A Little More On Clarke:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,176
287
Hooterville, Vir.
While I think that, to the extent that Clarke has done what he has done to make money, he deserves at least moral censure. To the extent that he is offering honest, critical analysis, with a view to make the counter-terrorism efforts of the government more effective, I support him and thank him for his honest criticism. The fact that he praised the Bush Administration's efforts in an interview with journalists while still employed by the Administration, that he wrote his criticisms after he did not receive the Homeland security job he wanted, is, of course, relevant in critically examining his motivations.
That being said, I think that family members of 9-11 victims are wrong to criticize Bush political ads that include images of the WTC attacks or condemn Clarke for making money off of a book on the subject.
WTC victim Ronald Breitweiser, for example, was not targeted individually, but because he was an American. The WTC was attacked because it was a quintessentially American icon, not because of any particular animus al Qaida had against the particular occupants of that building. Thus the "ownership" of the memory of the attacks is not solely the victims' families to endorse nor to condemn. The nation as a whole "owns" the memory of that attack, not just the surviving family members.
Also, I did not appreciate that Mr. Clarke took it upon himself to apologize for what he said was a failure of the government. He was not the head of State, and thus has no authority to apologize for a failure of the government. He can (and did) say that he personally failed (which might explain why he did not get the appointment in HLS), but he has no authority to apologize for the government. His apology was, in fact, mindless blather, "sound and fury signifying nothing."

[This message has been edited by Tidewater (edited 03-29-2004).]
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
I heard his apology, and I don't remember any part of it that would lead me to believe he was blaming the president.

It sounded to me like he was saying that "we", those who had responsibility to detect and counter terroristic acts against the US, failed, because "we" didn't stop the attacks of 9/11. that's pretty general. It certainly include himself, and the Counterterrorism chief. It certainly includes the CIA and FBI and DOD. It implies that the administrations (all of them) were at fault; but I didn't see it as an usurpation. I don't know why GWB and Condi Rice couldn't make their own sincere apologies...

It seems reasonable to me, and decent. They DID fail. My guess is that they will fail again, before it is over. It is HARD to stop determined people, who are willing to die to cause great harm to our country.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't keep trying to get better at it, though. And Clarke has a large contribution to make in identifying and correcting mistakes made over the past three administrations.

It is senseless, and totally political, to trash the man for speaking out.

I regret that his publishers used this forum to promote the book. Not because the families from the WTC (sought out and interviewed by that paragon of unbiased reporting, the New York Post) are offended by it, but because it seems crass and it weakens his message.

The message is the important thing: mistakes were made, and we need to correct them...
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,176
287
Hooterville, Vir.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bobstod:
I heard his apology, and I don't remember any part of it that would lead me to believe he was blaming the president.
</font>
I did not say his apology was blaming the President (although his testimony attempted to do so). He said, and I quote, "Your government let you down." He is in no way authorized to make that statement. It was in fact, grandstanding or the worst kind.
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
With all due respect, Tidewater, I think that is nitpicking.

He was a part of government; he was, in fact, IN CHARGE of a part of the government that had responsibility for this failure, through three presidential administrations.

I don't think that his apology was out of place. I think it was appropriate, and I think some other folks ought to take a lesson from it....
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,176
287
Hooterville, Vir.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bobstod:
With all due respect, Tidewater, I think that is nitpicking.

He was a part of government; he was, in fact, IN CHARGE of a part of the government that had responsibility for this failure, through three presidential administrations.

I don't think that his apology was out of place. I think it was appropriate, and I think some other folks ought to take a lesson from it....
</font>
I respectfully disagree. For Clarke to say thet he let the people down is fine. For him to say that the government did so is preseumptive, inappropriate and beyond his mandate.
As for Bush "apologizing" himself, how long do you think it would take the DNC to turn that footage into a political ad for Kerry?
 

CrimsonNan

BamaNation Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2003
6,501
46
0
Vestavia Hills, Alabama, USA
Why all this hullabaloo and "investigation" about who was responsible for 9/11 NOW - two and a half years after the fact?

Could it be because the Dems want to try to discredit Bush, and EVERYTHING he's done RIGHT because it's election year? Could it be because they hate him so much that they would do ANYTHING to TRY to get their guy elected?

Could it be that it's not a coincidence that Richard Clarke just happened to write his book and managed to have it published THIS year and at THIS time?

DUH!!!???
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
Okay, T/W. I understand your point of view, and although I don't agree with you, you certainly have an argument.

Nan and P&G; I realize that this is an opinion board, and that people WILL express their political views on here. I concede that if GWB apologized, some whacko would try to make political hay out of it.

I would not be that someone. I think some sincerity and some statesmanship would be a welcome relief from the divisiveness we have endured for so long now.

If I were president, I would be seeking areas where people AGREE.

But I am certainly not president. And I am nieve; and somewhat idealistic at times.

But try, you guys, once a month or so, to just approach things as a person seeking solutions, and not as a partisan politician. I'm heartily sick of it.
 

Pluck and Grit

All-SEC
Jul 12, 2001
1,165
0
0
Delray Beach, FL
Bob,

Of course things would be better if affairs such as this were conducted pragmatically. However, a partisan attack gets a partisan defense. If you think the Clarke stuff is anything other than a partisan attack, think again, and maybe do some more reading on it.
 

CrimsonNan

BamaNation Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2003
6,501
46
0
Vestavia Hills, Alabama, USA
If I were president, I would be seeking areas where people AGREE.

But I am certainly not president. And I am
nieve; and somewhat idealistic at times.

*******************************************

Yes, you are naive, Bob. Why do you expect President Bush, and the Republicans in general to make concessions when they have been attacked from the beginning, so to speak, by the Democrats?

The Dems were attacking Bush before Kerry was even the Democratic nominee. And now this embittered person has written, and gotten a book published, bashing Bush but giving Clinton a pass, and YOU give HIM a pass as well. His only reason for writing a book at this time was to attempt to discredit Bush in every way possible.

But YOU, Bob, want "peace in the valley". Go tell it to your Democrats. Do you really expect the Republicans to lie down and allow themselves to be walked on?



------------------
"And though she be but little, she is fierce"

From: "Seabiscuit"

A quote from Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer's Night Dream".
Act III Scene II

O, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
Nan said: "The Dems were attacking Bush before Kerry was even the Democratic nominee. And now this embittered person has written, and gotten a book published, bashing Bush but giving Clinton a pass, and YOU give HIM a pass as well. His only reason for writing a book at this time was to attempt to discredit Bush in every way possible."

Actually, Nan, according to the Republican member of the panel who questioned Clarke in the two-hour session I was able to watch, the book is very even handed in discussing mistakes in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The man was quite emphatic in stressing the fairness of Mr. Clarke's book. He took exception to the remarks made on "60 Minutes" and other media outlets, and compared them to the fairness of the book.

Have you read it?
 

Mamacalled

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2000
6,786
22
157
58
Pelham, Al
I'll again point out one area of Clarke's book that shows his lack of fairness. He states that when he had a meeting with Condaleeza he brought up the threat of Al-Queda. He says that she seemed perplexed and did not seem to know anything about Al-Queda. He wrote this on page 229 of his book. Fact is, prior to the election, she was interviewed on a radio station. In this interview she was asked what was one of her biggest concerns if Bush was elected? Her reply was Al-Queda and explained in detail why she thought of them as a threat. So, am I to believe Clarke that she didn't know who Al-Queda was or should I think that he is lying because before his meeting with her she detailed a threat of Al-Queda? I go with the later.
 

CrimsonNan

BamaNation Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2003
6,501
46
0
Vestavia Hills, Alabama, USA
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mamacalled:
I'll again point out one area of Clarke's book that shows his lack of fairness. He states that when he had a meeting with Condaleeza he brought up the threat of Al-Queda. He says that she seemed perplexed and did not seem to know anything about Al-Queda. He wrote this on page 229 of his book. Fact is, prior to the election, she was interviewed on a radio station. In this interview she was asked what was one of her biggest concerns if Bush was elected? Her reply was Al-Queda and explained in detail why she thought of them as a threat. So, am I to believe Clarke that she didn't know who Al-Queda was or should I think that he is lying because before his meeting with her she detailed a threat of Al-Queda? I go with the later.</font>
There are other lies that Clarke told in his book that are being brought to light. I wish I'd written them down so I could post them here, but apparently he lies through his teeth a lot in the book.

Condi is only going to repeat/testify in public what she has already testified in private for four hours. Someone questioned that the committee only wants to humiliate her.

I don't think that will happen. She'll blow that committee out of the water, and prove once and for all what a liar that bas***d Clarke is. She has an I.Q that's "off the chart", and she is always calm, dignified, and informed to the hilt. Clarke will crawl back under his rock when she's through testifying.
 

CrimsonNan

BamaNation Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2003
6,501
46
0
Vestavia Hills, Alabama, USA
From the pen of BobStod:

Have you read it?

*************************
Have you? Or have you merely watched it on TV?

Clarke is a fip flopper just like Kerry. He says one thing one year and something else the next. It looks like even you could see that he is just embittered and wants to "get back" at imagined injustices he's "suffered".
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
No, Nan, I haven't read it. I probably won't read it. My comments were based on what I saw and heard on C-Span.

You and Mama seem convinced that the man is a liar and is out only to derail GWB. Who knows? You may be right. I will not defend the man, because I don't know enough facts. I'm willing to bet that you don't either...

But these "lies" that have so far been pointed out are nothing more than minor inconsistencies. He said she was at a meeting, she said this or that was discussed. Those are not substance; they are details. What we need to know is this: was important intelligence missed, and were urgent policy changes delayed, because they were forced into a bureaucratic treadmill that took eight months to digest them? If so, is there a way to make the system more responsive than that?

None of that need be aimed at placing blame on GWB. It is very simply a process to find the errors and correct them.

OK, you and the rest of the Bush crowd on here are upset because of the finger-pointing and the blame-laying that is being shouted about by the left. That's understandable. I'd be upset, too, if I admired the man and his policies as much as you all do.

But nothing in any of my posts can be called finger-pointing or blame-laying, I don't believe. I have stated more than once that mistakes were made in all three administrations in which Clarke served; and that these mistakes were probably unavoidable. At the least excusable.

But should we just shoot the man and put all his testimony in the burn bag? Or should we try to understand what went wrong, and fix it?

It doesn't HAVE to be all about politics.
 

NYBamaFan

Suspended
Feb 2, 2002
23,320
14
0
Blairstown, NJ
Bob,

If you characterize his contradictory statements as "minor inconsistencies" then that explains your stand. I guess a little white lie here and there does no harm, right?. That's what you taught your kids, right?

My problem is that those "inconsistencies" surround the issue in question. Did Bush create a policy to address Al Queda? If you remove all of Clark's commentary for which he has made contradictory statements in the past 2 weeks, he is left saying nothing at all.

To paraphrase Nan's signature "Though they may be little, they are still important."
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.