Richard Clarke: Bush Admin Negligent in Antiterrorism

[GePap]

Again, if Bush supporters whish to continue to smear campaign, you guys have a great chance-he gave public testimony under oath- so why doesn't the admin. accuse him of perjury and ask for charges to be brought? They claim he lies, now they can prove it legally, no?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Perhaps because they were quotes and transcripts proven by other public sources?

Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the article discreditted itself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

:yawn:

Yep thats always the right thing to do. Prove perjury. Worked last time for the repubs when they showed Clinton perjured himself.

Worked so well they had a reversal of fortune in the mid-terms.

Perfect no win situation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the article discreditted itself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

Remind me of that next time you bring a Molly Ivins post.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap


So are you-so is everyone who has EVER told ANY lie-unless you want to claim know you never lie in any way.

NOW, knowing you have lied, knowing mr. Boortz has lied, knowing everyone over 2 has lied, why should I ever believe anything anyone has ever said, save perhaps someone's first words?

Irrelevant. We are talking about lying about something specific. It's hard to believe someone who lies about a particular topic when they speak on that topic again in the future. Just as you would have trouble believing a mechanic who had lied to you about your car in the past. It doesn't mean you would automatically disbelieve anything he tells you though does it?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the author (Clarke) discreditted himself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Irrelevant. We are talking about lying about something specific. It's hard to believe someone who lies about a particular topic when they speak on that topic again in the future. Just as you would have trouble believing a mechanic who had lied to you about your car in the past. It doesn't mean you would automatically disbelieve anything he tells you though does it?

You have ignored the issue twice- in 2002 Clarcke still worked for the WH- and if you work for a politician, you do NOT attack them in front of the press. That simple.
For example, lets take Colin-Colin said a lot of things that have not proven true-and I have doubts about all his affirmations about how him and Rummy and Wolfie all saw things pretty much the same-does that mean I will automatically disbelieve them? NO. The only people willing to automatically disbelieve are those who are biased, becuase they do not care for situational differences.

I work for a pol., and anyone working for a pol. comes to find out you stay on message as long as you work there, becuase if you are not on message, you stop working there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Once you lose someone's trust, it's hard to get it back. Since the author (Clarke) discreditted himself immediately, regardless of whether or not valid points might be made later on, I'm not gonna bother reading it. Find a better spokesperson, one that doesn't resort to lies.

:yawn:

You say trying to porve perjury is a lose-lose situation-only if you can't show any evidence that he is lying that would convince people beyond a reasonable doubt-which means all you guys attacking Clarckes credibility have nothing to show but your opinions of him and his statements. And the same for those who believe him.

It boils down to other evidence to back up one side or the other. I believe the proponderance of the evidence, such as Ashcroft trying to cut the counterterrorism budget and such, point towards clarcke's contentions, not the other way around.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap


You have ignored the issue twice- in 2002 Clarcke still worked for the WH- and if you work for a politician, you do NOT attack them in front of the press. That simple.
For example, lets take Colin-Colin said a lot of things that have not proven true-and I have doubts about all his affirmations about how him and Rummy and Wolfie all saw things pretty much the same-does that mean I will automatically disbelieve them? NO. The only people willing to automatically disbelieve are those who are biased, becuase they do not care for situational differences.

I work for a pol., and anyone working for a pol. comes to find out you stay on message as long as you work there, becuase if you are not on message, you stop working there.

So lying is ok if your employer tells you to do it? That's a shame.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually my point was even if proving perjury there is fallout that makes it problematic and a lose-lose situation (case in point regarding the proven perjury of Clinton).

Martyring Clarke would be political suicide even if they prove him guilty.

And you took the wrong quote.

That was a mockery of Che's.

[MrFun]

I think the point of my last post was missed -- if Clarke is as twisted of a liar as some of you claim he is, why would he include himself as one of the people responsible for the failure to prevent 9/11?

[GePap]

The actual testimony:

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?

CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading. The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office. Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern. So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did. Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing.

Advertisement


THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy?


CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect.

THOMPSON: OK. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption?

CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case.

THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case?

CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make.

THOMPSON: Are you saying to be you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public, and that you went ahead and did it? MORE

CLARKE: No, sir. Not untrue. Not an untrue case. I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents.

THOMPSON: Well, OK, over the course of the summer, they developed implementation details. The principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold. Did they authorize the increase in funding five-fold?

and so forth. Maybe you guys care to read?

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/po...?pagewanted=56

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia


So lying is ok if your employer tells you to do it? That's a shame.

Welcome to politics..a field it seems you will never work in.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Remind me of that next time you bring a Molly Ivins post.

Don't confuse me with Sava.

[DinoDoc]

I hate sites that require registration just to poke around.