Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-22-2004, 07:27 AM   #1
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Default Disarray

I have been telling you all to watch for the emergence of Richard Clarke. Now he has a book out. The 9/11 commission starts its open hearings as to what occurred before, during and after 9/11. My guess is that the White House will go in full political mode trying to fight off all of the accusations. The truth is that the White House will be making up excuses and trying to smear these people. How come the White House can not refute the facts then? Because they will be shown to be true.

I advise all you warmongering GI Joe boys and girls to start looking at all the information with a realistic eye and not a political eye and realize that there already is enough evidence known to the public to refute the President's claim that he was strong on terrorism before 9/11. There is not a shred of evidence about it. (Especially as evidenced of Bush not allowing the Terrorist Czar to be a cabinet level position) That right there tells you that there is something that was being ignored.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 07:36 AM   #2
Inmountains
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,501
Let's see, the terrorists took almost ALL of their flight training while Clinton was at the Helm. It appears to me that the intelligence, or lack of it, or lack of correct information is apart from who is in the White House. Why does the left want to pin everything on Bush? As if he got in office, and the country was running perfectly before him and is screwed up after he got there? There were many terrorist attacks BEFORE him and there will be many AFTER him. Bush is fight the war on terror the best way he knows how, and the way his advisors tell him. If you don't like it, that is your perogative. Personally, I feel he is more active against it than Clinton was. I wonder if Gore were in the White House, what would he have done? I am glad we will never find out!
Inmountains is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 08:17 AM   #3
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
They were interviewing a senator on the radio this morning and he can't wait for Richard Clark to testify today. He feels sure the truth will be revealed that he's a biased liar pissed at Bush because he was demoted. He said his book is politically motivated and nothing more and that will be revealed also.

Clark says Bush pressed him to see if Iraq and Saddam was involved with 9/11. This Senator said Bush wouldn't have been much of a President if he hadn't of inquired. Clark says Bush didn't react on the information he was given on the terrorist. Senator says they knew there was activity. That's no secret. However nobody knew what, where or how the terrorist were planning to attack, not even Clark.

Last but not least this Senator said Clinton had 8 years to react and Bush had 9 months. Senator said he's interested to find out why Clark is blaming Bush for something that the other administration he was involved in had 8 years to act on.

Don't get to excited yet Bumbleroot. Sounds like the Republicans are ready for Clark and his false accusations. Senator said Clark already testified once and the things he is saying now is different than what he said when he testified before.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 10:08 AM   #4
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Here ya go Bumbleroot. An article with a different twist to Clarks spin. Please note what 2 Democratic Senators have to say in the article.

I'll be voting for Bush regardless, but I have to agree with what one Democratic Senator said this morning during an interview.

He said " The Democrats aren't going to win this electin by focusing negtively on the War in Iraq or the War on Terrorism. If we're going to win this election we need to focus on the economy, education and healthcare. To many Americans feel Bush is doing a good job when it comes to dealing with terrorism. I hope John Kerry realizes this as well before it's to late".

I tend to agree that you guys need to get a handle on the left wing radicals if you have any hopes of beating Bush in 2004.

Anyway, here's the article with a different take:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114811,00.html
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 11:05 AM   #5
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
If anyone was ignoring Al Qaeda it was Clark, he knew of their threat for over 10 years but did nothing and numerous Al Qaeda attacks on the US resulted.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 11:14 AM   #6
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Yeah, I agree with Chuk. Clark should have watched all the Rambo movies, got geared up, and airdropped into Afghanistan so he could single handedly take out OBL.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 11:34 AM   #7
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Clark has made a laughing stock of himself. As the White House staff pointed out today, why did he sit on this for 1 1/2 years? His claim that Bush asked if Saddam had done 9/11 the day after--so what! Saddam was an enemy of the US so why is it considered odd that the president would question if he was behind it? We didn't start bombing Iraq, we bombed Afghanistan for harboring Al Queda. Bush wasn't running on on TV about Saddam after 9/11, he was running on about Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Queda. Talk about an obvious attempt to try and derail the Bush campaign, another disgruntled idiot who is trying to make some dollars.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 11:52 AM   #8
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Alauradana, Clark says he didn't sit on the information. He tried for months to get a upper level cabinet meeting and when he got it, the White House scrapped his proposals because they were written during the Clinton administration. Edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story...769399,00.html

BTW, here is an interesting perspective...

Mr Clarke's comments came ahead of the publication of his book, Against All Enemies, on Monday.

He said the US president had later tried to show links between al-Qaeda and Iraq, despite being told none existed.

He said it was "outrageous" Mr Bush was running for re-election on his record fighting terrorism, when in fact he had "ignored it" before the attacks.

"He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

He said Mr Bush appeared obsessed with the idea of blaming former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way," Mr Clarke quotes Mr Bush as saying in the book.

"The entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this," he added.

He also told the US broadcaster CBS that the day after the 11 September attacks, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld called for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan," he said. "And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said: 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"

He said he was so taken aback by the comments, he initially thought Mr Rumsfeld was joking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/3556191.stm
Clarke worked for the Reagan and Bush administrations prior to working for the Clinton administration. Trying to paint this whole ordeal as politically motivated is just asinine.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"

Last edited by Lurikeen; 03-22-2004 at 11:59 AM.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 12:08 PM   #9
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
So he says, we had meetings about al Qaeda as a threat before 9/11, what more do you need? Where was clarke when the USS cole was attacked?
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 12:20 PM   #10
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
This is an interesting piece of information about Clarke....

Clarke has denied being politically motivated. He is a registered Republican, and told ABC, "I'm an independent. I've spent 30 years in the government. ... I will never work in any Kerry administration because I'm not going to work in the government again."

He added, "It pains me to have Condoleezza Rice and others mad at me. But I think the American people needed to know the facts and they weren't out, and now they are."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...rke/index.html
He is a Republican who claims to be an independent.

Chuk, Clarke was doing his job when the USS Cole was attacked. Where was Bush on 9/11? http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...006&s=alterman
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 12:55 PM   #11
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
I'm glad you find that interesting Lurikeen, I find this interesting :

Originally Posted by article
"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns about the direction of the war on terrorism, why did he wait until a campaign?" McClellan asked. "Instead, he conveniently writes a book and releases it during an election."

"The Kerry campaign was ready to put his assertions on their Web sites," McClelland added, deeming Clarke's comments "more about book promotion and less about policy."

Some said Clarke was just looking to sell more copies of his book and/or possibly hoping for a job with Kerry or a future Democratic president.

"These guys are trying to sell books. The timing of the release of this book clearly is involved in the presidential cycle," said Richard Fisher, a former deputy trade minister in the Bush administration.

He probably thinks that the Democrats have a chance this time and so he's trying to suck around for another job," Alexander Haig, former secretary of state under President Reagan, told Fox News on Monday.

"This is an outrage to claim President Bush is responsible for nine years of total incompetence in confronting international terrorism that he [Clarke] was a part of," especially when "the Clinton administration did nothing but warn, warn, warn and throw a few rockets" at terrorists.

Bush, however, "has a firm grasp on the global threat that is confronting the United States, the free world and nations that believe in the rule of law," Haig continued.
Funny how people find different things interesting. He's made a fool out of himself and very few will find any credibility in what he has to say.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 01:16 PM   #12
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Caelie, I wouldn't expect the Bush attack dogs to claim or do anything other than what they are now.

They are hardly objective about Clarke's criticisms. You also have to consider that Clarke is a card carrying Republican and worked for three administrations prior to the Bush, Jr. administration.

Of course, God himself could reveal to you the lies Bush has told and you would still not believe.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 06:11 PM   #13
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Well Luri, for your answers just read Caelie's post. Why is he doing this now? Dollar signs are popping up in his eyeballs. I am referring to why he brought this to the public's attention now. If I was in charge of terrorism during all those years when we were attacked three times under Clinton and had done nothing, I would be ashamed to then turn around and try and blame an administration that had only been in 9 months versus the inactivity of the prior eight years. Why didn't he bring this up when he was under Clinton? When Al Queda was just forming? Bush's administration has made it clear that when they first came in office, they followed the policy of the previous administration until they had their own, that was Clinton. Go blame your Dems for that. Clinton was no better than an ostrich with his head in the sand (or down someone's pants) and was oblivious to what was going on in the world around him. I feel terribly sorry for the Bush administration. They inherited a huge problem because Clinton was so embroiled in his personal predicaments that he failed to notice and act on what was clearly happening in the global arena.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 06:16 PM   #14
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
He said " The Democrats aren't going to win this electin by focusing negtively on the War in Iraq or the War on Terrorism. If we're going to win this election we need to focus on the economy, education and healthcare.
I agree- but Bush can lose it because of this.

Now as to the central question of Clark and Clinton doing nothing- you apparently didn't watch the interview so I will forgive your ignorance. Clark claims that Clinton elevated him to a cabinet level position, held daily meetings of all terrorism agencies (FBI, CIA, Justice etc) and demanded to know everything that was occurring. Clark also confirms some incidences that were thwarted on American soil as a result of such things.

And to further refute your point of Clinton being the person whom terrorism sprouted from Innmountains, who exactly hired Clark as an anti-terrorism person.... can you say Reagan? In fact the first WTC bombing happened 39 days after Clinton's inauguration therbey suggesting that the training had occurred during Bush Sr.'s administration. Now I ask you Innmountains- have you got any support for the innuendo you are repeating or do you just choose to continue repeating baseless facts?
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 06:42 PM   #15
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Bush had 9 months...Clinton had 8 years...nuff said so move along. Clark is seeing dollar signs and thinking he is doing the Democratic party a favor. Conservatives are all over this one

Yeah he's a card carrying Republican just like Zell Miller is a card carrying Democrat. Clarks support is for the Democrats just like Zell's is for the Republicans. You loose your argument on that one.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 06:46 PM   #16
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Originally Posted by Bumbleroot
Now as to the central question of Clark and Clinton doing nothing- you apparently didn't watch the interview so I will forgive your ignorance.
Thank you Bumbleroot, I will sleep better tonight. Watch and see how long this stays in the media. Too many Democrats would like to see this one blow over. They are even questioning why he brings this up now and what point it serves.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 07:03 PM   #17
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Bush had 9 months...Clinton had 8 years...
How many times are you going to make excuses for this president?

Clark claims Clinton had these daily meetings but Bush had none of these meetings. I showed all the gov't documents already before on these boards showing the lack of terrorism work the Bush admin was doing. Clark simply reaffirms what I have already exhibited with public gov't documents.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 09:04 PM   #18
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
..:: Quote ::..
Bush had 9 months...Clinton had 8 years...
..:: End Quote ::..
How many times are you going to make excuses for this president?

Now Bumble a quote before:

"In fact the first WTC bombing happened 39 days after Clinton's inauguration therbey suggesting that the training had occurred during Bush Sr.'s administration."

Bumble, you seem to be doing the same thing that Caelie did, HELLO!
I did see Clark on tv and he was saying that Clinton didn't listen to him either. Please spare me the speech that Clinton was on top of it, he knew where OBL was and didn't do a dam thing. Clinton was a wuss when it came to terrorism. He always said he was going to do something and ended up doing jack.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 09:40 PM   #19
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Clinton had 8 years to catch OBL he didnt do dick, he tossed a couple of rockets at some empty training camps and made some soundbites on TV, but it all comes down to zero results. You forgive Clinton for 8 years of sloth but crucify Bush becuase he didnt catch OBL in the first 9 months of office? The funny thing is just 2 years since 9/11 Bush has helped to splinter Al Qaeda into a shell of what it once compared to during the clinton administration. We have Al Qaeda's leaders either dead or hiding like little bitches waiting for the inevitable.

If anything you should get on your knees and kiss Bush's penis for the great strides he made on Terrorism. I dont like Bush becuase his diplomacy is shit and hes basically not too bright on a lot of domestic issues but hes got his heart in the right place when it comes to America's safety.

-edited for the goober below me-
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)

Last edited by chukzombi; 03-22-2004 at 10:01 PM.
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2004, 09:59 PM   #20
gojirra monk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 304
Default way off topic

Originally Posted by chukzombi
The funny thing is just 2 years since 9/11 Bush has helped to decimate Al Qaeda into a shell of what it once compared to during the clinton administration.
FYI: Decimate really means to "reduce by a tenth" not "reduce to a tenth".

Originally Posted by http://www.bartleby.com/61/35/D0073500.html
Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts this extension in the sentence The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war, even though it is common knowledge that the number of Jews killed was much greater than a tenth of the original population. However, when the meaning is further extended to include large-scale destruction other than killing, as in The supply of fresh produce was decimated by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, only 26 percent of the Panel accepts the usage.
gojirra monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2004, 10:58 AM   #21
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
This was 2002:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

Had to cut last couple of questions off to make this fit link below:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2004, 11:14 AM   #22
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Alauradana
Well Luri, for your answers just read Caelie's post. Why is he doing this now? Dollar signs are popping up in his eyeballs. I am referring to why he brought this to the public's attention now.
There are a number of problems with your assesment.

First, anybook written by a former senior White House staff person such as Clarke, has to be reviewed by the White House for security reasons. Clarke, or his publisher, had any control as to when the White House would release his book for publishing. According to Clarke, it too the White House months to review his book. In a real sense, the timing of the release of the book was up to the White House, not Clarke.

Second, a review of the New York Time's best seller list doesn't appear favorable to books released by former White House officials. I doubt seriously that Clarke has a huge money maker with his book.

Third, Clarke is not going to win a position in a Kerry White House over this. Clarke is a conservative (card carrying Republican). He has put himself up for intense scrutiny by the Bush White House and they love to punish their political opponents. So, there is no political gain for Clarke by publishing this book.

If Clarke isn't gaining politically, financially and is exposing himself to horrendous criticism and punishment by the Bush administration, what could his motivation be for writing his book? Is it possible that he has truth to share, sees that Bush is lieing, and therefore wants to expose the lies publicly?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2004, 08:53 PM   #23
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
I have never read so much crap in my life Lurikeen. Do you really expect people to believe that this idiot wrote this book and 1) had no intention of trying to negatively impact the election with its release date 2) had no intention of making money? Give me a break. Go back to elementary school, even kids that young can see what this guy is about. If he had such a problem with the Bush administration, why did he send them a nice letter saying he was honored, blah blah blah when he left? Then wait all this time to come out with this stuff? If he had no intention of making money, why didn't he just call 60 minutes right off the bat? Answer that one please. If he was so concerned about getting his message out to the public, an interview would be much quicker than publishing a book, I mean if he was honestly concerned with the safety of our nation, don't you think time was of the essence? Are you starting to see how illogical you are? You are busy telling me I am wrong but your theories are just completely assine. He wrote the book to make money, he would not get the same amount going to 60 minutes. How many pills do you have to swallow to get in this dreamlike state where you actually believe the garbage you write?????
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2004, 08:56 PM   #24
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Alauranda, I take it that you can't actually refute my points. If you think my ideas are asinine, then why don't you refute them point by point? Likely because you can't and all you can do is flame out of frustration. The truth hurts doesn't it?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2004, 09:05 PM   #25
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
I did refute them. You said he wasn't dojng it for the money. I went on, point by point (notice the numerals) that if he wasn't in it for the money, why didn't he just do an interview? YOU didn't answer that. I know you won't now because you have no answer, it proves your theory false.

If he was doing this out of the pure goodness of his heart and was not politically motivated as you so claim, I POINTED out on number 1, that if he was not doing this for political backlash, then why do it before the election, why wait all this time for a book to be published? If he was a concerned person, he would have wanted this information to be released to the public immediately. Why didn't he do that? NO answer from you again, therefore blowing your other theories.

Funny how you accuse me on not refuting you when that is exactly what I did. Why can't you answer the POINTS that I raised???????
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.