|
RICHARD CLARKE on Charlie Rose tonight (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Some interesting rebuttals and misleading statements coming from the White House and their radio mouthpieces. Here's some of their statements, and the facts to counter their rebuttals:
| quote: | 9/11
White House Tailspin
One day after counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke's well-documented criticism of the Bush Administration's lackadaisical attitude towards terrorism, the White House is deploying top officials in a vicious barrage of personal attacks on a man with 30 years of public service under four Presidents. The attacks reveal the vicious tactics this Administration uses to intimidate and threaten truth-tellers, but is so filled with inconsistencies, contradictions and lies that it actually bolsters Clarke's credibility. As Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said, "This is a serious book written by a serious professional who's made serious charges, and the White House must respond to these charges" – something that, despite the personal attacks, the White House has not yet done. See American Progress's full rundown of the Administration's distortions yesterday, and internal Justice Department/FBI documents substantiating Clarke's claims. Also, see American Progress National Security Policy Director Bob Boorstin's new column.
LIE – CLARKE NEVER VOICED HIS CONCERNS: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that Clarke "chose not to" voice his concerns about the Administration's counterterrorism policy, or lack thereof. But the White House itself acknowledges Clarke sent a memo to Rice on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack, and that top officials rejected Clarke's request, saying they "did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." Of course, Rice is the same person who denied ever being warned about putting the false uranium claim into the 2003 State of the Union Speech. When her dishonesty was exposed, she claimed, "I either didn't see the memo [or] I don't remember seeing the memo" from the CIA.
LIE – THERE WAS NO DOMESTIC THREAT: Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley – the same man who ignored CIA orders to remove false uranium claims from the President's pre-war State of the Union – defended the Administration by saying, "All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential Al Qaeda attack overseas." But according to page 204 of the bipartisan 9/11 congressional report, "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon found out that bin Laden associates "had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
LIE – BUSH "EXPEDITED" ARMING OF PREDATOR: On Fox's Hannity and Colmes, Bush National Security spokesman Jim Wilkinson called Clarke's accusations a "work of fiction," and said the Bush Administration was focused on terror before 9/11. As proof, he claimed "it was this president who expedited the deployment of the armed Predator" (the unmanned plane). But according to Newsweek, it was the Bush Administration which "elected not to relaunch the Predator" and threatened to veto the defense bill if it "diverted $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" programs like the Predator. As a result, AP reports, "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months." While "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001," the Bush Administration failed to resolve a bureaucratic "debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate" the system, and it did not get off the ground before 9/11.
SLANDER – CLARKE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS: One of the most odious charges from the White House yesterday was that Clarke was personally responsible for all previous al Qaeda attacks against America. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice – who oversaw the worst national security failure in American history and yet refuses to testify publicly about it – said, "what's very interesting is that, of course, Dick Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar in 2000 when the Cole was bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up in September 11 were being hatched." Vice President Cheney echoed the very same criticism on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Rice and Cheney conveniently ignored the President's own "buck stops here" declaration and desire for a "culture of personal responsibility": Both refused to mention that they were Clarke's bosses in the lead up to 9/11, and that they ignored Clarke's repeated efforts to get the Administration to take terrorism more seriously. They also failed to elucidate why, if Clarke's record was so terrible, they called him an "outstanding public servant" and decided to keep him on board at the White House.
CONTRADICTION – WE TOOK TERROR SERIOUSLY, BUT DOWNGRADED TERRORISM: Top Bush officials claimed Clarke's criticism was not credible because, as Vice President Cheney said, Clarke "was out of the loop" after the White House counterterrorism office was downgraded from the top position it occupied under previous Administrations. But this attack implicitly acknowledges that counterterrorism was downgraded as a priority at the White House, and thus disproves the Administration's claims that it was taking terrorism seriously before 9/11. And such downgrading is consistent with other internal Administration documents. As columnist Paul Krugman notes, before 9/11 not only did the Administration "completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven 'strategic goals' — just one day before 9/11 it proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds."
CONTRADICTION – WE TOOK TERROR SERIOUSLY, BUT TASK FORCE NEVER MET: Vice President Cheney claimed "a process was in motion throughout the spring" to develop a "more effective" terrorism policy – an allusion to the counterterrorism task force he was asked to head in May. But, while Cheney convened his energy task force at least 10 times (and had 6 other meetings with Enron executives), he never once convened the counterterrorism task force. Similarly, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett claimed, "President Bush understood the threat of terrorism when he took office." But when pressed to prove this claim in the face of Cheney's task force negligence and internal documents proving otherwise, Bartlett could only muster, "George Tenet personally briefed [the President about terrorism] every single morning."
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...iJRJ8OVF&b=6228 |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Some more claims from Bush Admin. officials, and more facts that refute their case. Apologies for some info. overlap from the previous post:
| quote: | Claim vs. Fact: Administration Officials Respond to Richard Clarke Interview
March 22, 2004
Download: DOC, RTF, PDF
Bob Boorstin's Column: The Canary in the Coalmine
In the wake of Richard Clarke's well-supported assertions that the Bush Administration neglected counterterrorism in the face of repeated terror warnings before 9/11, the Bush Administration has launched a frantic misinformation campaign – often contradicting itself in the process.
CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to."
– National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11.
– White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #2: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
– National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection.
CLAIM #3: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things."
– Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did."
– White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #4: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations…The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11."
– National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'"
– Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #5: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11."
– National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks."
– Washington Post, 3/22/04
CLAIM #6: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…"
– Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04
FACT: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period."
– White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM #7: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring."
– Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04
FACT: "Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." By comparison, Cheney in 2001 formally convened his Energy Task Force at least 10 separate times, meeting at least 6 times with Enron energy executives.
– Washington Post, 1/20/02 , GAO Report, 8/22/03, AP, 1/8/02
CLAIM #8: All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas.
– Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, 3/22/04
FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
[Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=39039 |
And I would like to personally say that Condoleeza Rice is a serious chicken for not testifying today. And I personally feel this reflects considerably upon Bush himself.
I also think that it speaks volumes about not giving the FBI the money it needed AFTER 9/11, and in fact only giving 1/3 of it's request.
This is at the heart of Bush's supposed strongpoint, and quite frankly he fully deserves all criticism. Is it to necessarily say that Clinton's office was better? Well I think they certainly had their faults, but given the evidence so far it seems pretty certain that Clinton addressed Al Qaeda with a much more serious tone than Bush ever did pre-9/11.
And seriously, why all the focus on Iraq prior to 9/11? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
I don't think there's a single person (or very few on the extreme fringes) who after Sept 11th would not advocate taking a brutal and strong stand against Al Qaeda. You can’t negotiate with those fanatics. |
No but I mean he supposedly took a hardline approach on Al Qaeda before 9-11. My point was all those 'type' of people also took a very strong approach on Iraq (typically also before 9-11), so I find it just odd thats all.
| quote: | | It's hard for me to believe that such a respected man as Powell would whore himself out in such a manner, and I don't want to believe it. |
I'll agree with you, Powell is a whore :D
| quote: | | I'm pissed I missed the Charlie Rose interview, but I had already seen the 60 Minutes interview anyways. |
Hehe, you're the one that posted it too! Oh well you didn't miss much ;)
| quote: |
Perele used to be a Democrat, which is interesting.
|
I used to be a democrat too :(
| quote: |
He makes a fool of himself every time I see him on TV however, and so does Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. |
Well I guess everyone who says it as they see it is a fool for ya. No wonder you categorize mea s one ;)
| quote: |
I do personally think that it should bother everyone regardless of their own personal political bent that so many high ranking Republican administration officials have quit to speak out against the alleged ineptitude of the administration. |
Its just an opposition on philosophy. Clarke's complaints seem very ideologically based, not very factual. Many critics seem this way today.. I think things are getting more and more partisan its quiet ridicilous.:( |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I also think that it speaks volumes about not giving the FBI the money it needed AFTER 9/11, and in fact only giving 1/3 of it's request.
And seriously, why all the focus on Iraq prior to 9/11? |
Not reading your article I'll say this.
Giving money to the FBI after 9/11 is not the wisest thing. I wouldn't throw fuel on the fire. FBI proved to be ineffectual before 9/11 - throwing more money at them wouldn't change that. A policy evaluation and funding of real counterterrorsim is what was needed, not giving more money to a malfunctioning police department. You have to restructure/fix the problem first (which is what homeland sort of was going for...).
As for Iraq focus prior to 9/11, it was the same real threat they understood it to be after 9/11. It was understood Clinton failed in Iraqi containment, and that they were building WMD uncontrollably that would threaten the USA and its geopolitical interest in the mid-east. It was a bad scenario before 9/11, and after 9/11. Now that we know exactly what was going on there, it doesn't look that bad admittedly. But I prefer living in a world we know the risk doesn't exist then in one we didn't.
Clarke also made ridicilous claims about Bush trying to pin 9/11 on Iraq. Of course he would want to do that, but that was because it was most likely them. Iraq was the most obvious enemy and one of the most likely canidates for 9-11 attack before the facts came in.
Bush remembered that Iraq tried to kill his father, and they made threats on the USA and on him constantly, they also did not decry the attack. Without evidence of Al Q involvement, I think the whole world would probably have believed it was Iraq. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
I suppose there's a fundamental difference in our views about Iraq.
I feel we should be attacking those who attacked us, and I don't understand this fascination with Saddam and Iraq when they had not perpetrated an act of terror on the US in about a decade.
Perhaps you can explain why we needed to attack Saddam, but don’t give me this crap about how he was a brutal dictator etc. There are many brutal dictators around the world, and also many who are allied with the US. I don't deny that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, but I do question the motives given for going to war. Dubya told us in 2000 we wouldn’t be nation building under his watch, that we’d pull troops out of our nation building excursions, and that we shouldn't use our military power to tell "other countries how it ought to be."
There were so many lies they told the world in the run-up to war, and even if the war is a success (we all hope it is for the Iraqi people's sake), I have a huge problem with our leadership lying to us to take us to war. Even if you’re an individual who felt the war was justified whatever the reason, you should also be concerned with something that serious.
My favorite lie was the one about "aerial vehicles" that could deliver WMD payloads to Eastern Seaboard cities within a short period of time. That's just laughable, but if you truly believed that and were a member of Congress, I can see how you might vote to authorize the war. I can also see how as a citizen you might feel that war would be justified in that case.
Here is a report compiling all the misleading statements made by Administration officials that total 237:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf..._record_rep.pdf
And since when were you a Democrat? Lol I don't believe it. :P |
|
|
| Yoepus |
watching the 9-11 hearings it rounds up my point.
The naysayers of Iraq in 2003, were the same naysayers of the US in Afghanistan pre-911.
That is where I find the contradiction with Richard Clarke (he will be at the hearings tommorow).
Both Iraq and Afghinstan posed a real threat to the USA (again, not noing Iraq didn't have WMD). Clinton wanted to go to Iraq but couldn't because of the naysayers. Bush would have wanted to go into Afghanistan (as is my understanding form the hearings) but he would have also been stopped because of the naysayers.
Both an invasion of Iraq, and an invasion of Afghanistan were *necessary* (according to non-naysayers) for the security of the USA, but would never happen if 9-11 didn't happen. The proof of this is with Clinton in Iraq. And a hypothetical Bush led campagain against Afghanistan launched this year without 9-11 ever occuring!
The naysayers are the ones that say "nay act, unless you are attacked first", ignoring any previous threats or attempted attacks.
The naysayers disappeared for Afghanistan. It was resoundingly clear that Afghanistan posed a threat to the USA before 9-11. Yet a campagin against them was only politically and realistically possible when they naysayers disappeared because Afghanistan attacked the USA.
It was also resoundingly clear that Iraq posed a threat to the USA before 9-11 (assuming WMD), yet naysayers prevent that from happening. And they were still there when Bush actually went to war. The difference is not that the naysayers disappeared, they will always have to be attacked first before they realize a threat. But that the leaders (Bush) after 9-11 no longer consider or listen to the naysayers.
And that is what baffeled me about Clarke. He wasn't a naysayer for Afghanistan (so he says anyway) even if 9-11 would never happen, yet he was a naysayer for Iraq.
Those that are naysayers, always say nay. And the rest, such as Wes Clark, Bush, and Clinton, are pragmatist. They have always been yea-sayers, they realize that threats must be quelled before they turn into attacks.
Bah I hope thats not confusing.. I'm having troubles conveying this thought in writing.. but I hope you guys got the jist of it, to at least understand it, even if you don't agree with it.
I became a Republic when the teams switched colors.
Clinton was pro-Global activism and threat prevention (nation bldg anyone?), Repubs back then were naysayers to that approach. Then post-Sept 11th the teams swtiched colors. Democrats becaome the naysayers, Repubcs backed pro-Global activism and threat prevention.
Those core beliefs of mines haven't changed, and so I "switched" sides. The cool effect is that whatever side I'm on gets to persuade my other form of thought, like economic policy, envrionmentalisim, state's rights, and even abortion (previously I was pro-choice, now I'm pro-I don't give a ****) :D |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Long but well worth the read
From the Washington Times and Monsoor Ijaz:
Mr. Clarke's premise that Bush national security officials neither understood nor cared to know anything about al Qaeda is simply untrue. I know because on multiple occasions from June until late August 2001, I personally briefed Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security adviser to President Bush, and members of his South Asia, Near East and East Africa staff at the National Security Council on precisely what had gone wrong during the Clinton years to unearth the extent of the dangers posed by al Qaeda. Some of the briefings were in the presence of former members of the Clinton administration's national security team to ensure complete transparency. Far from being disinterested, the Bush White House was eager to avoid making the same mistakes of the previous administration and wanted creative new inputs for how to combat al Qaeda's growing threat. Mr. Clarke's role figured in two key areas of the debriefings — Sudan's offer to share terrorism data on al Qaeda and bin Laden in 1997, and a serious effort by senior members of the Abu Dhabi royal family to gain bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan in early 2000. • Fall 1997: Sudan's offer is accepted by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, then rejected by Mr. Clarke and Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger. Sudan's president, Omar Hasan El Bashir, made an unconditional offer of counterterrorism assistance to the vice chairman of the September 11 Commission, then Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, through my hands on April 19, 1997. Five months later on Sept. 28, 1997, after an exhaustive interagency review at the entrenched bureaucracy level of the U.S. government, Mrs. Albright announced the U.S. would send a high-level diplomatic team back to Khartoum to pressure its Islamic government to stop harboring Arab terrorists and to review Sudan data on terrorist groups operating from there. As the re-engagement policy took shape, Susan E. Rice, incoming assistant secretary of state for East Africa, went to Mr. Clarke, made her anti-Sudan case and asked him to jointly approach Mr. Berger about the wisdom of Mrs. Albright's decision. Together, they recommended its reversal.The decision was overturned on Oct. 1, 1997. Without Mr. Clarke's consent, Mr. Berger is unlikely to have gone along with such an early confrontation with the first woman to hold the highest post at Foggy Bottom. U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda 10 months later. Files with detailed data on three of the embassy bombers were among the casualties of Mr. Clarke's decision to recommend missile attacks on an empty Khartoum pharmaceutical plant rather than get Sudan's data out almost a year earlier to begin unraveling al Qaeda's network. To this day, neither Mr. Berger nor Mr. Clarke has explained to the American people why a deliberative decision of the U.S. government, made by interagency review, was overturned in such cavalier fashion by a small clique of Clinton advisers in the face of Sudan's unconditional April 1997 offer to cooperate on terrorism issues. If he was interested in facts, why did Mr. Clarke spurn the recommendations of his own intelligence and foreign policy institutions that the Sudanese offer be explored? Why did he not act on the Sudanese intelligence chief's direct approach to the FBI, of which he was aware, in early 1998 just prior to the final planning stages of the embassy bombings? • Spring 2000: Abu Dhabi's offer to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan falls flat. In late 1999, after a barrage of threats from al Qaeda's senior leadership against the Abu Dhabi royal family, a senior family member approached the Taliban foreign minister and Mullah Omar to discuss mechanisms for getting bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Mr. Clarke, who enjoyed close relations with the Abu Dhabi family, was brought into the loop early to prevent separation between Washington and Abu Dhabi on such a sensitive matter. While Mr. Clarke was skeptical of the idea at first, he played ball long enough to understand the real intentions of the Taliban regime. Smart enough, except when the deal got real. As the strategy started taking shape in earnest — a personal request from President Clinton to Sheikh Zayed, Abu Dhabi's ruler, seeking help to get bin Laden coupled with a $5 billion pan-Arab Afghan Development Fund that would be offered in return for bin Laden taking residence under house arrest in Abu Dhabi, with the possibility of extraditing him later to the United States — Mr. Clarke again scuttled the deal by opting instead for the militaristic solution. He pushed for armed CIA predator drones to hunt bin Laden in the remote mountains of northeastern Afghanistan. Abu Dhabi was left with a black eye. The Taliban became even more aggressive in allowing al Qaeda to plan and carry out terrorist operations from Afghan soil. Another chance to capture the world's most notorious terrorist had been lost. Mr. Clarke's selective memory serves no interest but his own agenda. He personifies the politicizing of intelligence by pointing fingers during the political high season for failures that not only occurred on his watch but also were due partly to his grand vision he would one day personally authorize a drone operation to kill bin Laden. Mr. Clarke, as he testifies today, should remember he served at the pleasure of the American people. He was appointed to defend us against the very terrorists he repeatedly assessed inaccurately. A grateful nation recognizes the difficulty of his task but we ask that he stick to facts rather than inject vitriol and untruths into a debate that must yield answers to help protect our children in the future.
A lot of people have been spun about this.
Lets not hope it was any of YOU:haha: |
|
|
| imokruok |
If you're gonna dump on the President, you better have a 6 inch thick lead shield to cover your ass.
 |
|
|
| Yoepus |
wow! that's quiet some 'presidential' stamp you got there W.:rolleyes:
Seriously, couldn't they give him something with an eagle or something?:conf:
:toothless |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Eh, wasn't impressed with Richard Clarke. |
Why weren't you?
| quote: | | Though I have to admit, he seems to be the first person I've met that is apparently strong against Al Qaeda, yet opposed the war on Iraq. |
Actually there are a lot of ppl who hold this view. Since there is no link between Iraq and Al Q why would it not be logical have different view on two unrelated subjects?
| quote: | I hope you guys understand what I mean by this. Altough many 'lefties' are strong against Al Q they never argue to use as much force against them as the 'rightwingers' do.
It sort of makes me question his authenticity. |
Your first couple of statements had me confused and this last one has me baffled. Clarke has worked for the government for 30 odd years in a non-partisan role so he isn't associated with either party. Since he served under 3 republican administrations (Regan, Bush I, and Bush II) wouldn’t it make more sense to assume he's conservative?
On to your comment about right-wingers being tougher than lefties. Are you comparing bush to Clinton or is this just some stereotype you have come to believe? Maybe you're too young to remember, when Clinton was in office the republicans mercilessly attacked Clinton for getting the US involved in foreign conflicts like Kosovo. The conservatives preached an isolationist agenda and argued that US couldn't afford to be the policeman of the world. When Clinton ordered missile strike on Al Q in Afghanistan, the republicans accused him of using Al Q to distract the public from the Monica scandal. The first year bush was elected he took no action against Al Q. So plz tell me how the right-wingers are tougher on Al Q and how does that make you question Clarke authenticity? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Why weren't you? |
Basically he has no facts in his book, he is spewing ideology. No real point to anything. What is so mind boggling that he uncovers?
And typically those facts he has in his book are primarly based on his own memory with no cooberation.
I mean its good if you want a light read if your an anti-Bush fellow, you'll enjoy it as it makes fun of him, but for us on the rights, its just a waste of time. It has no entertainment value for us, and no real critisim.
| quote: | | Actually there are a lot of ppl who hold this view. ... |
Read my other posts in the thread, I have trouble articulating my view about him. Its not that there are many ppl that are for Al Q and not against Iraq. This is obvisou, but there aren't many ppl that were for going after Al Q pre-911, and refused to go Iraq post-911.
| quote: | | wouldn’t it make more sense to assume he's conservative? |
It is my understanding from the preface in his book that he considers only Clinton to be a wise leader, calling the Bushes, and Regan basically dumb and stupid.
| quote: |
On to your comment about right-wingers being tougher than lefties. Are you comparing bush to Clinton or is this just some stereotype you have come to believe? |
Again read my other posts... I was a democrate exactly under Clinton for his tough approach, now I am a republican because the roles have switches (guess I've always been a hawk at heart:disbelief ) ;) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
:whip: :whip: :whip:
Damn you Charlie!
I tune in and what do I see, my sweetheart Richard Perle! NO!!
I have to see my freakin foreign minister on air... :eek: :( If I wanted to hear broken english, I'd go to the kwiki-mart!
You better get Richard back on tommorow.. .or else:eyes: |
|
|
|
|
