Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview this Sunday
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
RussSchultz said:
You insidious genious you! Of course he doesn't want to become rich and famous. Who does nowadays? You can argue he was rich and marginally famous before all of this, but go ask any average citizen and i doubt they could tell you a single thing the man did before this.
Citrous said:
Citrous, that really is little more than an ad hominem attack that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
By the way, here's an article in the New Yorker from August 2003 that has a section concerning Richard Clarke. His tune then was considerably different.
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact
Sxotty said:JR you realized he was joking right...
He was being sarcastic, but his entire point was that Clarke is motivated by money and a desire for fame. Those charges could be laid at the feet of anyone who blows the whistle on any branch of the government. Thus my ad hominem comment.
Actually, the more I read about Clarke, I'm a bit swayed by the argument that he was an egomaniac.
Last year he was bashing the clinton administration for "not listening to me", and this year he added the Bush administration.
Reading exerpts from his book also reinforce this conclusion to me, in addition to his interviews. He seems like he's thinks a bit too much of himself.
Last year he was bashing the clinton administration for "not listening to me", and this year he added the Bush administration.
Reading exerpts from his book also reinforce this conclusion to me, in addition to his interviews. He seems like he's thinks a bit too much of himself.
RussSchultz said:
I would agree with that from what I've read so far. He comes off as extremely opinionated, confrontational, argumentative, etc. Hey, he'd make a good member here.
Sxotty said:
To be fair he did say that he deserved some of the blame as well on 60 minutes. Of course, I haven't read his book so I don't all of the details of what he wrote. Note that none of us have read his book, and are in fact basing our opinion of it off the passages that have been quoted in various articles and news shows.
Is it any surprise that they are the juiciest bits that happen to slam Bush and Clinton that are being quoted? The book is several hundred pages however. Can't all be like that.
Babel-17
Veteran
This is strange if you also look at this.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html
Joe DeFuria
Legend
RussSchultz said:
Pretty Damning.....to Clarke.
It isn't damning at all. Anyone who has ever been in the service of an administration has towed the political line, even if it conflicted completely with their stance before joining the administration, or afterward. John Snow ring a bell, as I mentioned earlier?
However, this is something from Clarke today that I highly respect, and another thing that you won't get from active politicians or other government officials of any stripe:
Tar and feather the man all you like. But I can respect someone that owns up to their mistakes and tries to bring them all, no matter who else was involved, to light.
It was Condoleeza Rice who in 2002 stated that there was no way anyone could have predicted that terrorists would hijack and subsequently fly planes into buildings, turning them effectively into missiles. It appears that she missed the FBI briefing from 1992 that stated this as a possible form of attack. Now, she may simply have not read up on it when she made that statement. But it's obvious that things could have been done. And then there are the problems where data was coming in from all over the nation in FBI offices regarding terrorist activities in flight schools, as well as an unprecedented level of "chatter" in the months leading to 9/11.
Those that believe that nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11, or any other terrorist attack for that matter, and thus we shouldn't sift through the events with a fine toothed comb in order to figure out where the mistakes were made, what happened, and why, are fooling themselves imo.
However, this is something from Clarke today that I highly respect, and another thing that you won't get from active politicians or other government officials of any stripe:
Richard Clarke said:
Tar and feather the man all you like. But I can respect someone that owns up to their mistakes and tries to bring them all, no matter who else was involved, to light.
It was Condoleeza Rice who in 2002 stated that there was no way anyone could have predicted that terrorists would hijack and subsequently fly planes into buildings, turning them effectively into missiles. It appears that she missed the FBI briefing from 1992 that stated this as a possible form of attack. Now, she may simply have not read up on it when she made that statement. But it's obvious that things could have been done. And then there are the problems where data was coming in from all over the nation in FBI offices regarding terrorist activities in flight schools, as well as an unprecedented level of "chatter" in the months leading to 9/11.
Those that believe that nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11, or any other terrorist attack for that matter, and thus we shouldn't sift through the events with a fine toothed comb in order to figure out where the mistakes were made, what happened, and why, are fooling themselves imo.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
So, a man's word while part of an administration is less reliable vs. the same man's word while trying to sell a book?
And I don't agree at all with those who are part of an administration just automatically "tow the line."
So can I. I just can't have confidence that Clarke, since he obviously has something to gain be being sensational, is being completely objective or reasonable in whatever "mistakes" he identifies and fingers that he points....at either Clinton or Bush adminstrations.
Joe, as I said, you're the chalnoth of republicans, so I'm not here to try and convince you or change your mind or whatever. As I mentioned to Russ earlier, John Snow, before joining the Bush Administration, was one of the foremost deficit hawks in the country, and a highly respected economist. When he joined the administration, his tone has changed and now deficits don't really matter. People of all political stripes change their tone when they're in office vs when they're in the private sector.
My point? Someone's word while part of a political body should always be taken with a grain of salt. Because usually when they deviate from the party line, they get fired or retire to "spend time with the family." Paul O'Neill, Larry Lindsay, George Stephanapolous, Christine Todd Whitman, etc etc etc. The political graveyard is littered with people like the aforementioned.
My point? Someone's word while part of a political body should always be taken with a grain of salt. Because usually when they deviate from the party line, they get fired or retire to "spend time with the family." Paul O'Neill, Larry Lindsay, George Stephanapolous, Christine Todd Whitman, etc etc etc. The political graveyard is littered with people like the aforementioned.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
And you're the Hellbinder of liberals. Glad we got that settled.
And someone hawking a book shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt?
