Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview this Sunday

[John Reynolds]

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

Lol...John Reynolds speaking out against Character Assasination.

Anyway, here's a little ditty on Clarke, written over a year ago:

Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation

Yeah, because I'm often guilty of launching into personal attacks. Silly me, I do it all the time. Reality || Joe.

That column is just a piece of sensationalism produced only to sell copy. I will not address the actual content of your link. . .I need only brand it as something bad (perhaps even, gasp!, use the word liberal in describing it), and that lifts any requirements on my part to actually address whatever salient points it may or may not raise.

 

[Natoma]

You disappoint me Joe. For a second I thought you were going to link to whitehouse.gov for your information.

But in all seriousness, even Arnold Schwarzennegar was man enough to admit that where there's smoke there's fire. There's certainly been enough smoke coming from various Bush officials to show that there's definitely a fire burning at the white house. But to each his own.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yeah, because I'm often guilty of launching into personal attacks. Silly me, I do it all the time. Reality || Joe.

Um, I said character asassination, (think, toward Bush...not me.)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But in all seriousness, even Arnold Schwarzennegar was man enough to admit that where there's smoke there's fire.

Hhmmm....sounds awfully closely related to "if you say it enough, it'll be be accepted as truth."

I thought you were more diligent than that, Natoma.

There's certainly been enough smoke coming from various Bush officials to show that there's definitely a fire burning at the white house. But to each his own.

IIRC, it sounds like a lot of smoke coming from ex Bush officials.

 

[John Reynolds]

Um, I said character asassination, (think, toward Bush...not me.)

Oh, boy, not this again. Look, Joe, when I said Bush was going to run over a gay couple in the prez. mobile, I was being facetious. A little more humor, a little less partisan knee-jerk defensiveness, ok? Like, you know, when I said both Clinton and Bush were draft dodgers you agreed with the former but got all bent out of shape when I suggested Bush Sr. used his influence as a Congressman to get his son into a guard unit ahead of 100s of other candidates waiting in line. That sure was some craaaazy character assassination stuff I was making up right there.

 

[Natoma]

But in all seriousness, even Arnold Schwarzennegar was man enough to admit that where there's smoke there's fire.

Hhmmm....sounds awfully closely related to "if you say it enough, it'll be be accepted as truth."

I thought you were more diligent than that, Natoma.

Unfortunately this isn't something that is "if you say it enough, it'll be accepted as truth." There is clear evidence from multiple parties, some not even politically affiliated, that have described the current administration and president as incurious and having been hell bent on going to Iraq no matter what. Reports in TIME and Newsweek directly following 9/11 had charges from several Clinton people who said the bush administration basically ignored their warnings to treat Al-Qaeda as the greatest threat they'd ever face. The early meetings on Iraq, but none on Al-Qaeda until a couple of days before 9/11, only serve to highlight this tack but the current administration.

Anyways, Bill Clinton denied for years he was having extramarital affairs. Were all those women coming out of the woodwork nut jobs or lacking in credibility? Pun not intended btw.

There's certainly been enough smoke coming from various Bush officials to show that there's definitely a fire burning at the white house. But to each his own.

IIRC, it sounds like a lot of smoke coming from ex Bush officials.

The officials that have actually dissented publically while still among the Bush Administration were canned, yes.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Unfortunately this isn't something that is "if you say it enough, it'll be accepted as truth."

In your opinion.

There is clear evidence from multiple parties, some not even politically affiliated, that have described the current administration and president as incurious and having been hell bent on going to Iraq no matter what. Reports in TIME and Newsweek directly following 9/11 had charges from several Clinton people who said the bush administration basically ignored their warnings to treat Al-Qaeda as the greatest threat they'd ever face.

Oh, you mean the "Clinton People" who did nothing about it, dumped the problem on the Bush people, and then blame Bush for not being active enough? Sounds like someone's trying to protect their own legacy...much like Clarke.

"Yeah...um....we knew something was going to happen. Honest. We even sent a missle or two over there. We were *this* close too. Yeah, if we were in power for another year, 9/11 woud've never happened. We tried to warn Bush when we left...of course we never came out publically at the time to warn the American people. Well, you see, it was a new administration and we don't like to attack them as we hand over the reigns, you know. We're considerate that way..."

Come on....

The officials that have actually dissented publically while still among the Bush Administration were canned, yes.

You mean, some of the ones who didn't feel they were being listened too, (just not agreed with) decided so strongly that they would bitch and moan in public, and then wonder why they got canned? Shocker.

Oh, and I thought Clarke retired....

 

[Natoma]

I could have sworn Clarke went off on both Bush and Clinton for their failures to effectively deal with Al-Qaeda, and has proof of those assertions. But of course, only the Clinton bashing is relevant because Bush can do no wrong, isn't that right Joe?

p.s.: This is why I said "to each his own." It's fairly obvious some people will see absolutely no wrong with anything that Bush has done and everything wrong with anything that Clinton has done, and vice versa. And anyone that falls in the middle is just biased and unreliable.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I could have sworn Clarke went off on both Bush and Clinton for their failures to effectively deal with Al-Qaeda, and has proof of those assertions.

First of all, I don't see any proof of anything. I see a lot of "well, he didn't say X, but I can tell from his look or tone that he clearly meant "X".

Second, as I said, he's out to cover his own ass. I mean, he was one of the "ring leader" in counter-terrorism for how long? So basically it's "no one was listening to me. (Reagan, Clinton, Bush, whoever.). Meanwhile, he's been pushing a lot of "virtual terrorism", which of course, hasn't really come to fruition...

After "leaving" this role that he had for so long, how do you think history will judge his success? Not too highly...unless of course, he tries to claim that "it was everyone else's fault...they just didn't listen to me."

 

[Ty]

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's shocking is that it's all behind closed doors and that he refuses to open the books about it.

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

This one is more shocking in regards to Scalia. He should recuse himself from the case. Tks btw for the correction, you're right it was a duck hunting trip.

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.

Absolutely agreed 100%. I think your initial standard is a good one (wondering about the motivation of Clarke) that should be applied to everyone.

 

[epicstruggle]

ty,
There is no precedent for the vp to open their books up, thats why its going to the SC. nothing shocking about it, a precedent will be set from this.
Scalia will make his case to the other members, if they think he should recuse himself, he will. Although Ginsburg should recuse herself from all abortion related cases. She has spoken to these groups and gone on paid trips, just as bad as scalia. Pro-life people will clamour for her to remove herself, and man wont it get exciting then.

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

AFAIK one of Clarke's associates left the Bush white house and joined as Kerry's National Security Advisor. But that's as far as the connection goes.

Just caught the end of Beers interview by Judy woodrof (cnn), they had clarke and beers as best friends. So i guess the "association" is closer than we think.

later,
epic

 

[RussSchultz]

I'm conflicted on the recusing thing.

We've only got so many supreme court justices, and they're very finely balanced. Having some recuse themselves "upsets" the expected result, and could potentially have huge, long ranging effects (like Roe v. Wade)

But, on the other hand, you'd hate to have them rule on something that may benefit one of their friends.

Sort of a no win situation, IMHO.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Reports in TIME and Newsweek directly following 9/11 had charges from several Clinton people who said the bush administration basically ignored their warnings to treat Al-Qaeda as the greatest threat they'd ever face. The early meetings on Iraq, but none on Al-Qaeda until a couple of days before 9/11, only serve to highlight this tack but the current administration.

As I've hinted before...perhaps Time and Newsweek aren't the best sources for "complete and accurate info."

Rush Limbaugh Interviews VP Cheney. (Interview was just today, FYI).

Obviously, Rush himself is going to present a biased slant...but this is a complete interview transcript, so you can take into account full context.

It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after we got here, there was communication, for example, with the president of Pakistan laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda and the importance of going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the Al-Qaeda. This was, I'd say, within three weeks of our arrival here. So the only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in '98 when the embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000 when the USS Cole was hit, and the question that out to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?

 

[Natoma]

You question Clarke's bias and his credibility, even after decades serving with 3 republican and 1 democratic administration, and then you go and quote Dick Cheney? Wow. Your level of partisanship really knows no bounds does it... :?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You question Clarke's bias and his credibility, even after decades serving with 3 republican and 1 democratic administration, and then you go and quote Dick Cheney? Wow. Your level of partisanship really knows no bounds does it... :?

??

The vice president isn't entitled to his point of view?

 

[John Reynolds]

??

The vice president isn't entitled to his point of view?

Just a tad strange how Viacom owning the publisher of Clarke's book and CBS is a bad thing that somehow casts doubts or raises suspicions on Clarke's statements, yet Cheney being the VP within the Bush administration just entitles him to his opinion.

 

[Sxotty]

The funnniest thing is that companies have been lobbying so that they can merge to an even greater extent (news outlets that is) and the republican administration has been in favor of it, but the less sources we have the more times a conflict of interest will arrise. Soon everything will be blatantly biased...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just a tad strange how Viacom owning the publisher of Clarke's book and CBS is a bad thing that somehow casts doubts or raises suspicions on Clarke's statements, yet Cheney being the VP within the Bush administration just entitles him to his opinion.

It's even strager that you imply I ever said Clarke was not entitled to his opinion.

 

[John Reynolds]

It's even strager that you imply I ever said Clarke was not entitled to his opinion.

No, my ongoing point was that you never attempted to address Clarke's statements, choosing instead to spin the Viacom-CBS-publisher angle (along with others). I find it strange we couldn't then apply that same standard and automatically ignore what Cheney says because of his current position in the Bush administration. What's good for the goose. . . .