Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 21

Journal by pudge

Really, the only thing that happened last week worth talking is Richard Clarke. But I don't want to really talk about it. It's becoming so annoying. It's not that I am tired of it because Clarke is proving Bush did all of these horrible things before 9/11. Look, the guy lacks a lot of credibility:

He says Rumsfeld "looked distracted" in a meeting on September 4; but actually, Rumsfeld wasn't even there.

He says Rice's "facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before", but she gave an interview in late 2000 where she mentioned them by name.

He says Bush was intimidatingly ordering him to fabricate a link between al Qaeda and Iraq on September 12, but Bush flatly refused Wolfowitz's urgings to attack Iraq a mere three days later, on September 15. I suppose what Clarke said about it is possibly true, but what is absolutely clear is that Bush was not as gung-ho about attacking Iraq in September 2001 as Clarke wishes us to believe, because Bush didn't attack Iraq, and shot down those in his administration who wished him to.

Clarke has a lot of interesting things to say about what happened before 9/11, but his insistence that Bush failed where Clinton did succeed, or would have succeeded, seems to be colored by his hatred of what Bush has done with Iraq.

I really don't want to get into a point-by-point discussion of who said what and when. The three points I made above are designed not to say everything Clarke said is a lie, or even that his main points are wrong, but just to show why I have doubts about the unverifiable parts of his stories, and his conclusions: that is, to show you faithful believers of Clarke that he isn't the Ultimate Purveyor of Truth. I am far more interested in what the bipartisan 9/11 commission has to say than I am in what Richard Clarke has to say, because he is a man with a grudge, an axe to grind, and isn't being objective.

What seems clear to me is that Clinton and Bush both failed to take the threat seriously enough. What is also clear is that both took it very seriously. Clinton tried many times to kill or capture Bin Laden, and Bush's people had a plan ready for implementation in early September 2001 that would have aimed to eliminate al Qaeda altogether. Surely mistakes were made, but the reason Clarke is so angry with Bush about 9/11, and so conciliatory toward Clinton, has little to do with the leadup to 9/11 itself, and has mostly to do with Clarke's feelings about Iraq.

Please feel free to vent for and against Clarke in the space below. Get it out of your system. :-)

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • I won't comment on Clarke until i finish his book, but the part that concerns me is the White house reaction. Notably, the character assasination. Is that how we deal with people who disagree with our policies now?

    Frist accusing Clarke of perjury before he even saw Clarke's older testimony is a good example. Clearly he was going politics first, rationale thought second.

    Combining the attack dogs on the news shows, Condi's refusal to testify with the most convoluted explantion since Clinton and the Blue

    • I won't comment on Clarke until i finish his book, but the part that concerns me is the White house reaction. Notably, the character assasination. Is that how we deal with people who disagree with our policies now?

      Here is what I don't understand. Why is pointing out the facts of past positions and statements of someone classified as "character assassination"? If everything pointed out is factual and true I consider it to be "character clarification". If Clarke looks bad after you bring into account his co
    • I won't comment on Clarke until i finish his book, but the part that concerns me is the White house reaction. Notably, the character assasination. Is that how we deal with people who disagree with our policies now?

      I dunno. Ask Clarke and Kerry! Come on. Both assassinated the character of Bush long before the White House responded in kind.

      Frist accusing Clarke of perjury before he even saw Clarke's older testimony is a good example.

      The White House never did that, and neither did Bill Frist. Frist s
      • That is what people in her position do? She can go on every available news show and speak about these issues, but not before the commission? What's the difference, except the oath?

        As for Character assasination, if you don't see a danger in a government that selectively declassifies documents to discredit their critics, then you probably thought the McCarthy years were good fun.

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4623066/

        U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke's testimony two years ago wou

        • She can go on every available news show and speak about these issues, but not before the commission? What's the difference, except the oath?

          You make it sound as though the oath is somehow insignificant. It's extremely important. And I don't understand all the issues, but the oath is a big part of it. The idea being that she is an advisor to the President who is not in any way beholden to the Congress, and therefore should not *make herself* beholden to them.

          As for Character assasination, if you don't

        • That is what people in her position do? She can go on every available news show and speak about these issues, but not before the commission? What's the difference, except the oath?

          You must be "selectively" listening/reading your news sources.

          Bush and Rice have been saying for quite some time that they WANTED her to testify -- and under oath. The problem, they said, was one of separation of powers. I might add that under the Clinton administration, Clarke himself declined to testify under similar circum

  • The most plausible explanation I've seen about Clarke is from one of the National Review guys. (Goldberg?)For years, he was the big terrorism guy, while Clinton was obsessed with winning a Nobel Peace Prize. And then when terrorism suddenly jumped to the forefront, he was marginalized and he's bitter about it. He's not a crackpot publicity hound like Joe Wilson but he certainly has an axe to grind.

    I wonder how it'll affect Michael Moore's new movie now that it turns out that Clarke was the one who sent all

    • I wonder how it'll affect Michael Moore's new movie now that it turns out that Clarke was the one who sent all those Saudis out of the country?!?

      OK I have heard this story now serveral times. Links, proof, some kind of back up?
      • Here [worldnetdaily.com] and here [truthout.org] and here [libertypost.org] are a few examples.

        Remember: Google is your friend.

        Now what does this mean in the grand scheme of things? I don't think it's some grand conspiracy worthy of finger pointing as some do... a bin-Laden relative != evil by definition.
        • Believe me when i tell you I am not a hardcore GWB guy... Hell I didn't even vote for him last time... probably won't this time. But in regards to the above:

          The first two links refernce a Vanity Fair article by Clarke. The FBI denies this in both WorldnetDaily (who?) and the NYT. The last link is a chat board (or so it seems); how is it ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, et al have nothing on this? I really dislike NYT but I suppose 80% of what they say is true.

          So either the Saudis flew out on the 14th which would b
          • don't take it personally but if the NYT said it was sunny out I'd check.
            So would I -- and if it WAS sunny, I'd look back at NYT and check the date. I'm not suggesting the articles are accurate -- just that links to the "rumor" were available.
        • Now what does this mean in the grand scheme of things? I don't think it's some grand conspiracy worthy of finger pointing as some do... a bin-Laden relative != evil by definition.

          Absolutely -- although it is another indication of how the Saudi elite were treated with kid gloves. I don't care too much about this either, but if you're Michael Moore and that incident was a cornerstone of your new "Bush knew!!!!" crackpot conspiracy, Clarke's new position might be a bit inconvenient. Although the nice thing fo

  • I think Mr. Clark's motivation for "telling the truth" is more likely a device to sell more books (his and Mr. O'Neils) and not necessarily to determine what (if any) breakdown there was previous to 9/11.

    Look, I am no fan of the Bush Administration, but to say the National Security Advisor had never heard of Al Queda is silly.

    Just my 2cents.

    Oh and I won't buy his book (or O'Neils) or any "tell all" pundit book. I didn't for any of the Bush, Sr and Clinton castaways - I won't this time.
    • I think Mr. Clark's motivation for "telling the truth" is more likely a device to sell more books (his and Mr. O'Neils) and not necessarily to determine what (if any) breakdown there was previous to 9/11.

      Agreed. When he just happens to have had information about it, then just happens to keep that information under his hat for years - including a year after leaving office - until the very week his book just happens to be hitting the shelves, hence just happens to stand to gain large amounts of money from

  • He says Bush was intimidatingly ordering him to fabricate a link between al Qaeda and Iraq on September 12, but Bush flatly refused Wolfowitz's urgings to attack Iraq a mere three days later, on September 15.

    All that tells me is Bush was less of a warmonger and less obsessed with Iraq than Paul Wolfowitz. Can I be called a moderate eater after consuming 8 doughnuts if my friend ate 12?

    I definitely believe Bush and his administration excessively asked for evidence of an Iraq link but I can't accept an acc
    • All that tells me is Bush was less of a warmonger and less obsessed with Iraq than Paul Wolfowitz.

      It tells you Bush was not obssessed with attacking Iraq regardless of the evidence. If he had been, he would have used anything he could to justify it, and instead, he put his foot down and said no, this is only about Afghanistan and al Qaeda right now.

      I definitely believe Bush and his administration excessively asked for evidence of an Iraq link but I can't accept an accusation of intimidation just on Cla
      • It tells you Bush was not obssessed with attacking Iraq regardless of the evidence. If he had been, he would have used anything he could to justify it, and instead, he put his foot down and said no, this is only about Afghanistan and al Qaeda right now.

        Wow, such leadership! "Gee Paul, I'd really like to pound Saddam's ass too but I've got to have *some* kind of evidence of Iraqi involvement."

        Clarke's using innuendo to make us think Bush wanted him to manufacturer a connection because he doesn't have any
        • Wow, such leadership! "Gee Paul, I'd really like to pound Saddam's ass too but I've got to have *some* kind of evidence of Iraqi involvement."

          And you base this charcaterization of what happened on ... what? Your imagination, right. Sorry. All we know is that Bush didn't attack Iraq, and opposed those in his administration who wanted to. And really, I think that's enough. I care a lot more about action than about what you and Clarke pretend you know about what Bush was thinking about the actions that

  • "...she gave an interview in late 2000 where she mentioned them by name."

    Just for the record, no, nobody has yet found any evidence that Rice uttered the words "al Qaeda" in public prior to Richard Clarke's briefing her. The reason you believed this was that the media unquestioningly swallowed and regurgitated an administration talking point.

    And "Usama bin Laden" -- which are the words she did utter -- is not the same thing. Here is the contested passage in Clarke's book, in which that is actually the

    • Just for the record, no, nobody has yet found any evidence that Rice uttered the words "al Qaeda" in public prior to Richard Clarke's briefing her. The reason you believed this was that the media unquestioningly swallowed and regurgitated an administration talking point.

      No, the reason why is because no objective and thoughtful person thinks there is a significant difference between that and what she actually said, as there is simply no reasonable way to say she knew of UBL and not al Qaeda.

      I know you th

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb

Close