Clarke ("terrorism czar"): Bush obsessed with Iraq

[BoredShirtless]

He's pissed and wants a nice wad of cash for retirement. Sour grapes to wine, as it were.

Do you think he's lying?

[Knife]

He's pissed and wants a nice wad of cash for retirement. Sour grapes to wine, as it were.

Do you think he's lying?

About what?

About Bush eyeing Iraq since the 2000 election? No, I don't think Clarke is lying about that.

About Bush wanting to link Iraq to September 11th? No, I don't think Clarke was lying about that.

About Bush not wanting to do anything about terrorism before September 11th? No. The brand new Bush administration didn't seem to want to do much or change the standing policy of the US goverment from the prior administrations.

About Clarke's personal campaign of enligtenment and cursade to get the Bush administration to accept the inevitable? Yes, I think he is exagerating his role in many a thing. He was in that post for years and little was done. He was in the loop since Bush SR. and little was done.

So his sudden rage and finger wagging seems hollow to me. He's pointing out the obvious and putting a new spin on it because he was there and he saw it. Its a policy issue that he's trying to make a political issue and in return make it a profitable issue, IMNSHO.

[Glocksman]

hmmmm. someone has a book to sell. said person wants to sell many books and make lots of money. inflammatory rhetoric sells lots of books. controversy sells lots of books. backstabbing sells many books Said person fills book with inflamatory rhetoric, controversy and backstabbing. Said person makes lots of money. Concurrent agendas of authors laughing their way to the bank are ignored in ideological debates. wanking ensues.

Please look up "Appeal to Motive" fallacy before you make any more of an ass out of yourself.

But it does raise the interesting question as to why Clarke didn't come forward with all of these allegations back in March 2003 or earlier? After all, the accusations he makes should have been made public much sooner than now. In fact, if he felt that strongly on the issue, he should have publicly resigned, like that State Department guy did over the war, and testified before Congress prior to the war authorization vote.

Instead, he waits, retires, and then writes a book.

Some outrage, eh?

Like I said, I don't doubt that a lot of the material is true, but his timing seems just a little too coincidental for me to accept everything he says at face value.

[Darth Wong]

Do you think he's lying?

About what?

About Bush eyeing Iraq since the 2000 election? No, I don't think Clarke is lying about that.

About Bush wanting to link Iraq to September 11th? No, I don't think Clarke was lying about that.

About Bush not wanting to do anything about terrorism before September 11th? No. The brand new Bush administration didn't seem to want to do much or change the standing policy of the US goverment from the prior administrations.

About Clarke's personal campaign of enligtenment and cursade to get the Bush administration to accept the inevitable? Yes, I think he is exagerating his role in many a thing. He was in that post for years and little was done. He was in the loop since Bush SR. and little was done.

So his sudden rage and finger wagging seems hollow to me. He's pointing out the obvious and putting a new spin on it because he was there and he saw it. Its a policy issue that he's trying to make a political issue and in return make it a profitable issue, IMNSHO.

In other words, your objection has nothing to do with the point being made, and is a red-herring. Sorry to be so harsh, but that is what you're doing. The subject of this thread is Bush's deception, not "is Clarke an asshole".

[Darth Wong]

But it does raise the interesting question as to why Clarke didn't come forward with all of these allegations back in March 2003 or earlier?

No, it doesn't. Not unless you intend to change the subject from Bush's policy to Clarke's morality.

After all, the accusations he makes should have been made public much sooner than now. In fact, if he felt that strongly on the issue, he should have publicly resigned, like that State Department guy did over the war, and testified before Congress prior to the war authorization vote.

Instead, he waits, retires, and then writes a book.

Some outrage, eh?

Who gives a shit? Maybe he's an asshole; so what? How does that affect the point at all? Oh yeah, IT DOESN'T. It's nothing but an obvious red-herring.

Like I said, I don't doubt that a lot of the material is true, but his timing seems just a little too coincidental for me to accept everything he says at face value.

Please explain which parts of his claims you feel to be completely false.

[Knife]

In other words, your objection has nothing to do with the point being made, and is a red-herring. Sorry to be so harsh, but that is what you're doing. The subject of this thread is Bush's deception, not "is Clarke an asshole".

Well, I thought that the thread was about Clarke's commnets about the policy and Bush's policies in particular. Clarke's motivations in his book are relevent.

I really don't see what deception Bush perpetuated. Bush eyeing Iraq was hardley a secret nor was his wish to link Iraq to September 11th. So Clarke's position is hardly new or revealing (what I have read of it anyways).

If Clarke's opinon is hardly new then the reasons why he brought it out at this particular time is relevent and hence not a red herring. He, IMO, is putting forth the notion that Bush did not want to aknowledge the terrorist threat when in fact the US goverment didn't want to aknowledge the terrorist threat for a decade or more.

His facts may be right but it doesn't necessarily make his overall therory correct.

[Col. Crackpot]

hmmmm. someone has a book to sell. said person wants to sell many books and make lots of money. inflammatory rhetoric sells lots of books. controversy sells lots of books. backstabbing sells many books Said person fills book with inflamatory rhetoric, controversy and backstabbing. Said person makes lots of money. Concurrent agendas of authors laughing their way to the bank are ignored in ideological debates. wanking ensues.

Please look up "Appeal to Motive" fallacy before you make any more of an ass out of yourself.

i was alluding to the appeal to motive fallacy. come on Mike, you cant look at this shit in a vaccum. there is a context.... an environment. This is a guy who wants to make some green and fund his retirement with a gossipy tell-all. A-la Dick Morris. You can't fault me for taking it with a grain of salt.

[Darth Wong]

i was alluding to the appeal to motive fallacy. come on Mike, you cant look at this shit in a vaccum. there is a context.... an environment. This is a guy who wants to make some green and fund his retirement with a gossipy tell-all. A-la Dick Morris. You can't fault me for taking it with a grain of salt.

And what does that "grain of salt" mean? That he was lying? Not likely, particularly since many of his claims are somewhat corroborated elsewhere and he would be in a shitload of trouble if he was actually outright lying about public figures who can easily sue him to kingdom come for slander. So what, then? That he had a motive for coming out with the truth in this particular way at this particular time? Who gives a shit?

PS. "Appeal to motive" fallacy means that you dismiss a message based on the perceived motives of the messenger. It is invalid and it is precisely what you're doing unless you're arguing that the person is outright lying.

[The Kernel]

i was alluding to the appeal to motive fallacy. come on Mike, you cant look at this shit in a vaccum. there is a context.... an environment. This is a guy who wants to make some green and fund his retirement with a gossipy tell-all. A-la Dick Morris. You can't fault me for taking it with a grain of salt.

His motives might be suspect, but you can't simply shoot down everything he says based purely on motive, especially since he is not the first former-aide to make these claims. It would hold more weight if you could actually tear down some of the specific arguments he is making, rather than instantly appealing to his motive (much as the Bush administration is now doing; awfully fast assuming this was pure fabrication on his part wouldn't you say?).

[Iceberg]

Clinton took some pre-emptive strikes against Al-Quaeda. Admittedly they were ineffective and he was reluctant to risk American lives in pursuit of these little fuckers, but how much action did GW Bush approve prior to 9/11? In fact, did he not run partly on the notion that Clinton was too activist in foreign affairs? Does the phrase "no more nation-building" ring a bell?

I hate to point this out, but nothing Clinton did in regards to Al-Quaeda was pre-emptive. All of Clinton's actions were in response to sucessful operations by Al-Quaeda. I'm not bring that up to mack anysort of compairison between Bush and Clinton. The Honest truth of the matter is that Americans (and by extention our politians) did not take terrorism seriously until 911.

Zim? Look up "Operation Bojinka" in Wikipedia. It was a wide-ranging terrorist plot in the southwestern Pacific that included a plot to assassinate the Pope and destroy a number of U.S. airliners (including three Northwest and two United planes), and overthrow the Phillippine government. Intelligence and counterterrorist operatives from a number of nations - including the United States - headed off Bojinka in early 1995, before any of its phases had gone into action. Quite possibly the most successful counterterrorist operation in modern history.

[Darth Wong]

This is why schools need to teach logic and critical thinking. Obvious fallacies such as the "appeal to motive" seem to be accepted by people without question. I'm sure that if this guy were actually lying, the Bushies would be all over him for it instead of going after his motives and character.

[Durandal]

Did you miss the part where I said I don't doubt that many of his allegations are true??

No. But you threw in a red herring about Clarke claiming that his actions help capture a terrorist at the border.

[Glocksman]

Well, for starters, I doubt this:

Clarke also said the day after the Sept. 11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested bombing Iraq, despite the lack of any evidence of Baghdad's involvement.

When told al Qaeda's bases were in Afghanistan (news - web sites), not Iraq, Clarke said Rumsfeld responded that there were no good bombing targets in Afghanistan, but there were plenty of such targets in Iraq. Clarke said he thought at first that Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly realized that he was serious.

I doubt this occured in the manner Clarke decribes it.
Rumsfeld is a lot of things, but he's not stupid. Surely he'd be aware that damning comments like this would come back to haunt him.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I also doubt his account of the daily Clinton cabinet meetings helping to prevent an AQ attack on the LA airport. The meetings had nothing to do with a Customs agent who did her job and checked out a suspicious person crossing the border a little closer.


Something else is where he states 'But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.'.

Then later in the story, he stated "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

Hindsight is 20/20.

This was 9 months into the new adminstration and the Bushies had a lot of other issues to address and an administration to get running. In retrospect, GWB should have taken the AQ threat more seriously if Clarke's charges are true. But who, other than Tom Clancy, would have imagined 9/11?


Was Bush fixated on Iraq? Sure he was. Did he lie about WMD? Sure he did. Was the administration successful in clouding the issues sufficently enough so that a lot of Americans still think Iraq was involved in 9/11? Yes they were.


All of the above still doesn't mean that Clarke's portrayal of events is true in all respects.

[Glocksman]

Did you miss the part where I said I don't doubt that many of his allegations are true??

No. But you threw in a red herring about Clarke claiming that his actions help capture a terrorist at the border.

It's not a red herring.

It's relevant to the topic at hand as it speaks to Clarke's honesty.

If he's self serving on this one incident that we know the background to, he's capable of being self serving on other issues that we don't know the background to, thus justifying a little skepticism.

It's his version of the ferry incident that makes me skeptical.

The cabinet meetings had nothing to do with the fact that an alert customs agent did her job.

On the evening of December 14th, 1999, the ferry Coho, flagship of the Black Ball Shipping Line, pulled up to the wharf in the small coastal town of Port Angeles, Washington, the end of a 90-minute crossing from Victoria, British Columbia. There were over 100 people and 35 vehicles on board. And the very last vehicle to leave the ship was a 1999 Chrysler 300M registered to the Thrifty Car Rental company in Vancouver. The car approached the U.S. Customs terminal just before 6:00 PM.

Agent Deanna Dean was unsatisfied with the hesitant answers to her questions and asked the driver for identification. He handed over a Quebec driver's license which identified him as Benni Antoine Noris of Montreal, but in fact, he was a 32 year-old Algerian named Ahmed Ressam.

Still suspicious, agents opened the trunk for inspection. They removed the panel covering the spare tire and discovered garbage bags filled with white powder and olive jars containing liquid which resembled honey. Thinking it was drugs, they called to the agent who was searching Ahmed Ressam. Alarmed, Ressam bolted away. A U.S. Customs officer chased him out into the street and drew his gun.

[Col. Crackpot]

His motives might be suspect, but you can't simply shoot down everything he says based purely on motive, especially since he is not the first former-aide to make these claims. It would hold more weight if you could actually tear down some of the specific arguments he is making, rather than instantly appealing to his motive (much as the Bush administration is now doing; awfully fast assuming this was pure fabrication on his part wouldn't you say?).

Would you mind pointing out where i suggested that everything he says is colored by motive? You can't becuase you're putting words in my mouth. I simply pointed out that his allegations are being swallowed without any regard to context. Also, Every administration has people that don't jive with the system. How is this guy any different than Dick Morris falling out of favor with the Clintons and the DNC ,and then turning around and blaming Clinton for everything from the untimely deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster to selling nuclear secrets to China? Are there truths this book? Absolutely. A lot of what Dick Morris had to say was truthfull as well. However fired employees aren't often the best judges of a former employer.

[The Kernel]

Would you mind pointing out where i suggested that everything he says is colored by motive? You can't becuase you're putting words in my mouth. I simply pointed out that his allegations are being swallowed without any regard to context.

By bringing up issues about his motives without any supporting evidence, you are simply trying to create doubt about statements which you have presented no evidence for being false (gee, sounds kind of like what the White House is doing huh?). It's an appeal to motive and a huge strawman besides.

Also, Every administration has people that don't jive with the system. How is this guy any different than Dick Morris falling out of favor with the Clintons and the DNC ,and then turning around and blaming Clinton for everything from the untimely deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster to selling nuclear secrets to China? Are there truths this book? Absolutely. A lot of what Dick Morris had to say was truthfull as well. However fired employees aren't often the best judges of a former employer.

We aren't talking about Clinton jackass, we're talking about Bush and Clarke. Great red herring, but I'd prefer if you stick to the point.

[Joe]

Zim? Look up "Operation Bojinka" in Wikipedia. It was a wide-ranging terrorist plot in the southwestern Pacific that included a plot to assassinate the Pope and destroy a number of U.S. airliners (including three Northwest and two United planes), and overthrow the Phillippine government. Intelligence and counterterrorist operatives from a number of nations - including the United States - headed off Bojinka in early 1995, before any of its phases had gone into action. Quite possibly the most successful counterterrorist operation in modern history.

The reason it was so successful was because one of the would-be perpetrators was such an utter effing moron that he managed to start a chemical fire in the building where the bombs were being mixed, thus leading the Filipino police to eventually discover documents and computer files that had everything we needed to know to stop Bojinka laid out for us quite nicely. Had the individual in question been a little less idiotic 1995 would have been a very bad year.

[Joe]

And also because the Filipino police had no problem brutally torturing a guy they found at the scene of the crime, who eventually broke and confessed everything else.

[Stravo]

Clarke's account is butressed by the contemporaneous accounts in the book "Bush at War" where it states that Iraq came up in the very first cabinet meeting after 9/11 and that Powell was surprised and Bush was oddly silent on the matter. Rumsfeld was the pitbull on the Iraq issue and Bush never reigned him in, always remaining noncomital which would indicate to me that he was building a good case for deniability for the Iraq obsession charge.

Frankly as a former supporter of this war I am increasingly horrified by the way this war was sold and cynically shilled to the public. As someone who fell for this hook line and sinker I am eager to vote Kerry (groan not that I'm really happy with that choice either)

[Stormbringer]

Clarke's account is butressed by the contemporaneous accounts in the book "Bush at War" where it states that Iraq came up in the very first cabinet meeting after 9/11 and that Powell was surprised and Bush was oddly silent on the matter. Rumsfeld was the pitbull on the Iraq issue and Bush never reigned him in, always remaining noncomital which would indicate to me that he was building a good case for deniability for the Iraq obsession charge.

I agree that the broad strokes of the matter are probably right; the Bush bunch probably did try and pin September 11th on Iraq. Bush and most of his cabinet never really made a secret of the fact that they wanted to deal with Saddam's Iraq in a more final manner since the campaign.

It's the particulars that seem somewhat doubtful to me.

Frankly as a former supporter of this war I am increasingly horrified by the way this war was sold and cynically shilled to the public. As someone who fell for this hook line and sinker I am eager to vote Kerry (groan not that I'm really happy with that choice either)

I still believe in the humanitarian grounds and I strongly oppose pulling out. We made the mess in Iraq and we ought to be the ones to clean it up; it's simply our moral responsibility.

I don't agree at all with the way the war has been run, quiet frankly the whole thing seems almost unplanned. One reason (along with a hope for a bit of fiscal responsibility and no fundamentalist morality crammed down my throat) I too will most likely vote Kerry.


PS: Why have elections become choices between the lesser evils?

[The Kernel]

PS: Why have elections become choices between the lesser evils?

Because, making a candidate electable requires compromise on issues to the extent that no one is ever truly satisfied. But I'm sure you already know that.

[Stormbringer]

PS: Why have elections become choices between the lesser evils?

Because, making a candidate electable requires compromise on issues to the extent that no one is ever truly satisfied. But I'm sure you already know that.

It's not so much a compromise on the issue I mind. It's the fact that both sides are liars, money grubbers, and simply concentrating on re-election rather than on at what's good for the nation. Not to mention I hate the fact that neither side even try to be fiscally responsible and won't address any problem that can't be rendered into sound byte solutions.

[The Kernel]

It's not so much a compromise on the issue I mind. It's the fact that both sides are liars, money grubbers, and simply concentrating on re-election rather than on at what's good for the nation. Not to mention I hate the fact that neither side even try to be fiscally responsible and won't address any problem that can't be rendered into sound byte solutions.

Don't blame them, they are mearly a product of what the Ameican people will elect, much like advertising is a product of what Americans will buy. We need to get smarter before we get smarter candidates; simple as that.

[Stormbringer]

It's not so much a compromise on the issue I mind. It's the fact that both sides are liars, money grubbers, and simply concentrating on re-election rather than on at what's good for the nation. Not to mention I hate the fact that neither side even try to be fiscally responsible and won't address any problem that can't be rendered into sound byte solutions.

Don't blame them, they are mearly a product of what the Ameican people will elect, much like advertising is a product of what Americans will buy. We need to get smarter before we get smarter candidates; simple as that.

I don't think it's just that. The whole party machinery has gotten to be at least as important. Cutting off a candidate, even if they're somewhat popular, tends to kill their chances. If you can't get hooked into the money machine you can't get elected, simple as that.

I'm not saying the average voter couldn't be improved, but with out a reasonable third option it's hard to blame them for choosing one of the big ticket candidates.

[HemlockGrey]

hmmmm. someone has a book to sell. said person wants to sell many books and make lots of money. inflammatory rhetoric sells lots of books. controversy sells lots of books. backstabbing sells many books Said person fills book with inflamatory rhetoric, controversy and backstabbing. Said person makes lots of money. Concurrent agendas of authors laughing their way to the bank are ignored in ideological debates. wanking ensues.

Yeah, Franken has sections on Goldberg, Coulter, and Hannity too.