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

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-22 04:47pm

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-22 04:53pm

Jesus, you'd think she could do better. This is stock Bush propeganda speak which fails to truly address the issues.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-03-22 05:07pm

woohoo, the political season is in full swing, quick, where is the popcorn. This is like the opening bout, mildly entertaining, but only a warmup for the main event. It's almost as entertaining as the people posting here.

BTW, Kernel, since you were so interested about the true issue, can you perhaps enlighten us to what that is... after a couple pages, I don't see you pointing it out.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-22 05:08pm

Perhaps that would be so, but nothing is in a vacuum. Reports that Rumsfeld set up his own group to contrive and collect information specific to Iraq and regarding possible Iraqi links to terror--rather than assessing the greatest links and following them back to their source--and other evidence regarding the apparent fixation with Iraq constructs a general picture of a poor attitude of research and policy making in the Bush White House. Clarke and O'Neill are corroborated by other sources. This "they have reason to exaggerate" hardly dispells the general indication.

Sounds to me like an “Every stereotype is somehow linked to fact…” fallacy. Now, to be fair, in this case, it may be true. Bush and Rumsfeld certainly made decisions based on some faulty intelligence. The United States obviously expected to find a great deal more than we have found (or are likely to find in the future). On the other hand, that doesn’t mean Clarke and O’Neill can be immediately embraced as bringers of Gospel. Knife has already pointed out the holes in Clarke’s argument. He’s trying to avoid criticism as much as bestow it.

As for Wong's defense, the question of why he didn't bring these charges up sooner does indeed go beyond morality. What the hell is a somebody charged with providing national security doing by stonewalling until he's able to blow whistles after the shit's hit the fan? This goes beyond his bad morals. You're essentially arguing that Clarke held back from trying to address a problem it was his job to deal with - all for political points.

That kind of suggestion was hardly enough to create the impression of existing threats in the form of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that quite simply weren't and aren't there.
and aren't there.

David Kay’s search was a joke. Hans Blix search wasn’t finished – no matter how much you appeal to the fact that he might have been given more time, he wasn’t.

Now we have new evidence that weapons inspectors can in fact pass up stockpiles. They don’t leave obvious footprints.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-03-22 05:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:Sounds to me like an “Every stereotype is somehow linked to fact…” fallacy.

Wha? I don't see where you got that from at all. What the fuck are you talking about?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-22 05:16pm

Axis Kast wrote:Sounds to me like an “Every stereotype is somehow linked to fact…” fallacy.

what fallacy, exactly? the very reason stereotypes exists is because somewhere out there someone acts, dresses and lives according to a certain way. eventually enough people follow this, or it becomes public enough, and it becomes a stereotype.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-22 05:37pm

0.1 wrote: BTW, Kernel, since you were so interested about the true issue, can you perhaps enlighten us to what that is... after a couple pages, I don't see you pointing it out.

You want to be more specific?

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2004-03-22 05:40pm

This may be off point...but I think its an interesting piece about Richard Clarke's history with previous administrations and his concept of how to deal with Terorists...

In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

And more from Clarke's own OPED in Time..

Whatever we do to the original members of al-Qaeda, a new generation of terrorists similar to them is growing. So, in addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 16,00.html

Clarke's position on the Sudan Bombing is interesting as well in light of his concerns over how Iraq was handled.

Richard Clarke: would like to speak about a specific case that has been the object of some controversy in the last month -- the U.S. bombing of the chemical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote an article for the op-ed page of today's Washington Times about that bombing, providing the clearest rationale to date for what the United States did. He asks the following questions: What if you were the president of the United States and you were told four facts based on [what you belive to be] reliable intelligence. The facts were: Usama bin Ladin had attacked the United States and blown up two of its embassies; he was seeking chemical weapons; he had invested in Sudan's military-industrial complex; and Sudan's military-industrial complex was making VX nerve gas at a chemical plant called al-Shifa? Sandy Berger asks: What would you have done? What would Congress and the American people have said to the president if the United States had not blown up the factory, knowing those four facts?

Zim: too fucking stupid to dress a link

The current administration may not have been pure as the driven snow when it came to motives to go into Iraq. But seriously - cerdability is not this man's middle name.

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2004-03-22 05:57pm

Hey! Thats a bit harsh dont you think Mr. Moderator?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-22 07:22pm

Invader ZIm wrote:Hey! Thats a bit harsh dont you think Mr. Moderator?

You're right. It needed to be a lot harsher than just "a bit."

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2004-03-22 08:23pm

Everyone knew the day that Bush took office, that sometime within the next four years the US would be attacking Iraq. Clarke's book is just confirming what we all knew from the begining.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-03-22 09:02pm

Kernel,

you want me to read through your stuff again and try to pick out your exact words?

You were the one who said get to the specific issue. I for one like to know what you meant by specific issue.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-03-22 11:23pm

Invader ZIm wrote:Hey! Thats a bit harsh dont you think Mr. Moderator?

Perhaps it was.

But at this point people have been asked nicely time and again to dress links. We've got a number of places to find out how yet people seem to keep ignoring it. I don't really care ordinarily but this was a major force format on that one.

Code: Select all

[url=www.link]dressing[/url]

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-22 11:35pm

Axis Kast wrote:Now we have new evidence that weapons inspectors can in fact pass up stockpiles. They don't leave obvious footprints.

What evidence is this? Not to mention that your "Kay's search was a joke" line does nothing to rebut what was said, that being that sort of inneuendo "oh, what if they missed something" (which will be the argument of the pro-Bushies from now till frigging doomsday ...) simply cannot sustain an accusation of an Iraqi threat.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-22 11:38pm

Invader ZIm wrote:Hey! Thats a bit harsh dont you think Mr. Moderator?

Actually, I had to talk him out of using the 40-grit sandpaper-covered anal-raping Dildo of Doom. Now that would have been harsh.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-23 11:26am

Wha? I don't see where you got that from at all. What the fuck are you talking about?

Go back and read the substance of the statement to which I first replied: "Perhaps that would be so, but nothing is in a vacuum." What he was essentially saying was that Clarke's statement had to have at least some validity because it seemed to him unlikely that the man would go to all this trouble just to stir up a hornet's nest of controversy.

what fallacy, exactly? the very reason stereotypes exists is because somewhere out there someone acts, dresses and lives according to a certain way. eventually enough people follow this, or it becomes public enough, and it becomes a stereotype.

Yes. Because God knows there were enough Jews with horns out there ...

Stereotypes are not inherently grounded in fact as it pertains to a large percentage of the group in question. There is no reason to assume that Clarke is correct merely because the publishing of a book is a significant undertaking that someone doesn't think would have been attempted lightly. But why not? I'm sure you'd agree that just because Ann Coulter or Al Franken write books, not everything contained therein is true or substantiable.

What evidence is this? Not to mention that your "Kay's search was a joke" line does nothing to rebut what was said, that being that sort of inneuendo "oh, what if they missed something" (which will be the argument of the pro-Bushies from now till frigging doomsday ...) simply cannot sustain an accusation of an Iraqi threat.

We now know that the so-called "footprint" argument is a joke: there isn't necessarily a golden beacon pulsing atop every WMD stockpile. We've now seen - in this case, through inspections in Libya - that large quantities of prohibited weapons or munitions can be stored in a relatively small and unassuming location without stirring the least bit of suspicion from professional weapons inspectors. Furthermore, we know that those same locations are not routinely searched.

"What if they missed something?" is perfectly valid when the original search was poorly-managed and poorly-run.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-03-23 08:19pm

Axis Kast wrote:Go back and read the substance of the statement to which I first replied: "Perhaps that would be so, but nothing is in a vacuum." What he was essentially saying was that Clarke's statement had to have at least some validity because it seemed to him unlikely that the man would go to all this trouble just to stir up a hornet's nest of controversy.

I had the impression he was specifically referring to the independent, corroborating sources he mentioned right afterwards, dumbass.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-23 09:34pm

Axis Kast wrote:
We now know that the so-called "footprint" argument is a joke: there isn't necessarily a golden beacon pulsing atop every WMD stockpile. We've now seen - in this case, through inspections in Libya - that large quantities of prohibited weapons or munitions can be stored in a relatively small and unassuming location without stirring the least bit of suspicion from professional weapons inspectors

When on Earth was Libya under anything remotely resembling an UNSCOM or UNMOVIC inspections regime?

Furthermore, we know that those same locations are not routinely searched.

"What if they missed something?" is perfectly valid when the original search was poorly-managed and poorly-run.

We're not getting into this again, that's for sure.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-23 09:37pm

Vympel wrote:When on Earth was Libya under anything remotely resembling an UNSCOM or UNMOVIC inspections regime?

<Bush cocksucker>Don't be obtuse! Libya is Mooosleeeeem country, who we didn't like, obviously we were watching them just as closely! It just proves that in Iraq the same thing could happen, where I will remind you we haven't really been observing anywhere near as close, duh.</Bush cocksucker>

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-23 09:37pm

I had the impression he was specifically referring to the independent, corroborating sources he mentioned right afterwards, dumbass.

Neither O'Neill nor Clarke were corroborated in the kind of sense that you or he are looking for. People like Bob Woodward have admitted that Bush was interested in Iraq from the beginning - but not in the reckless sense that Clarke wishes his readers to believe.

I've also already pointed out that there's some legitimate truth in saying, "Well, this is an ongoing issue," but that still doesn't absolve either of these two men for blowing the whistle after their courtside time was up.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-23 10:10pm

When on Earth was Libya under anything remotely resembling an UNSCOM or UNMOVIC inspections regime?

An American official conducting inspections in Libya came out and said it: "We wouldn't have searched that location if not taken there directly."

Forget about footprints. Forget about thorough searches that cover all the military depots. We now know that weapons can be stockpiled in virtually any location - without setting off warning sirens so that inspectors can come running immediately.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-23 10:57pm

Axis Kast wrote:
When on Earth was Libya under anything remotely resembling an UNSCOM or UNMOVIC inspections regime?
An American official conducting inspections in Libya came out and said it: "We wouldn't have searched that location if not taken there directly."

Do you seriously believe that this statement was actually an answer to the above question?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-24 01:19pm

Do you seriously believe that this statement was actually an answer to the above question?

Vympel is arguing that the inspections in Iraq were both larger and more thorough.

And yet this official said it best: even what we consider thorough inspections - including surprise searches of random locations - would never cover places such as a turkey farm.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-24 01:31pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Do you seriously believe that this statement was actually an answer to the above question?
Vympel is arguing that the inspections in Iraq were both larger and more thorough.

And yet this official said it best: even what we consider thorough inspections - including surprise searches of random locations - would never cover places such as a turkey farm.

...In the context of the Libyan searches. You are insisting this is the same context as the Iraq searches. You have no evidence, at all, of this. Please learn to debate honestly.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-24 01:43pm

Anyone see The Daily Show last night? Stewart skewered the Bush administration's character assassination, er ... I mean, "rebuttal."