WAR ON IRAQ:BIG mistake

But if his claims are false, what ELSE would you have them say? As for "attacking his character" -- I do not see it that way. They've been miles away from anything unseemly or unprofessional. They've given reasonable, logical responses. Noting that he had been demoted beforehand, and thus might have been bitter, is a reasonable response. Noting that his judgement had been lacking in matters of cyberterrorism is also a perfectly valid retort.

Naturally, we're all going to believe whichever view we found more agreeable beforehand, but I see no way to spin this so that the White House is on the defensive more than Clarke. The timing of the book's release, and his expressing in his resignation letter that it had been a "privelege" (I believe that was the word) working with the Bush administration both indicate that this is not about truth, but about politics.

Let's also take note of the fact that John Kerry is on vacation. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that's a bit of a coincidence.

The 9/11 Commission is not putting money and manpower into finding out whether or not the war was justified; it's putting money and manpower into finding out who was responsible for 9/11, and how it can be prevented in the future. A very worthy goal, if you ask me. Thus far, they've concluded that neither the Bush or Clinton administrations did all they could.

As for Bush swallowing his pride and finishing the job; I fail to see how that even comes into this. Whatever complaints you may have against him, you certainly cannot fault his resolve. He's undeniably the type to see things through, and I do not think Iraq is an exception.

A bombshell's just been dropped. On Richard Clarke.

Transcripts have now been released of a briefing involving Clarke, as well as a "handful of reporters" in August of 2002. You can view them here. Here are some of the more damning quotes:

Both quotes, of course, refer to the Bush administration. More explicitly:

Let's contrast that with his most explicit accusation from the interview with 60 Minutes:

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

Assuming this is not some kind of wild hoax (quite unlikely, as CNN and Fox News have both reported it already), what do you all think of it? Not to sound overly partisan here, but if this is all true, I would think it would more or less decimate Clarke's criticisms.

I think that those who believed Clarke did so because his claims were merely a piece which fit all-too-well in the anti-Bush puzzle.

It severely challanges him to define the nature of his claim about neglect, certainly (i.e. he seems to have spun things by focusing on the cabinet meeting/"action plan" on al Qaeda not coming until September 4th 2001 etc).

His related claim that Bush focused too much on potentially ineffective approaches, to the detriment of effective terrorism-tackling, seems to be a central point that needs expanding....

...i.e....

As i understand it one of his core complaints is that the Bush admin didn't react to information brought forward by the likes of Tennet and himself. (he contrasts the way Clinton reacted to comparable information - and how the constant communication that the Clinton-admin instigated prevented three terrorist attacks planned for the millenium)

Another criticism is his professional opinion that the Iraq/regime-change approach the Bush-crew advocate is ineffective, and even counter-productive, concerning terrorism.

...

I agree that Clark clearly wants Bush out of the Whitehouse, and therefore is using political spin in his presentation (in the face of existing spin i might add )

The question is why.

I think he genuinely feels Bush has done a bad job.

I think hearing his responses to this article, and his responses in the 9/11 inquiry, will make for very interesting listening.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I wasn't trying to bait you. I think you and I just got off on the wrong foot. Its a shame when these things happen because alot of great friendships, or for that matter, potential friendships, are lost. As such, I apologize as well, but not for going off on you. I really don't think my little squabble with Hondo13333 counted, it was a two post thing and it ended. Maybe with Yoda it got too personal, but other than that I really have stayed quiet, for my entire stay here. So I accept your apology, hope you accept mine.. So lets start anew.

I concur. The way the Bush administration is handling this makes it seem like they are always on top of things, always preperaed and expectant. This Richard Clarke shows us that this is not always the case. It is very clear that Clark wants Gdub out the whitehouse, however this doesn't mean that he is going to completely spin everything. Sometimes the truth can't be spined. Furthermore, in our day and age everything is a spin. Everything that comes out of Bush's mouth is a spin on the events going on. I think thats a fair claim to make.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...177048,00.html

This kind of accusation can still coexist alongside the declarations he made to that press conference in 2002.

It's worth noting that in that conference he also raised this now stressed point...

From http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
Clearly, the Bush administration had Iraq on the hit list long before there was evidence that saddam did anything (and there isnt). I think this will be a major issue in the run for presidency. Also, it makes the war on Iraq even more invalid as it shows how the plan were preconcieved.

You mean Wesley Clark then - It's a collaboration of Clarks, ain't it marvellous.

(there are two O'Neills who've said damning things about the Bush admin too. Maybe someone's manufacturing righteously revelatory twins? ).

Interesting, but no. I think its just Bush trying to do his job but sucking horribly at it.

I was joking man. But i concur with your conclusion

I know, lol. Hehe, golgot, you never cease to amaze me

There doesn't appear to be an apology to accept...but we can still move on.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I felt this was pertinent to the topic. Clarke really rocking the boat right now.....

Booking Bush

_S

__________________

Thanks for the article Sedai. Very interesting.

http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfa...k/DontLoot.wmv

this makes me mad

__________________
And like that .... he's gone

Oh yeah. Things like that and worse happen everyday. The soldiers (in america we have to feel sorry for them and all) they couldn't give a damn about the people. Sure their intent is to stop looting, but lets be proportinate here.. He steals wood and then his car gets rolled over by a tank? And then you hear the soldier's laughing, like they enjoyed seeing someone's life get crushed. That pisses me off actually. I had a video of soldiers raping an Iraqi woman after she refused to let them into her house (she was a widow). If I ever find the site, I'll post it.

Anyways, things like that don't happen out the blue moon. They are common, there just isn't a camera around. Think about it, if soldier's do this kind of thing on camera...what do they do when no one is watching?

Yeah I know, yet I remain confident that MOST of the soilders are honorable people.....they are risking their lives right? However, I'm aware that these things do happend, maybe its their aggressive behaviour or that they are just jackas$es.

Wouldn't it have been a better solution to have just confiscated the wood?

Sigh. Simple boys with complex toys and situation. Bad mix.

“The soldiers” and “they” in your statement implies ALL soldiers… and I think it is very presumptuous of you to assume the position of spokesperson for each and every soldier serving in Iraq…

And as far as the video goes… the only evidence we have that the owner of the car, if indeed he was the owner, was a taxi driver who lost his means of support was the voice of a faceless narrator… and I, personally, couldn’t tell who actually laughed at the end of the tape… it could have been anyone from the camera man to one of the Iraqis themselves from what I saw… but the bottom line is that looting is robbing someone else of their property… in America he would have been arrested and fined... possibly losing his car in the process anyway...

__________________

Yeah. Cool article. Glad he admits that the apparent admin agenda is pretty unrealistic tho.

Like he says, the idea is good in theory. Just incredibly difficult in practice.

-The introduction of "democractic"/open/inclusive governance in the "Arab" world would almost certainly have a good effect on containing extremism and improving people's lives.
-The restriction of areas where terrorists can freely recruit and train is also a good idea in theory.

The question is - can these things be done in the way the Bush admin has chosen.

I think their approach sucks big time, and is destined to fail on multiple levels unless they change it. (anyone who wants details, please don't hesitate to ask )

(Incidently... I'm quite taken with the new image of Cheney/Rummy/Wolfy as out-of-touch has-beens trying to carry on where they left off in past admins, and ignoring interveening changes and contemporary contradictions of their preferred perceptions.

It's a parody - but it would explain why they've acted so dogmatically and foolishly. They're not used to having to measure their theories against reality )