the other guy didn't keep good records. Well I keep good records.
Quote:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]


OK, let's look at this.

The resolution deplores "the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" on its WMD and "that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites [and] failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with [the] weapons inspectors".

That put Iraq "in material breach of its obligations". Note - nowhere does the resolution state that Iraq was still in known possession of these weapons. It merely states that Iraq had not proven it didnt have them anymore, like it was obliged to (through full disclosure), and that it had obstructed attempts to check about it.

The declaration then decided "to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply" and "to set up an enhanced inspection regime".

Well, the inspection regime was then indeed set up and let in by Saddam, and was at work by the time Bush demanded the UN to authorise war.

Now an argument can easily be made that Iraq was not co-operating to the full extent set out by the resolution's conditions, and was thus still in breach of the resolution. Fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of the authors of this resolution deemed Iraq to be in sufficient compliance with them at least to warrant giving the inspection regime additional time to do its job.

Meanwhile, I'll remind you that the bone of our contention here was your assertion that "every intelligence agency in the world that had any information at all about Iraq was absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD."

Nothing in this resolution, which you bring up as the "record" that would supposedly prove your point, supports that assertion. Nothing in it shows that Germany, France, Russia or any of those other pesky Security Council Member States, "was absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD". All the resolution says is that Iraq has not disclosed what WMD it might still have and obstructed attempts to check on it. Basically it's saying: "we dont know [what WMD you have or whether you still have any], and we should know, cause the previous resolutions gave us the right to know".

That was in November 2002 - and by February, March 2003, the inspectors were back in there - and hadnt found a thing yet. Neither did the purported intel the US claimed to have convince other countries that we knew Iraq still had WMD. For them, it was still a question of: we don't know for sure, and we should know, thats why we're in there finding out - and thus, its too early for war.

Only Bush, Blair, Howard and Aznar claimed to already KNOW Iraq still had WMD - enough even to pose an acute threat to global security.

Again, you wrote that "every intelligence agency in the world that had any information at all about Iraq was absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD." You've yet to come up with anything but assertions, your own and a conservative journal's, about that. In fact, other countries were warning Bush & co. that the purported proof he based his absolute conviction on was very shaky indeed.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 02:30 pm
nimh wrote:
Again, you wrote that "every intelligence agency in the world that had any information at all about Iraq was absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD." You've yet to come up with anything but assertions, your own and a conservative journal's, about that. In fact, other countries were warning Bush & co. that the purported proof he based his absolute conviction on was very shaky indeed.

I was thinking it was in CIA Director Tenet's address at Georgetown University, but it's not. That's a good read, though.

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I can recall who said that first. I'm sure I heard one of the experts in the field saying that the CIA didn't come up with its results in a vacuum, that they were supported by every other intelligence agency they could contact.

You're now making an assertion that other countries warned the President that his proof was shaky. Do you have a reference to back up that statement?

And on a broader note, are we going to sit here and throw hyperlinks at each other all day long? I don't mind digging for information, but it gets rather tedious after a while.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 02:45 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
And on a broader note, are we going to sit here and throw hyperlinks at each other all day long? I don't mind digging for information, but it gets rather tedious after a while.


Last hyperlink posted in this thread was by you, to President Bush's speech.

In six subsequent posts, Craven, Walter and I have been contesting the points of your posts on the basis of arguments, not links.

Enough food for thought, I think?
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 04:49 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Here's the end of Mr. Clarke's little deception. It will be interesting to see if his testimony today is as filled with lies as his book appears to be.

Bye bye, Dick! Laughing


Clarke has already provided a plausible explanation for this memo.

You have to understand the context it was given in: At the time, Clarke was a member of the Bush administration. President Bush was taking flak from the media for his mishandling of the war on terror, and he asked Dick Clarke - his terrorism czar - to defend him against these charges; to put a "good spin" on President Bush.

As Clarke pointed out in his testimony today, such requests are a routine part of life for people in the upper echelons of politics. A public servent faces three choices:

a) Resign, and speak out against your superiors (which Clarke eventually did.)

b) Lie. Clarke did not do this, and has pointed out that nobody in the Bush administration asked him to lie, and even if they did, he would have refused.

c) Outline the situation in a way that highlights the good aspects of what Bush has done, instead of focusing on the bad aspects. This is the path Clarke chose, and it is a routine part of politics.

So, no, Clarke has not lied and this briefing proves little.

Further, you emboldend the following passage from Clarkes briefing:

Quote:
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.


This briefing was given way back in August 2002. At the time, Clarke was conveying that Bush had said he wanted to "vigorously pursue the existing policy." Clarke did not say that Bush had vigorously pursued the existing policy, or anything to that effect. Further, as it turns out, Bush never did follow through with his statements, which is one of the reasons Clarke resigned.

This is just another example of how people simply jump to conclusions without taking time to properly examine the data.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 04:54 pm
Through the Media's filter of the hearing testimony
I'm fascinated---and disgusted---by the Media filtering that's going on after the day's hearing are closed. If one did not watch all the testimony and only relied on the Medias' reports, one could get a very distorted picture of what was said. That's why I'm such a fan of C-SPAN, which does not provide commentary, just the actual event unfiltered.

Its not so much that the Media lies, its more what it chooses to emphasize fully, or partially even out of context, which changes the meaning. Then when the Media gets through filtering, along comes the spin doctors to distort things even more. I watched the entire hearing and sometimes find it hard to recognize actual testimony from that offered by Media pundits and reporters.

No wonder the public gets confused and so easily misled. Most people don't have time to spend an entire day watching the hearings and must rely on the Media for their information.

BBB
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 04:59 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
From what I've heard, every intelligence agency in the world that had any information at all about Iraq was absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD.


False.

Nimh is doing an excellent job in explaining why, so I will leave it to him.

Quote:
And I've even heard that Saddam himself was convinced that he had them.


Please elaborate.

Quote:
And I would believe the Director of Central Intelligence over whatever this Clarke guy has to say. Clarke's is a lone voice without many others to back up his assertions. There are too many other people who consider his assertions pure unadulterated horse puckey.


What?

You find it surprising that most people withen the Bush administration continue to support the actions of the Bush administration. Of course Clarke is going to be in the minority among his peers. This is not a reason to dismiss him.

Keep in mind that Clarke has more experiance in counter terrorism than perhaps anybody else in the United States of America, including Tenet. His experiance spans three presidents - Bush, Clinton, and Baby Jr. Also, Clarke is an avowed Republican. For these reasons and more, the idea that we should simply consider his accusations "horse puckey" and write him off as a sole dissenting voice are, well, dumb.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 09:40:17