Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Richard Clarke - Liar Then or Liar Now?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JohnofTesh, Mar 25, 2004.

  1. JohnofTesh

    JohnofTesh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    57
    Richard Clarke - Liar Then or Liar Now?

    From Boortz.com:

    The proceedings of the committee to elect John Kerry President continued yesterday, this time with walking contradiction Richard Clarke testifying. This is the guy that wrote the book blaming 9/11 on President Bush and praising Bill Clinton's 8 years of inaction on terrorism as somehow better. What an absolute crock...perhaps he's been hired to revise the Clinton legacy because the facts just aren't on this guy's side.
    Surprisingly, this egomaniac's head actually fit through the door of the hearing room. Clarke kicked off his testimony with an apology to "the loved ones of the victims of 9/11....your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you." His statement should have more truthfully been "to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11...the Clinton administration failed you. Prior to the slaughter of your loved ones on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, Bill Clinton turned down the direct handover of Osama Bin Laden on numerous occasions. The Clinton administration refused to allow the CIA to kill Bin Laden, with only capture as the stated policy. Those entrusted with protecting you, including myself, were abject failures who viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem. And don't forget to buy my book."

    Well ... let's get to the rest of Clarke's testimony. We can basically wrap it up this way. Clarke told the commission, as he told America in his book, that the Bush administration did virtually nothing to address the threat of Al Qaeda until the attacks of 9/11. Nothing. He said that Bush was virtually unprepared to act as though it's a major problem.

    Uh oh. Small problem. The White House was a few steps ahead of Clarke yesterday ... as was Fox News Channel. Jim Angle is a reporter for Fox. As the news about Clarke's book started to hit Angle remembered a briefing he received from a White House spokesman in August of 2002. That briefing was for background. That means that the seven reporters on the telephone conference call could not identify who their source was .. .only what their source said. Angle remembered that the person who delivered that briefing was ... Richard Clarke.

    As luck would have it, Angle had a recording of that briefing. He listened to it and found that what Clarke was saying then was markedly different from what Clarke was saying now. So Angle went to the White House to seek permission to release a transcript of that 2002 briefing, and to identify Richard Clarke as the source. The White House, after conferring with the National Security Council, agreed.

    So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing?

    Let's start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission yesterday. Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush administration he told the president: " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."

    So .. there's Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and was ready to discuss it. But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002? This: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."

    Lying then? Or lying now?

    And what about this "Bush did virtually nothing" claim?

    In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: "When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination." "NSPD" is National Security Presidential Directive. So Clark was telling reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies ... to eliminate Al Qaeda. This is what calls doing virtually nothing?

    In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda. Again ... doing virtually nothing?

    Here's the kicker. It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke briefing ... near the end.

    Jim Angle: "So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?

    Richard Clarke: "You got it. That's right.

    So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately. That is what Clarke is now describing as "doing virtually nothing."

    Obviously Clarke is lying. We just have to figure out which statements are the lies? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White House? Or is he lying now when he's trying to sell a book?

    Figure it out.


    P.S. I vote Liar Now.
     
  2. strijdje

    strijdje IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    definitly lair now :rant:
     
  3. Koko Puff

    Koko Puff IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    This is obviously biased. I won't bother until we can actually discuss the issues and not just call people liars. Toodles
     
  4. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    From the linked site:

    :point:
     
  5. Nastie_Bowie

    Nastie_Bowie Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This comes out just as the election is getting rolling.

    Hmm. :scratch:
     
  6. Koko Puff

    Koko Puff IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    He's promoting his book. It doesn't mean whatever comes out of his mouth is a lie. Besides if he talked about it any earlier Mrs.Condaleeza "poor millionaire" Rice could've come up with some excuse.

    You guys should hear about Bush's new policy! Legal discrimination against gays. It seems I can be fired and demoted for my sexual orientation. Let me go find the linkie and make a new thread.
     
  7. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Ah, Neal Boortz. An interesting cat and one of the six neat things about Atlanta.

    I couldn't tell where your thoughts began JoT. It all looked like Boortz. A good example of guerilla posting though; complete with ellipsis and everything. Color me impressed :thumbsup:
     
  8. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    So people involved in the government aren't allowed to publish books every other year?

    N_B, Clarke is a Republican. He was the counter-terrorism czar for Bush. He may have a political agenda, he may have an ax to grind with his former boss. But those motivations alone cannot discount anything he's said. Only facts and evidence can do that.

    Shall we discount everything in the book Bush published late last year as well?
     
  9. nnndave

    nnndave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    346
    I say now. One thing's for sure though... his credibility went out the window a long time ago. His book won't come close to Hannity's.
     
  10. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,227
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    498
    For the Geeks

    As a matter of fact, I recall a lot of irritation on several technical & security discussion boards because of Clark being such a numbnuts - remember how he was one of the Cybersecurity Czars? http://techupdate.zdnet.com/Clarke_issues_gloomy_report_card_.html

    I agree that liar is a strong word, but he definitely needs some deflation.
     
  11. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    One thing is clear after yesterday's testimony from Clarke: the White House is on the defensive again and have unleashed their attack dogs. :grrr:

    Condoleezza Rice is my favorite. She has all the time in the world to go on various new agencies or summon reporters to her office in an attempt to rebut Clarke's testimony, but she just couldn't make it to the 9/11 hearing to testify under oath.

    How weak is that?

    Check out the video on this topic from Comedy Central :lol:

    http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8117.html
     
  12. Nastie_Bowie

    Nastie_Bowie Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When someone slanders you you get upset. Attack dogs, indeed.

    The latest

    I have several ex-employees that have a less than pleasant opinion of me, too. :lol:
     
  13. Any1

    Any1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh why don't you just go marry Hannity. Every freakin' author apparently has to pass the "Hannity-test" to be considered worthy of your attention. Since when is selling the most books to sheep considered a sign of literary success?

    I wonder if John Updike, Norman Mailer, Michael Cunnigham, or Philip Roth (all pulitzer prize winners, for the less informed members of the forum) pass the "Hannity Test"? If not they must suck. :rolleyes:
     
  14. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Which would certainly explain why Clarke is so upset.

    Could someone please explain Cheney's "out of the loop" comment to me? Because I don't understand how your counter-terrorism czar would be "out of the loop"* on counter-terrorism.
     
  15. Carnage-DVS

    Carnage-DVS IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    They should all refer to the other thread. It's already been said that the White House sat on his book for months, and if they hadn't, it would have come out much earlier, thus negating your entire "it came out to influence the election because it's so close" theory.
     
  16. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4600713/

    One could certainly add former Sec. O'Neill to that list as well.

    Gee, I seem to remember that O'Neill stated that the Bush administration was fixated on attacking Iraq from the onset. Hmm ... that information seems to support Clarke's accusations about Bush, Iraq, and the "closed door" meeting. The meeting that Bush and Rice somehow cannot recollect, but several other witnessess have confirmed and supported.

    Oh by the way, whatever happened to the Valerie Plume issue? You remember ... the treasonous. illegal information passed from the White House that put Ambassador Wilson's wife at risk. I guess that investigation by Bush's cronies just got swept under the rug along with all the rest of the lies and exaggerations from this corrupt administration.

    Be afraid Bushies ... be very afraid. You may lose this election.
     
  17. Koko Puff

    Koko Puff IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Don't you mean "You will lose this election." Lol :D
     
  18. ScanMan

    ScanMan IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    I thought Ms. Rice had already given her testimony before the committe in closed session.

    "Rice met privately with the panel for four hours at the White House on Feb. 7. Afterward, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the panel, said, "It was a very useful interview, and I personally found Dr. Rice to be candid and forthcoming."
     
  19. nnndave

    nnndave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    346
    Stop screaming.

    The only reason I said it is because that is who he is trying to beat in the ratings. Ah, and there you go with the sheep. Well, I guess I'd rather be a sheep than a lemming. :rolleyes:
     
  20. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    The committee members pleaded for her to step forward again (especially in lieu of some of the allegations that had been recently been put forth by Clarke). As you know, this was a public meeting not a private one. Ms. Rice refused citing separation of powers.
     

Share This Page