Richard Clarke attacks Bush

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:51 pm

I'll await your reply, except to correct one thing: far from Kerry being his best friend, his best friend, until he turned whistleblower, was Donald Rumsfeld. What is your source for Kerry being his best friend? I hope it's not the Internet. You do know that there are many sites out there making Clarke out to be either a folk hero or a hypocritical villain, and willing to fake all the information they need to make a point?

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:51 pm

No I apologize its not Kerry is a friend its not a relation directly to kerry and I do not even consider that much of anything, any one can know any one. Its not my point... my point is the guy has shown credibility and he has shown a lack therof. You can not paint him either way great or horrible but you can say he lied.

They have emails, personal ones, that he sent praising Rice, his resignation said nothing negative. The man switched tunes just like you said (whistleblower). How can you be positive he is blowing the correct whistle, especially right after his book he gets paid for about said subject is released.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:52 pm

Oh and his friend deal is actually a person who works for Kerry, a director or something. Not too much important if it wasn't election season.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:23 pm

They have emails, personal ones, that he sent praising Rice,

Who are "they?" Was this praise given after he left office? And did his praise, which you read, directly contradict his later statements about Rice's pre-9/11 disdain for Al-Qua'ida knowledge?

The man switched tunes just like you said (whistleblower). How can you be positive he is blowing the correct whistle, especially right after his book he gets paid for about said subject is released.

Because as I've noted before, he stands to gain nothing by blowing the whistle. He can only lose by taking the course of action he has. He's alienated his most powerful and closest friends (fact), he's lost any chance at a job in a future administration (fact), and he's now labeled as a traitor, liar and hypocrite by the powerful far right (fact). He doesn't really need money--he's a multi-millionaire with industry connections, like all that lot.

So like I wrote earlier, everything seems to point to a motivation to speak honestly about something that's strongly bothering him, unless he's doing it because he has a deep masochistic streak and wants to commit career suicide in the most public way possible. If he's wrong, or even partially wrong, I suspect he's wrong with complete conviction.

Personally, I don't like Clarke in the slightest, and never have. He's intelligent, incisive, hard-headed, and conservative in the worst nationalistic sense, that of a person who loses sight of the rest of the world in promoting only US interests. He's been involved in a lot of the recommendations that have curtailed American civil liberties, and he fully buys into the conventional "terrorists = cancer" theory that focuses exclusively on symptomatic responses without looking at causes. If anything, you should like him better than me.

I've just read some of the excerpts, and I've been reading his inteview transcripts and following the live Congressional hearings. I also don't find anything he says or writes beyond the realm of possibility, given the vast ignorance on a wealth of subjects that Bush displays after his last two predecessors. This doesn't convict Dubya in my mind, but it keeps my mind open. And I'm still waiting to see any truthful remark by the Clarke-as-villain naysayers about what the guy stands to gain out of all this.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:51 am

Who are "they?" Was this praise given after he left office? And did his praise, which you read, directly contradict his later statements about Rice's pre-9/11 disdain for Al-Qua'ida knowledge?

The Press has information I can not find the correct info ( Will edit later ) because I just got to work but the emails I believe were additions to his resignation stuff like "Its been fun" but a little more elaborate.

Because as I've noted before, he stands to gain nothing by blowing the whistle.

He made it clear in the hearings he would have nothing to do with Kerry's administration (He said he would not take a position even if it was offered). So it isn't a fear of loosing a carreer position at the white house. Ok lets see what thing are you missing Fable oh yes his BOOK. he has no reason to blow the whistle at all, except well this book he is profiting from making him more rich.

I apologize if I dont argue in the best sense (making sense, getting all the footnotes in tact) but the dude LIED somewhere along the line FACT. If he had like umm ONE other person backing him up saying "Well yeah it was like this there" then maybe and if he didnt have a book he was making money on then yeah but no. This dude is just another politicion who is finding a good way to get the party he wants elected in and a lot of money at the same time. Like I said before maybe he is right maybe he has a good point, but you cant just take his side cause its the one you want to be true. One cant just let the left walk over us becase the rights been doing it for a while.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:01 am

I don't read up on this stuff the way you do, and I won't butt in on this exchange. I just want to point out that the first time I read about Bin-Laden and his crusade against the US was back in 1998, when he actually presented himself in a pretty public PR push as a well educated millionaire ideological "guru" who declared open war against the west and the USA. It all sort of got lost in the media storm/mess that was the conflict on Balkan.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:12 pm

He made it clear in the hearings he would have nothing to do with Kerry's administration (He said he would not take a position even if it was offered). So it isn't a fear of loosing a carreer position at the white house.

@RT, I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand the logic of this, which seems to go: 1) He could take a job offered him by Kerry, however 2) he said he won't, therefore 3) he's lost nothing by blowing the whistle. Yet he *had* a series of very important positions with high security clearance since the mid-1980s under four successive administrations. He could have easily taken a job in a new administration, if he hadn't blown the whistle. Saying now that he wouldn't take a job with Kerry he completely beside the point: he'll never get offered a public office by any administration again: the work he's been doing with great praise and power for over twenty years. He's lost all of that, thanks to his book, and it was easy to see that when he was writing it. I hope you won't argue that he doesn't care. His whole career and character show otherwise.

Ok lets see what thing are you missing Fable oh yes his BOOK. he has no reason to blow the whistle at all, except well this book he is profiting from making him more rich.

The man's net worth is in the tens of millions of dollars (public disclosure). I *know* what a book of this type brings in to a writer, and even if you factor in speaking engagements, tours, book signings and a Pulitzer, you're extremely lucky if you turn half-a-million: the average bestseller, with all the rest included, brings $200 thousand before taxes or less. Even if we accept your analysis, we'd have concede the unlikely prospect that Clarke was willing to sacrifice job, political power, prestige, and friendships, all for the sake of making less money than his stock portfolio brings in, in any given year. I don't buy it. It makes no sense at all. Tell me what Clarke had to gain by doing this. I can come up with nothing but a belief that he was doing the right thing--whether he was fooling himself, or not.

I apologize if I dont argue in the best sense (making sense, getting all the footnotes in tact) but the dude LIED somewhere along the line FACT. If he had like umm ONE other person backing him up saying "Well yeah it was like this there" then maybe and if he didnt have a book he was making money on then yeah but no.

It's not a matter of putting in "footnotes," but of simply stating that someone unknown said something--and that makes it impossible for me to evaluate, you see, regardless of whom or what the source favors. Like one person? Whom? He lied? How do you know? You've yet to state a single source, other than the obvious White House employees who will back the team to the hilt. If Clarke was the hypocritical disaster you're making out, he'd already have been served for libel, as would his publisher. He wouldn't be big news, and he wouldn't be appearing before a special Congressional investigatory committee. I gave you facts before; you're giving me speculation and labeling it FACT, now. Separate your opinions for the facts of the case, stand back a bit, and see what unfolds.

Or keep claiming that endless unnamed sources have proven conclusively that Clarke's a liar, and I'll be glad to sell you some gold mine stock in Florida swampland that I have lying around.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:02 pm

Dont have much time to write but I will say this.

Clarke has inconsistances in his reports about 9/11 that you can not deny. He has said two different things, complete different. If he is being the great whistle blower now and if he really is speaking the truth and this book has nothing to do with his reasons and his connections to the kerry campaign have nothing to do with this and he is throwing away his carreer because of this well then he must be just an amazing admirable guy.

Then again he is a politician and could be full of ****, considering he has contradicting stories. I just think it's easy to believe him and ignore other facts because its well I guess popular (I am not refering to you for i doubt old gods even keep up with pop culture).

I guess I would be satisfied if any one else stood up with him. Cause to me he is just another Politician with an agenda.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:19 pm

@RT, he's not a politician. He's not an elected official, you see. He's an industrial millionaire, who's become a career civil servant. He hasn't run for office. I don't mean this to say you're wrong, or that I'm right; but if you're going to tar him with a brush, at least it should be the appropriate kind of tar.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:43 pm

Here is an interesting editorial on the subject.

Clarke is the wrong target
It cannot have escaped anyone's attention that the Bush administration has spent the better part of the week in full counterattack mode against Richard Clarke, the former White House antiterrorism czar who says that the president and his senior officials greatly underrated the threat from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months leading up to Sept. 11. Nearly everyone of consequence in President George W. Bush's inner circle appears to have been requisitioned to challenge Clarke's integrity and motives, accusing him of everything from trying to drum up sales for his new book to auditioning for a job in a John Kerry administration. The field of critics is so crowded that they're tripping over each other, as when Condoleezza Rice felt obliged to correct Vice President **** Cheney's assertion that Clarke had never been "in the loop."
<snip>

The article seems to say that the Bush administration are too busy in trying to ruin Clarke's reputation and credibility to be actually responding to the accusations. Thoughts?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:03 pm

Originally posted by Vicsun
Here is an interesting editorial on the subject.

The article seems to say that the Bush administration are too busy in trying to ruin Clarke's reputation and credibility to be actually responding to the accusations. Thoughts?

Most likely true. If you start responding to the accusations you give them some credibilty. Better in their view to not go this route.

IMHO the blame covers all...(as Clark said "I let you down".) goes from the top right down to the little peon Weasel. My belief the US government would protect this country was misplaced and for this I am just as responible.

smass · Post by **smass** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:38 pm

I have been watching this blame game thing unfold for the past few weeks. I don't want to comment on who did what, or could have done what, or whatever.

I would just like to point out that in a free society like the US it is virtually impossible to protect against every conceivable act of terrorism. The very laws that protect our civil liberties are the same ones that can be used to by those who would cause us harm. It is a real Catch-22. On one hand we all want the government out of our lives. On the other hand we expect the government to protect us.

Truth is it is very difficult to have it both ways.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:43 pm

Originally posted by smass
I have been watching this blame game thing unfold for the past few weeks. I don't want to comment on who did what, or could have done what, or whatever.

I would just like to point out that in a free society like the US it is virtually impossible to protect against every conceivable act of terrorism. The very laws that protect our civil liberties are the same ones that can be used to by those who would cause us harm. It is a real Catch-22. On one hand we all want the government out of our lives. On the other hand we expect the government to protect us.

Truth is it is very difficult to have it both ways.

While some attacks are not preventable, others are.
Even if that wasn't the case, I do think it's a serious cause for concern that someone so deeply embedded in an agressive anti-terrorist policy at the moment, did not think terrorism is a marjor threat in the past. If what Clark is saying is true of course...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:48 pm

@fable I am going to look into this a little more, my opinion is not grounded on either side as of now. It just appears to me that this man waits for how long... I mean why wouldn't he speak out before, if he had such character. Before those kids kept on dieng in iraq. Curious.

smass · Post by **smass** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:02 am

I do think it's a serious cause for concern that someone so deeply embedded in an agressive anti-terrorist policy at the moment, did not think terrorism is a marjor threat in the past. If what Clark is saying is true of course...

@Vicsun - I totally agree with you. I just want to make one more observation however. Prior to 9/11 one could argue that the last major peacetime assault by a foreign entity on US soil was Pearl Harbor. That was 60 years prior. I personally remember making the observation to my wife a few days after the attack that I was not the least bit surprised that the terrorists pulled off the attack with almost no trouble at all.

Prior to 9/11 an attack of this type was not even on the radar for most of the US public and our elected officials. The government, and particularly folks like Mr. Clarke, are supposed to think outside the box and consider all threats. The national defense structure failed us for sure - no argument there. A paradigm shift in our understanding of the terrorists threat occured at ground zero of the WTC. Looking at the governments actions before the paradigm shift one must take this into account. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I do think that this investigation points out some serious flaws in our national defense structure. One of the main concerns for me is the sometimes haphazard and dangerous results of the turning over of executive power every 4-8 years. New adminstrations bring new cabinets, and new people to positions of power where there is a pretty steep learning curve. Personally I think the people making everday national defense and anti-terrorism decisions should not be appointed to their posts every 4-8 years. There needs to be more consistency in running these programs. I am not proposing a solution - just pointing out a problem that concerns me greatly.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:41 am

Originally posted by fable
he'll never get offered a public office by any administration again: the work he's been doing with great praise and power for over twenty years. He's lost all of that, thanks to his book, and it was easy to see that when he was writing it.

You can bet your bottom dollar he's been permanently black-listed.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:17 am

This is a surprise...

Rice to testify

The republicans are in deep do ...(ask Jar Jar Binks)

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:17 am

Rice finished her testimony 20 minutes ago. Did anyone apart from me watch it? Thoughts?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 11:14 am

I can't say I did. I've been putting more time into hearing live, eye-witness accounts of the two mini-rebellions going on in Iraq at the moment. -Well, mini-rebellions is too small a word when you're talking about important cities in the hands of two different, opposing rebel groups, and "rebellions" sounds too large.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:40 pm

I did finally get to hear a taped transcript of her testimony. It was disappointing. She was asked many intriguing questions, including, "When you received a warning about Al-Qua'ida attacks in the US, did you go to the President with these?" Rice refused to answer most of these, and spent the majority of her time reading from a pre-written, lengthy official-sounding statement, which repeated the government line that they've had for more than a year. It hardly counts as cooperation with the committee, and it left everything up in the air.

Interestingly, the BBC spoke with several 9/11 family members of victims who were in attendance. None seemed please following the testimony. One, a formerly staunch Bush supporter who was apparently interviewed repeatedly by the BBC, was scathing in his attacks on Rice, whom he felt ducked the issues and played word games.