Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Underseer, Mar 23, 2004.
More on the Clarke character assassination
From the NY Times:
(More posts coming)
From the New Republic:
From the Chicago Tribune:
Seems like the admin is spending a lot of time and effort attacking Clarke.
I mean, it's normal for them to attack people who leave and dare to speak the truth, but this time they're really gunning hard. And the guy they're gunning after is a conservative Republican.
You know what's sad? Even after all these reveals by former members of the administration, the conservative zombies of this nation refuse to open their eyes, and keep tuning to the sweet, comforting lies they get from the media (O'Reilley, Limbaugh, et. al.).
The question that begs to be asked is:
Why did he wait until now to release his book? Why wait to release it on the day of the 9-11 comission testimony? Why wait for 2 1/2 years to speak up if it was as bad as he's making it out to be?
Money. It's all about the money. He has a book that was released today. This book will hit #1 on teh NYT best seller list because of the controversy surrounding it. Not because of it's content. I have to give the guy credit, he knows how to market a book.
That said, shouldn't he be tried for treason for not releasing this information he claims he has? Didn't his silence attribute to the attacks? Doesn't his failure to go to the media and have his say contribute to 3,000 dead civilians ans the subsequent two wars? And doesn't CBS have a conflict of interest in promoting this book? They own Viacom who is the publisher. Oh yeah, it's all about the money.
Squirm Bushies! Clarke has relit the oven and it's getting hot in the kitchen for the Neocons. :scared:
Clarke's testimony tomorrow should be quite interesting to say the least. :teeth:
Pretty interesting read. I know to take everything I read with a grain of salt, but I can see how and why the Bush administration would act like it has.
The more extreme conservatives are probably in shock that one of their number has done the biggest crime imaginable: he called President Bush wrong.
I'm not in shock. I know all he's really trying to do is sell his book. It's a repeat of what Paul O'Neill did.
Another big question is: why did Clarke do nothing in his 8 years under Pres. Clinton? Mansoor Ijaz negoiated for UBL to be handed over from Sudan 3 times. Clarke was involved in the refusal to take him. Explain that one.
If he was so lousy, then why did Bush keep him on? Explain that one.
EDIT: Nevermind. Cut and pasted the wrong thing
Isn't it ironic that whoever disputes or criticizes GWB is labeled treasonous, unpatriotic, and "only-after-money"? Boy, the conservatives would have had a field day had this been Bill Clinton and not GWB who is being criticized. It's even more ironic that the two main critics of GWB are actually from his own party and his own administration. :scratch:
Here's the question I want answered:
Why, on the day of the attacks, did President Bush choose to go ahead with his plan to visit the elementary school in Florida after being notified of the disaster in NYC, and why did he choose to remain there after being reminded about while at the school? Why was he not whisked away by security to a "safe location", given that his appearance at that school would be easily known to any potential terrorist, given that the president would be a prime target for terrorism, and given that there were dozens of children in that school at the time, thus putting not only the president but those children in danger?
The way I see it, there are very few possibilities here, and none of them paint the president in a very nice light.
Possibility #1. "They hadn't yet concluded it was terrorism yet."
While this could be a remote possibility, pretty much everyone that watched the destruction that morning had a gut certainty that this was not an accident, that two planes would both hit skyscrapers in the same city. Even if the administration really wasn't willing to make this conclusion, the mere possibility that a massive, multi-phase act of terrorism was taking place in the country should have caused him to be removed to a safe location, where he and the children in the school would not be in danger of being targeted by terrorists that day. Negligence on this level should not be acceptable.
Possibility #2: Well, this is the "conspiracy theory" possibility: President Bush and his administration knew ahead of time that it was going to happen and where the terrorists would strike, thus knowing that he would not himself be a target while in the school in Florida. There are many dots that can be connected regarding this theory that "make sense", but it's too terrible to put at the top of the list. It would be unprecedented in our history (though not really at all unprecented in international history).
I cannot see any other possibilities besides those two that would have justified the president being permitted (whether he wanted to or not) to continue with his planned schedule for that day. I want to see this question addressed, but I'm pretty sure this investigation committee won't have the balls to ask it. If someone can provide a truly logical and legitimate explanation for this, I'll probably accept it, but until then, this remains for me the biggest stain on his time in office.
So much criticism. He must be doing something wrong. Attack after attack upon him and his administration. Don't tell me they are all wrong and he is right.
Nope. It's not ironic that their attacks against the president coincide with the release of their books. It's good marketing and a proven method.
Wrong again. We had a field day with Pres. Clinton every day.
And wrong on the other point as well. O'Neill and Clarke aren't the biggest critics. They're small fry when it comes to yelling at Pres. Bush. Rush and Hannity are constantly after Pres. Bush for his adoption of so much of hte Democrat agenda, his constantly spending more and his refusal to accept that the "New Tone" was doomed to failure before it got started.
You don't hear it because you don't listen to them every day. Too bad too, you'd get all sorts of good ideas if you did.
Did some quick research. First, this on the Justice Department's goals before 9/11.
Next, from the U.S. Constition, Article III Section 3:
Note how the founders made it hard to accuse someone of treason, spefically for the possibility that it may be abused. This includes trying someone for treason because they wrote a book criticizing the government.
I'd have to say that I wonder about Iraq. I could see how Afghanistan could be part of an anti-terrorism campaign, but Iraq? If anything the search for the nonexistant link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda has diverted resources from the hunt for Al-Qaeda, and alienated most of the countries in the world, in a time when we need allies to hunt down the real terrorists.
I have much more important things to do in my life than listening to garbage on radio. Thanks, but no thanks.
Clarke Praises Bush in Resignation Letter
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The White House, seeking to cool criticism from a former top anti-terror adviser, said Tuesday that Richard Clarke's resignation letter praised President Bush's "courage, determination, calm and leadership" on Sept. 11, 2001.
"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."
Rest of story
So it looks like he wasn't bitter about his demotion. Not until it came time to sell his book.
You have a one track mind Smeg...a track proven wrong again and again ><
When you're looking for a good reference do you piss off the employer before you get a new job?
Anyway, whose decision is it to set a date for a book release? I would have thought that it would be the publishers, not the author.
And the second question is, does the release date affect the validity of the critism within the book? I would have thought not, that all critism should be investigated, especially if it is to do with terrorism. But maybe that is me just being a commie-hippie-liberal.
We should form the OTF commie-hippie-liberal club!