© 2022 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by karmavore, Mar 25, 2004.
To remove this ad click here.
Are you sitting down? Another ex-government official who was fired or demoted by Bush has written a book that ... is critical of Bush! Eureka! The latest offering is Richard Clarke's new CBS-Viacom book, "Against All Enemies," which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it.
As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration?
When an FBI agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever."
"Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release -- many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece.")
But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" - with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows.
In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release. Clarke claims, for example, that in early 2001, when he told President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before."
Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.
But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. A few months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's "facial expression," al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole. Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida.
By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even The New York Times knew about al-Qaida.
Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions.
All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."
Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.
Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her -- not him -- to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the "facial expression" on Maxine Waters -- a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement -- left the "impression" that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime.
As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag.......you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"
Re Rice: Perhaps, just perhaps, you're reading too much into Clarke's feelings on Rice and projecting your own racial feelings on to him. Perhaps?
Re Clinton Sour grapes is not a defense ...but it is a very Bush administration argument to make.
Clarke was there doing Origami alongside Clinton while they didn't do jack-**** to prevent or punish Terrorism for 8 years.
Bush was supposed to turn Clinton's paper tiger into a living, breathing tiger in 8 months? Looks to me like he did.
Guys -- LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW AND THEN COMMENT!
As Clarke said, Clinton did more to punish terrorists than Bush and Regan combined.
Hello Beirut, Pan Am 103, etc...?
Please present evidence that they didn't do jack sht for 8 years.
When will someone hold Bush and his staff accountable for the losses we suffered on 9/11? So far, Clarke is the only to admit that he failed.
Kds is right. He hit it on the head, I don't know if anything else could be said.
What I see is the democratic party in utter fear, collapse and hatred toward Bush who has accomplished more than the last eight years of their toiling about the White House. Their strategy screams it.
I also see an American mainstream media who is greatly biased.
It bothers me that these two elements are more interested in gaining acceptance under the Euro leaders wing than fighting off the threats of the their own county. Something is wrong with that scenerio when the USA is THE ultimate superpower.
Too bad he wasn't fired. He spent 30 years in the service of our country and retired. Same thing for his successor: spent one month with those guys and quit. I'm told, they asked him to do something, he wasn't willing, and he just walked out and immediately joined Kerry's team last year. Clarke is a republican and has been for a long, long time. Makes you wonder why he did it: could be because he's greedy, mad, or just perhaps an honest citizen whose had enough. I think maybe the latter.
Just because its bad, doesn't mean it isn't true.
WTF type of statement is that?????
"When will someone hold FDR and his staff accountable for the losses suffered at Pearl Harbor" - that makes about as much sense...
How is it, a certain group of Americans will gladly protest the defense actions of its country, but when outsiders attack, they are the human shields, they are the protesters against the US? Never protesting the country that attacked them.
Who is this certain group of Americans? Perhaps it's the people who don't like the specific action that they are protesting! It's not like democrats walk around constantly trying to dream up something to protest just for the hell of it.
It's very possible that the Bush administration dropped the ball on al-queda, and that is what this argument is about. I don't think he should necessarily be "held accountable" in a criminal way, but the voters should know the facts and have access to as much analysis as they can get their hands on. It's an important issue no matter how bad the republicans want it to go away.
so humerous, Bush is criticized for the patroit act and reducing freedoms all put in place after 9/11 and then at the same time criticized for not having them in place before 9/11. These dems love to talk out of both sides of their mouth. can they make up their mind
We don't need no stinkin' patriot act: before or after 9/11. Freedom for citizens and legal guests here at home, at all costs. What I would advocate is that we should be less antagonistic abroad, serve public interest more than corporate interest, remain a cooperating part of the larger world community, protect our borders better, and be more careful about who our friends are and who we train because they often become our enemies (can't believe our green berets are training afgan soldiers again!! don't we ever learn??).
In three months, Clarke's book will be largely forgotten and available for $2.99 on the remainder shelves of bookstores.
In two years, he will be on a Trivial Pursuit card.
Despite the Infomercial on 60 Minutes about his book and all the media attention that he has received, the glaring inaccuracies about his accusations are coming to light and his credibility will disappear.
kds summed up things pretty well, in my opinion.
I, along with most people on this site, agree with you.
For example, Voice of America - 8/7/98
"IN THE CASE OF THESE TWO LATEST EXPLOSIONS, WE WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GRIEVING. WE WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CLEANING UP THE EMBASSIES. WE'LL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SOME KIND OF A CURSORY INVESTIGATION. AND UNLESS OUR POLICIES CHANGE, THERE WILL BE NO PRICE TO PAY. AND THOSE WHO CAUSE THESE TYPES OF ACTIONS MUST KNOW THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY A PRICE TO PAY, BUT THAT AMERICA WILL CAUSE A HEAVY PRICE TO BE PAID."
Hence, Clinton, Clarke, et al didn't do Jack ****
art, by your very own definition of truth and facts given in the iraq thread, you can no longer stand by clarke's book as definitive; he has answered the same questions at a prior time with completely different responses. it does not matter for what reason he did this vs why he wrote what he did in the book: he is being dishonest, and if you can't agree to that then you have to admit at the very least that he is being disingenous.
please choose a new poster boy for the anti-bush crusade, this one has been tainted.
A cynical prediction by a Republican senator from NJ, is evidence that Clinton and Clarke did nothing about terrorism?
Great point, that's all I am going to say.
ditto, said this on Art's other thread. This Clarke stuff, is, to use Art's vernacular, "noise"
Good articles from both perspectives:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1178658,00.html - take with grain of salt, written by former Democratic Party strategist
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2468455 - take with grain of salt, written by Charles Krauthammer
let's see, if you distill it down to the basics....clarke says, and the anti bush crowd agrees, that we should not have gone to war with iraq preemptively, but that the same administration should have attacked afhanistan....preemptively, in order to have avoided 9/11 because we knew it was coming.....
yea i guess clarke is working for the kerry group after all.
HA HA HA LOL So funny and yet so true! Very hypocritical if you ask me.
March 26, 2004
WASHINGTON -- It is only March but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for 9/11 -- after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.
The 1990s were al Qaeda's springtime: Blissfully unmolested in Afghanistan, it trained, indoctrinated, armed and, most fatally, planned. For the United States, this was a catastrophic lapse, and in a March 2002 interview on PBS' ``Frontline,'' Clarke admitted as such: ``I believe that had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed.'' Instead, ``now we have to hunt (them) down country by country.''
What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: ``Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. ... That's ... the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.''
It did not. And who was president? Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration's top counterterrorism official? Clarke. He now says that no one followed his advice. Why did he not speak out then? And if the issue was as critical to the nation as he now tells us, why didn't he resign in protest?
Clinton had one justification after another for going on the offensive: American blood spilled in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the embassy bombings of 1998, the undeniable act of war in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Response: A single, [W1]transparently useless, cruise missile attack on empty Afghan tents, plus a (mistaken!) attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
As Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified, three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama. Every time, President Clinton stood them down, because ``We're not quite sure.''
We're not quite sure -- a fitting epitaph for the Clinton antiterrorism policy. They were also not quite sure about taking Osama when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter in 1996. The Clinton people turned Sudan down, citing legal reasons.
The ``Frontline'' interviewer asked Clarke whether failing to blow up the camps and take out the Afghan sanctuary was a ``pretty basic mistake.''
Clarke's answer is unbelievable; ``Well, I'm not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues. ... There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals.''
This is significant for two reasons. First, if the Clarke of 2002 was telling the truth, then the Clarke of this week -- the one who told the 9/11 commission under oath that ``fighting terrorism in general and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly (there was) no higher priority'' -- is a liar.
Second, he becomes not just a perjurer but a partisan perjurer. He savages Bush for not having made al Qaeda his top national security priority, but he refuses even to call a ``mistake'' Clinton's staggering dereliction in putting Yasser Arafat and Yugoslavia(!) above fighting al Qaeda.
Clarke gives Clinton a pass and instead concentrates his ire on Bush. For what? For not having pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan? On what grounds -- increased terrorist chatter in June and July 2001?
Look. George W. Bush did not distinguish himself on terrorism in the first eight months of his presidency. Whatever his failings, however, they pale in comparison to those of his predecessor.
Clinton was in office eight years, not eight months. As Clarke himself said in a 2002 National Security Council briefing, the Clinton administration never made a plan for dealing with al Qaeda and never left one behind for the Bush administration.
Clarke says he pushed very hard for such critical anti-al Qaeda measures as aid to and cooperation with Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. By his own testimony, the Clinton administration then spent more than two years -- October 1998 to December 2000, the very time the 9/11 plot was hatched -- fruitlessly debating this and doing absolutely nothing.
Clarke is clearly an angry man, angry that Condoleezza Rice demoted him, angry that he was denied a coveted bureaucratic job by the Bush administration. Angry and unreliable. He told the commission to disregard what he said in his 2002 briefing because he was, in effect, spinning. ``I've done it for several presidents,'' he said. He's still at it, doing it now for himself.
Jim Saxton stated in a nutshell what Charles Krauthammer (Kds's recent copy/paste source) expanded upon. To that end, Krauthammer didn't even list all the nothings the Clinton/Clarke did, er, didn't do Jack-**** about Counter-Terrorism.
Why did I not post all the nothings to begin with? Because it's been done in F-Chat time and time again, let alone all over the web. Clinton, with Clarke in tow, allowed the Petri dish to fill with scum.
I've seen all the attacks on Clarke. What I haven't seen is that Ms. Rice, excuse me, Doctor Rice made a series of statements about him. Problem was there were recorded interviews, documents, etc. that proved her inaccurate at best, a liar at worst. She now wants to correct her testimony with the 9/11 commission but won't do it in public. Looks like that attack mode of Bush, et al, just stuck their foot in their mouth.
Ross, you're wrong about Clarke disappearing. He may well be the footnote about why Bush lost this time around. The tightly wrapped little package is coming unwraped. Lincoln said it best: fool them some of the time, but not all of them all of the time. I said a while back, it was going to get worse, and from today's vantage point, more and more dishonesty keeps coming out.
What Bush, et al forgot was that the CIA, FBI are very, very prideful people. The attempt to push this off on them will bring out the snitches, and finally the truth will out, like it or not. It's happening right as we watch.
Let's see what next week brings. Any further bets on more defections from the Bush administration, or the CIA?
By the way Ross: Clarke's prior statements were not directly different. His explanation was more than adequate, lots of people will find a way to keep from lying and support their employer. Rice is in that exact position now: Said that Iraq wasn't on the agenda, but the request for invasion plans one day later makes her look a little strange, doesni't it? It's all in the perspective.