Clarke and his book got Pwned

Oddly enough Fox is the only one reporting this

Clark seems to have had a different opinion about the Bush administration back in august of 2001, in fact he says the opposite of what he's claiming now

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by The Edine]

[Wezas]

You'd appreciate this, Edine.

This morning, going through a neighborhood street I was behind a pickup. This pickup had signs and stickers and all kinds of crap, basically covering up the entire tailgate & back of the cab.

"Democrats want to raise our taxes". "Vote Bush in '04". A big Non-smoking sign (except the cig was replaced with a mule).

And this truck was going 11mph. Backing up traffic. We finally get into a road that's 35mph, and he still goes 11mph.

So I call the town cops and get a lady on the phone. I tell her that it's a white truck with stickers and signs and before I can even read off the plate number she says "We're aware of him, sir. The sheriff has already been dispatched."

1/2 mile later (seemed like forever) and here comes Mr. Sheriff pulling around me to pull him over. My day has been great ever since.

did you even bother reading it?

[Tsa`ah]

I did, but failed to see the pwnage.

Maybe I'll read his book, then re-read the articles. Maybe then I'll see the pwnage.

I suggest you read the book to before you make yourself look like an idgit pointing out pwnage that isn't happening.

People may start assuming you forgot to take your medication.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, FoxNews being the only one to report it. ;)


Oh yeah, that's because FoxNews is a propoganda machine for the Bush Administration!


The guy has said he supported the President while he was employed by the President. An admirable thing to do. Then, he resigned, an admirable thing to do in light of the fact that he privately disagreed. Then, he said how he really felt.


Come on Edine, don't be so duplicitous that you can't see why a guy who's on the inside wouldn't toe the company line while he was with the company. And then, I won't be so naive to think he wouldn't blast the company somewhat unfairly after he resigns in a fit because the company won't do things the way he thinks they should be done.

-TheE-

i have not read it nore do I plan to<i dont like fiction when it comes to serious issues>, I have on the other hand watched his 60min interview and have heard him on various other programs in relation to it.
Clark now says that Bush did absoluetly nothing to fight terrorism, when read the transcripts of the tapes, he seems to have had a diffrent view.
Clark got burned and did not get the #2 job in the office of homeland security, and this is his payback. I just feel sorry for him... by the end of this all he will be branded nothing but a liar

TheE, so you are saying that he was lieing in the interview?

[Tsa`ah]

It comes down to the administration's word against his.

Again, you lack credibility because you have not and will not, your own words, read the book.

You have only interviews to go by.

Even if you did read the book, you still only have one point to go on, to believe or not. This is hardly grounds for the being "pwnd" as you put it.

[TheEschaton]

Am I saying he lied in his interview? No, because I haven't read the book.

Do I hold out that A) a man in the employment of the White House would toe the company line even if he privately disagreed with it? Yes.

Do I also think that B) being burned in the Administration probably left him bitter, and thus made him resign and tell these things that'll hurt the Administration in retaliation? Sure, it happens all the time, when disgruntled employees quit.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT NOT TRUE. It merely makes his motives selfish.

-TheE-

Tsa'ah it now comes down to his own words against him.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by The Edine
Tsa'ah it now comes down to his own words against him.

Point out where please.

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Do I also think that B) being burned in the Administration probably left him bitter, and thus made him resign and tell these things that'll hurt the Administration in retaliation? Sure, it happens all the time, when disgruntled employees quit.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT NOT TRUE. It merely makes his motives selfish.

-TheE-

Or it could also make it a fabrication to get back at thoes who demoted you to "head of cybersecurity" from counter-terrorism czar
Could it not?

[TheEschaton]

It could be. However, the question you have to ask yourself is this....a man who votes Republican, has served the last three Republican presidents in this role, and has come up with a Republican mindset, a man critical of the Clinton administration, who had been in public service in this role for THIRTY years....

...would he lie outright about something of that magnitude, out of bitter jealousy?

I don't think so. Does it mean "take it with a grain of salt, cause it's probably a bit colored due to his experience"? Sure.


-TheE-

A man who supports kerry <you forgot that TheE.>

What is also important to note is it was not the White House who let the tape out, the reporter who did had it in his records and then requested that he be allowed to put it on the record.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Come on Edine, don't be so duplicitous that you can't see why a guy who's on the inside wouldn't toe the company line while he was with the company. And then, I won't be so naive to think he wouldn't blast the company somewhat unfairly after he resigns in a fit because the company won't do things the way he thinks they should be done.

-TheE-

Let's also not forget that he and CBS are trying to make money on a book right now as well.

Whether you like the guy or not.. he obviously is a 2 faced waffle maker who is only worried about how much his (and CBS') book will make.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
It comes down to the administration's word against his.

Again, you lack credibility because you have not and will not, your own words, read the book.

You have only interviews to go by.

Even if you did read the book, you still only have one point to go on, to believe or not. This is hardly grounds for the being "pwnd" as you put it.

Actually.. it's his word against.. his word. Just 2 years apart.

[Parkbandit]

Like The Edine said:

[MPSorc]

Im not even going to keep up with all this he said she said about the 9/11 attack, but i figure there will be finger pointing for many years to come, this will be in my belief the "Kenedy assassination scandal" of our generation.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
back in august of 2001Gee whiz, what happened in between then and now, Edine? Anything? Nah, probably nothing that would cause you to change your opinion about the Bush Administration.

Latrinsorm, nothing that would make you say that bush is doing a great job and working hard to impose a policy to combat terrorism that the previous administration would not. Then say in a book\on news programs, that Bush did NOTHING and did not even start to make a policy to combat terrorism.
His words there and his words now are in direct contradiction of each other, which goes very far in relation to his credibility.

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine
by the end of this all he will be branded nothing but a liar

I envy your ability to see into the future.

[Knights Templar]

Bush is the worst president in office, everywhere. His administration is a travesty to democracy. I hope he dies.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
Latrinsorm, nothing that would make you say that bush is doing a great job and working hard to impose a policy to combat terrorism that the previous administration would not. Then say in a bookon news programs, that Bush did NOTHING and did not even start to make a policy to combat terrorism.
His words there and his words now are in direct contradiction of each other, which goes very far in relation to his credibility. That's why it's the past, Edine. Because it's not the present. If I were (to borrow from another thread) waltz around saying the world was flat, and then my physics teacher proved conclusively (I've seen him do it) that it was round, I would stop saying it was flat. Yes, I contradict my past words, because they were wrong. Do you think that makes me a hypocrite?

Latrinsorm, did you see his interview on 60minuets?

[Sean]

But with magical powers to see the future and know the outcome you wouldn't have that problem Latrinsorm.

Perhaps the one who enjoys to remind people to stay on topic should take his own advice?
Do you not think so Tijay?
If you have nothing to add to the topic at hand why don't you go make a thread that speaks about my ability to see into the future

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Knights Templar
Bush is the worst president in office, everywhere. His administration is a travesty to democracy. I hope he dies.

Excellent... with Knights on their side.. I see a large influx of converted Democrates coming our way.

[Ravenstorm]

You've got your own problems to balance it out.

Raven

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine
Perhaps the one who enjoys to remind people to stay on topic should take his own advice?
Do you not think so Tijay?
If you have nothing to add to the topic at hand why don't you go make a thread that speaks about my ability to see into the future

Actually I was on topic. I was reference your post inwhich you made a claim that you consider to be ontopic. Satire or sarcasm does not equal being off topic.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
But with magical powers to see the future and know the outcome you wouldn't have that problem Latrinsorm. But then I'd know when my kids (once I get them) would die, and then I would get all mope-y, I'm sure.
Originally posted by The Edine
Latrinsorm, did you see his interview on 60minuets? Nosir. So?

If you want to make a comment about the article posted or Clark, that is on topic, talking about my ability to see into the future ... which was nothing but a statement of opinion is not.
Having read that article and now sitting down watching Clark in front of the 9\11 commission all I can say is he is fucked. I'm just sad that the commissioners were not able to find out about the briefing that Clark gave before they questioned him.

[Ilvane]

Edine, Clarke worked under Reagan, Bush the first, Clinton and Bush the second. He wasn't so much demoted as his job was eliminated by the changes in Bush's anti-terrorism policies. He was given a job equal to what he had before, but in a different department. After he was given that job, he stayed another two years before coming out with this, because he was upset at the way things were being portrayed, and the way things were being done.

I find his crediablity to be pretty darned strong, seeing as he was able to work with all four administrations, when usually when a new administration starts, they tend to wipe out a lot of people out of jobs, and put in people they like. He's been around 30 + years.

So, the crediability gap seems to come more and more from President Bush--I mean, if you look at his record.;)

-A

Originally posted by LatrinsormOriginally posted by The Edine
Latrinsorm, did you see his interview on 60minuets? Nosir. So? [/quote]

If you would have watched it and known what he said, then heard the tapes from 2001 you would be able to understand the point I am trying to make.
He is in DIRECT contradiction of previous statments, it is not a case of well now that I know this stuff i have changed my views. He said one thing in the interview and has been quoted form his book, something very diffrent back then.

[Ilvane]

Edine, once again..have you ever left a job? If you write your resignation letter to someone, you don't criticize them on your way out, especially if you are a professional, and especially if you don't want to burn bridges.

I don't see anything wrong with that..do you?

-A

[Sean]

I'm curious Edine, how far would you go to support your president?

In my opinion, theres a difference between supporting your president in a time of need and then later at a more appropriate (or inappropriate to some I guess) time portraying more accurate representations of your thoughts. While I'm sure this will lead to cries of poor character or being a CYA policy or an effort to keep his job/position as long as necessary I'm seriously curious where you might draw the line.

[TheEschaton]

Edine, this is from AUgust 2001?


The bulk of Richard Clarke's argument is that directly after 9/11/01, Bush asked him to "find out what Iraq's role was in 9/11", and made it clear that he wanted him to find Iraq as responsible. His claims are that Rummy was saying there weren't enough targets in Afghanistan, that Iraq had more targets, on 9/12/01. He is saying that the Bush administration foolishly went into Iraq, justifying it as a "War on Terror", when, in reality, the real war should of been in Afghanistan.

If this article is from August of 2001 - I don't see it's relevance.

Edited to add: Article is from August of 2002. So this post is moot, but reference posts above about toing the company line.

-TheE-

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
He is in DIRECT contradiction of previous statments, it is not a case of well now that I know this stuff i have changed my views. He said one thing in the interview and has been quoted form his book, something very diffrent back then. In my opinion (and obviously not yours) the situation has changed more than enough for him to say something in direct contradiction to what he said then. Things (most of them) change over time, and we should change with them.

[TheEschaton]

Nah, Latrin, not conservatives. To them, the Cold War is still going, Reaganomics works, and it should be, morally, exactly how it was, 50 years ago.

-TheE-

[Wezas]

This whole "The democrats are flip-flopping" is pissing me off. A few people have reconsidered things years later after many events have happened. They support their president, which is admirable, even though they may not agree with everything he is doing.

I think we should look less at the "democrats flip-flopping" and more at the "republican brainwashed bible-wavers" (note, this is not all republicans, just the few I've interacted with recently). How about an individual getting an opinion of theif own instead of holding tight to party lines and acting like zombies.

[MPSorc]

you folks want to hear something weird?

Well, in June of 2001 a general order was given to all military installations that any post that was accessable to the public, i.e. no gate guards, was to become a closed post (with gate guards) by August 1, 2001. That there tells me someone knew something was going to happen way in advance.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You've got your own problems to balance it out.

Raven

That's true. :(

Like your new avatar by the way... sweet.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Edine, Clarke worked under Reagan, Bush the first, Clinton and Bush the second. He wasn't so much demoted as his job was eliminated by the changes in Bush's anti-terrorism policies. He was given a job equal to what he had before, but in a different department. After he was given that job, he stayed another two years before coming out with this, because he was upset at the way things were being portrayed, and the way things were being done.

I find his crediablity to be pretty darned strong, seeing as he was able to work with all four administrations, when usually when a new administration starts, they tend to wipe out a lot of people out of jobs, and put in people they like. He's been around 30 + years.

So, the crediability gap seems to come more and more from President Bush--I mean, if you look at his record.;)

-A

LMAO.. come on now.. you 'find his credibility to be pretty darned strong'? YOU HAVE to be kidding me.. right? Whether you are a Democrate, Republican or a "I hate all politics" person.. you can't find his credibility to be strong.. since he CONTRADICTS HIMSELF. What the fuck is so strong about it? He's hocking a book.. and he's pissed because he was demoted (and yes, the Bush Administration allowed him to save face in public.. but it was a demotion) and feels the need to get back at the current administration.

PS- Read the press briefing that this thread initiated.. read his own resignation letter to President Bush... then read some passages from his book. You tell me what face he is speaking out of when.. because I can't tell.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Edine, once again..have you ever left a job? If you write your resignation letter to someone, you don't criticize them on your way out, especially if you are a professional, and especially if you don't want to burn bridges.

I don't see anything wrong with that..do you?

-A

Sorry.. If he truly was upset with the way the current administration was dealing with Terrorism.. then why would he put all the extra bullshit ass kissing at the end of his resignation letter?

Sorry.. I tell it like it is. If I am unhappy, they will know what my concerns were. I've never written anything untrue in any resignation letter. Ever. I may not put all the concerns and specifics on it.. but I certainly won't tell a horrible boss that it was my enormous pleasure working for him.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by Tijay
I'm curious Edine, how far would you go to support your president?

I'm willing to give my life to support my country, and the commander in chief. I just hope the president who is in office while I am a member of the armed services cares for this country as much as I do.

Edit: how about you Tijay what will you do to support your president\country?

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by The Edine]

[Ilvane]

Come on, yourself Parkbandit.;)

I tend to think he initially didn't say anything because he didn't want to burn bridges, then Bush came out saying he was #1 on terrorism, and he got tired of the blarney and came out and said something about it.

I wouldn't want to cross the Bush administration myself, just look at what they did to Joe Wilson's wife when he spoke out about things going wrong in the administration.

-A

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Nah, Latrin, not conservatives. To them, the Cold War is still going, Reaganomics works, and it should be, morally, exactly how it was, 50 years ago.Dude, I'm a conservative, remember? :P I've still got my Winchester pointed in Russia's general direction, don't worry.

[TheEschaton]

I don't think I would've taken a bullet for any of the last four Presidents - I don't care what office they hold. They were all pretty shitty.

Carter....eh. Maybe.

-TheE-

Come on, yourself Parkbandit.;)
was #1 on terrorism, and he got tired of the blarney and came out and said something about it.
A book cannot come out that quickly, I'm sorry. Bush did not start campaigning until a few weeks ago.


I wouldn't want to cross the Bush administration myself, just look at what they did to Joe Wilson's wife when he spoke out about things going wrong in the administration.

-A

Hmm please show me where the proof of the bush "admin" one leaking the information and two letting it be known that a person who "by public knowledge"(ie. not classified) was working for the CIA however many years ago is such a issue

[Mistomeer]

What Clark seemed to be stressing on 60 minutes, in my opinion, was that the Bush administration focused on how they could attack Iraq rather than fight terrorism. Despite the fact that there is no Al Qaeda/Iraq link, the Bush administration continued to stress the fact that Iraq was an immediate threat rather than focus on ending the Al Qaeda threat. There was no immediate threat to the United States from Iraq.

Rummy Gets PWNED (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/)

Now that's getting PWNED.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

He had his ass handed to him during the hearings as well.

yes, yes he did.
did you hear that? his book sales are going NOWHERE
Where? NOWHERE!

[Lobster]

Edine, once again..have you ever left a job? If you write your resignation letter to someone, you don't criticize them on your way out, especially if you are a professional, and especially if you don't want to burn bridges. - Ilvane

I tend to think this is likely the case...because that's how it works in the corporate world. This is usually what happens when people quit their job. Only an idiot is going to burn a bridge. But....damn did he burn it later when profit, revenge and the "I was right" options were all possible.

As far as the timing of the release of his book...he said that as of "fall 2003" the White House was in possession of his book. They had to sign off that there was no "sensitive" or "classified" information in the book. They just got it back to his publisher within the last month. The White House hasn't denied this yet, so I'd guess it's probably true.

I think his motives are profit and firing a shot across the bow of the people he feels were at fault. I believe him, but the whole thing looks like a Pyrrhic victory to be honest. Everyone loses...except his publisher and the dems.

I remember that in the first 8 months of 2001 the White House was focused on damage control because the economy was looking like it might get real bad. I can understand why terrorism wasn't on the front burner...his arse was getting hot beucase of the economy. He was under attack for that...does anyone remember terrorism being the main topic of political discussion in the first 8 months of 2001? It wasn't...and I bet almost any administration would have focused on the economy. It was the one the forefront of most people's minds.

The White House and Bush are trying to cover their arses after being betrayed by Clarke telling all in his book.

Clarke could have faded away into obscurity with a nice pension and no worries. It doesn't sound like they respected or took him seriously and he probably felt like it was personal. If he would have just gone to congress I would be 100% on his side....but greed just undermines his standing to me.

The funny thing to me about the far right and far left is how much alike I think they really are...reverse the roles and make this a problem with a democrat run White House and I'd bet you'd see the dems calling Clarke a liar and "in it for profit" and the republicans attacking the administration.

I work between a VERY right wing ex-Marine and a VERY left wing lesbian. I think my boss likes the conflict.

my $.02

[Hulkein]

I think his book sucks so he's stirring up publicity. He's taking a page out of The Passion, too bad only one of them is close to the truth... I'll give you a clue, it's almost made 300 million.

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine
Edit: how about you Tijay what will you do to support your presidentcountry?


I'll become a productive member of society.

[Edaarin]

Maybe it's wrong of me to say it, but does anyone else get the feeling that Edine is exploiting his enlistment to add sway to his arguments?

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think his book sucks so he's stirring up publicity. He's taking a page out of The Passion, too bad only one of them is close to the truth... I'll give you a clue, it's almost made 300 million.

LOL. The Passion of making money of Christians is what it should be called. Let's make an accurate movie about the life of Jesus, but instead of having Him played by someone that matches His actual skin color let's make His skin color resemble that of our target audience. That's close to something, I'm not sure it's close to the truth.

[Lobster]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think his book sucks so he's stirring up publicity. He's taking a page out of The Passion, too bad only one of them is close to the truth... I'll give you a clue, it's almost made 300 million.

The earliest books of the bible were written something like 10-20 years after his death...faith is the only way one can look at stories composed that long after it happened and take them as fact.

Save your "clue"

[TheEschaton]

He was under attack for that...does anyone remember terrorism being the main topic of political discussion in the first 8 months of 2001?

I remember the "big" issue of 2001 before 9/11 being Bush's waffling on gene cloning and stem cell research.

Shit, I was incensed about that. Now I wish for those days.


-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Lobster
The earliest books of the bible were written something like 10-20 years after his death...faith is the only way one can look at stories composed that long after it happened and take them as fact.

Save your "clue"

I didn't say it was fact, I said it was close to truth. This is a widely accepted notion, stop nitpicking at things I didn't even say.

[longshot]

First, talk about the fucking Jesus movie in the Jesus movie thread, not here.


Originally posted by The Edine

A book cannot come out that quickly, I'm sorry. Bush did not start campaigning until a few weeks ago.



You believe that? He didn't start campaigning until a few weeks ago? No fundraisers or nothing like that, eh?

There's a much more serious issue here, and it really has nothing to do with the book...


Edine, the guy's name is "CLARKE" . Wesley Clark was the other "liberal pussy". Who knew there were so many raging hippies named Clark, and that they had so many fancy ways to spell it?

Speaking of spelling, your command of the English language is somewhere between "Immigrant" and "Ralph Wiggum". It seems likely that your shortcomings in the classroom have as much to do with your choice of enlistment as does your dollar-store patriotism.

There are many people on this board who are currently serving in the armed forces, or have served long stints. None of them have four lines of "roo hah" bullshit in their quote lines. Only you. It's even bolded too!

You are an embarrassment to them.

You have no ability to think for yourself. Zero. Cutting and pasting news articles from Fox News and then interspersing it with butchered sentences and botched html bolding tags does not make an orignal thought. I'm sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this.

The cocky attitude you attempt to pull off doesn't hold water. I see someone who is very insecure. Someone grasping for an identity by becoming a soldier.

You're a hollow shell,... all you can do is echo.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by longshot]

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by longshot]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by Tijay
I'm curious Edine, how far would you go to support your president?

I'm willing to give my life to support my country, and the commander in chief. I just hope the president who is in office while I am a member of the armed services cares for this country as much as I do.

Edit: how about you Tijay what will you do to support your presidentcountry?

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by The Edine]

Interesting indeed. You have yet to shed one drop of perspiration in basic and already you have draped ol'glory over your shoulder and espouse your service to this nation.

Kid, you have one rude awakening coming. Recruits like you are a dime a dozen and getting cheaper by the day.

Let's assume you get past basic, what are you aiming for as your specialty? Are you willing to raise your hand and accept an assault rifle? Are you so gung-ho to go out and kill? To be killed?

I've got clips of chopper night assaults my brother has sent me. No doubt they're all over the internet already, but they're pretty graphic through an IR lens. Is this what you want to do? Are you so blinded by propaganda that you're willing to take a gun and kill a man or men that don't want you in their country? These aren't terrorists, they aren't all bathist, muslim extremist, or nut jobs that the media would like you to believe they are.

These are people that are not willing to trade one tyrant for another. They want to be able to decide if they want their oil piped to Israel. They want to be able to decide who their leaders will be, even if we don't like that decision.

You know what. I hope you make it through basic and I really hope you don't puss out and chose something like custodial engineer or potato peeler.

You're in for a lesson the last three generations of my family learned, I just hope you live through it.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by longshot
Speaking of spelling, your command of the English language is somewhere between "Immigrant" and "Ralph Wiggum". It seems likely that your shortcomings in the classroom have as much to do with your choice of enlistment as does your dollar-store patriotism.

The cocky attitude you attempt to pull off doesn't hold water. I someone who is very insecure. Someone grasping for an identity by becoming a soldier.

You're a hollow shell,... all you can do is echo.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by longshot]

If you are going to bash someone for their spelling and grammar... it's always best to make sure your own post conforms to these high standards.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Come on, yourself Parkbandit.;)

I tend to think he initially didn't say anything because he didn't want to burn bridges, then Bush came out saying he was #1 on terrorism, and he got tired of the blarney and came out and said something about it.

I wouldn't want to cross the Bush administration myself, just look at what they did to Joe Wilson's wife when he spoke out about things going wrong in the administration.

-A

Yea.. it couldn't possibly be that he had a book to sell.

No way.

Couldn't be that he was angry with the current administration for not giving him the #2 position in the department he wanted.. but instead demoted him to cybersecurity.

No way.

Cut it either way you wish Ilvane... the truth though is that he lied. Which version of his story is the lie... now that's the big question.

I tend to side with those that say he's lying in the book to make it more sensational.. which should sell more. A book that comes out saying Bush is doing the right thing won't sell shit.. and I'm guessing Clarke knew this.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Which version of his story is the lie... now that's the big question.


When you cut through all the bullshit in this thread and the our guys are better than your guys stuff .. isn't this the only thing thats really important?

You are free to feel any way you want. I joined the military for many reasons, and I dont think that everyone here wants me to rattle them off.
When it comes to what I have in my signiture and why it is in bold, I thought it rightthat if i was going to put it in my sig I would put it as it is written. The documentation <waves a piece of paper around> oddly enough has those four lines in bold.(as does the DEP (Delayed Entry Program website)
Longshot, from what I have absorbed from your posts is that you were an English major in college were you not? If not please correct me. If you were one I don't see where you have the ability to psychoanalyze me or my actions. Just looking at something I post on a game related board is far from an introspective look into my soul. It would be good to remember that for it makes you look foolish, at least in my eyes.<as little as that may matter to you.

PS. I am proud of my decision to join, and my reasons for doing so.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
[quote]
Interesting indeed. You have yet to shed one drop of perspiration in basic and already you have draped ol'glory over your shoulder and espouse your service to this nation.
Correct, but i am forcing myself to get in shape prior to it, I admit that I will have a lot to learn once i get there, the sweating is not what worries me, its the mental(not forcing myself to do the physical work but the becoming a soldier part, and taking orders) but I am confident enough that i will be able to suck it up and do what needs to be done


Kid, you have one rude awakening coming. Recruits like you are a dime a dozen and getting cheaper by the day. As great as recruiters are I dont take their word for much. My family, and friends who are in the military or have been and are now out are those who i take their word for gold.


Let's assume you get past basic, what are you aiming for as your specialty? U2U

Are you willing to raise your hand and accept an assault rifle? Are you so gung-ho to go out and kill? To be killed? Gung-ho, no, far from it. If it is my life or theirs then I will do what I must and suffer the anguish that comes with it afterwords.

Are you so blinded by propaganda that you're willing to take a gun and kill a man or men that don't want you in their country?
I have my views that I hold, I am not sucked in by "propaganda" and take things as such with a grain of salt.


These aren't terrorists, they aren't all bathist, muslim extremist, or nut jobs that the media would like you to believe they are.
Tsa'ah I know. I am not so ill informed as some people wish to believe. I feel for the people in Iraq and the struggle they are going though. The mothers and fathers, the children... I just hope that their lives will be better after we are done doing what we must over there. Without Saddam in power and them having the ability to rule themselves I feel that they will.


These are people that are not willing to trade one tyrant for another. They want to be able to decide if they want their oil piped to Israel. They want to be able to decide who their leaders will be, even if we don't like that decision. That is why i feel what we are doing is right. We as far as I am able to tell are allowing them to decide what it is they will do. Giving them the option of who will rule them with a helping had to keep everything as fair to all thoes that live in Iraq.


You're in for a lesson the last three generations of my family learned, I just hope you live through it.
My family has a history of being in the armed service as well. I have their support and aid if i am ever in need, and also their wisdom.


[Edited on 3-25-2004 by The Edine]

[longshot]

Parkbandit, you're right. I meant to write, "I see someone". I edited it in the original post.


Originally posted by The Edine

Longshot, from what I have absorbed from your posts is that you were an English major in college were you not? If not please correct me. If you were one I don't see where you have the ability to psychoanalyze me or my actions. Just looking at something I post on a game related board is far from an introspective look into my soul. It would be good to remember that for it makes you look foolish, at least in my eyes.<as little as that may matter to you.

PS. I am proud of my decision to join, and my reasons for doing so.

I was not an English major. I was a dual major in advertising and East Asian studies. You're right, I'm not qualified to psychoanalyze you. That doesn't mean that I can't tell from your posts that you are insecure. You clearly are.

I'm sure you have many reasons for joining, but I'm almost positive that the ones I listed played a large part in your decision process. You are much too proud to admit that though.

This Clarke book, like anything politcal, can be looked at from many different angles. You are really good at parroting Fox News. Why not try and come up with some orignal thought of your own in the short time you have left to think freely?

Before you go become the deadliest optometrist the Army has ever seen...

Nothing is more scary than an Eye care professional with a gun, you are sure to lose an eye....
sorry had to
I didn't want to be a "optician" in the army, I would have done nothing but make glasses (lab work), and would have been required to sign up for 6 years, and because of the skills I have already I would not be learning anything new.
I beg to differ with you about my reasons but you are free to think as you wish.
And when it comes to Clark"E"'s book most of it is filled with opinion, for example yesterday in front of the commission Clark"E" basically had his ass handed to him by the commissioners

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Which version of his story is the lie... now that's the big question.


When you cut through all the bullshit in this thread and the our guys are better than your guys stuff .. isn't this the only thing thats really important?

His credibility is shit right now to me.

I cannot hold Bush responsible for 9-11 anymore than I can hold Clinton responsible. People are saying that Clinton should have taken Bin Laden out during his reign.. but who would have approved of an invasion prior to 9-11?

Hindsite is 20-20. It's easy to put the puzzle together when you know what it's supposed to look like when you are done.

[TheEschaton]

Everything I heard of Clarke's testimony was stunning, and in no way was his "ass handed to him".

-TheE-

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Everything I heard of Clarke's testimony was stunning, and in no way was his "ass handed to him".


I should have clarified. I was referring to Rumsfeld, since I posted that directly after the link to the moveon.org website and the clip of him.

well if you had paid attention and known some of the things in the book, for example when George Tennent<sp> CIA director was asked about how he briefed Condalesa<sp> Rice on Al Quida he oddly enough did it right before she had her meeting with Mr. Clarke,
Now when we get to an excerpt about clarke's book we have him saying something to the extent of.."When I told her about Al Quida she looked as if she had never heard of it before" (if you want me to i can probably google to find the exact quote)
That goes towards an Ass handing.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
well if you had paid attention and known some of the things in the book,



Originally posted by The Edine
i have not read it nore do I plan to

Need I say more?

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by The Edine
well if you had paid attention and known some of the things in the book,



Originally posted by The Edine
i have not read it nore do I plan to

Need I say more?

Raven

Actually you should.. since I doubt anyone here has actually read the book.

Because we have not read the book, that should me we should somehow not take the context of the book from the media into question? That is using the same logic as someone who has never had kids should have no opinion about raising kids. Or people who have never played professional football should not have an opinion on their favorite team.

[TheEschaton]

TOK, I wasn't referring to you, but to The Edine's post, his last one before my post, where he said that during his testimony to the 9/11 commission, Clarke's ass was handed to him.

I saw Clarke testify and it was frickin' amazing.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
TOK, I wasn't referring to you, but to The Edine's post, his last one before my post, where he said that during his testimony to the 9/11 commission, Clarke's ass was handed to him.

I saw Clarke testify and it was frickin' amazing.

-TheE-

I suppose if you are amazed by a self serving, habitual liar.

Personally, I prefer non-fiction.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Actually you should.. since I doubt anyone here has actually read the book.

Very well, I'll say more. I'm not attempting to refute any of Edine's points because - and get this - I haven't read the book. Because I have not read the book, I am not qualified to discuss with any degree of authority what is actually in it as a couple excerpts from a site on the internet isn't in context.

Note how I didn't mention anything regarding speculation about the circumstances of it being published nor the timing it of. On the contrary, speculate about his motivations to your hearts' content.

But someone who states proudly that he has no intention of reading the book should shut up about what is actually in the book.

Raven

Edited to add:

Oh, yes. I misinterpreted PB's remark... Yes, if you're going to set yourself up as some sort of authority on what's in the book, read the fucking thing.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Ravenstorm]

so um TheE when did you watch it?
I am going to assume that you were not watching it as I was in the beginning stages of the thread, your responses seemed to be ignorant to the fact that he was infact talking right then.
So you most likely saw exempts from a news agency which would not have shown his entire testimony

[TheEschaton]

No, I had it on my DVR.


Yes, I am a dork.

-TheE-

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by The Edine
well if you had paid attention and known some of the things in the book, for example when George Tennent<sp> CIA director was asked about how he briefed Condalesa<sp> Rice on Al Quida he oddly enough did it right before she had her meeting with Mr. Clarke,
Now when we get to an excerpt about clarke's book we have him saying something to the extent of.."When I told her about Al Quida she looked as if she had never heard of it before" (if you want me to i can probably google to find the exact quote)
That goes towards an Ass handing.
You know a lot of shit about books you haven't read and won't read. Whose tool are you?

no I know what i hear and read in papers, that is just an example of the type of thing he put in his book

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
no I know what i hear and read in papers, that is just an example of the type of thing he put in his book

Oh, that makes perfect sense then. So everyone who has heard about how Edine acts in Gemstone is qualified to discuss it. *nods sagely*


Originally posted by The Edine
you cant really say anything until you interact with me.

Or are they? Direct, first hand experience is only required half the time?

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Actually you should.. since I doubt anyone here has actually read the book.

Very well, I'll say more. I'm not attempting to refute any of Edine's points because - and get this - I haven't read the book. Because I have not read the book, I am not qualified to discuss with any degree of authority what is actually in it as a couple excerpts from a site on the internet isn't in context.

Note how I didn't mention anything regarding speculation about the circumstances of it being published nor the timing it of. On the contrary, speculate about his motivations to your hearts' content.

But someone who states proudly that he has no intention of reading the book should shut up about what is actually in the book.

Raven

Edited to add:

Oh, yes. I misinterpreted PB's remark... Yes, if you're going to set yourself up as some sort of authority on what's in the book, read the fucking thing.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Ravenstorm]

So I will assume that any discussion from you regarding Christianity.. that you have read the bible from cover to cover... because if you haven't, you are in no position to form an opinion about it.

The reality is that we live in a media based system and that you are exposed to excerpts from books and opinions from others about books. To say you cannot form opinions about this information is unrealistic.

Hell, I would garner that there might be what.. 3 or 4 people that have actually read his book. Perhaps we should only allow those to form opinions and we should remain silent. :rolleyes:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Everything I heard of Clarke's testimony was stunning, and in no way was his "ass handed to him". Thanks Jon Stewart. :D
Originally posted by Parkbandit
So I will assume that any discussion from you regarding Christianity.. that you have read the bible from cover to cover... because if you haven't, you are in no position to form an opinion about it. Honestly you should, because the Bible is terribly misquoted. You can form an opinion based on misinformation, but it will probably be different (or even the exact opposite) of what you would have formed based on truth. The Bible is kind of a special case, because there's a lot of contextual stuff going on that's hard to pick up on (what with us not being from the first century A.D.) (insert Weedmage joke here :D) as in the Prodigal Son story, the turn the other cheek business, and probably a lot of other stuff.

Now, I expect Clarke's target audience is not first century A.D. folks, so we shouldn't have to worry about cultural context. Whenever we hear someone or something quoted, though, if we're to responsibly make an opinion, we should know the context.

Rumsfeld in a pentagon press briefing.

Rumsfeld: I would not call Richard Clarke a Liar, but I was handed a quote before I came up here to today stating that I was in a meeting and looked distracted... Odd thing is I was never in that meeting.

[Sean]

I, personally, am not debating that truth changed and one version is obviously flawed. I think the more important question as a citizen is which version is flawed. I would like to know if its the version where we knew about Al Qaeda sleeper cells and potential attacks yet didn't make terrorism a concern or his pervious tale. Fact is we, or atleast I, don't know for sure. But it's an important piece of information. It's not important because he lied. But it's important to me because as someone who lives right next to NYC if there were potential sleeper cells and the gov't did know about potential inhouse attacks but decided they were less likely that out of country attacks and deemed them irrelevant I have a major issue. If it's the other than on a personal level I have no attachment to Clarke and he can be thrown up on the limelight for whatever.

[Galleazzo]

The reality is that we live in a media based system and that you are exposed to excerpts from books and opinions from others about books. To say you cannot form opinions about this information is unrealistic.
You're right. It IS unrealistic to say you can't form opinions from it.

It's just that your opinions are fucked up. No one can make a credible informed opinion from an 11 second soundbite or a single sentence quoted out of context. That's like saying I can see Nomar Garciaparra swing at the plate and because of that know how the Red Sox will do this season. WTF, there are 24 other guys on the team!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
You're right. It IS unrealistic to say you can't form opinions from it.

It's just that your opinions are fucked up. No one can make a credible informed opinion from an 11 second soundbite or a single sentence quoted out of context. That's like saying I can see Nomar Garciaparra swing at the plate and because of that know how the Red Sox will do this season. WTF, there are 24 other guys on the team!

It wasn't an 11 second soundbite and it wasn't a single sentence from his book. There is a great deal of variance from what he said 1 and 2 years ago about things prior to what was happening prior to 9-11 to what he is saying now. He is making claims that 2 years ago he contradicts.

My opinion isn't fucked up at all... it's your blind hatred towards George Bush that has made you blind to the facts.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tijay
I, personally, am not debating that truth changed and one version is obviously flawed. I think the more important question as a citizen is which version is flawed. I would like to know if its the version where we knew about Al Qaeda sleeper cells and potential attacks yet didn't make terrorism a concern or his pervious tale. Fact is we, or atleast I, don't know for sure. But it's an important piece of information. It's not important because he lied. But it's important to me because as someone who lives right next to NYC if there were potential sleeper cells and the gov't did know about potential inhouse attacks but decided they were less likely that out of country attacks and deemed them irrelevant I have a major issue. If it's the other than on a personal level I have no attachment to Clarke and he can be thrown up on the limelight for whatever.

My take on this (and no Ravenstorm.. I do not have access to any official documents.. but I will form my opinion from what I have heard in the press and read in the newspaper) is that we are looking at all this 'evidence' that was collected prior to 9-11-01. Because we know exactly what happened on that day, we can go back and look at the evidence collected over the past 10 years and say "Damn, how could we not have put this together".

Like I said before.. it's always easlier to put the puzzle together when you know how it's supposed to look.

I have a great deal of respect for our Intelligence community. Try doing a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle upside down and coming up with the answer. Pretty damn tough.. isn't it. Now throw 100 puzzles, with 1000 pieces each into a big heaping pile on the floor. Turn them all over so only the plain backs show. Now make me 100 complete puzzles.

That is what the Intelligence community does day in day out.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
My take on this (and no Ravenstorm..

(stuff about 9//11 and Bush)


For the record? I don't blame Bush for 9/11. Do I think he could have done more? Yes. Could Clinton have done more? Yes. Do I think either one can be blamed for 9/11? No.

I don't think Clarke is laying it at his feet either from the one sound bite I heard. If my memory is correct, he basically said he didn't think 9/11 could have been headed off by that point. Bin Laden might have been killed and it still might have happened. That sounds reasonable to me.

So no, I don't blame Bush at all for 9/11. I do blame him for twisting intelligence reports to justify a war on Iraq. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that nothing in the intelligence reports justified it and that he twisted and manipulated the facts so it showed what he wanted it to show. That's why very few countries supported him without a bribe. The Union of Concerned Scientists said he did the exact same thing with scientific data so there's little reason to assume he did it to get Saddam.

I also believe that 87 billion dollars would have been better spent on hunting down Al Quaeda and stringing bin Laden up by his thumbs instead of on Iraq.

So yeah, I think Clarke has some credibility. Certainly more than Bush does considering how many times he's 'stretched' the truth and 'waffled' on his position before and after he was elected. Oh, and yeah. I also absolutely loathe him for being a fanatical religious bigot and hope he falls down a well. Head first. Just so you know where I'm coming from. :yes:

Raven

[Galleazzo]

My opinion isn't fucked up at all... it's your blind hatred towards George Bush that has made you blind to the facts.
See, this is the sort of thing I mean. Blind hatred? What blind hatred? I just think the guy lied about WMD, I don't think he's fit to be president, and I think that every Republican who screamed to impeach Clinton for lying is a fucking hypocrite for not saying Bush should be impeached for the same thing.

That ain't hatred. Nothing's personal. Shouldn't be, either, don't know the guy, haven't met the guy, and it isn't that he completely lacks stones -- I never expected the Afghanistan invasion, he really nutted up there.

But I don't want a president who lies to get us into wars.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The Union of Concerned Scientists Dude... does that seriously exist? WTF. Maybe they should stop being so concerned and get a job, stupid hippies.

[TheEschaton]

The Union of Concerned Scientists is actually a legit organization:

Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/)

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

"UCS was founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

Ahhh something else I can blame on Boston. Good! :) Anyone ever play Earth 2140? Acronyms are fun.

Clarke = awesome, Jon Stewart said so.

[Warriorbird]

Having read a fair amount of excerpts from Clarke's book... I'll actually agree with Parkbandit to a certain extent. Bush's actions ON 9/11 were far more puzzling than those before it.

Bush's actions after 9/11 are by far the more frustrating. I'm fairly hawkish for someone as socially liberal as I am. Yet... I strongly question the Wolfowitz notions about the Middle East. Sure, we can go and build ourselves an Empire there. We can probably even succeed. Bush will win himself another presidency. Doesn't mean it's the wisest idea. America sure isn't seeing any benefit at the gas pump.

And oh, oh, the terror to come. That 87 billion was woefully misdirected.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
America sure isn't seeing any benefit at the gas pump.


I guess that depends a lot on what part of America you are talking about. From the consumer's point of view, you are absolutely on target. From the provider's point of view...well, I think they are rather happy with the way things are. :)

HarmNone figures the CEO of Exxon is beaming about now

[Ilvane]

It's the last little present for the oil companies before Bush leaves office? :lol:

-A

[HarmNone]

One can but hope, Ilvane! :D

HarmNone is hoping really, really hard

[TheEschaton]

So, you see, The Edine, even if you watched the Daily Show, you would of seen Clarke not only NOT getting his ass served, but completely PWNING that Thompson fool. Even the Daily Show had the decency of showing Clarke's answer to Thompson's accusations, every broadcast of Thompson's clip, where he asks which is a lie, the press briefing or the book, on the "fair and balanced" FoxNews (I've seen about 2 or 3) simply cuts off at the end of Thompson's question and rant about how the little bitch Clarke is lying.

Applause. Applause in a Senate Commission.

I'm glad I saved that on DVR. I'm gonna watch it again tomorrow, bring out all the juicy answers for you. We'll end on this one tonight (paraphrased):

Thompson (right wing lackey): Here I have your book...and the press briefing you gave in 2002. They contradict each other...which is a lie?
Clarke: The briefing I gave accomplished the goal set out by the Administration. The goal was to outline how the Administration was doing in the war on terror.
Thompson: So the briefing was untrue?
Clarke: No, the goal was different. Being in the employment of the White House, the goal was to accentuate the positive aspects, and minimize the negative ones. It accomplished that goal, rather well.
Thompson, bitch-slapped: So.....so you're saying Special Advisors to the President have a different morality, a different standard than the rest of us? I cannot believe that. That sounds corrupt to me [Ed's note: some crazy rambling about immorality, this is just a basic gist of it]
Clarke: Sir, I don't think it's a question of morality at all. It's a question of politics.
Thompson (long pause): Welll......I......
(thunderous applause interrupts from the audience, drowning out Thompson's feeble attempts to backpedal)

Jon Stewart, on the above clip: There it is kids, write it down for your civics tests tomorrow: Politics TRUMP morality, in Washington, D.C. Stop the presses.


The Edine, you have been SERVED.

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Here we go. A transcript of Clarke's testimony at the hearing. It's always so much better to read soemthing for yourself than get second hand information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

I've only skimmed it so far - and plan to read it more thoroughly when I'm not sick and it's not 1 am (and we all know how bad posting at 1 am is for me) - but I found this section interesting, considering previous comments in this thread:



KEAN: Secretary Lehman?

LEHMAN: Thank you.

Dick, since you and I first served 28 years ago in the MBFR delegation, I have genuinely been a fan of yours. I've watched you labor without fear of favor in a succession of jobs where you really made a difference. And so when you agreed to spend as much time as you did with us in, as you say, 15 hours, I was very hopeful.

And I attended one of those all-day sessions and read the other two transcripts, and I thought they were terrific. I thought here we have a guy who can be the Rosetta Stone for helping this commission do its job, to help to have the American people grasp what the dysfunctional problems in this government are.

And I thought you let the chips fall where they may. You made a few value judgments which could be debated. But by and large, you were critical of the things, institutions, and people that could have done better and some that did very badly.

And certainly the greater weight of this criticism fell during the Clinton years simply because there were eight of them and only 7 1/2 months of the Bush years. I don't think you, in the transcripts that we have of your classified interviews, pulled punches in either direction. And, frankly, a lot of my questioning this past two days has been drawn from some of the things that you articulated so well during the Clinton years, particularly, because they stretched from the first, as you pointed out, attempt by Saddam to assassinate President Bush 41 right up through the end of the administration.

But now we have the book. And I've published books. And I must say I am green with envy at the promotion department of your publisher.

LEHMAN: I never got Jim Thompson to stand before 50 photographers reading your book. And I certainly never got "60 Minutes" to coordinate the showing of its interview with you with 15 network news broadcasts, the selling of the movie rights, and your appearance here today. So I would say, "Bravo."

(LAUGHTER)

Until I started reading those press reports, and I said this can't be the same Dick Clarke that testified before us, because all of the promotional material and all of the spin in the networks was that this is a rounding, devastating attack -- this book -- on President Bush.

That's not what I heard in the interviews. And I hope you're going to tell me, as you apologized to the families for all of us who were involved in national security, that this tremendous difference -- and not just in nuance, but in the stories you choose to tell -- is really the result of your editors and your promoters, rather than your studied judgment, because it is so different from the whole thrust of your testimony to us.

And similarly, when you add to it the inconsistency between what your promoters are putting out and what you yourself said as late as August '05, you've got a real credibility problem.

And because of my real genuine long-term admiration for you, I hope you'll resolve that credibility problem, because I'd hate to see you become totally shoved to one side during a presidential campaign as an active partisan selling a book.

CLARKE: Thank you, John.

(LAUGHTER)

Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot.

CLARKE: I worked for Ronald Reagan with you. I worked for the first President Bush. And he nominated me to the Senate as an assistant secretary of state, and I worked in his White House, and I've worked for this President Bush. And I'm not working for Senator Kerry.

Now, the fact of the matter is, I do co-teach a class with someone who works for Senator Kerry. That person is named Randy Beers. Randy Beers and I have worked together in the federal government and the White House and the State Department for 25 years.

Randy Beers worked in the White House for Ronald Reagan. Randy Beers worked in the White House for the first President Bush, and Randy Beers worked in the White House for the second President Bush.

And just because he is now working for Senator Kerry, I am not going to disassociate myself from one of my best friends and someone who I greatly respect and worked with for 25 years.

And, yes, I will admit, I co-teach a class at the Harvard University and Georgetown University with Mr. Beers. That, I don't think, makes me a member of the Kerry campaign.

The White House has said that my book is an audition for a high- level position in the Kerry campaign. So let me say here as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration, should there be one -- on the record, under oath.

Now, as to your accusation that there is a difference between what I said to this commission in 15 hours of testimony and what I am saying in my book and what media outlets are asking me to comment on, I think there's a very good reason for that.

In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq. And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq -- something I was not asked about by the commission, it's something I chose write about a lot in the book -- by invading Iraq the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.



Edited to add the section TheE mentioned:



KEAN: Is that all? Congressman Thompson?

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?

CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...

THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.

CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story.

The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them.

In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did.

I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.

THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?

CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.

THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America.

CLARKE: I don't get that.

CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.

THOMPSON: Well, I...

(APPLAUSE)

THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[TheEschaton]

I think it would be appropos to compare these two articles, both opinion pieces, one from the right, one from the left. First is from the right, a guy by the name of Greg Rummo. Don't know anything about him, but here he is.

Richard Clarke’s 'Double-minded' Testimony Before 9/11 Commission is Questionable (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/contributors/rummo_20040326.html)

In it, he quotes the Bible, as well as using only partial testimony. Furthermore, he deflects the issue to Clinton, as per usual.

This is from some other guy, some Democratic strategist:

Running Scared (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1178658,00.html)

Now, after reading them, in light of Raven's post above....which would you judge as right, and which would you judge as wrong?


-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
For the record? I don't blame Bush for 9/11. Do I think he could have done more? Yes. Could Clinton have done more? Yes. Do I think either one can be blamed for 9/11? No.

Raven

Well, at least we can both agree on this point. I also believe the Republicans that say Clinton should have killed Bin Laden prior to 9-11 are not taking into context the way America was at the time. Look at the heat Israel is getting for planting a missile into the chest of the Hamas founder. That is exactly what we would have looked like... even worse if we attacked him during his hunting trip with the Princes from the UAE.

[Warriorbird]

Yup. The only positive aspect of this whole sordid mess is probably something of an end of Saudi Arabia coddling. Yet... Wolfowitz style Imperial dreams are probably just as dangerous as several presidents (including Clinton) being lovey-dovey to the Saudis.