What, No Richard Clarke Post?

[Toad2001]

I thought it would be a red hot topic by now...<br />Instead its old news, and not even discussed.

 

[Fly Rod]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

What's there to say???<br />Mr.Clarke gets on national TV, states that everybody including "himself" on the hill failed the people of this country. He "apologises"<br />Can't ask for anything more then that!!

 

[plywoody]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

Yes, Toad, we are already hearing the spin doctors and attack dogs of this administration attacking Clarke on every conceivable grounds, and there is no point of rehashing it here.<br /><br />And frankly the demotion of Clarke to a sub-cabinet level position under the Bush administration gives lots of credence to what he says regarding the importance of this issue to the new administration.<br /><br />But whatever, this should be not about who was responsible, if anyone was, about not stopping the 9-11 attacks--No one can say for sure one way or another about that anyway, and it does little good, other than to recognize errors and try to correct them for the future.<br /><br />What this should be about is how we are proceeding now and into the future about the threat of terrorism and the terrorists, and whether the track we are on is the right track. And the role the war on Iraq has helped or hindered this effort, and where do we go from here.<br /><br />And, of course, it is pretty disappointing the Bush administration seems bent on hindering this investigation, and the failure of Dr Rice to testify is just one example of that.

 

[SS MAYFLOAT]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

My comment is this. Clark said they failed in protecting us citizens. Well the last time I checked, my family, and my neighbors are still alive. It also appears that a lot of iboats members are still alive also.<br /><br />To me it is all speculation and opinions about what could have been done for the prevention of 9-11. Just a waste of tax dollars for hashing stuff over that won't change anything. <br /><br />Its just another thing to keep the Magic Media Machine running and keeping the country in turmoil.<br /><br />Two months from now there won't be anything else said about this headline.

 

[JB]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

Comment by a Commissioner about the contradictions of "the book" vs. Clarke's testimony before the commission. (On "The News Hour")<br /><br />"This is about selling books."<br /><br />Clarke was a principal advisor in the Clinton administration and a junior advisor in the Bush administration. It was Clarke who was demoted, not the urgency of fighting terrorism. His ego was offended and he is influenced by a need to retaliate.

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

Not to mention, the book is a great "audition" for the Kerry administration.

 

[Bondo]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

Clarke was a principal advisor in the Clinton administration

The SAME Guy who was Screaming the Loudest about the Total Collapse of Our Electronic World, <br />at 12:00:01 AM, 1/1/2000...............<br /><br />Seems His Credibility is Seriously Lacking.......<br />No Wonder he was Demoted...........

 

[SCO]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

Yea, he was demoted to chief of network security, you know, in charge of the ethernet at the office...the computer guy . This is 20-20 hindsight at best. Who are the real attack dogs here PW, please stand up. The way Clark whines and cries now, I imagine Bush/Rice figured they couldn't trust his opinions from day 1. Prediction: He will be disgraced, and not by the attack dogs of the Bush Admin, but by an outraged public.

 

[oddjob]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

What this should be about is how we are proceeding now and into the future about the threat of terrorism and the terrorists, and whether the track we are on is the right track. And the role the war on Iraq has helped or hindered this effort, and where do we go from here.<br /><br />And, of course, it is pretty disappointing the Bush administration seems bent on hindering this investigation, and the failure of Dr Rice to testify is just one example of that.

Clarke is a kook, I quess you would no more about him than me though PW.<br /><br />Try this:<br /><br />Richard Clarke's resignation letter to President Bush, Jan. 20, 2003: <br /><br />"It has been an enormous privilege to serve with you these last 24 months. I will always remember the courage, the determination, the calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th." Yet the book, touted on CBS whose parent company Viacom published it, rips Bush for not caring about terrorism or stopping 9/11!<br /><br />And this:<br /><br /> http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

 

[SCO]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

If any of you get the national radio program "Glen Beck", tune in now. All about Clark. Lots of info you wont hear on the big 3, and all the big 3 stuff too.

 

[oddjob]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

Or you could go to RushLimbaugh.com if you dont mind reading from the website of a Loud Mouth, money laundering, drug trafficing, pill popper who is STILL yet to be charged with Dr. Shopping Like the West Palm Judge was a few years ago that the West palm DA covered up.<br /><br />See details ............GO RUSH.......yip ,yip Yahoooooooo!he,he...he...heh

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

I can't comment,i have not yet read Mr Clark's book.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

I have a diff. take on this... I see him as quite<br />dedicated and caring about this threat we were<br />facing pre-9/11. after all he was THE foremost<br />expert on the subject and was withheld by 3 diff.<br />administrations. I think he really believes what<br />he is saying with all his heart. but it is from<br />"his" perspective...<br />GW then demoted him to a staff position, not a<br />cabinet position right? wouldn't this make you<br />feel like the pres. wasn't serious enuff about<br />the things u were passionate about???<br />and there is no mistaking his passion here!<br />then 9/11 happens on his watch and he is faced<br />with the question of "what the flip happened?"<br />he wasn't in the loop, and then we are attacked.<br />he had to feel; "if only I was in the loop, maybe<br />things would have been different"<br />how would you feel/react in his shoes?<br />(thus his apology to American people)<br />he's not out to get GW, and administration wasn't<br />careless or ignorant cuasing this tragedy.<br /><br />footnote:<br />his publisher is also owned by same co. who<br />broadcast his interview on 60 min.

 

[SCO]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

I also see it that way MY, and not as a conspiracy. I do find him wierdly liberal, he called Cheny and Rice "mean and nasty people" for example, a basic liberal whine. Just like our own left on this board think the r wingers stupid , so too might he be perceiving Bush and admin. His opinions are a product of his own arrogance and humiliation. I disagree in that he does seem to relish in the revenge of the moment. (That's a pretty good attack dog bite)

 

[oddjob]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

; "if only I was in the loop, maybe<br />things would have been different"<br />how would you feel/react in his shoes?<br />

He was in the loop during the Clinton Admin....what happened then? Did he apologize for the Cole..No!....1st trade center bombing....No!...Black Hawk down...No!...the offering of OBL 3TIMES!..No!...I could list more but its just a waste of time for some folks...this is all more of the same intellectual dishonesty...from the liberal point of view... <br />its just pathetic

 

[jinx]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

My wife's family are mostly old Foreign Service people. Mine all came from the Agency. This business of career government servants writing tell-all books is a bunch of hooey.<br /><br />Jinx

 

[oddjob]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

“There's a reason the Democrats on this commission wanted Clarke's book out now, and there is a reason why the publisher went along with it, and there's a reason why 60 Minutes went along with it. It's not coincidental.” <br />

 

[Link]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

oddjob<br /><br />quote:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> “There's a reason the Democrats on this commission wanted Clarke's book out now, and there is a reason why the publisher went along with it, and there's a reason why 60 Minutes went along with it. It's not coincidental.” <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Couldn't find where you got it from but it says a lot! <br /><br />Now if 60 minutes really wanted to do some "real" reporting why don't they take on the story about Senator John Kerry being informed (warned)in the spring and summer 01 about the lack of security at Logan airport? Kerry was even sent a vidio about it by TV station WXFT (Debra Sherman) on how easy it would be for persons wanting to practice Jihad (sp) to take weapons on planes.<br />Brian Sullivan (retired FAA) also sent Kerry a letter. Later when asked about it Kerry said he passed it along to the General Accouting Office... But the Boston Globe could find no evidence to support his story.<br />Soft Ball 60 Minutes has an agenda.. it's a election year ya know

 

[SCO]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

They do(media) have an agenda. Terry McCaulif(sp) debated a republican on good morning america, about Bush's recent gaff speaking at a dinner where he looks under a table for the wmds. Not funny GW. McCaulif was gloating big time...to be expected...but Charlie Gibson was all smiles too, loving every second of it. At least half his audience must have thought "you're partisan Gibson under the mantle of journalistic neutrality". I think I know where Ralph would stand on this one...open and honest debate. THe Sawyers, Rathers, Gibsons, Jennings of the world should declare their Democratic sympathies and turn in their nonbiased journalist badges.

 

[jimchere]

Re: What, No Richard Clarke Post?

This is all a partisan project. It would be wise to look at things without the jaded shading of the event (9/11) itself, and ask a few questions:<br />1. Without a 9/11, would the U.S. public, world opinion, and even the Afghans themselves supported us in conducting a "pre-emptive" Operation Enduring Freedom, regardless of which administration (Clinton or Bush) in office? <br />2. If you think of the possibility of a Saddam Hussein, even without the "mass stockpiles" of WMD to date, conducting a small order WMD attack (chemical/biological, or radiological, easy to get within a few years,and killing only a "few" thousand) five years from now, would the same debate be going on about "why didn't we do anything?" After taking on that thought and conducting pre-emptive action, the Bush admin is catching hell.<br />2. Could the Bush admin have done anything about this in the first 7-8 months in office? Maybe. Realistically? If I peek in your door unexpectedly, fire a handgun at you, and shoot you, are you guilty of being incompetent for not dodging the bullet? After all, you did see the gun.<br />Just some thoughts.