Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job'
- Thread starter melon
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Looks like fluff to me. Clarke ignores the obvious threat Saddam posed to perhaps the most vital region on the planet. His job was terrorism since 1992 and it seems his view of threats to the United States and its interest are boxed in by that.
"Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden."
Well, if someone already supports Bin Ladin then there already anti-American, so how it would it brew a new wave of Anti-American sentiment among supporters is beyond me.
Perhaps he meant it brought new supporters to Bin Ladin. But does he have any numbers to verify that claim?
He seems to focused clearly on one type of threat to the United States and seems to ignore the threats the USA faces from rogue states.
As far as what Bush did or did not do in the 7 months they had before 9/11, can he demonstrate that they were any worse than what the Clinton administration did in combating terrorism in any 7 month period over the 8 years Clinton was president?
Fact is, The Bush administration has now done more to combat and defeat terrorism worldwide than any country or leader in the history of the planet.
Lots of claims are made from unamed and named sources about who said what or did this and that behind closed doors. I treat books by Bob Woodward with a grain of salt. There may be somethings that are true, but there is probably a lot that is not as well.
I must say, its an interesting time for Clarke to becoming out with his accusations.
"Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden."
Well, if someone already supports Bin Ladin then there already anti-American, so how it would it brew a new wave of Anti-American sentiment among supporters is beyond me.
Perhaps he meant it brought new supporters to Bin Ladin. But does he have any numbers to verify that claim?
He seems to focused clearly on one type of threat to the United States and seems to ignore the threats the USA faces from rogue states.
As far as what Bush did or did not do in the 7 months they had before 9/11, can he demonstrate that they were any worse than what the Clinton administration did in combating terrorism in any 7 month period over the 8 years Clinton was president?
Fact is, The Bush administration has now done more to combat and defeat terrorism worldwide than any country or leader in the history of the planet.
Lots of claims are made from unamed and named sources about who said what or did this and that behind closed doors. I treat books by Bob Woodward with a grain of salt. There may be somethings that are true, but there is probably a lot that is not as well.
I must say, its an interesting time for Clarke to becoming out with his accusations.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
You mean people who, in front of the Security Council of the UN, are saying that this small dot on a blurry photograph is a WMD? And then are unable to find it?
Sure...
Marty
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
I think Powell has lost all credibility in the last year or so.
Salome
you are what you is
I think there might be a lot of grey area between being anti american and being willing to blow yourself up to murder a couple of thousand innocent citizensSTING2 said:
Popmartijn,
"You mean people who, in front of the Security Council of the UN, are saying that this small dot on a blurry photograph is a WMD? And then are unable to find it?"
"Sure..."
Do you have any intelligence which shows that Saddam had verifiably disarmed of all WMD?
Yes, lets give mass murder's the benefit of the doubt. That would be a wonderful approach to a new security strategy.
Dreadsox,
Clarke spent most of his time serving Clinton. His job was terrorism. We know what the Clinton administrations record over 8 years on terrorism was.
Clarke has said that the invasion of Iraq was "unprovoked". He seems to know very little about the situation with Iraq over the past 10 years. Then again, it was not his area of expertise either.
BonoVoxSupastar,
"I think Powell has lost all credibility in the last year or so."
For those that believe the world is not safer with Saddam in prison, that might be true.
What does Joe Lieberman have to say:
"Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that the Bush administration - which defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election - was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks."
"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on Fox News Sunday. "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."
"You mean people who, in front of the Security Council of the UN, are saying that this small dot on a blurry photograph is a WMD? And then are unable to find it?"
"Sure..."
Do you have any intelligence which shows that Saddam had verifiably disarmed of all WMD?
Yes, lets give mass murder's the benefit of the doubt. That would be a wonderful approach to a new security strategy.
Dreadsox,
Clarke spent most of his time serving Clinton. His job was terrorism. We know what the Clinton administrations record over 8 years on terrorism was.
Clarke has said that the invasion of Iraq was "unprovoked". He seems to know very little about the situation with Iraq over the past 10 years. Then again, it was not his area of expertise either.
BonoVoxSupastar,
"I think Powell has lost all credibility in the last year or so."
For those that believe the world is not safer with Saddam in prison, that might be true.
What does Joe Lieberman have to say:
"Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that the Bush administration - which defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election - was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks."
"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on Fox News Sunday. "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
Why is it that you always skirt this issue with these questions? Maybe they should have approached the UN and said no one has any evidence that Saddam has verifably disarmed therefore we have the right to go in, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THIS! Instead they went in and said we have evidence that they do exist...and their evidence was a joke. You can argue your point until you're blue in the face, but that's not what this administraion did.
STING2 said:
Once again has nothing to do with my point. No one's arguing that Saddam in prison is a bad thing. But it doesn't make Powell a credible person. His stunt at the UN, his backing every lie told to the American public by this admin, and his stating that he sees nothing wrong with the way innocent people at Gitmo were being treated is what made him lose credibilty in my eyes. Saddam has nothing to do with his credibility.
Personally I'm getting sick of your twisting of people's words in here. I'm getting tired of you implying somehow that people who didn't believe in the way this administration handled the war want Saddam free. Your implications have become so grossly abundant and obvious that now you aren't even waiting for the proper subject to come up. You could have at least waited till I brought up the war.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar
I am with you on Powell.
I have to compartmentalize my feelings / opinions of him.
Much like R. Nixion or B. Clinton there are aspects of their lives, intellects, and service to this country to be admired.
Then there are actions or behaviors that are huge disappointments to their legacies.
Powell biography makes him one to be admired, his service in Viet Nam, all his accomplishments are his own. There were doors that were not allowed to be closed to him because of affirmative action. He has said this and still supports affirmative action. Unlike Clarence Thomas who got the benefits but he does not openly acknowledge it.
Powell's early service in this Administration seemed to be one where stood his ground on principles. It seems to me that he told the Admin. he could use diplomacy to get a UN vote for action in Iraq. Then it appeared that this would not happen, after the president got on Prime Time T V and promised the American people and the World that there would be a vote in the UN. He said, something like "There will be a vote in the UN, We will let the chips fall where they will".
Oddly enough they withdrew the resolution. We now have learned that the US and UK was bugging the UN and embassies, they had the tally and Bush did not have the guts to let ?the chips fall.?
Because of that I believe Powell loss face and clout. He has been carrying the water for Rumsfield, Wolferwitz, and the like ever since.
His credibility with world leaders and many from both sides in this country is now suspect.
This is a sad chapter in Powell?s life.
I am with you on Powell.
I have to compartmentalize my feelings / opinions of him.
Much like R. Nixion or B. Clinton there are aspects of their lives, intellects, and service to this country to be admired.
Then there are actions or behaviors that are huge disappointments to their legacies.
Powell biography makes him one to be admired, his service in Viet Nam, all his accomplishments are his own. There were doors that were not allowed to be closed to him because of affirmative action. He has said this and still supports affirmative action. Unlike Clarence Thomas who got the benefits but he does not openly acknowledge it.
Powell's early service in this Administration seemed to be one where stood his ground on principles. It seems to me that he told the Admin. he could use diplomacy to get a UN vote for action in Iraq. Then it appeared that this would not happen, after the president got on Prime Time T V and promised the American people and the World that there would be a vote in the UN. He said, something like "There will be a vote in the UN, We will let the chips fall where they will".
Oddly enough they withdrew the resolution. We now have learned that the US and UK was bugging the UN and embassies, they had the tally and Bush did not have the guts to let ?the chips fall.?
Because of that I believe Powell loss face and clout. He has been carrying the water for Rumsfield, Wolferwitz, and the like ever since.
His credibility with world leaders and many from both sides in this country is now suspect.
This is a sad chapter in Powell?s life.
"Why is it that you always skirt this issue with these questions? Maybe they should have approached the UN and said no one has any evidence that Saddam has verifably disarmed therefore we have the right to go in, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THIS! Instead they went in and said we have evidence that they do exist...and their evidence was a joke. You can argue your point until you're blue in the face, but that's not what this administraion did."
The question is not skirting the issue, the question is the ISSUE! The administration did go before the UN and listed Iraq's failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions with the most important issues in them being Iraq's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. That has been front in center in the administrations case for military action the whole time.
Powell in his speach listed Iraq's failure to account for WMD stocks of thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, thousands of Bio/Chem capable shells and other items as reported by United Nations Inspectors.
If you choose to ingnore these facts and cherry pick various statements from speeches in an attempt to construct a view that the president misled the nation or lied, oh well.
The fact that certain WMD has yet to be found is not evidence that intelligence about their existence was wrong. Saddam has yet to account for a large volume of WMD as required by the resolutions.
According to the UN resolutions, it was not incumbent upon any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam had WMD a or b. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he did not have any WMD. Verifiable Disarmament was the requirement and Saddam failed to meet it.
"Once again has nothing to do with my point. No one's arguing that Saddam in prison is a bad thing. But it doesn't make Powell a credible person. His stunt at the UN, his backing every lie told to the American public by this admin, and his stating that he sees nothing wrong with the way innocent people at Gitmo were being treated is what made him lose credibilty in my eyes. Saddam has nothing to do with his credibility."
The Majority of Americans support the detention of terrorist in Gitmo and so do I. Powell gave an excellant speech at the UN based on the best intelligence from the United Nations inspectors and the CIA and other intelligence agency's around the world in regards to Saddam's WMD.
If you think Powell or any member of this administration has lied about something, please prove it. Your going to have to prove that someone knowingly knew something was false yet presented it as the truth.
The fact that intelligence about factory x or building b proved incorrect is not a lie, but the nature of intelligence. Every day in Iraq, the military deals with intelligence about people and locations that turn out not to be true. The same with every police force in every local community in the world. Thats the nature of intelligence.
Intelligence prior to the 1991 Gulf War showed that Saddam was over a decade away from having a Nuclear Weapon. Intelligence after the Gulf War revealed that he was as little as 6 months away from a Nuclear Weapon.
Because of the difficulty of covert and other types of intelligence of establishing the facts on the ground, Saddam was required to verifiably disarm through an extensive inspections process. Saddam did not do this though which is why military action to remove him became necessary.
In my opinion, Powell's credibility has never been better, and I'm sure the majority of the country feels the same way.
"Personally I'm getting sick of your twisting of people's words in here. I'm getting tired of you implying somehow that people who didn't believe in the way this administration handled the war want Saddam free. Your implications have become so grossly abundant and obvious that now you aren't even waiting for the proper subject to come up. You could have at least waited till I brought up the war."
There are people who believe that the world is no safer with Saddam in prison. Its not a stretch to say that a high percentage of them believe that Powell has lost all credibility.
The question is not skirting the issue, the question is the ISSUE! The administration did go before the UN and listed Iraq's failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions with the most important issues in them being Iraq's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. That has been front in center in the administrations case for military action the whole time.
Powell in his speach listed Iraq's failure to account for WMD stocks of thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, thousands of Bio/Chem capable shells and other items as reported by United Nations Inspectors.
If you choose to ingnore these facts and cherry pick various statements from speeches in an attempt to construct a view that the president misled the nation or lied, oh well.
The fact that certain WMD has yet to be found is not evidence that intelligence about their existence was wrong. Saddam has yet to account for a large volume of WMD as required by the resolutions.
According to the UN resolutions, it was not incumbent upon any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam had WMD a or b. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he did not have any WMD. Verifiable Disarmament was the requirement and Saddam failed to meet it.
"Once again has nothing to do with my point. No one's arguing that Saddam in prison is a bad thing. But it doesn't make Powell a credible person. His stunt at the UN, his backing every lie told to the American public by this admin, and his stating that he sees nothing wrong with the way innocent people at Gitmo were being treated is what made him lose credibilty in my eyes. Saddam has nothing to do with his credibility."
The Majority of Americans support the detention of terrorist in Gitmo and so do I. Powell gave an excellant speech at the UN based on the best intelligence from the United Nations inspectors and the CIA and other intelligence agency's around the world in regards to Saddam's WMD.
If you think Powell or any member of this administration has lied about something, please prove it. Your going to have to prove that someone knowingly knew something was false yet presented it as the truth.
The fact that intelligence about factory x or building b proved incorrect is not a lie, but the nature of intelligence. Every day in Iraq, the military deals with intelligence about people and locations that turn out not to be true. The same with every police force in every local community in the world. Thats the nature of intelligence.
Intelligence prior to the 1991 Gulf War showed that Saddam was over a decade away from having a Nuclear Weapon. Intelligence after the Gulf War revealed that he was as little as 6 months away from a Nuclear Weapon.
Because of the difficulty of covert and other types of intelligence of establishing the facts on the ground, Saddam was required to verifiably disarm through an extensive inspections process. Saddam did not do this though which is why military action to remove him became necessary.
In my opinion, Powell's credibility has never been better, and I'm sure the majority of the country feels the same way.
"Personally I'm getting sick of your twisting of people's words in here. I'm getting tired of you implying somehow that people who didn't believe in the way this administration handled the war want Saddam free. Your implications have become so grossly abundant and obvious that now you aren't even waiting for the proper subject to come up. You could have at least waited till I brought up the war."
There are people who believe that the world is no safer with Saddam in prison. Its not a stretch to say that a high percentage of them believe that Powell has lost all credibility.
Deep,
"Powell's early service in this Administration seemed to be one where stood his ground on principles. It seems to me that he told the Admin. he could use diplomacy to get a UN vote for action in Iraq. Then it appeared that this would not happen, after the president got on Prime Time T V and promised the American people and the World that there would be a vote in the UN. He said, something like "There will be a vote in the UN, We will let the chips fall where they will"."
Powell did get a vote for military action in Iraq. It was resolution 1441 which was passed in November of 2002. The resolution itself was not required as member states already had the right to respond to Saddam's violations with military force through resolutions 678 and 687. Resolution 1441 was a way though to get more global support for the effort to disarm Saddam and in fact, give Saddam one last chance to come clean. Powell over and over mentioned the fact that resolution 1441 was Saddam's last chance to come clean.
1441 was approved by 15-0. In March there was talk of another resolution because certain countries wanted further endorsment of military action. Fact is, there were already 3 different resolutions that authorized military action, 678, 687 and 1441. The Bush administration flirted with the idea, but backed off of it because there was simply no need for a further resolution to authorize military action and the benefits politically for Allies would be minimal. There of course was a new movement by France to block passage. Russia was in fact against a new resolution. The vote never happened for a variety of reasons and people can argue forever about how the vote would have come down. Syria was not supposed to have voted for 1441, but they did at the last minute.
At the end of the day, there are 3 UN resolutions authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. There are now 3 UN resolutions authorizing the current occupation of Iraq.
There are no UN resolutions saying that the action was wrong or illegal like there was when Saddam invaded Kuwait. No one even attempted to pass such a resolution as a form of protest.
Even if one were to dispute the 3 resolutions authorizing military action, the 3 resolutions authorizing the current occupation throws that to the wind. If one really believes an action is illegal, than one could not approve the condition that action produces.
Powell has every reason to proud of his record with the Bush administration because he has successfully helped in defeating the Taliban/Al Quada in Afghanistan liberating 25 million people there and crushing a threat to US and Global security as well as finally ensuring the disarmament of Saddam who had invaded and attacked four different countries, used WMD's more times than any other leader in history, threatened global energy supplies and the global economy, and murdered 1.7 million people. Iraq has been liberated and has a wonderful opportunity for a democracy and a prosperous future. A prosperous democratic Iraq will enhance the stability and future of the entire Middle East.
The Bush administration has accomplished more in its 3 years in fighting terrorism and combating Saddam's Iraq than any other administration in history.
Powell was a key in all of this, and that indeed is something to be proud of.
"Powell's early service in this Administration seemed to be one where stood his ground on principles. It seems to me that he told the Admin. he could use diplomacy to get a UN vote for action in Iraq. Then it appeared that this would not happen, after the president got on Prime Time T V and promised the American people and the World that there would be a vote in the UN. He said, something like "There will be a vote in the UN, We will let the chips fall where they will"."
Powell did get a vote for military action in Iraq. It was resolution 1441 which was passed in November of 2002. The resolution itself was not required as member states already had the right to respond to Saddam's violations with military force through resolutions 678 and 687. Resolution 1441 was a way though to get more global support for the effort to disarm Saddam and in fact, give Saddam one last chance to come clean. Powell over and over mentioned the fact that resolution 1441 was Saddam's last chance to come clean.
1441 was approved by 15-0. In March there was talk of another resolution because certain countries wanted further endorsment of military action. Fact is, there were already 3 different resolutions that authorized military action, 678, 687 and 1441. The Bush administration flirted with the idea, but backed off of it because there was simply no need for a further resolution to authorize military action and the benefits politically for Allies would be minimal. There of course was a new movement by France to block passage. Russia was in fact against a new resolution. The vote never happened for a variety of reasons and people can argue forever about how the vote would have come down. Syria was not supposed to have voted for 1441, but they did at the last minute.
At the end of the day, there are 3 UN resolutions authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. There are now 3 UN resolutions authorizing the current occupation of Iraq.
There are no UN resolutions saying that the action was wrong or illegal like there was when Saddam invaded Kuwait. No one even attempted to pass such a resolution as a form of protest.
Even if one were to dispute the 3 resolutions authorizing military action, the 3 resolutions authorizing the current occupation throws that to the wind. If one really believes an action is illegal, than one could not approve the condition that action produces.
Powell has every reason to proud of his record with the Bush administration because he has successfully helped in defeating the Taliban/Al Quada in Afghanistan liberating 25 million people there and crushing a threat to US and Global security as well as finally ensuring the disarmament of Saddam who had invaded and attacked four different countries, used WMD's more times than any other leader in history, threatened global energy supplies and the global economy, and murdered 1.7 million people. Iraq has been liberated and has a wonderful opportunity for a democracy and a prosperous future. A prosperous democratic Iraq will enhance the stability and future of the entire Middle East.
The Bush administration has accomplished more in its 3 years in fighting terrorism and combating Saddam's Iraq than any other administration in history.
Powell was a key in all of this, and that indeed is something to be proud of.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:
I agree, this was the only guy I respected in this administration and now he's joined the likes of them.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Sting,
you seem to enjoy making several points in this discussion.
do you have a counter point to this infornation I posted?
you seem to enjoy making several points in this discussion.
do you have a counter point to this infornation I posted?
This was said in a primetime address to the nation in Feb or March 2003.
deep said:
This is what I said in response to that:
"The Bush administration flirted with the idea, but backed off of it because there was simply no need for a further resolution to authorize military action and the benefits politically for Allies would be minimal. There of course was a new movement by France to block passage. Russia was in fact against a new resolution. The vote never happened for a variety of reasons and people can argue forever about how the vote would have come down. Syria was not supposed to have voted for 1441, but they did at the last minute."
The President said there would be another vote, but he didn't PROMISE there would be another vote. The need for another vote was weak and thats the chief reason it never took place. If other countries wanted a new vote on another resolution, they could have initiated it themselves, but they didn't.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Sting,
The allowances you make to support your arguments are not well founded.
To say anytime a Presidents makes a major address it means nothing unless he says "I PROMISE" leaves enough wiggle room that nothing means anything.
For other members to call for the vote to make the US - "VETO IT" would have been punitive.
Something the Bush Administration has demonstrated, and other nations that opposed the action have done much less.
The allowances you make to support your arguments are not well founded.
To say anytime a Presidents makes a major address it means nothing unless he says "I PROMISE" leaves enough wiggle room that nothing means anything.
For other members to call for the vote to make the US - "VETO IT" would have been punitive.
Something the Bush Administration has demonstrated, and other nations that opposed the action have done much less.
deep said:
Deep, you were the one who claimed the President "promised" that their would be another vote. The President didn't "Promise" that there would be. Events between the speech and the start of the war changed the decision for another vote. It would be stupid to have US policy be chained to few words in a speech, and unable to adjust to events as they happened.
No, it would not have been useless or "punitive" for other members to call for a vote that the US would veto. The other members do this all the time in regards to the Israely situation. It is a way of showing protest over certain policies. The fact that they did not here is revealing.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
and what "events" were these?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:
They didn't get their way...
STING2 said:
While he spent 8 years under Clinton.....
He did indeed serve on Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. I am willing to bet that he is within a year or so of 8 years under Clinton in these administrations.
He also pointed out on 60 minutes last night that the Clinton Administration stopped an attack on LA's airports. He also pointed out that when they received chatter under Clinton there was DAILY involvement at the White House level. This is quite different from how he described the Bush administration.
I also agree with you, that they did NOT do enough to stop terrorism and too much happened against the US over the years.
I have to go get supper...maybe more later.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I have mentioned this. Perhaps we would have had 10- 15 , 20 planes explode in the air or into buildings on New Years Eve 2000.
This was stopped during Clinton term.
Also, very likely prevented WW III.
Had the testes to risk everything in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Without an attack on US first. aka Pearl Harbor, or 911.
Conflicts in the Balkins have escalated before. The Russians supported the Serbs.
These were profiles in courage.
These could have spun out of control or had large American casualties.
deep,
"and what "events" were these?"
The minimal benefit a new resolution would have.
France's efforts to coerce countries into voting against the resolution.
The administration already had all the legal requirments in and support in place to conduct the operation. It would have been foolish to risk losing that over France's last minute mischief.
No, Clinton did not prevent World War III over the situation in Kosovo. The Russian Army add no ability to enter into the conflict as Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria would never have allowed any of their troops or aircraft to pass through their territories. In addition, the Russian military at the time was to small and inept to engage in a war against a much larger and powerful NATO.
The Russians made no attempts to try and mobilize any divisions that could be sent, which would have been blocked by Ukraine and other Eastern European countries anyways.
There was a small group of Russian soldiers that moved out of Bosnia into Kosovo and siezed the airport. This accomplished nothing though.
Not only was Russia not interested in intervening with military force in the conflict, more importantly, they did not have the capability to do so.
Dreadsox,
Clarke was one of Clintons top terrorism advisors. Clinton and his terrorism advisors did not do enough to stop terrorism. No one said that they did not do anything.
Clarke has a book to sell. If Clarke felt so strongly about his claims, why is he now only coming out about them?
I'd trust Powell any day over Clarke who seems more like an oportunist.
"and what "events" were these?"
The minimal benefit a new resolution would have.
France's efforts to coerce countries into voting against the resolution.
The administration already had all the legal requirments in and support in place to conduct the operation. It would have been foolish to risk losing that over France's last minute mischief.
No, Clinton did not prevent World War III over the situation in Kosovo. The Russian Army add no ability to enter into the conflict as Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria would never have allowed any of their troops or aircraft to pass through their territories. In addition, the Russian military at the time was to small and inept to engage in a war against a much larger and powerful NATO.
The Russians made no attempts to try and mobilize any divisions that could be sent, which would have been blocked by Ukraine and other Eastern European countries anyways.
There was a small group of Russian soldiers that moved out of Bosnia into Kosovo and siezed the airport. This accomplished nothing though.
Not only was Russia not interested in intervening with military force in the conflict, more importantly, they did not have the capability to do so.
Dreadsox,
Clarke was one of Clintons top terrorism advisors. Clinton and his terrorism advisors did not do enough to stop terrorism. No one said that they did not do anything.
Clarke has a book to sell. If Clarke felt so strongly about his claims, why is he now only coming out about them?
I'd trust Powell any day over Clarke who seems more like an oportunist.
STING2 said:
STING,
Is it your assertion that 100% of what Clarke says about Bush's handling of terrorism is in fact incorrect and is being presented now solely in the name of opportunism?
Is it a logical conclusion that a man who has devoted 30 years to his country (most of it under Republican/right wing leadership) has now, in his old age, decided to make a quick buck? Common sense says no.
Is he 100% lying?
anitram said:
He has spent most of it serving under Democratic Administrations. If he is not trying to make a quick buck and really does care about US security, why is he only telling the public now as his book is being released?
I'll take Powell's, Cheney's, Rumsfelds, and Rice's record any day over his, and they collectively dispute what he asserts.
I can't say that 100% of what he has said is incorrect. No administration is perfect, they have all made mistakes.
But his answers in regards to Iraq are just absurd. He claims that the USA attacked Iraq without any provocation and that is just horse dung.
He would be far more believable if he was at least somewhat accurate on some of these questions and came out years ago to make these statements without having a book deal in hand with a presidential election coming up in 7 months.
STING2 said:
Again...if he were appointed by REAGAN which he was...and served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II he has almost served equally in time.
Sorry...that point holds little water.
I already pointed that out.
And Condi Rice has come out today and refuted quite a bit of what Mr. Clarke has said. My reaction in the house here last night was that he did a nice job but he has really only stated what some people who read already knew.
I do not have a problem that they wanted to go into Iraq. I have a problem with the appearance that they were NOT doing anything to prepare for 9/11 when it was clear that there were opportunities to do something about it. I think Mr. Clarke is using Iraq for his gain. I am not certain that he is lying about everything, and I do have faith that based on the other things I have read, he is telling the truth about the white house operations pre 9-11.
Dreadsox said:
Woodwards book is guess work at best.
The best chance of preventing 9/11 had already passed once Bush entered office. Shoring up security in regions outside the United States as Clarke advised would have done nothing to prevent terrorist from carrying out 9/11 who were already in the United States. Clarke never suggested any new actions be taken domestically to the best of my knowledge.
At the end of the day, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice collectively are more credible than Clarke. If what Clarke was saying is really true, why didn't he come out about it years ago?
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
Clarke's book was finished and delivered to the White House for review (security reasons) in November. The fact it's coming out in late March is the administrations doing.
Similar threads
