Consider the dogs "launched" -- Republicans Want Clarke Testimony Declassified

[burnedout]

Andrew Ferguson, a columnist for Bloomberg news, has some interesting comments

Why? Because Clarke's testimony, along with the hysteria that attended it, furthered the notion that there was a radical disjunction between U.S. anti-terrorism policy pursued by the Bush administration in its first eight months and Clinton administration policy during the 1990s. It is in the interest of partisans of both sides, Democrats and Republicans alike, to promote this illusion.

Republicans think it disassociates their man, President George W. Bush, from the policies that allowed the terror threat to fester for eight years. Democrats like the illusion because they think it lets their man, Bill Clinton, off the hook: If only Bush had concentrated on terrorism with Clinton's laser-like focus, 9/11 might have been thwarted.

None of this is true. On taking office, the Bushies did alter some major Clinton foreign-policy initiatives -- toward North Korea and the Balkans, for example.

But not toward terrorism. Like 95 percent of everything else the federal government does, anti-terrorism policy continued seamlessly from one administration to the next.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Or he knows there is sensitive information in those six hours of testimony that can't be released, so he says release it knowing they can't and wins a political point.

Of course the right would say "what is Clarke trying to hide" and so forth. Perhaps how the information was gathered which would get innocent people killed, but them republicans wouldn't care about that. It's an election year.

I fixed your post, you made a couple of typos. I assume you were talking about Frist since he's the one who first brought up declassifying Clake's testimony.

Bowfinger, if you can't come up with your own posts, please don't distort mine into your lies.

My apologies. I didn't know that was the exclusive domain of the Bush toadies. You should put up a notice or something.

Re. my post, I was simply trying to be genteel. I thought it would be rude to point out that you were either a flaming ignoranus or a certified boot-licking partisan hypocrite. As you may know, Republican Frist was the first to mention Clarke's earlier testimony and to suggest it be declassified as part of Bush's all-out character assassination campaign. It is more than a little hypocritical to endorse that, but slur Clarke for asking the same thing to defend himself against Frist's slander. I guess as long as we're all clear on your agenda, you have the right to spread George's disinformation as best you can.

Carry on.

"My apologies. I didn't know that was the exclusive domain of the Bush toadies. You should put up a notice or something."

Would you care to point out where I did what you mentioned?

You know I was going to respond in kind but I really don't feel like sinking to your low level tonight. I'll concede, you are the master of the insults for now and worthless posts for now.

LOL. Note for the record, you avoided -- as usual -- responding to the substance of my post, i.e., you slurred Clarke for calling for declassification while you failed to recognize Republican Frist did the same thing first. You're like Cad when you're cornered in a fallacy, refusing to acknowledge your mistake. Instead of incoherent, tortuous novellas however, you just flip out a quick personal attack and disappear.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

LOL. Note for the record, you avoided -- as usual -- responding to the substance of my post, i.e., you slurred Clarke for calling for declassification while you failed to recognize Republican Frist did the same thing first. You're like Cad when you're cornered in a fallacy, refusing to acknowledge your mistake. Instead of incoherent, tortuous novellas however, you just flip out a quick personal attack and disappear.

etech and dirtboy....separate at birth?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

LOL. Note for the record, you avoided -- as usual -- responding to the substance of my post, i.e., you slurred Clarke for calling for declassification while you failed to recognize Republican Frist did the same thing first. You're like Cad when you're cornered in a fallacy, refusing to acknowledge your mistake. Instead of incoherent, tortuous novellas however, you just flip out a quick personal attack and disappear.

etech and dirtboy....separate at birth?

Hard to tell. They all look alike to me.




Edit: oops, wrong smiley

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Or he knows there is sensitive information in those six hours of testimony that can't be released, so he says release it knowing they can't and wins a political point.

Of course the right would say "what is Clarke trying to hide" and so forth. Perhaps how the information was gathered which would get innocent people killed, but them republicans wouldn't care about that. It's an election year.

I fixed your post, you made a couple of typos. I assume you were talking about Frist since he's the one who first brought up declassifying Clake's testimony.

Bowfinger, if you can't come up with your own posts, please don't distort mine into your lies.

My apologies. I didn't know that was the exclusive domain of the Bush toadies. You should put up a notice or something.

Re. my post, I was simply trying to be genteel. I thought it would be rude to point out that you were either a flaming ignoranus or a certified boot-licking partisan hypocrite. As you may know, Republican Frist was the first to mention Clarke's earlier testimony and to suggest it be declassified as part of Bush's all-out character assassination campaign. It is more than a little hypocritical to endorse that, but slur Clarke for asking the same thing to defend himself against Frist's slander. I guess as long as we're all clear on your agenda, you have the right to spread George's disinformation as best you can.

Carry on.

"My apologies. I didn't know that was the exclusive domain of the Bush toadies. You should put up a notice or something."

Would you care to point out where I did what you mentioned?

You know I was going to respond in kind but I really don't feel like sinking to your low level tonight. I'll concede, you are the master of the insults for now and worthless posts for now.

LOL. Note for the record, you avoided -- as usual -- responding to the substance of my post, i.e., you slurred Clarke for calling for declassification while you failed to recognize Republican Frist did the same thing first. You're like Cad when you're cornered in a fallacy, refusing to acknowledge your mistake. Instead of incoherent, tortuous novellas however, you just flip out a quick personal attack and disappear.

There was so much of you making personal attacks that there wasn't anything of so-called substance in your post. When you can get the personal attacks out of your posts than I might consider responding to what you call "substance". Right now, since you and conjur are having a personal little get together I don't see the need to respond to you.

Good night.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Or he knows there is sensitive information in those six hours of testimony that can't be released, so he says release it knowing they can't and wins a political point.

Of course the right would say "what is Clarke trying to hide" and so forth. Perhaps how the information was gathered which would get innocent people killed, but them republicans wouldn't care about that. It's an election year.

I fixed your post, you made a couple of typos. I assume you were talking about Frist since he's the one who first brought up declassifying Clake's testimony.

Bowfinger, if you can't come up with your own posts, please don't distort mine into your lies.

My apologies. I didn't know that was the exclusive domain of the Bush toadies. You should put up a notice or something.

Re. my post, I was simply trying to be genteel. I thought it would be rude to point out that you were either a flaming ignoranus or a certified boot-licking partisan hypocrite. As you may know, Republican Frist was the first to mention Clarke's earlier testimony and to suggest it be declassified as part of Bush's all-out character assassination campaign. It is more than a little hypocritical to endorse that, but slur Clarke for asking the same thing to defend himself against Frist's slander. I guess as long as we're all clear on your agenda, you have the right to spread George's disinformation as best you can.

Carry on.

"My apologies. I didn't know that was the exclusive domain of the Bush toadies. You should put up a notice or something."

Would you care to point out where I did what you mentioned?

You know I was going to respond in kind but I really don't feel like sinking to your low level tonight. I'll concede, you are the master of the insults for now and worthless posts for now.

LOL. Note for the record, you avoided -- as usual -- responding to the substance of my post, i.e., you slurred Clarke for calling for declassification while you failed to recognize Republican Frist did the same thing first. You're like Cad when you're cornered in a fallacy, refusing to acknowledge your mistake. Instead of incoherent, tortuous novellas however, you just flip out a quick personal attack and disappear.

There was so much of you making personal attacks that there wasn't anything of so-called substance in your post. When you can get the personal attacks out of your posts than I might consider responding to what you call "substance". Right now, since you and conjur are having a personal little get together I don't see the need to respond to you.

Good night.

ROFLMAO. That's how I started this exchange -- substance -- and you responded with a personal attack. You have avoided that substance ever since.

It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. Your move.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's what I thought.

 

[etech]

I am still looking for your "substance".

I'll let you know when I find any.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
I am still looking for your "substance".
I'll let you know when I find any.

Obviously another dodge to avoid accountability, but just for yuks, I'll lay it out for you one more time, just in case you share the same reading impairment we see in so many of your buddies. I started with this:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Or he knows there is sensitive information in those six hours of testimony that can't be released, so he says release it knowing they can't and wins a political point.

Of course the right would say "what is Clarke trying to hide" and so forth. Perhaps how the information was gathered which would get innocent people killed, but them republicans wouldn't care about that. It's an election year.

I fixed your post, you made a couple of typos. I assume you were talking about Frist since he's the one who first brought up declassifying Clake's testimony.

Then there was this (after two personal attacks by you):

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ] As you may know, Republican Frist was the first to mention Clarke's earlier testimony and to suggest it be declassified as part of Bush's all-out character assassination campaign. It is more than a little hypocritical to endorse that, but slur Clarke for asking the same thing to defend himself against Frist's slander.

Then this:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ] you slurred Clarke for calling for declassification while you failed to recognize Republican Frist did the same thing first.

There you go. There's the substance. Will you respond, on-topic, or are you going to entertain us with another evasive song and dance?


(PS. If your ability to read posts is so clouded by "personal attacks", I suggest you stop using them yourself. Most people tend to respond in kind. My first post had no personal attacks. You launched the first volleys.)

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
I am still looking for your "substance".
I'll let you know when I find any.

Obviously another dodge to avoid accountability, but just for yuks, I'll lay it out for you one more time, just in case you share the same reading impairment we see in so many of your buddies. I started with this:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Or he knows there is sensitive information in those six hours of testimony that can't be released, so he says release it knowing they can't and wins a political point.

Of course the right would say "what is Clarke trying to hide" and so forth. Perhaps how the information was gathered which would get innocent people killed, but them republicans wouldn't care about that. It's an election year.

I fixed your post, you made a couple of typos. I assume you were talking about Frist since he's the one who first brought up declassifying Clake's testimony.

Then there was this (after two personal attacks by you):

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ] As you may know, Republican Frist was the first to mention Clarke's earlier testimony and to suggest it be declassified as part of Bush's all-out character assassination campaign. It is more than a little hypocritical to endorse that, but slur Clarke for asking the same thing to defend himself against Frist's slander.

Then this:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ] you slurred Clarke for calling for declassification while you failed to recognize Republican Frist did the same thing first.

There you go. There's the substance. Will you respond, on-topic, or are you going to entertain us with another evasive song and dance?


(PS. If your ability to read posts is so clouded by "personal attacks", I suggest you stop using them yourself. Most people tend to respond in kind. My first post had no personal attacks. You launched the first volleys.)

Well, you started off with more personal attacks, but I'll be generous and let them slide.

You misunderstood. Perhaps you just hadn't followed the story very well. Yes, Frist wanted to declassify parts of the testimony of Clarke. I make the assumption that he knows there are parts that would contradict what Clarke has said. Clarke said that he wants the entire document declassified. Since he knows what is in there he is probably well aware that parts cannot be declassified for security reasons. He makes a political point in saying "declassify it all" knowing full well it can't be done. It seems that you fell ,for what I assume, is Clarke's strategy.

Was that simple enough for you? You had no substance. You did not "fix" my post but distorted it and its intended meaning.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think we need to back up a little. Whatever he wanted to do about Al Qaeda, Clinton was constrained by a hostile congress and the geopolitical reality at the time. His successor sought to refocus on Iraq, referencing efforts towards Al Qaeda as "swatting at flies". That sort of attitude filters down thru the bureaucracy- the boss gets what he wants. When that fly turned out to be a hornet, Bush immediately launches a "War on Terror"- 90% of that effort being used to, uh, invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorism issue in the first place.

Pretty nifty, really, and a masterful application of propaganda. 9/11!Osama!AlQaeda! has become some kind of political pheremone- smear a little bit on the target, and the American people attack, like a swarm of killer bees...

Clarke's no more a liar than the people he served. Prior to his testimony for the 9/11 commission, he followed his instructions from above- When they told him to give Congress the shuck and jive, he did. When they told him to put a favorable spin on it all as anonymous admin mouthpiece, he did. And he freely admits to it all. Today, he gets to say what he wants, no boss to please, no agenda to serve. Even if there are discrepancies in his testimony then and now, which one is most likely to have less spin? When he's speaking as a shill for the Bushies, or when speaking for himself?

 

[burnedout]

**Breaking News**

Richard Miniter, author of Losing Bin Laden, has thoughts on the Clarke affair:

Against Selected Enemies
Richard Clarke should apologize for his book.

Curiously, about the Clinton years, where Mr. Clarke's testimony would be authoritative, he is circumspect. When I interviewed him a year ago, he thundered at the political appointees who blocked his plan to destroy bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan in the wake of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Yet in his book he glosses over them. He has little of his former vitriol for Clinton-era bureaucrats who tried to stop the deployment of the Predator spy plane over Afghanistan. (It spotted bin Laden three times.)

He fails to mention that President Clinton's three "findings" on bin Laden, which would have allowed the U.S. to take action against him, were haggled over and lawyered to death. And he plays down the fact that the Treasury Department, worried about the effects on financial markets, obstructed efforts to cut off al Qaeda funding. He never notes that between 1993 and 1998 the FBI, under Mr. Clinton, paid an informant who turned out to be a double agent working on behalf of al Qaeda. In 1998, the Clinton administration alerted Pakistan to our imminent missile strikes in Afghanistan, despite the links between Pakistan's intelligence service and al Qaeda. Mr. Clarke excuses this decision -- bin Laden managed to flee just before the strikes -- as a diplomatic necessity.

**Film at Eleven**

 

[conjur]

My take is that Clarke finally realized the pressure Clinton was under from the Republicans to avoid them clamoring "Wag the dog!"

And, of course we had to alert Pakistan. Did the missiles not pass over their airspace? What if they had launched an attack back thinking *they* were under attack?


One just has to look at the corroboration of Clarke's statements by other people from the Bush Administration and from within the intelligence community to see he is telling the truth. Bush wanted war on Iraq.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News**

Richard Miniter, author of Losing Bin Laden, has thoughts on the Clarke affair:

Against Selected Enemies
Richard Clarke should apologize for his book.

Curiously, about the Clinton years, where Mr. Clarke's testimony would be authoritative, he is circumspect. When I interviewed him a year ago, he thundered at the political appointees who blocked his plan to destroy bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan in the wake of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Yet in his book he glosses over them. He has little of his former vitriol for Clinton-era bureaucrats who tried to stop the deployment of the Predator spy plane over Afghanistan. (It spotted bin Laden three times.)

He fails to mention that President Clinton's three "findings" on bin Laden, which would have allowed the U.S. to take action against him, were haggled over and lawyered to death. And he plays down the fact that the Treasury Department, worried about the effects on financial markets, obstructed efforts to cut off al Qaeda funding. He never notes that between 1993 and 1998 the FBI, under Mr. Clinton, paid an informant who turned out to be a double agent working on behalf of al Qaeda. In 1998, the Clinton administration alerted Pakistan to our imminent missile strikes in Afghanistan, despite the links between Pakistan's intelligence service and al Qaeda. Mr. Clarke excuses this decision -- bin Laden managed to flee just before the strikes -- as a diplomatic necessity.

**Film at Eleven**

but theres no point to bashing clinton, hes not running for election!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Well, you started off with more personal attacks, but I'll be generous and let them slide.

I'm touched. As I said before, if personal attacks give you such heartburn, you should stop using them yourself. You might also try offering on-topic replies to posts, especially when someone challenges you, instead of your usual dismissive and/or evasive attacks.

You misunderstood. Perhaps you just hadn't followed the story very well. Yes, Frist wanted to declassify parts of the testimony of Clarke. I make the assumption that he knows there are parts that would contradict what Clarke has said.

Perhaps you haven't followed the story very well. Frist backpeddled on his accusations:

• Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke?s two appearances.

That's from MSNBC, quoted earlier in this very thread.

Clarke said that he wants the entire document declassified. Since he knows what is in there he is probably well aware that parts cannot be declassified for security reasons. He makes a political point in saying "declassify it all" knowing full well it can't be done. It seems that you fell ,for what I assume, is Clarke's strategy.

Do you not see the double standard you use here? It's OK for Frist to engage in character assassination through innuendo, bluffing that he wants to expose Clarke by declassifying old testimony (though he later admits he doesn't know what's really in that testimony). But when Clarke and the Dems call Frist's bluff, essentially saying put up or shut up, they are the ones who may "get innocent people killed," according to you. Why is Frist less guilty than Clarke, especially since Frist put this on the table in the first place? Does Clarke not have the right to defend himself against slander? Are you certain your position isn't tainted by partisanship?

Was that simple enough for you? You had no substance.

In your opinion, perhaps. I doubt you actually believe it; it's just another evasion.

You did not "fix" my post but distorted it and its intended meaning.

Of course I distorted its intended meaning! Duh. I flipped it around 180 degrees. It was obvious, at least to everyone else. That was my whole point.

 

[etech]

Bowfinger,

That's a nice long post, I hope your wife didn't miss you while you were slaving over it.

The point of my post is simple. Clarke is saying declassify everything. He knows that can't be done so why is he calling for everything to be declassified? It's a political ploy on his part.

It's a shame that this commission has deginerated into election year politics. And yes, both sides have fallen into that trap. Of course Clarke will be the only one to make a large profit from it all.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: etech
You misunderstood. Perhaps you just hadn't followed the story very well. Yes, Frist wanted to declassify parts of the testimony of Clarke. I make the assumption that he knows there are parts that would contradict what Clarke has said. Clarke said that he wants the entire document declassified. Since he knows what is in there he is probably well aware that parts cannot be declassified for security reasons. He makes a political point in saying "declassify it all" knowing full well it can't be done. It seems that you fell ,for what I assume, is Clarke's strategy.

Was that simple enough for you? You had no substance. You did not "fix" my post but distorted it and its intended meaning.

Right off the bat, there's quite a few ' assumptions' and 'probablys' in there. Are you just generating your own hypothetical reality?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: etech
You misunderstood. Perhaps you just hadn't followed the story very well. Yes, Frist wanted to declassify parts of the testimony of Clarke. I make the assumption that he knows there are parts that would contradict what Clarke has said. Clarke said that he wants the entire document declassified. Since he knows what is in there he is probably well aware that parts cannot be declassified for security reasons. He makes a political point in saying "declassify it all" knowing full well it can't be done. It seems that you fell ,for what I assume, is Clarke's strategy.

Was that simple enough for you? You had no substance. You did not "fix" my post but distorted it and its intended meaning.

Right off the bat, there's quite a few ' assumptions' and 'probablys' in there. Are you just generating your own hypothetical reality?

Esp. considering Frist recanted his claim that Clarke perjured himself.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: etech
You misunderstood. Perhaps you just hadn't followed the story very well. Yes, Frist wanted to declassify parts of the testimony of Clarke. I make the assumption that he knows there are parts that would contradict what Clarke has said. Clarke said that he wants the entire document declassified. Since he knows what is in there he is probably well aware that parts cannot be declassified for security reasons. He makes a political point in saying "declassify it all" knowing full well it can't be done. It seems that you fell ,for what I assume, is Clarke's strategy.

Was that simple enough for you? You had no substance. You did not "fix" my post but distorted it and its intended meaning.

Right off the bat, there's quite a few ' assumptions' and 'probablys' in there. Are you just generating your own hypothetical reality?

Esp. considering Frist recanted his claim that Clarke perjured himself.

Did Frist say the Clarke perjured himself or that he may have perjured himself? How do you recant a possibility?

 

[conjur]

Story 1:

"'Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,' Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search) said in a speech on the Senate floor."


Story 2:

"Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke?s two appearances. But he said, 'Until you have him under oath both times, you don?t know.'"