Richard Clarks Praises Bush (transcript)

[billvon 3,006]

>Rice spoke with the Commision already for 4 hours.... But the
>media doesn't tell you that does it.

From CNN:
------------------------
Rice did not testify at those sessions, but she has met privately with the commission before. The commission, along with some 9/11 family members, have asked Rice to testify publicly.

Rice has spent several hours with the commission in private . . .
-----------------------

Gotta watch more than just FOX.

>She answered quests in a closed door seccion because of a
>confidence with the president.

So she refuses to talk to a US commission that is attempting to prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening again, because of security reasons, but is fine with TV news show interviews.

Over the course of recent history, 5 presidential aides have refused to testify before congress. I'll give you one guess as to which administration 4 of them came from.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>US Embassies are United States soil. They are sovereign.

Oh please. If the Russian embassy in NY was attacked by terrorists, you wouldn't claim that terrorists had attacked the US?

No, it would be an attack on Russia. Just like I construe (as was intended BTW, and was construed by the rest of the world too) the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to be attacks on the US. It's not like they were directed against the domestic governments.

So, you think the attacks against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were not directed against the US?

Quote

>Edit to add: Number of world-wide terror attacks dipped under 200
> events last year, part of a decline over the past three years. I'll try
> to find the stat, but it isn't 10x worse.

There have been ~100 attacks in Iraq alone, so I think you'd have to do some creative counting to get those numbers. Also, keep in mind that we don't even care about most of the terrorist attacks throughout the world - when's the last time you heard Bush pushing the case against the Tamil Tigers? They've killed 60,000 in 200 attacks over a decade. But since they really only affect Sri Lankans we don't care much.

Here's one article that is similar to what I recall reading last year. I was wrong on the year, and I'm not sure of the measurement they're citing.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,006]

>So, you think the attacks against our embassies in Kenya and
>Tanzania were not directed against the US?

They were directed against the US, just as attacks against our troops in Iraq are against the US. They are just not _in_ the US, which is what Michele was talking about.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

They were directed against the US, just as attacks against our troops in Iraq are against the US. They are just not _in_ the US, which is what Michele was talking about.

It is a universally accepted diplomatic standard that a nation's embassy is sovereign soil of its representative, regardless of where it is.

Meanwhile (back to the main subject), members of Congress are seeking to declassify Clarke's testimony given to Congress in 2002. If this opens up, Clarke will be hung out to dry.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony

Ok, it's fine with them when it benefits them, but Cheyney's discussions with industry executives about the energy policy is off limits.

[Gawain 0]

Apples and oranges. One involving lying under oath, the other about policy.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,006]

>Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony
>Ok, it's fine with them when it benefits them, but Cheyney's
> discussions with industry executives about the energy policy is off
> limits.

I'm sure the head of the NSA will ensure that classified testimony is not used for political purposes. At the same time, I'm sure the Plame leak will be quickly identified and the felon brought to justice, and I'm sure the Cheney energy policy court case will be presided over by a fair and impartial judge. Nothing to worry about!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony
>Ok, it's fine with them when it benefits them, but Cheyney's
> discussions with industry executives about the energy policy is off
> limits.

I'm sure the head of the NSA will ensure that classified testimony is not used for political purposes. At the same time, I'm sure the Plame leak will be quickly identified and the felon brought to justice, and I'm sure the Cheney energy policy court case will be presided over by a fair and impartial judge. Nothing to worry about!

I'm sure your confidence is justified. By the way, would anyone like to buy a bridge? I have a nice one for sale, it connects Manhattan with Brooklyn.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[storm1977 0]

Sorry, but I don't see the need to publically testify when she has been more than willing to answer any questions the panel asjks behind closed doors.

You don't have the right to hear that info... You can read the final report on what was found.

To say this is a NONpartisian commity is INSANE.

This thing has become some politically charged it is stupid. And Clark..... Trying to sell books....That is SAD.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,006]

>Sorry, but I don't see the need to publically testify when she has
> been more than willing to answer any questions the panel asjks
> behind closed doors.

Then why did Clarke testify in public? Simple - he could not be slammed by the White House if his testimony had not been made public, and it would have been revealed at a more damaging time for the White House's image.

In recent history, five aides have refused to testify publically. Four were from the Nixon administration during the watergate scandals. She is in interesting company.

>You don't have the right to hear that info...

No, but the commission and the families of 9/11 victims do. And they _do_ have the right to ask her to testify publically, which they have done. She can refuse, of course, if there are things that would make the administration look bad.

And to claim that there are classified things that we can't hear is absurd. The white house is now considering declassifying Clarke's confidential briefings so they can get in another few shots at him.

>To say this is a NONpartisian commity is INSANE.

It's as partisan as it gets. Instead of allowing the commission to gather all the evidence and then present it, the Bush administration has turned this into an opportunity to play politics and try to destroy yet another person who had the audacity to criticize the administration. This was supposed to be an investigation into how 9/11 happened and how to prevent its occurrence in the future. And yet when the anti-terrorism czar who was in charge of anti-terrorism on 9/11/2001 is questioned, 90% of the questions are transparent attempts to discredit, embarrass and smear him.

>This thing has become some politically charged it is stupid. And
>Clark..... Trying to sell books....That is SAD.

So should people who have worked in government be prohibited from writing books? His testimony reflects what is in his book.

[Michele 1]

Quote

So should people who have worked in government be prohibited from writing books? His testimony reflects what is in his book.

Which contradicts his earlier comments...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,006]

>Which contradicts his earlier comments...

So hear him out, then move on to the next witness, and when you're done write a report, based on all his comments past and present. 9/11 is worth understanding. Winning the next presidential election is NOT worth scuttling the only serious effort towards understanding how 9/11 happened and how to prevent one in the future.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Sorry, but I don't see the need to publically testify when she has been more than willing to answer any questions the panel asjks behind closed doors.

You don't have the right to hear that info... You can read the final report on what was found.

To say this is a NONpartisian commity is INSANE.

This thing has become some politically charged it is stupid. And Clark..... Trying to sell books....That is SAD.

Let's see, she's all over the media telling her side of the story, but won't tell it under oath except in secret.

If it waddles and quacks, chances are it's a duck.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>Which contradicts his earlier comments...

So hear him out, then move on to the next witness, and when you're done write a report, based on all his comments past and present. 9/11 is worth understanding. Winning the next presidential election is NOT worth scuttling the only serious effort towards understanding how 9/11 happened and how to prevent one in the future.

They're not hearing him out and they're not responding to anything he said. All they've done is trash him.

If he was so bad as they now claim, how come Ron Reagan and George HW Bush didn't get rid of him when they had the chance?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

So should people who have worked in government be prohibited from writing books? His testimony reflects what is in his book.

Which contradicts his earlier comments...

Ciels-
Michele

Par for the course for anyone associated with this administration. Bush contradicts himself so often it's hard to keep track.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

So hear him out, then move on to the next witness,

Yes but when one of the guys on the commity holds up Clarks book at the beginning of the seccion and says "Everybody Needs to read this book..."

It smacks of partisan BS!!!!! Is he the terrorism Czar? Is he credible????
I sure as shit don't trust his words anymore than you trust the presidents words. Is he the ultimate authority in this matter? Maybe I don't know.... But you can't take what he says as truth because he is either Lying now or was Lying in 2002... So which is it?

On a different note, has anyone realized that everything that is good for america is bad for the Democrats.

Things the Democrats don't want to happen in the next 6-8 months.

1) The don't want the economy to improve.
2) they don't want UBL to be caught.
3) They don't want unemployment to go down
4) They don't want Iraq to become peaceful
5) They don't want gas prices to drop.

The list goes on.....

Why is that? Is it because they are more interested in their own gain then they are in the prosperity of the USA?

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,006]

>Yes but when one of the guys on the commity holds up Clarks book
>at the beginning of the seccion and says "Everybody Needs to read
> this book..." It smacks of partisan BS!!!!!

I agree. As are the people who do nothing but attack him. Hear him out, read his book if they want, then decide if he's credible or not.

>Is he the terrorism Czar? Is he credible????

He was, and his testimony is surely applicable to what happened before and after 9/11 when it comes to terrorism. The committee has to decide whether he's credible or nor.

>On a different note, has anyone realized that everything that is good
>for america is bad for the Democrats.

Of course! The party out of power always wants things to go poorly for the party in power.

>Why is that? Is it because they are more interested in their own gain
> then they are in the prosperity of the USA?

Definitely. Just as Bush is far more interested in blamestorming than accepting the responsibility for failed WMD intelligence, the failure to "connect the dots" on 9/11 and the delay in the attempt to get Bin Laden due to the Iraq war. In other words, he's more interested in being re-elected than actually making the changes that might help _prevent_ 9/11, because making those changes would be an admission of guilt - and one thing this administration seems incapable of is admitting fault.

Would exactly the same thing happen if a democrat had been in power? Probably.

[storm1977 0]

I will give you most of that, however sometimes I wonder if Bush is really thinking....

Ok he says he will give amnisty to mexicans in the south. My first thought was that he was doning that for votes, but then I realized that doing that would piss off his southern voters.
Chances are good that more of his southern voters would vote than the mexican minority. So, isn't he killing himself doing that?

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,006]

>So, isn't he killing himself doing that?

Yep. And I think he made a big mistake in the Clarke thing for a few reasons:

1. The White House took three months to clear the book for publication; they can't claim that the timing for its release was up to Clarke.

2. Bush has never publically apologized for intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Clarke's apology got people wondering why not. All Kerry has to do is say "Ask yourself if the current administration did enough to prevent 9/11." An apology would derail that sort of question immediately; "No, we did our best but we missed that one crucial bit; we will fix the problem so it never happens again." But since Bush won't make such a statement, they'll have no good answer to Kerry's question.

3. I think their current approach on Clarke is going to burn them. Cheney and Rice say that Clarke was out of the loop, and has hinted that he was sort of kept out of the loop because he was a bit of a loose cannon. Are they really saying that the administration kept their anti-terrorism czar out of the loop before and after 9/11? Seems like a mistake to push that angle.

Also, why not admit that they should have concentrated a bit more on terrorism? Clearly, if they had done more, they could have prevented 9/11; heck, they imply they could prevent one now, so they must think it possible to stop a 9/11. Could they have known what the results of their doing less could be? I don't think so. That doesn't make them negligent, it just makes them human.

I think both sides are missing the point, which is that before 9/11 terrorism was just another issue. Look at Bush's speeches pre-9/11 - he barely mentioned Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda but mentioned the word "tax cuts" dozens of times. Is that because he was completely ignoring the terrorism issue? I don't think so. I think it was just one of the many priorities the White House had. It wasn't the top one because there hadn't been any terrorist attacks lately, but it wasn't the bottom one because they had people like Clarke and Rice looking into the issue.

[PhillyKev 0]

Interestingly, the administration has been calling for the declassification of SPECIFIC statements made by Clarke pre 9/11. Clarke on Meet the Press said he has no problem with declassifying EVERYTHING that he said, wrote, emailed, etc. His concern was that they would only declassify selected, out of context statements in order to discredit him. But he said if they put everything out to the public, they would see that he has been consistent in his criticism of the administration from day one.

[storm1977 0]

I don't believe that Kerrry has an advantage over Bush when it comes to terrorism and this is why I feel that way. No matter what happens, no matter how bad intelligence was leading up to 9/11 or what ever. This is what I ask myself..

Who would UBL rather see elected in the USA? Kerry or Bush?

My guess is that UBL would rather see Kerry elected, and therefore my vote goes the other way. Kerry is a thinker and a sympathizer.... Bush like him or not is a doer. Shoot first ask questions later. And, IMO when it comes to Terrorism, that is the only effective way to handle it. (My opinion of course).

chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I don't believe that Kerrry has an advantage over Bush when it comes to terrorism and this is why I feel that way. No matter what happens, no matter how bad intelligence was leading up to 9/11 or what ever. This is what I ask myself..

Who would UBL rather see elected in the USA? Kerry or Bush?

My guess is that UBL would rather see Kerry elected, and therefore my vote goes the other way. Kerry is a thinker and a sympathizer.... Bush like him or not is a doer. Shoot first ask questions later. And, IMO when it comes to Terrorism, that is the only effective way to handle it. (My opinion of course).

chris

You are entitled to your opinion. If I were the leader of an enemy of the US, then I'd prefer to see a moron (one who invades a country where I have no assets and who believes his own lies), elected President, rather than a thinker. I'd support Bush. Just my $0.02

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

This thread was the oldest one from page 495

Lets do some thread necromancing.

Quote

My guess is that UBL would rather see Kerry elected, and therefore my vote goes the other way. Kerry is a thinker and a sympathizer.... Bush like him or not is a doer. Shoot first ask questions later. And, IMO when it comes to Terrorism, that is the only effective way to handle it. (My opinion of course).

Does it count when your doer has done nothing but doo doo??

Still think he got rid of all the terrorists???

[Squeak 17]

you broke a 1hour and 25 min silence in SC for this...(tappig foot)

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

you broke a 1hour and 25 min silence in SC for this...(tappig foot)

Can you teach me how to tappig my foot? Do you think it will help with the smell?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.