We are given to understand that GeeDubya and crew were very, very concerned with terrorism, Al Queda and ObL previous to 9/11. One of their very tippy-tip-top priorities. Mr. Clarke’s allegations are therefore horseshit.
Now, we can take it as a given that the Bushiviks regarded their tax policy, energy policy, education policy, all of these as important, because they talked about it all the time. Bringing thier issues before the people, keeping us informed.
And yet, oddly enough, the folks there at the Center, googling as best they can, cannot find a single instance of either GeeDubya, Dick Cheney, or Condoleeza Rice so much as mentioning Al Queda or ObL prior to 9/11.
Now isn’t that odd? Is this an example of partisan blindness, a refusal to recognize? Is it a lie, which can be so easily disproved?
So…they have a contest going, for anybody who can find so much as one such reference.
What an opportunity for our Tighty Righty brethren to sing a loud “neener neener” and discredit those scurillous Bush-bashers!
So how about it, guys? Or, shall I say, “bring it on”?
Significance is your opinion. But don’t just play up one in order to pretend it was the totality of the issue.
Of course not. But my point, again, is that since Clarke’s case is - of necessity - based on nuances of tone, accuracy in reporting those nuances takes on additional significance.
Exactly my point. It depends on many subtle things, and many have apparently been changed by Clarke in his attempt to make his case. The one who is pretending that it’s all a matter of pointing his finger or not is you, in your previous post on the subject.
Straw man alert!!! No, I’ve not tried to make the case that Clake is a “pathological liar”. Merely that he is apparently lying about “little nitpicky details” in an attempt to bolster his case - and I observe here that much of his case is based on little nitpicky details, so that these inaccuracies take on added significance.
O’Neill’s story is fundamentally different than that of Clarke. All O’Neill is saying is that Bush was out to get Hussein even before 9/11. (Possibly true, in a more limited way). What Clarke is saying is that even after 9/11, Bush was obsessed with trying to tie in Iraq to 9/11. Completely different issue.
Before 9/11 it was perfectly rational to believe that Iraq should be a greater priority than Al-Qaeda. I doubt very strongly if too many people thought otherwise.
You are stretching here. Your cite does not say that Bush had actually decided to go after Iraq before the Taliban. Only that he “came under pressure to topple Saddam Hussein” at the time. Meaning that there were some people who were advising him to go after Iraq immediately, and that Blair felt he should wait until after the Taliban were taken care of. Also, the implication that Bush felt that Iraq preempted Al-Qaeda is not implied in the article. Presumably the intention (of those advisors) was to go after both at the same time.
I remember that time quite vividly, and the administration - including Bush himself, in speeches - began talking up Al-Qaeda immediately after the attacks. They did not put nearly as much emphasis on Iraq. To suggest otherwise is to rewrite history.
So IOW, the note was ambiguous, but you personally interpret any ambiguous language as an example of Bush Administration double-speak. Which is fine - I wouldn’t expect anything different. But to change the details from ambiguous ones which are negatively interpreted by Bush-haters to clearly and unambiguously negative ones is a significant change.
No one detail invalidates an entire book. However a pattern of inaccurate details suggests that the reliability of details is wanting. As such, any accusation relying on the accuracy of detail reporting needs to be discounted.
elucidator, politicians generally talk up policies that they intend to rally public support for. Before 9/11, efforts against Al-Qaeda were still of the covert CIA type of operation that don’t get talked about much. It was only afterwards, when efforts shifted to invasion style operations, and massive overt changes in public security that fighting terrorism became the subject of speeches.
I’m sure they’ll say we need “full disclosure” to “know the truth” and whatnot, yet Rice is going back for second helping behind closed doors, and not under oath.
Granted, in the steadfastly partisan hands of Leader Frist it’s nothing more than capable rhetoric, but just you wait. This Clarke story is an atom’s pube away from being weaponized into top-notch anti-Kerry Nookyutonium.
The question is whether or not the administration did everything it reasonably could to prevent 9/11. Did it, for example, take the threat of terrorist attacks seriously enough? Bush and his allies answer this question with a resounding affirmative.
Along comes Clarke, who argues that, in reality, Clinton was much more concerned about the terrorist threat than Bush. The Clinton administration understood the urgency of the threat, and were very pro-active in meeting it; they took Clarke’s warnings seriously, even if they didn’t implement all of his policy suggestions. They also briefed the incoming Bush administration about just how serious the problem with Al Qaida really was.
However, according to Clarke, the Bush administration chose not to listen to Clinton’s warnings. Bush admitted himself, in Woodward’s book, that he did not feel a sense of urgency regarding Al Qaida until after the events of 9/11. Clarke testifies to a number of examples of this sort of reticence: his position was downgraded, his staff was eliminated, his policy suggestions were shifted to working groups and got bogged down in bureaucratic entanglements, and so on.
Well, so far – if Clarke’s version is correct – we on the left don’t really have all that much to complain about. I agree with you that a number of Clarke’s policy suggestions seem rather draconian, especially from a pre-9/11 perspective. But the problem is this: now, afterwards, the Bush administration has 1) tried to blame the Clinton administration for failing to be diligent enough against the threat of terrorism; 2) claimed that it was more aggressive than the Clinton administration in the WoT; and 3) refused to admit to a single failing, or mistake, in its actions prior to 9/11. So much so that the only person who has thus far apologized to the victims families for 9/11 is Clarke, himself. Everyone else: Bush, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc., etc., etc., continues to maintain that they did everything they possible could to prevent 9/11. Not only that, they appear to have done everything in their power to prevent an investigation into the true nature of the events surrounding 9/11. And to top it off they’re now promoting a vicious smear campaign against Clarke, the very person they originally relied upon to help formulate the strategy they’ve implemented against Al-Qaida after 9/11, and which they insist is so effective.
None of the claims espoused by the Bush administration really hold up under critical inspection, as far as I can tell. Clinton really was more proactive in his response to terrorism/Al Qaida; the Bush administration really didn’t take the threat as seriously as Clinton; and there is some justification for the claim that Bush, et. al, weren’t diligent enough prior to 9/11. The problem is that Bush can’t admit this to be the case. His entire political strategy relies on blaming Democrats for being too soft on terrorism, for failing to meet the threat. An overwhelming majority of those who support Bush do so precisely because they perceive him as being “tough on terrorism.” To admit that, well, maybe, they could have done something differently prior to 9/11, something that might have prevented 9/11 from even occurring – that would be the equivalent of political suicide for Bush, even if from a different perspective it might be true, and relatively innocuous. How much worse would it be to admit that Clinton was more effective at fighting terrorism than Bush, and took the threat more seriously?
Now, in retrospect, the Bushitas are arguing that they took the terrorist threat seriously from the very first minute they assumed power, when it seems clear that they did not. Was the decision to downgrade the focus on counter-terrorism a rational one, given what the Bush administration knew prior to 9/11? Perhaps, arguably; Clarke admits as much, anyway. In the preceding eight years, Al Qaida had only managed to kill about 35 US nationals, so one might reasonably doubt it constituted a major security threat. Prior to 9/11, one might reasonably suspect that Clarke had become overly obsessed with a bunch of backwards, ineffectual, jihaddhist nutballs. It appears that many people in Bush’s administration had come to such a conclusion.
Anyway, to get back on point: I’m not “taking Bush to task” for following policies that I would have opposed earlier. I don’t blame him (or the Clinton administration) for his reluctance to support that band of thugs, the Northern Alliance, as Clarke suggested, for example. Rather, I blame them for lying about it afterwards. What I react to is the glaring lack of accountability at the White House, the unwillingness to take responsibility for failures, to apologize, and to go forward.
And speaking of hypocrisy, what of the White House? They relied on Clarke both before and after 9/11; many of the policies they implemented after 9/11 were his ideas. Now, after all these years of service, they try to take credit for his ideas and go after him like a pack of rabid junkyard dogs.
Look, Whiney McWhiner - if there’s a valid point in that editorial, FUCKING TELL US WHAT IT WAS. Don’t just cry about how I supposedly ignored it.
His “case” is not “based” on nuances of tone. He was begging the Bush Admin. to do something about al Qaeda, and they didn’t do JACK SHIT. Only ONE principals meeting in the entire 9 months leading up to 9/11??? What exactly is the “nuance of tone” there? The testimony hinges on the fact that Bush did NOTHING. If Bush had actually convened his security council more than a couple times, it would render all that moot. But that didn’t happen. You have it backwards; nuances of tone do not prove the case here.
No, it does NOT depend on many subtle things.
You are delusional.
I did not mean to imply that you think Clarke is a pathological liar. My point was that if one thinks Clarke invented the story in order to sell a book, then he would necessarily have to be a pathological liar.
I can’t even see any “details” that he’s lied about. Perhaps he just didn’t mention the finger pointing in the book. How is that a lie? And with the memo, he probably saw that it said “Please update and resubmit”, and thought “Jeez - these guys want me to change my answer.” Then, A COUPLE YEARS AFTER THE FACT, he appears on 60 minutes, and off the top of his head, recalls the incident slightly differently, but not materially so. How the fuck is that a LIE? Do you really think he DELIBERATELY mis-stated the wording on the memo, when he knows it could easily be disputed? He probably just remembered it wrong.
You are applying a super-human standard to this man, that you wouldn’t apply to anyone else, only because he is telling a truth that you don’t want to hear.
Completely different issue? WTF? Both men have painted a picture of a president who was focused on invading Iraq to the exclusion of all else.
No, it was NOT rational. That’s the whole point.
Wow, you’d go to any length to defend Bush, wouldn’t you? What part of “HAD to convince Bush” didn’t you understand?
Only AFTER Clarke and others, at great effort, convinced them that they had to go after al Qaeda. Again I ask, HOW MANY insider statements would it take for you to acknowledge that Bush was obsessed with Iraq? I suspect there is NO number that would be sufficient for you.
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean; it just sounds like a pathetic attempt at some kind of ad-hominem smear.
I’m sorry, but the case still stands even without the nitpicky details. You’ve gotta expect the Bush Admin. to dredge up any little discrepancies they can. But it simply does not discredit his whole case.
But the stated reason was not personal, it was that it was his job. Clarke has explained the discrepancies, and his explanation not only makes perfect sense, but it fits the actual documented facts (authorized vs. appropriated, etc.) I see how desperate the issue is, but frankly, I think the only reason the 2002 memo is getting so much play is because there’s not much else anyone can think of to throw at him. I don’t think conservatives would take it seriously as a charge regardless. And the fact is, if his 2002 memo was misleading (which certianly seems to be the one that fits the case), then we have yet another example of a Bush administration official misleading the public: hardly a win for the Bush camp either.
When you think about it, it actually shows how NON-partisan Clarke is, even though the Republicans are claiming the opposite. If he were such a lackey for the Democrats, as some are trying to imply, I can’t see how he would have gone to bat for Bush in 2002.
Worried about his job, since he didn’t have a book deal yet? Dunno, and I am pretty interested to see how this whole affair pans out, but color me a bit skeptical when the hype comes out with the book. Something distasteful about that, though it doesn’t neccessarily change the veracity of his statements.
I’ve done this several times now. The valid point in the editorial - which you most likely understand in spite of your attempts to pretend otherwise - is that Clarke changed details in order to give a portrayal more in line with his story. You attempted to defend this by seizing on one particular detail and ridiculing it as insignificant, which it may well be if it were the only detail. It was not. I am not going to bother to type in the others, having linked to the article earlier.
Well Clarke evidently does think so, for which reason he bothered with all the portrayals to begin with.
Oh.
Your first paragraph contradicts your second here. If these differences are, as you observe, relatively minor on their own, then it would not require a pathological liar to err in them.
I have no idea if Clarke is consciously lying or not - it is quite possible that he is not. People frequently misremember things, and these will tend to be misremembered in line with their own interests. Psychological studies have documented this. (You may also observe that sports fans tend to see every close play as favoring their team - they are not all lying). Clarke may well remember things in the way that tends to most clearly favor his version of history. This does not make him a pathological liar, or increase his accuracy when his inconsistencies are pointed out. (FWIW, I also - as I’ve said in another thread - don’t think Rumsfeld was lying when he denied having said “imminent threat” :D)
Again, for our purposes here, it makes no difference if his inaccuracies are based on deliberate dishonesty, or a selective distorted and self serving recollection.
Actually neither painted this picture. However, Rumsfeld painted a picture of a president who was out to get SH. Clarke painted a picture of a president who wanted to tie Iraq to 9/11. Two separate stories, and neither what you claim.
Sorry, I think it was rational. I’ll bet you did to, at the time, before you got the opportunity to attack Bush on that basis.
Well I understand it, but don’t think it necessarily implies what you claim, or if it does, I don’t believe it (it is a judgment rather than a fact).
I’m pretty sure Bush publicly blamed Al-Qaeda within a day or two of the attacks. You are falsifying history here.
Well you are clearly a partisan liberal - I’m sorry if you take that as an ad-hominem smear. My point was that to a partisan liberal, who interprets ambiguous language from the administration in the worst possible light, there is little difference between attributing ambiguous language to the administration or attributing clearly negative language to them - they both mean the same thing anyway. But to someone who is more open-minded, the difference is substantial.
In SDMB terms, it is as if another poster posts something that you believe means some idiotic concept. If you say “Poster X said such-and-such which means the following idiotic concept”, you are OK. If you change the Poster X’s quote to actually say the idiotic concept, your veracity may henceforth be called into question.
Apos, you’ve quoted my post and responded by addressing inconsistencies between Clark’s testimony and his 2002 memo. I’ve not discussed his memo here. The article that I linked to discusses inconsistencies between Clarke’s book and his later TV interviews.
Oh, you’re “not going to bother”, eh?:rolleyes: I’m asking you WHICH of the details are valid. Simply saying that “Clarke changed details” doesn’t answer the question, does it?
You harp on me for supposedly focusing on the “wrong” details of the editorial, yet refuse to disclose which details are supposedly the “right” ones. Pretty weak. Sorry, dude - you lose this round.
Wrong. He wrote a book. Books contain details. Did you happen to catch his testimony on C-Span? Perhaps you should check it out; you will find that there is very little or no mention of facial expressions, finger pointing, and the like. And not once did any of his testimony hinge on nuances of tone.
Wrong. I have not contradicted myself in any way. Yes, if the details are insignificant, it doesn’t require a pathological liar. And I don’t think Clarke is a pathological liar. I also am of the opinion that those who contend that he made up the whole story just to sell a book are grasping at straws.
Then you misspoke. For something to be a lie, it must be deliberate. An accidental misstatement is not a lie. So you were wrong to state that Clarke is a liar.
Besides which, I don’t even think he misspoke. What he said on 60 Minutes, in an interview, off the top of his head, was “It got bounced. It came back ‘wrong answer’”. He did not say that those were the literal words written on the memo. It was quite obviously his assessment of the situation, that the Bush Administration was stonewalling him on al Qaeda. It’s an assessment that is supported by a lot of other evidence.
If you can point us to any source that says or implies that Clarke bases his contention that the Bush Administration dragged its feet on the wording of that one memo, I’d be very interested in hearing it.
That’s pretty funny how you just got done harping on my for a “no it isn’t” style response, and then we get this.
Rumsfeld?
No, it wasn’t. No backs.
Absolutely not. I was vehemently opposed to the Iraq invasion, and the evidence is right here on the SDMB.
Huh? I claim that he HAD to convince Bush. There is no further implication.
Of course it’s a judgment. My question was, how many government officials would have to make such a judgment, before you would believe it? It appears that there is no such number for you.
Yes, AFTER they convinced him.
No, I’m not.
Huh? “You are a partisan liberal” was not what you said. That’s a strawman you just pulled out of your ass.
Wrong again. I’m not interpreting it either way. I’m saying that it’s not UNreasonable for Clarke to have done so. He may very well have misinterpreted the intent; this does not invalidate EVERYTHING he has ever said. Like I said, finding a couple of nitpicky details doesn’t make your case - Sorry. It just doesn’t.
Really? You think Clarke wrote the book because he’s on the side of the democrats, and spun the info in 2002 the way Bush wanted him to ONLY to keep his job, a job that he ended up resigning from anyway, even though he is a republican and worked for Reagan and Bush Sr., and has sworn under oath that he will not take a job with the Kerry team?
What’s to ignore? That letter is pretty much boilerplate resignation stuff. Clarke praises Bush for his calm leadership on 9/11 and for his understanding of cyber security, but says nothing about his actions after 9/11 or his understanding of terrorism in general.
Wow! Excellent point, flickster! Yes, that certainly seals the deal regarding Clarke’s veracity. He must be lying because Kerry trails Bush by 4 points in a CNN poll. Thanks! Now I don’t have to waste time worrying about stuff.
Has Kerry been trying? I haven’t seen his campaign really even raise a finger so far other than a few statements. And he certainly has yet to make a big statement on Clarke’s charges. Given that the margin of error is ±3, I’d say that they’re running neck and neck. Not that polls matter much in this election: it’s gonna be all about the swing states, not the general election.
