It's Worse Than You think

[kage69]

Maybe that will help define the reason behind the tone of Clarke's book.

Just curious chicken, to what were you refering to? Care to elaborate? Clarke had the opportunity to get political in many an interview, but conducted himself in a professional manner and stuck to the issues every time. I'm interested to hear some of this 'bias' his book is supposedly just dripping with, care to indulge me?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69

Maybe that will help define the reason behind the tone of Clarke's book.

Just curious chicken, to what were you refering to? Care to elaborate? Clarke had the opportunity to get political in many an interview, but conducted himself in a professional manner and stuck to the issues every time. I'm interested to hear some of this 'bias' his book is supposedly just dripping with, care to indulge me?

Sure. Check out the transcript of Clarke's 60 Minutes interview to see precisely what I mean.

Clarke despises Bush and that bias colors the tone and drives the direction of his book, even if it's not done overtly.

Here's a primer on Clarke's bias:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37790

 

[kage69]

I was refering to what in the book you thought was so damning to Bush. I've read it twice, and while Clarke does seem to stick it to Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolf, the FBI and CIA, Bush himself doesn't get half the attention he should have. Your link is heavy on the admin side of this, an admin which already has a huge deficit in honesty, accountability, and competence. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Clarke made it clear in the begining that he wasn't going to play along with the idealogical agenda the neocons brought to the table, and because of that he was driven out, like so many other federal employees who didn't give the right answers (i.e: the truth) and paid for it with their jobs...or the security of their spouses. It's really hard to give the benefit of a doubt to those who have proven themselves to be so vindictive and partisan. That article keeps hammering the point across, 'Clinton holdovers! Clinton holdovers!' - like that's somehow an excuse for failed cooperation when the lives of our countrymen were in danger.

It would seem if the Bush team were so "on top" of it all, and were confident in their actions, they wouldn't have had to be dragged by their hair, kicking and screaming, to the 9/11 Hearings, no?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69


I was refering to what in the book you thought was so damning to Bush. I've read it twice, and while Clarke does seem to stick it to Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolf, the FBI and CIA, Bush himself doesn't get half the attention he should have. Your link is heavy on the admin side of this, an admin which already has a huge deficit in honesty, accountability, and competence. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Clarke made it clear in the begining that he wasn't going to play along with the idealogical agenda the neocons brought to the table, and because of that he was driven out, like so many other federal employees who didn't give the right answers (i.e: the truth) and paid for it with their jobs...or the security of their spouses. It's really hard to give the benefit of a doubt to those who have proven themselves to be so vindictive and partisan. That article keeps hammering the point across, 'Clinton holdovers! Clinton holdovers!' - like that's somehow an excuse for failed cooperation when the lives of our countrymen were in danger.

It would seem if the Bush team were so "on top" of it all, and were confident in their actions, they wouldn't have had to be dragged by their hair, kicking and screaming, to the 9/11 Hearings, no?

My claim is that Clarke is biased against Bush and that drives the tone of his book, which includes claims against the entire admin, not just Bush.

As fas as the 9/11 commission, the democrats tried with all their might to make that dog and pony show a scathing attack on the administration. Kind of backfired on them, didn't it?

 

[kage69]

My claim is that Clarke is biased against Bush and that drives the tone of his book, which includes claims against the entire admin, not just Bush.

The "tone" of his book isn't as scathingly as you would have others believe, and I think Clarke deserves credit for the disclaimer he starts with. You can say bias all you want, but I truley feel it is more akin to abject frustration with the Bush admin for involving partisan politics with a serious situation that shouldn't have any. I can't blame a man for feeling angry at being dismissed for 'not being a team player,' when the stakes are far too high for such infantile behavior. If the Bush admin was as serious about terror as they say, then they would have used Clarke's knowledge and experience to it's full potential. This didn't happen, and as I said, this admin is the one with the history of acting like a spoiled brat. You do the math.

As fas as the 9/11 commission, the democrats tried with all their might to make that dog and pony show a scathing attack on the administration. Kind of backfired on them, didn't it?

Let's see:

-The Bush admin tries to prevent the hearings from taking place at all.
-Bickering ensues. No we won't testify. Ok, now we will, but only off the record. And only if Cheney can hold W's hand.
-Bush and Cheney then try to assert Henry Kissinger, one of the most corrupt politicians of all time, as the head of the investigation.
-Then they try to underfund it.
-Then they try to give it an unreasonable time table.
-Finally in the hearing, they begin to withhold information from the committee.
-The Bush admin antic's throughout the investigation make some wonder if the whole thing is a cover-up, or just a joke.



Wow. Those wily democrats!

"Pony show"? Maybe you're confusing this with the whole Monica thing. Were it that the repugs were as concerned about corporate rape (a la Enron) as they are blowjobs, eh? Yeah, I can dream.
I wasn't aware the dems were able to play puppeteer to Bush, Cheney, and Rice to the extent of orchestrating their desperate measures of avoidance concerning the hearings. So much for gridlock I guess!

No, no backfiring I'm afraid, just a terribly embarrassing predicament for the neocons. Then again, if I was President and the CIA had given me a memorandum titled "Bin Laden Determinded to Attack Inside the United States" weeks before 9/11, but didn't do anything, I'd feel a little sheepish too I suppose.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69

My claim is that Clarke is biased against Bush and that drives the tone of his book, which includes claims against the entire admin, not just Bush.

The "tone" of his book isn't as scathingly as you would have others believe, and I think Clarke deserves credit for the disclaimer he starts with. You can say bias all you want, but I truley feel it is more akin to abject frustration with the Bush admin for involving partisan politics with a serious situation that shouldn't have any. I can't blame a man for feeling angry at being dismissed for 'not being a team player,' when the stakes are far too high for such infantile behavior. If the Bush admin was as serious about terror as they say, then they would have used Clarke's knowledge and experience to it's full potential. This didn't happen, and as I said, this admin is the one with the history of acting like a spoiled brat. You do the math.

We differ on who was acting infantile here and I doubt we'll come to an agreement on that matter.

Clarke comes off as little more than bitter for being dismissed and decided to retaliate with his book. He claims that Bush should've taken his recommendation on al Qaeda as a higher priority, then turns around and admits to the 9/11 Commission that even if Bush had taken his recommendations it wouldn't have prevented 9/11 from happening.

Err...OK what's his point then? Seems his complaints are more sour grapes than anything else.

Pony show? Maybe you're confusing this with the whole Monica thing. Were it that the repugs were as concerned about corporate rape (a la Enron) as they are blowjobs, eh? Yeah, I can dream.
I wasn't aware the dems were able to play puppeteer to Bush, Cheney, and Rice to the extent of orchestrating their desperate measures of avoidance concerning the hearings. So much for gridlock I guess!

Funny that the two biggest Democratic critics of Bush and Cheney supposedly delaying their appearance at the hearing (Kerrey and Hamilton) got up and left the hearing early when Bush and Cheney were testifying. WTF? Whine all that time and then leave early? Did they have to pick up John Kerry from his windsurfing lesson off Nantucket or something?

No, no backfiring I'm afraid, just a terribly embarrassing predicament for the neocons. Then again, if I was President and the CIA had given me a memorandum titled "Bin Laden Determinded to Attack Inside the United States" weeks before 9/11, but didn't do anything, I'd feel a little sheepish too I suppose.

Ah yes, the PDB document. You do realize, don't you, that this document was written in response to a presidential request? It was a reaction to warnings Bush was hearing in his daily CIA briefings.

Yet Richard Clarke claims Bush was focused on Iraq, not al Qaeda, so how could this be? Supposely Bush ignored al Qaeda and bin Laden. Didn't he?

 

[1EZduzit]

Yet Richard Clarke claims Bush was focused on Iraq, not al Qaeda, so how could this be? Supposely Bush ignored al Qaeda and bin Laden. Didn't he?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

 

[Moonbeam]

We are mostly all going to live to see what a catastrophy Iraq will turn out to be.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are mostly all going to live to see what a catastrophy Iraq will turn out to be.

These same sort of remarks were common in the late 40s by the doom & gloom liberals of the time in reference to Japan and Germany too.

Boy were they wrong.

 

[kage69]

Funny that the two biggest Democratic critics of Bush and Cheney supposedly delaying their appearance at the hearing (Kerrey and Hamilton) got up and left the hearing early when Bush and Cheney were testifying. WTF? Whine all that time and then leave early? Did they have to pick up John Kerry from his windsurfing lesson off Nantucket or something?

Yeah, people do that when they're disgusted (up and leave). Possible reasons for this? Oh I don't know, possibly due to the White House turning the hearing into a farce of an investigation. While I wouldn't have walked out had I been in their shoes, I can totally understand them being fed up with the bullsh!t antics of the repugs in this one huge conflict of interest.

Just a few examples of why they might have left in disgust:

-It was supposed to be run by an Independant Commission - it turned out to be anything but Independant. The commission was carefully handpicked, the White house, NSC, CIA and Homeland Security all had "seats" on the panel. Several members served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, and had links to the Iran Contra debacle.

-The White House refused to release A LOT of information concerning 9/11. Doesn't sound to cooperative to me.

-The cherry-picked portions of classified materials the White House DID release, were only allowed to be seen by SOME of the 10 commissioners, and even then their notes were subject to White House review.

-The commission had to barter with the White House for classified Oval Office intelligence reports, which were allowed to be edited BEFORE being released to the commission.

- A timely report by the commission was all but impossible with the plethora of delays brought on by the WHite House itself, and other government agencies, namely the Justice Department (run by eveyone's fav lawyer, John Asscough).



So, access to documents germane to the investigation was a joke, the impartiality of the panel dubious at best, and cooperation from the White House in general was piss poor. Not what one would expect from our leaders concerning an event they love to harp about. Yeah, I can see why members would get upset and walk out, having the commission turn into a farce would rile me too.

As Joe Lieberman said, ""The American people deserve to know the full and objective truth, as best it can be determined. We have not received that, unfortunately."

Maybe we'll get further in the next investigation, when Bush isn't in office anymore.

Ah yes, the PDB document. You do realize, don't you, that this document was written in response to a presidential request? It was a reaction to warnings Bush was hearing in his daily CIA briefings.

Now that's odd, as the document itself specifically mentioned the use of hijacked planes, yet in her testimony, Condi says that 'no one could have imagined the attacks would occur as they did' - in spite of it being mentioned in the paper. Oh, and then there's the 3 exercises we did in 97 for just such a scenario. Seems like someone thought it could happen!
Wow, it just keeps gettin better and better with you apologists... Almost as amusing as hearing Condi undermine her own dismissal of documents with the desire to keep them classified. Funny how that works.

 

[kage69]

These same sort of remarks were common in the late 40s by the doom & gloom liberals of the time in reference to Japan and Germany too. Boy were they wrong.

...and boy are you wrong if you think the current situation in Iraq is comparable to either Japan or Germany.

 

[kage69]

Ars, I just realized that we totally high-jacked your thread. :frown: Sorry, I yield the thread back to it's original topic. *hangs head*

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69
Yeah, people do that when they're disgusted (up and leave). Possible reasons for this? Oh I don't know, possibly due to the White House turning the hearing into a farce of an investigation. While I wouldn't have walked out had I been in their shoes, I can totally understand them being fed up with the bullsh!t antics of the repugs in this one huge conflict of interest.

More likely the dumbocrats (see how easy it is to create silly little childish names?) were pissed that Bush and Cheney actually had valid responses to their inquiries and once they found they had no advantage they hightailed it.

Note: That's purely specualtive, but no more or less than your own speculation.

Just a few examples of why they might have left in disgust:

Great. More speculation. Do you have any facts at all?

Let's see. Err...no, it appears you don't.

-It was supposed to be run by an Independant Commission - it turned out to be anything but Independant. The commission was carefully handpicked, the White house, NSC, CIA and Homeland Security all had "seats" on the panel. Several members served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, and had links to the Iran Contra debacle.

Wrong.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.title6.htm

SEC. 603. <> COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of
whom--
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be appointed by the leader of the Senate
(majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the
Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House
of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the
case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice
chairman of the Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican
Party;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic
Party.

-The White House refused to release A LOT of information concerning 9/11. Doesn't sound to cooperative to me.

Wrong.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q9

A four-person Review Team has seen every single PDB item for which the Commission requested access. The Team prepared a detailed report on all PDBs of critical importance to the Commission?s mandate. All Commissioners were briefed for over three hours on this 7,000-word report, joined with a supplement of complementary intelligence documents. The Commission was also given every word of the August 6, 2001, item on al Qaeda and the threat of attacks on the United States.

-The cherry-picked portions of classified materials the White House DID release, was only allowed to be seen by some of the 10 commissioners, and even then their notes were subject to White House review.

-The commission had to barter with the White House for classified Oval Office intelligence reports, which were allowed to be edited BEFORE being released to the commission.

- A timely report by the commission was all but impossible with the plethora of delays brought on by the WHite House itself, and other government agencies, namely the Justice Department (run by eveyone's fav lawyer, John Asscough).

Please provide some substantiation for your further accusations. Seems the ball is in your court.

Now that's odd, as the document itself specifically mentioned the use of hijacked planes, yet in her testimony, Condi says that 'no one could have imagined the attacks would occur as they did' - in spite of it being mentioned in the paper. Oh, and then there's the 3 exercises we did in 97 for just such a scenario. Seems like someone thought it could happen!
Wow, it just keeps gettin better and better with you apologists....

This type of response is typical of the Bush detractors. Don't mention the whole story. Just mention enough so it looks like an indictment but don't tell the entire truth and ruin it. Very Michael Moore-ish of you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...004/04/20040410-5.html

The August 6, 2001 Pdb Item Entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" was prepared in response to questions asked by the President about the possibility of attacks by al-Qaida inside the United States. The PDB article did not warn of the 9-11 attacks. Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons. The PDB was based largely on background information about past terrorist attacks conducted by al-Qaida and general threats from the late 1990s. The only recent information concerning possible current activities in the PDB related to two incidents. There is no information that either incident was related to the 9-11 attacks

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good sound-byte though.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are mostly all going to live to see what a catastrophy Iraq will turn out to be.

These same sort of remarks were common in the late 40s by the doom &amp; gloom liberals of the time in reference to Japan and Germany too.

Boy were they wrong.

I guess you must mean Roosevelt.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69

These same sort of remarks were common in the late 40s by the doom &amp; gloom liberals of the time in reference to Japan and Germany too. Boy were they wrong.

...and boy are you wrong if you think the current situation in Iraq is comparable to either Japan or Germany.

Boy are you wrong if you believe I'm arguing that the situation is comparable. Even the situations in Germany and Japan were not comparable at the time. So what? Saying they are not comparable is little more than a strawman argument.

 

[GrGr]

Of course the situation in Iraq is comparable to Japan. Both the Japanese hard liners at the time and US hard liners share a taste for good little foreign imperialistic romps supported by their Emperor Gods (BushGod in the case of the US). Send forth the stormtroopers, yeehaaaw