More on Clarke
-
Good point - he could have written a nice P.J. O'Rourke type-book and got himself on the Best sellers list that way. He not alone either. O'Niell said the same thing, Palme/Wilson are saying the same thing for obvious reasons. Are these all disgruntled employees? And I must add: all moderate republicans.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: Are these all disgruntled employees? Using this logic you must also believe that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. :rolleyes: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
JWood wrote: Are these all disgruntled employees? Using this logic you must also believe that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. :rolleyes: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
JWood wrote: Time will tell who is perjuring. The truly sad part is that you are probably wrong. More likely IMO: The right and left will huff and puff, the media will grumble, the next big political storm will race in and push this to the back burner and ultimately off the stove all together. Taxpayers will have no real truth or evidence of anything. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
That reminds me MMMMMMMM Grumblecakes.
-
Are you talking about Scaife?
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
A LIST OF CLINTON-RELATED DEATHS[^] The serious anti-Clinton zealots like to paint Clinton as a mob boss type who has ordered dozens of "hits" to cover his ass over the years. Most Clintonites point out that Clinton as a governor and president had thousands of acquaintances and the number of deaths is normal. So the fact that Bush has had a few ex-employees cry "foul" after leaving his employ means nothing and does not validate any of them. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Wjousts wrote: Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain... Poor choice of words on my part. The republicans are trying to discredit him for their political gain. IMO Clarke has several potential motives other than the innocent whistle-blower he portrays: Disgruntled employee, sell more books, deflect criticism of his own poor performance, has turned democrat or pro-Kerry. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
A LIST OF CLINTON-RELATED DEATHS[^] The serious anti-Clinton zealots like to paint Clinton as a mob boss type who has ordered dozens of "hits" to cover his ass over the years. Most Clintonites point out that Clinton as a governor and president had thousands of acquaintances and the number of deaths is normal. So the fact that Bush has had a few ex-employees cry "foul" after leaving his employ means nothing and does not validate any of them. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Yeah so the CIA hit a few Americans. They were dragging drugs in through Mena, Arkansas. It may not have had anything directly to do with Clinton. They could have been protecting one of their "assets". The Bush adminisration had thousands of hits on potentially innocent people in Iraq.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
Yeah so the CIA hit a few Americans. They were dragging drugs in through Mena, Arkansas. It may not have had anything directly to do with Clinton. They could have been protecting one of their "assets". The Bush adminisration had thousands of hits on potentially innocent people in Iraq.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
Ummm... I never said I believed the Clinton-murder stuff, I just used it as an example that just because "more than a few things happen" doesn't mean they are connected or related the way they are presented. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Are you saying you admire the Republicans for trying to discredit Clarke for political gain? That's the way what you said reads. I think you have the same problem.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: Are you saying you admire the Republicans for trying to discredit Clarke for political gain? No, I don't. I simply don't yet believe everything Clarke has to say and I question his true motives. JWood wrote: That's the way what you said reads. Show me where I've had anything positive to say about any politician anywhere in this thread?? :confused: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Ummm... I never said I believed the Clinton-murder stuff, I just used it as an example that just because "more than a few things happen" doesn't mean they are connected or related the way they are presented. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
on the other hand, O'Neil, Clarke, Beers and Wilson are all saying the same thing: Bush put Iraq ahead of AQ. and now, as his cabinet did with Wilson/Plame, they're playing politics with classified info. it's funny how quick they are to declassify stuff when it serves their political purposes, but how tight they are about stuff when it could be damaging (energy task force, 27 redacted pages from the first 9/11 investigation, the PDBs, Condi's refusal to testify under oath, etc). this isn't honesty and integrity, this is Nixonian. every day they give me less reason to trust them. every.single.day. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
on the other hand, O'Neil, Clarke, Beers and Wilson are all saying the same thing: Bush put Iraq ahead of AQ. and now, as his cabinet did with Wilson/Plame, they're playing politics with classified info. it's funny how quick they are to declassify stuff when it serves their political purposes, but how tight they are about stuff when it could be damaging (energy task force, 27 redacted pages from the first 9/11 investigation, the PDBs, Condi's refusal to testify under oath, etc). this isn't honesty and integrity, this is Nixonian. every day they give me less reason to trust them. every.single.day. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: it's funny how quick they are to declassify stuff when it serves their political purposes, but how tight they are about stuff when it could be damaging I agree 100% Chris Losinger wrote: this isn't honesty and integrity, this is Nixonian. every day they give me less reason to trust them. every.single.day. I don't know why anyone would be surprised. We didn't have honesty & integrity in the last administration either. Or the previous one. Or the one before that. Carter was honest, he was a moron but he was honest. Ford was probably honest, but who knows or cares. Nixon was slime in the honesty department. History has proven Johnson and Kennedy were both liars. What I'm getting at is that they are ALL liars and holding GWB out as something special is just plain silly. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's funny how quick they are to declassify stuff when it serves their political purposes, but how tight they are about stuff when it could be damaging I agree 100% Chris Losinger wrote: this isn't honesty and integrity, this is Nixonian. every day they give me less reason to trust them. every.single.day. I don't know why anyone would be surprised. We didn't have honesty & integrity in the last administration either. Or the previous one. Or the one before that. Carter was honest, he was a moron but he was honest. Ford was probably honest, but who knows or cares. Nixon was slime in the honesty department. History has proven Johnson and Kennedy were both liars. What I'm getting at is that they are ALL liars and holding GWB out as something special is just plain silly. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Mike Mullikin wrote: What I'm getting at is that they are ALL liars and holding GWB out as something special is just plain silly. fair enough. but i dislike him for the stuff he doesn't lie about, too. :) Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain and he gets dragged through the mud by Rove's attack dogs to boot. Now if you said he did it to sell some books, you might have a point, but he could have written a book praising Bush and/or attacking Clinton, Bush Sr. or even Regan and sold books.
Wjousts wrote: Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? political gain, a place in the Kerry cabinet. More probable that it is personal since he lobbied for and lost a bid for the number two spot at Homeland Security. He strongly infers that the Bush Team put the country at risk by a lack of focus on Al Q. but waited until he book was released to make his case. The book release coincidently dove tailed with the 9-11 Commission public hearings. As to declassifying his testimony of 2 years back, declassifying that is an administration perogative, not the Stenate's, not the House's. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy Me "Kerry is a girl's name." Conan O'Brian "I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are." J.F.Kerry
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: What I'm getting at is that they are ALL liars and holding GWB out as something special is just plain silly. fair enough. but i dislike him for the stuff he doesn't lie about, too. :) Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
JWood wrote: Are these all disgruntled employees? Using this logic you must also believe that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. :rolleyes: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Clinton did not take appropriate action to protect the United States from acts of terrorism. He bombed an aspirin factory in response to the USS Cole attack. He retreated from the Sudan as soon as lives were lost. It might be said, because of this, that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. If you don't by the incompetence and inaction argument, then take Bosnia. Many Bosnians were killed as a result of US actions. It might be said, because of this, that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. If you believe that Bosnia was justified, then you probably also believe that Iraq was justified. After all, we didn't really even have a national interest in going into Bosnia. It was just the right thing to do. In Iraq, there was potentially a lot at stake, and there was a great humanitarian need to depose a cruel dictator, just as in Bosnia. So you could say that although there were murders involved, these helped to save the lives of countless others, and improve the lives of millions of people. Of course, if you don't buy the "you have to break some eggs to make an omellet" argument... Wait, what were we talking about again?
-
Wjousts wrote: Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain... Poor choice of words on my part. The republicans are trying to discredit him for their political gain. IMO Clarke has several potential motives other than the innocent whistle-blower he portrays: Disgruntled employee, sell more books, deflect criticism of his own poor performance, has turned democrat or pro-Kerry. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Look, the guy is out of a job. He is trying to sell a book. The publicity is a gold mine for his book, and it could help him get back in the good graces of the Democratic party, who will be looking for high level people in the counterterrorism business if Kerry wins in November. Who in Washington puts themselves on the line when there is not some kind of personal gain involved?
-
Look, the guy is out of a job. He is trying to sell a book. The publicity is a gold mine for his book, and it could help him get back in the good graces of the Democratic party, who will be looking for high level people in the counterterrorism business if Kerry wins in November. Who in Washington puts themselves on the line when there is not some kind of personal gain involved?
This is the process for writing a book - you research it - it must get past editors, it must get approved by publishing companies. Are people going to buy a book that is filled with unsubstatiated lies? Maybe a few, but it would sell much better if it was actually full of the truth - or at least a truth. There may be some slant from the perspective of the author, but factual information is going to be checked and verified and for the most part correct - the publishing company suffers it does not.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
Clinton did not take appropriate action to protect the United States from acts of terrorism. He bombed an aspirin factory in response to the USS Cole attack. He retreated from the Sudan as soon as lives were lost. It might be said, because of this, that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. If you don't by the incompetence and inaction argument, then take Bosnia. Many Bosnians were killed as a result of US actions. It might be said, because of this, that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. If you believe that Bosnia was justified, then you probably also believe that Iraq was justified. After all, we didn't really even have a national interest in going into Bosnia. It was just the right thing to do. In Iraq, there was potentially a lot at stake, and there was a great humanitarian need to depose a cruel dictator, just as in Bosnia. So you could say that although there were murders involved, these helped to save the lives of countless others, and improve the lives of millions of people. Of course, if you don't buy the "you have to break some eggs to make an omellet" argument... Wait, what were we talking about again?
JasonSmith wrote: Clinton did not take appropriate action to protect the United States from acts of terrorism. He bombed an aspirin factory in response to the USS Cole attack. He retreated from the Sudan as soon as lives were lost. It might be said, because of this, that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. The following is a quote from Richard Clarke in an interview on Salon.com (you probably have to be a subscriber to read it): Question: The vice president commented that there was "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s, when you were serving under President Clinton. He asked, "What were they doing?" Answer: It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn't notice. JasonSmith wrote: If you believe that Bosnia was justified, then you probably also believe that Iraq was justified. I doubt that this is statistically correct, at least outside of the US (do you actually mean Bosnia, by the way, or Kosovo). Three differences: 1. The humanitarian motives for Bosnia/Kosovo were upfront from the beginning and were the real motives, rather than a belated rationalisation. No rubbish about WMD or terrorist threats. 2. Bosnia was a UN peace keeping mission and Kosovo, while not a UN operation in the "major conflict" phase (because of a feared Russian veto), was a NATO operation with overwhelming support among the nations of the world (the UN did come in for the peacekeeping phase). Thus there were no issues of the US ignoring world opinion and invading a country on spurious grounds because it was militarily strong enough to do what it pleased, thereby setting a precedent for unilateral aggression and damaging international institutions. 3. Bosnia/Kosovo involved acute crisis situations (ethnic cleansing) tha
-
This is the process for writing a book - you research it - it must get past editors, it must get approved by publishing companies. Are people going to buy a book that is filled with unsubstatiated lies? Maybe a few, but it would sell much better if it was actually full of the truth - or at least a truth. There may be some slant from the perspective of the author, but factual information is going to be checked and verified and for the most part correct - the publishing company suffers it does not.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
Wjousts wrote: Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? political gain, a place in the Kerry cabinet. More probable that it is personal since he lobbied for and lost a bid for the number two spot at Homeland Security. He strongly infers that the Bush Team put the country at risk by a lack of focus on Al Q. but waited until he book was released to make his case. The book release coincidently dove tailed with the 9-11 Commission public hearings. As to declassifying his testimony of 2 years back, declassifying that is an administration perogative, not the Stenate's, not the House's. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy Me "Kerry is a girl's name." Conan O'Brian "I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are." J.F.Kerry
Mike Gaskey wrote: political gain, a place in the Kerry cabinet. He's a republican and has stated under oath that he would not accept a position in a Kerry administration Mike Gaskey wrote: More probable that it is personal since he lobbied for and lost a bid for the number two spot at Homeland Security. So you think it's spite? To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. Sound spiteful? You really think somebody would want to have Rove's attack dogs drag them through the mud just to get back at them? Mike Gaskey wrote: He strongly infers that the Bush Team put the country at risk by a lack of focus on Al Q. but waited until he book was released to make his case. Making the case earlier would have been better but he could hardly speak out while still in the administation. I think it's fair to say he wanted to keep his job until he decided to quit. After he quit he started work on the book almost immediately (according to Clarke) and the book IS his case. It would have done no good to just make a few random comments on TV, he wanted to lay out the whole case as a coherent whole and that is what a book lets you do. Mike Gaskey wrote: The book release coincidently dove tailed with the 9-11 Commission public hearings. If Clarke is to be believed he wanted the book out in December but it was tied up by the white house who had to approve it's release after checking that it would not reveal any national security secrets.