Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview this Sunday

[RussSchultz]

right wing nut bars like you, Russ

Ya missed one, John.

I'm not trying to defend anybody. This guy's got his perspective, and he's got a book. For that, I view what he has to say with a small grain of salt.

Others seem more than willing to light up the torches to storm the castle because the president wants to know in the 'fog of war' if there was a connection between Iraq (or Hamas, or Hezbullah, or Al Qaeda) and 9/11, and because this senior staff member never got a meeting with the president to warn him of what everybody seemed to know already.

From his own (previous) words, it seems like everybody knew their job, and was doing it reasonably well. Why should the president should be involved until policy needs to change?

 

[I.S.T.]

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.

You're making the man out to be a saint. Russ has a point. There is the possibility that the man is making it up. Only a couple of people know for certian, but I wouldn't say "His testimony was completely composed and sincere.". In this case it's one man's word against another's.

Edit: I'm undecided if he was telling the truth or not simply because it's one man's word against another's, like I said. I'm leaning over to him telling the truth him. I don't see a reason why he would lie.

 

[Natoma]

Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of character assassination this week as Clarke's book hits the stands.

 

[RussSchultz]

I don't even think he's making it up. I think at the worst he's spicing it up to sell more books.

 

[CapsLock]

right wing nut bars like you, Russ

Ya missed one, John.

I'm not trying to defend anybody. This guy's got his perspective, and he's got a book. For that, I view what he has to say with a small grain of salt.

Others seem more than willing to light up the torches to storm the castle because the president wants to know in the 'fog of war' if there was a connection between Iraq (or Hamas, or Hezbullah, or Al Qaeda) and 9/11, and because this senior staff member never got a meeting with the president to warn him of what everybody seemed to know already.

From his own (previous) words, it seems like everybody knew their job, and was doing it reasonably well. Why should the president should be involved until policy needs to change?

As far as I can read all you have tried to do in this thread is cast doubt on Clarks credibility by trying to suggest he's just selling a book.

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.

Give me a giant freaking break. "This guys got his perspective" ?

Ya, like he's just some guy with his own point of view, could be anyone.

"and he's got a book" Yup, thats all he's got alright. His personal "perspective" and a book.

Why did the president immediately want to know IF there was a tie with Iraq? Why not anyone else? Why, even though Clark said that the words were not leading, he was sure that they were. Thats a strong unobvious conclusion unless of course, it was obvious. We know from the previous revelations (another guy with another book) that Bush had plans for Iraq as soon as he took office. No cause for suspicion there.

Just another perspective from THE terrorist czar of 4 presidents. Don't get alarmed. Have some salt and doubt, it'll blow over as soon as the mars mission gets going.

Caps

 

[John Reynolds]

right wing nut bars like you, Russ

Ya missed one, John.

Damn it. That was not intentional.

 

[RussSchultz]

Give me a giant freaking break. "This guys got his perspective" ?

Well, yeah. Thats what you call it when somebody gives their account of events. A perspective.

Its certainly not the God given truth, or annointed from upon high.

Unless, of course, you want to believe it and it fits your political ideology. Then there's no questioning the validity and/or motivations behind the account. Then its brought down from the mount on stone tablets, and only idolitors and heathens disbelieve or show skepticism.

 

[John Reynolds]

Unless, of course, you want to believe it and it fits your political ideology. Then there's no questioning the validity and/or motivations behind the account. Then its brought down from the mount on stone tablets, and only idolitors and heathens disbelieve or show skepticism.

It's not like his statements aren't at all corroborated, Russ. The picture is becoming rather clear that the Bush administration simply had an agenda to take action against Iraq that existed prior to 9/11. To discount the mounting evidence and testimony seems to suggest partisan loyalties.

 

[RussSchultz]

The picture is becoming rather clear that the Bush administration simply had an agenda to take action against Iraq that existed prior to 9/11. To discount the mounting evidence and testimony seems to suggest partisan loyalties.

Corroborrated? I don't really think so. I think its partisans (not necessarily ONeal and Clarke) that are connecting dots. ONeal said there was "what if" planning involving Iraq. Clarke said he was asked to determine Iraq's culpability. The partisan part is drawing a straight line and saying "look, they intended to invade Iraq from day 1"

Maybe you don't remember what he (Bush) campaigned on, "no nation building"?

Why would Bush campaign on that, and immediately begin trying to find ways to pin something, anything, on Iraq to invade?

 

[CapsLock]

Give me a giant freaking break. "This guys got his perspective" ?

Well, yeah. Thats what you call it when somebody gives their account of events. A perspective.

Actually I think the terms "expert testimony" and "eye witness" are slightly more accurate than "perspective". A perspective is what a casual observer has, as if this isn't fairly obvious.

Its certainly not the God given truth, or annointed from upon high.

OK, Russ, we'll wait for God's word if thats really what it takes for you. Are your standards for truth always this high, or just when you find it convenient?

Unless, of course, you want to believe it and it fits your political ideology. Then there's no questioning the validity and/or motivations behind the account. Then its brought down from the mount on stone tablets, and only idolitors and heathens disbelieve or show skepticism.

Works the other way around quite well here, as J.R. pointed out. Sinking to religious hyperbole reveals the true (to my perspective) desperation of your position. Absolute truth is an impossibility here and you know it. Clarks testimony is about as good as it can ever get as far as witness reliability goes.

I have made many points none of which you answered. Have a nicely deluded evening.

Caps

 

[CapsLock]

The picture is becoming rather clear that the Bush administration simply had an agenda to take action against Iraq that existed prior to 9/11. To discount the mounting evidence and testimony seems to suggest partisan loyalties.

Corroborrated? I don't really think so. I think its partisans (not necessarily ONeal and Clarke) that are connecting dots. ONeal said there was "what if" planning involving Iraq. Clarke said he was asked to determine Iraq's culpability.

Specifically, immediately and ONLY Iraq. Get it?

The partisan part is drawing a straight line and saying "look, they intended to invade Iraq from day 1"

Maybe you don't remember what he (Bush) campaigned on, "no nation building"?

Why would Bush campaign on that, and immediately begin trying to find ways to pin something, anything, on Iraq to invade?

I personally think all good "what if" planning should involve how to divide a country up among various oil companies.

Obviously, with Iraq's current situation this was a logical priority.

Caps

 

[indio]

I think if we just catch our breath for a minute and look at it in absolute terms.
Worst case scenerio if he's lying. = George Bush loses the election and a nutcase was in charge of terrorism under 4 administrations.
Worst case scenerio if he's telling the truth = Senior officials in the US government that control our country make decisions based solely on ideology and not circumstance.
I think the man should be taken seriously because of the ramifications.
The man was the senior terrorism official in the country , if he is "cracking" up and making up stories heads should roll because someone left him in charge of something very important.
Do you really think this man is lying? You think someone that dedicated his life to fighting terorism for 20 years is going to play games with national security? Give me a break.

 

[Ty]

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.

So basically you have suspicions about someone if they stand to gain something (in this case sales of his book translates into dollars in his pocket).

How do you feel then about Cheney refusing to open up dealings in his Energy Task Force? Don't you think the energy CEOs (including Lay) had something to gain in those meetings? What about Scalia being buddy-buddy with Cheney on the golf course (paid for by a company being represented in the case no less)? Shouldn't that raise your suspicions?

 

[RussSchultz]

Absolute truth is an impossibility here and you know it.

No shit. Which is why I brought up the 'annointed from upon high' comments. You seem to take it as absolute truth, like it was voice from heaven, or a burning bush.

Clarks testimony is about as good as it can ever get as far as witness reliability goes.

See, there you go again. He's "as good as it can ever get".

Of course, never mind that:
a) He has a book he's trying to sell.
b) He was 'terrorist czar' during both WTC attacks, the USS Cole, the Khobar towers, Oklahoma city, etc.

But he'd never have any motive for pinning it on Clinton or Bush. No, he's blameless. A messiah of truth, as it were.

Strange how he fits your religion...I mean ideology.

 

[RussSchultz]

Specifically, immediately and ONLY Iraq. Get it?

Well, no. If you read his prior interview with PBS, he stated he was asked to look at all players, with an open mind--Hamas, Hezbullah, Iraq, Al Qaeda.

I suppose it doesn't matter, somebody said something that you agree with and supports your ideology. No need to look further.

 

[RussSchultz]

So basically you have suspicions about someone if they stand to gain something (in this case sales of his book translates into dollars in his pocket).

Well, yes.

How do you feel then about Cheney refusing to open up dealings in his Energy Task Force? Don't you think the energy CEOs (including Lay) had something to gain in those meetings?

Yes, I suspect that they were trying to lobby Cheney to something in their companies' best interests. oh...how shocking. Companies lobbying in their best interest.

What about Scalia being buddy-buddy with Cheney on the golf course (paid for by a company being represented in the case no less)? Shouldn't that raise your suspicions?

Um, I think it was a duck hunting trip, and not a golf game. And the real question would be do these duck hunting trips happen often?

I certainly wouldn't have done it, but apparently Cheney and Scalia are long time friends.

There's plenty of other grift for other members of the supreme court doing similar things. They shouldn't do it, of course, but it isn't limited to them evil conservatives.

 

[epicstruggle]

I cant exactly remember what cnn said, but clarke and the kerry foreign policy team are very closely linked. Clarke has also been a supporter of kerry. I wonder if he might be spicying things up a bit.

BTW any burecrat who sits on this type of info (if true) for an extended amount of time, looses all credibility in my eye. Clarke should have been shouting from every hilltop about how the clinton and bush admin were not taking AQ seriously. To wait until an election year to come out with info makes him sound quite partisan.

later,
epic

 

[DemoCoder]

Condi responds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html

Her points are reasonable. I also do not believe that she never heard of Al Qaeda. I mean, come on. Not after Cole? Kenya? Not After Clinton bombed AQ and debriefed Bush's NSC team. Clarke stepped over the line with that BS.

There's also the the fact that Clark is Mr "CyberTerrorism war", who, before 9/11 was touting cyber-attack as one of the biggest threats to the country.

Come on, people Bush sucks, but the idea that Bush's warmongering neocons never heard of AQ before 9/11, or Mr "small special force ops, super modernized army" Rummy wasn't in favor of going after Afghanistan instead of Iraq stretches credibility. Rummy is a guy who has a hard on for using special ops, UAVs, and conducting quick, cheap battles. Afghanistan has to be one of the easiest and quickest conflicts we've ever had next to Kosovo.

I saw another PBS special about a year ago where Clarke was whining about being put in the basement, and like Cassandra, no one was listening to him about impending cyberwar and EMP attacks, attacks on our infrastructure using computers, etc IMHO, he has even less credibility than O'Neil and I strongly suspect disgruntalism here. Like a whiner on Trump's "Apprentice", "no one listens to my ideas, they are doing it all wrong, they're incompetent, and if only they'd listen to me.."

I don't think you can accuse neocon warhawks as being reluctant to go to "battle stations". The democrats better give up on this strategy.

 

[Druga Runda]

ROTFLOL

How much more do you want? A signed confession by Bush?

Caps

A signed confession would be nice.

* and he could do a book deal too, and it would be a bestseller (even in Iraq) come on Geroge you know you want it.

 

[oi]

I'm under the opinion that subjective knowledge is worthless knowledge, so I don't see anything wrong with him writing a book about it. I mean would it have been less 'biased' if he'd just given a ton of interviews and TV appearances? Perhaps, but it's alot easier to spread your knowledge by writing a book and then promoting it than just sitting in a dark corner picking your nose while trying to be completely objective and appearing to be without personal gain.

I mean of course you should question sources and motives, but uh we all have our personal biases and I don't see how trying to spread your knowledge in an effective way somehow would decrease the legitimacy behind it. If you have information and knowledge that people are interested in I think it's alot better to spread it than to just keep it to yourself heh.

Edit: Not that I know much about his financial status, but from what I gather he's probably not in great need of cash at the moment. If it turns out that he's bankrupt and will end up on the streets if he doesn't get a fast cash inejction, then I'd agree that this most likely would be a marketing ploy, but it doesn't exactly seem to be the case.