After seeing how effective he was the last week he was out making stump stops, I don’t blame the Dems for putting Clarke out to lead the charge for a week or so. Maybe when Kerry comes off the slopes he can explain why the Clinton/Clarke team was not able to control or terminate AQ in thier 8 years of working together.
Click here for the answer.
And that was the GOP’s fault?
I’d just like to point out that if Clinton had blown up Osama, he would have taken a lot of heat for that. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Look at all the shit Israel is getting for the hamas leader.
Fucking Monday morning quarterbacks should get lives.
IMHO, the only heat would have come from rogues like Saddam.
Clinton missed an opportunity to leave his legacy. The majority of the civilized world would have held him in high regard.
And Hastert and Starr and Newt and Lott and de Lay…
I think they’re all the “right” ones, inasmuch as they contribute to his story.
Well if you say so I guess it must be true. But I shall do my best to try and live it down.
That’s all fine, but now you are changing the story. Apparently in his book and in his public interviews he did base his story on details, which contradicted each other, which was the focus of the article and of our discussion. Now you’re saying that he also said other stuff that are not details. I agree that those would have to be looked at seperately.
This is all obvious, but you seem to have lost track of the discussion here. Of course you don’t think Clarke is a pathological liar. You quite possibly think Clarke is the single most honest and reliable person in the world, possibly excepting Bill Clinton. The point here is that you implied that I was trying to make the case that Clarke is a pathological liar and that the evidence to date was insufficient for this. My response here is that since you yourself acknowledge that the inconsistencies being discussed here are relatively small (though significant), it does not require a person to be a pathological liar to assume that they are real. The contradiction in your argument is in trying to have it both ways on this issue - pointing out the minor aspect of the inconsistencies in trying to uphold the veracity of your hero while simultaneously suggesting that to be guilty of such inconsistencies requires that a person be a pathological liar.
My apologies here. I had already said in one of my first posts to this thread that the moral character of Clarke is not at issue here - only his reliability. As such I don’t think the difference between deliberate lying and misremembering is significant to this issue, and I was careless with my language.
Sorry, I don’t think it is at all obvious. Or even true.
I doubt if Clarke based his assessment on this one memo. There are no doubt various things that contributed to his impression, and all need to be looked at independently. Nonetheless, you can’t dismiss any one by saying there were also others. And more importantly, if you find inconsistencies in one piece of evidence, it suggests that you might not rely so much of this person’s judgment as to the others.
Sorry that was a typo - it was supposed to say “O’Neill”. I actually reported my post to a moderator asking for this edit shortly before your post came out - no doubt they didn’t get to it until you commented on it and then it was too late.
A lot of people who were vehemently opposed to the Iraq invasion claimed to see Iraq as a very major threat but yet opposed the specific action of invading. Or at least opposed the way it was done.
The implication part is the notion that Bush would in fact have immediately invaded Iraq without this convincing. The other alternative is that there was merely a possibility that he would do so, since some of his advisors were advising this and he had not yet made a decision.
How many government officials have made this claim. Not a whole lot. Meanwhile there are all sorts of government officials out there who vehemently deny these charges. People like yourself dismiss anything these people say because they do not reflect negatively on Bush. I do not share this viewpoint. Especially as it is tremendously at odds with public evidence, as noted above.
Well he must have been very quick and efficient to have expunged the Iraq scenario so quickly and so thoroughly. Yes, it’s a good thing we had public officials like Clarke in place at this most crucial and sensitive time. Come to think of it I wonder what will happen to the Republic now that Clarke has retired. One shudders to think.
I don’t know what you mean here. My exact words to which you objected were “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.” This is the same as saying that you are a partisan liberal. I would expect a partisan liberal to interpret ambiguous language coming from the Bush administration in the worst possible light. Still, if you want to be insulted, don’t let me stop you.
Excellent point. This is also the point made earlier by John Corrado, whose post I assume you agree with. 
Well, oh MMQB, whom should we take out today?
Some unknown Chechen terrorist leader?
Some teenage Palestinian/Yemini/Saudi/etc. kid who might become the next Bin Laden?
How about people we already deal with? Don’t forget both Saddam and Osama were our boys, we essentially created them. Makes me wonder about who we’re dealing with right now. Which friend will come bite us in the ass in 20 years?
How about Musharraf? I never liked that fucker. :rolleyes:
Look into your crystal ball and tell us the future.
In other words, you’ve got nothing.
Thanks - Buh bye…
This is sad. First I lose a round, and now … my entire case turns out to be nothing.
(Could you break it to me gently, next time? I’m a sensitive guy, you know.)
Believe me, that WAS the gentle version. You’re not even worth the keystrokes it would take to give you the uncensored version.
Well thanks then. Who knows what might have happened had you exhibited yourself in all your uncensored glory.
However, I think in general you need to be more conscious of who your audience really is. I mean, I might not be worth the keystrokes that it would take, but I am not your real audience. No, the real audience is that vast universe of blowero admirers, out there in SDMB land, who anxiously await your magnificent and uncensored literary offerings.
But I offer this as general guidance, as mentioned. For myself, I’m glad you decided to save the keystrokes. After all, I am a sensitive guy.
(Unfortunately, I am leaving for the day just now. But not to worry. I shall check in tomorrow to see if you’ve expended any more precious keystrokes.)
Where are you getting 8 years? They didn’t know of any attacks that could be attributed to al Qaeda until 1998. All prior incidents were only attributed to al Qaeda in subsequent years.
DAMN YOU, CLINTON! Why didn’t you build that time machine?
He did, but found out the morlocks had a lock on Congress.
Okay, that’d explain Tom DeLay’s looks…
So they were not able to connect the dots from the 1st WTC bombing in 1993?
Lessons of first WTC bombing
They didn’t find out that Al Qaeda was associated with the 1993 bombings until two years after they happened, and even then, heck even now, all we know is that they associated with the people behind it, which is not surprising since that’s how the terrorists have generally operated: lots of contacts between various groups, but no real central organization. So there was nothing that pointed to “Al Qaeda is behind all this.” Sorry: try again.
Are you a pathological fucktard or something? Clarke isn’t a Democrat, and he doesn’t follow orders from some conspiracy of Democrat scheduling. The scheduling of his testimony, his 60 minutes interview, and the book were all set months ago, and in the case of his testimony, set in part by Republicans.
Uh oh.
Turns out we shouldn’t trust Clarke at all, since he apparently might be a big FAG.
http://www.wonkette.com/archives/richard_clarke_dont_go_there_014428.php
From your own link:
That’s not “dots” that’s A DOT.
al Qaeda was NEW on the scene of international terrorism. The west was still focused on the downfall of the Soviet Union. It takes a dot or two for even liberals to draw a connecting line. Clinton did it within a few years as the dots multiplied, told Bush about the friggn dots, and the conservatives, true to form, went back to fighting the cold war against their new opponents in the Axis of Evil; North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. It took another dot to get them focused on the actual problem at hand, and still their attention wandered and they went blasting off after old and irrelevant foes.
Musharaff?! Certainly not! Why, he’s True Blue Eau d’ Cologny, one of the most socially progressive and humane Presidents ever to be installed by a military coup. America has a long and proud tradition of support for those sorts of firm and direct national leaders…Pinochet, Uguarte, Trujillo,…the list goes on and on…that were invaluable bulwarks during our struggle with godless communism.
All of this stuff about hosting nuclear Amway parties, well, hell, look at it the right way, that’s just good ol’ fashioned entrepreneurship, now, isn’t it? And, after all, there is no proof that Musharaff knew anything about it! Though, admittedly, he might ought to have been suspicious when his top scientist offered to buy Kashmir.
Now Musharaff is our bestest pal in the world, outside of NATO. We just love him to pieces, as he embodies just the sort of world leader we want to be associated with. Not like that little bitch, Chirac!