Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview this Sunday
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
OMG, I must watch this interview! Thanks John.
Im going with touting his own horn. Proof being that we didnt drop bomb on iraq right after 9/11. Talking about what would be a good response is one thing, actually doing something is another. If true, than cooler heads did prevail, and the question should be who was that?Fred said:
later,
epic
Just watched the episode. Clarke's one comment that most sticks out in my mind is his description the Bush administration as people "encased in amber" and wanting to return to the same Cold War problems that existed pre-Clinton administration. Clarke's book is damning of both the Clinton and Bush White Houses, yet 60 Minutes failed to address Clarke's frustrations with getting either administration to act proactively against AQ, though Clarke is apparently extremely critical of Bush's policies post-9/11.
Doh! Didn't see this thread. Anyway, I posted some videos and articles regarding this here:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10970
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10970
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of character assassination this week as Clarke's book hits the stands.
What is that saying John? Wherever there's smoke, there's fire?
First Paul O'Neill, now Richard Clarke. O'Neill could be ignored by some due to his anger at being dismissed and his relative lack of security experience, but Clarke has served 4 presidents, both republican and democrat, and has said the same things.
Sadly the attack machine has already gotten into gear. On the CBS spot alone, they tried to paint Clarke as a sour grapes partisan who was doing all this for political gain. Considering his credentials and time spent serving in a bipartisan fashion for 4 presidents, it rings hollow imo.
Things are really getting muddier and muddier in order to deflect attention from the potential failings to prevent 9/11, and it's sad.
First Paul O'Neill, now Richard Clarke. O'Neill could be ignored by some due to his anger at being dismissed and his relative lack of security experience, but Clarke has served 4 presidents, both republican and democrat, and has said the same things.
Sadly the attack machine has already gotten into gear. On the CBS spot alone, they tried to paint Clarke as a sour grapes partisan who was doing all this for political gain. Considering his credentials and time spent serving in a bipartisan fashion for 4 presidents, it rings hollow imo.
Things are really getting muddier and muddier in order to deflect attention from the potential failings to prevent 9/11, and it's sad.
Natoma said:
I didn't catch his name, but the person serving as the administration's spokesman to 60 Minutes had me sitting up in anger as he described Bush's success against terrorism by stating that we've narrowed their field of operations by removing them from Iraq and Afghanistan. Hello? Can we deal with reality here for a second? What terrorist camps in Iraq before our invasion? And where's the proof that Afghanistan is now clean of terrorists?
On the flip side, I saw a clip with Dean this morning while in the bike room and heard him basically blaming the Bush administration for the attack in Madrid, which I think is flat-out wrong to do. It's entirely possible that even had we not gotten ourselves mired down in invading and rebuilding Iraq that the Madrid attack would've still occurred. Without evidence to the contrary, it's just an unfair partisan attack to smear the incumbent administration. It's no different than directly blaming Clinton for 9/11. I wonder if the republicans blamed FDR for Pearl Harbor so openly?
Hmmm.....both had books to sell. Hmmmm, both get vocal and have tv interviews the week the books come out.Natoma said:
RussSchultz said:
LOL And thus both are liars? That is probably the most ad hominem attack I've ever seen written, Russ, because it utterly fails to even attempt to address the text of their publications, their statements and claims.
RussSchultz said:
So in your opinion that automatically invalidates everything Clarke said? I mean, he did serve under 4 presidents (democrat and republican alike) and has extensive experience in this regard, and certainly would have had top level access to everything terrorism that maybe Paul O'Neill might not have had.
Does the mere fact that he's come out now while promoting a book automatically invalidate what it actually says? I'm not sure if you really believe that Russ, but that's the epitome of head in the sand if you do.
Oh, come on.
It may be his perspective ensconced in the book, it may be hyped to give it zing. I have no idea, because I'm not privy to what went on during the events he wrote about.
But I do know that he's got financial gain tied up in sales of his book. What better way to generate sales than bash the president, and what better way to generate publicity than to do interviews.
And that gives me at least a little pause to be suspicious as to his motives and the truthfulness of his revelations.
It may be his perspective ensconced in the book, it may be hyped to give it zing. I have no idea, because I'm not privy to what went on during the events he wrote about.
But I do know that he's got financial gain tied up in sales of his book. What better way to generate sales than bash the president, and what better way to generate publicity than to do interviews.
And that gives me at least a little pause to be suspicious as to his motives and the truthfulness of his revelations.
Well, now. That adds to the discussion.
RussSchultz said:
Honestly, Russ, I agree with what you're saying and can see its merits. But when it's all you chose to add to the discussion, it does kinda make it seem like you're being closed-minded about the possible validity of Clarke's accusations.
RussSchultz said:
When one person comes out making these accusations, and he doesn't have much experience in security matters, this kind of skepticism is warranted. When another totally unrelated person comes out making these accusations, and he has decades of experience in mostly republican administrations, this kind of skepticism is, imo, self-defeating.
The man devotes his professional life to fighting terrorism for gov't pay when he could have bailed years ago to make heaps in the private sector and the best you can come up with is he's doing it for money! He's completely sold out and is backstabbing his former employer and the current US gov't because he finally decided he'd like to retire hated and vilified by right wing nut bars like you, Russ. No personal fall out to consider there, nope. He's a gold digger for sure.
His testimony was completely composed and sincere. He was intelligent and knew his facts. He has unmatched experience. He was there.
How much more do you want? A signed confession by Bush?
Caps
Edited by JR: Removed name calling since it's unnecessary.
His testimony was completely composed and sincere. He was intelligent and knew his facts. He has unmatched experience. He was there.
How much more do you want? A signed confession by Bush?
Caps
Edited by JR: Removed name calling since it's unnecessary.
Sorry about the name calling but anyone currently trying to defend this administration when all of this is coming out from thier own people. Well its a little exasperating, no, beyond belief is more like it. There wasn't anything about that 60 mins story that wasn't credible. I thought Leslie tried to play devils advocate pretty hard and couldn't get any where. The White House guy sounded like he was pure spin.
Caps
Caps
