Need help/suggestions for answering this!!

A person on another board of mine had the following to say when I asked if anyone had watched 60 minutes last night:

"There are two sides to every story ... Yes I saw it and let's just say this guy is trying to sell his new book, and also jockey for a spot in the possible Kerry administration. Clarke used to run his mouth about the Clinton administration and how he could never get them to commit to taking any action, actions that he deemed necessary at the time (vs al Qaeda).

I could go on and cite examples but guys like that are not worth my time. Clarke's clearly bitter that he didn't get a job offer in the office of homeland security. His story has changed over the past few years, making his credibility a big ZERO.

At the end of the day, Clarke was in charge of counter-terrorism for many years. If he wants to start pointing fingers at people, he doesn't have far to look. And all that carp about Bush being blood thirsty for Iraq is nuts. What would be in it for him to risk American lives unless it was necessary. I am tired of people challenging the president's motives. Maybe he doesn't make all the best decisions in hindsite but I believe his motives are genuine.

Since it's all over the news today, I will cite a few examples of Clarke's nutiness (although I said that I wouldn't):

Clarke wrote that Rice appeared to never have heard of Al Qaeda until she was warned about it early in 2001, and that she "looked skeptical" about his warnings.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday.

Hmmm ... her facial expression you say? Your contention is based on her facial expression. Interesting.

A few comments on Mr. Clarke, and not from any of Bush's allies ...

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush -- who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election -- was focused more on Iraq than Al Qaeda 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."

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told a Sunday morning news show that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened."

Even better ... the plot thickens with this Clarke character ... what I don't understand is how anyone is so ready to believe someone like this?

MON MARCH 22, 2004 12:04:25 ET XXXXX

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.



SIMON & SCHUSTER INFO-COMMERCIAL

Earlier this year, it was Stahl who also profiled another author on 60 MINUTES -- for another book owned by VIACOMCBS -- without any disclaimer!

"The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, turned Bush critic, Paul O'Neill was financed, produced and released by VIACOM's SIMON & SCHUSTER.

Coming in future weeks, best-selling author Bob Woodward is set to release his PLAN OF ATTACK, a fresh look at the Bush White House.

Will the Woodward VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTER product debut on: VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTERCBS's 60 MINUTES?"

**************************************

I'd like to counter some of this in an intelligent, well-thought and well-supported argument. No name-calling, etc. She's really a nice person, aside from her political leanings, as far as I can tell :)

I'm not very good at political rhetoric, and pretty new to paying attention to politics in general, so I don't have a lot too draw from. Any help and suggestions would be appreciated!

Thanks :)

That Leslie Stahl caught the Assistant National Security Advisor in a lie, and he stood by the lie. This the guy who "fell on the sword" over the imfamous 16 words in the State of the Union.

You may be anti- the views of the majority of people in this forum, but you should check your facts and not try to give us the usual spin. We really don't have time for it.

made al Queda a secondary concern to other priorities. Those prioroties included Star Wars Missle Defense (Rumsfeld pet project) and the Invasdion of Iraq (pet project of Wolfowitz and Perle).

One thing is for certain and is confirmed by PNAC, O'Neil and now Clarke- we were going to war with Iraq no matter what. If 9-11 had never happened- this admin had a story reasdy that would get us in to Iraq- (WMD) and we were going to war no matter what happened (the effort was begun with the identification of the "Axis of Evil").

Clarke had berated Clinton's efforts in the past to have captured binLaden. At that time Tenet was advising that OBL had not been PROVEN as a threat although it was greatly suspected. Secondly Clinton's admin had wanted OBL alive if possible as he would be a font of info regarding terrorism.

Clinton ended his term with recommendations to arm Predator drones when he realized their potential usefulness. Rusmfeld's concerns put this on back burner and the program was not re-engaged 9-11 made it a priority.

Clarke and other make two points clear: 1). Iraq was going to be invaded- this was pre-ordained and the admin was prepared to make up any story necessary to make this happen. 2). The hunt for al Queada was impeded, not aided, by the distraction and turmoil of a major war in the Middle East.

I'm looking for ways to ANSWER the spin. I'm trying to debate this with this woman. Those are her responses to my post that asked if anyone had seen 60 minutes. That's all I asked. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you said? I'm really confused now. Did you mean: "You may be anti- the views of the majority of people in this forum, but you should check your facts and not try to give us the usual spin. We really don't have time for it." in response to what she said, or what I said? The other board I'm talking about isn't a political board, I'm just trying to open people's minds. Please clarify? Thanks!

*on edit* this should be up one post, answering first reply.. oops

A publishing company owned by Judith Regan, who has had her own show on the Pox News network. Owned by Rupert Murdoch. Her publishing company is also an arm of Rupert's empire. I believe it's the company that's issued Hannity's latest book. Since I am not given to purchasing trash like Hannity's, I'm not sure about the following, but I THINK O'Reilly's book has been put out by Reganbooks, although I'm not sure. But she's given a home to more than one of these knuckle-dragger specials.

Sooooooooooooo this lady wants to make a media purity/conflict of interest argument of it? Tell her to look at her own, as well, and make sure she holds THEM to those same high standards.

the fact that all the evidence points to the invasion of Iraq as not being necessary, so the first argument isn't sound.
It's not a good argument anyway. It breaks down pretty much as this:
I can't think of why A wouldn't be true
Therefore A is true.
It's intellectually lazy, and the press has encouraged a lot of intellectual laziness in the past few years.

before the entire 9/11 commission to the statements he is making. Bush has offered to stop by and have a private conversation with two of the members. (your ball).

What would be in it for him to risk American lives unless it was necessary. I am tired of people challenging the president's motives. Maybe he doesn't make all the best decisions in hindsite but I believe his motives are genuine.


I've never heard anything quite so ridiculous in defense of the fool!That's no damned qualification. There are literally millions of people in this country with genuine motives who make bad decisions. The difference between them and bush*? Bush* has the presidency and now his genuine motives/bad decisions are sending it right down the crapper.

that if there were something in it for him it would be worth risking American lives...?

Love how these folks pick their leaders...

If he's not making the best decisions then that's precisely why he should be questioned! That's like saying that kids that keep going out and getting in trouble, getting taken in by the police, start fights, mug people, etc. should just have their hair mussed up and a hug, because their motives are above reproach since you know them.
Pathetic. And unbecoming of people that argue for discipline and responsibility.

Clarke didn't think there was a need for the office of home land security.Second what credentials does a half-wit bushbud Gov. from Penna.have to head this office.Third we are no more ready now than we were then.This office fyi has obsorbed the epa super-fund to achieve this nothing.
If you are blind to this at least open your eyes long enough to see what is being done to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Hope this helps.

telling the truth and the WH knows it, other wise they wouldn't have all their dogs out trying to divert the story.. Also why isn't the mighty Ashcroft threating to sue and jail Clarke for slander if he is lying?

Clarke is not the only one charging they were obsessed with Iraq. The invasion is proof. And it was done on a stack of lies.

Did Bush ignore the warnings? Yes, he did. He also ignored the Palestinian/Israeli problem for 8 months also. He had other priorities. How could you argue otherwise?

You believe his "motives are genuine". Why?

To discuss what Clarke says you'll have to read the book or watch his testimony tomorrow. Carry on any discussion only about the facts of the matter. Don't debate the motive of the publisher unless it is an overt propaganda operation like the Scaife and Murdoch operations and that is the main topic at hand. Accusations about Clarke's motives or personality are silly and irrelevant unless he is first proven to have been lying. Focus only how and why the PNAC group cut back the efforts to de-fang Al Qaeda and defend against the threat.

(edit very slightly)

and it has been all over the media today.

There is a excellent article coming out in TIME magazine, which is posted
over on the Editorials page I believe. It is very "non-sensationalized" and
makes it abundantly clear how credible Clarke is, and how legitimate it is to
be questioning Bush about these things. Recommend this person read it.

here are two sides to every story ... Yes I saw it and let's just say this guy is trying to sell his new book, and also jockey for a spot in the possible Kerry administration.

So? How does this invalidate the charges? BTW, Clarke is on record refusing a position on a possible Kerry admin. He is also a registered Republican who was first appointed by Reagan.


Clarke used to run his mouth about the Clinton administration and how he could never get them to commit to taking any action, actions that he deemed necessary at the time (vs al Qaeda).

Again, So? This shows his objective was al Qaeda NOT paritisan politics. We heard many WH officials blame Clinton's inactions in a similar manner today. Are they to be dismissed too?


I could go on and cite examples but guys like that are not worth my time. Clarke's clearly bitter that he didn't get a job offer in the office of homeland security. His story has changed over the past few years, making his credibility a big ZERO.

It is easy to engage in ad hominem attacks than reasoned debate. So far I haven't seen you offer any facts to bolster your position.


At the end of the day, Clarke was in charge of counter-terrorism for many years. If he wants to start pointing fingers at people, he doesn't have far to look. And all that carp about Bush being blood thirsty for Iraq is nuts.

There are independent accounts which verify Clarke's claim. Paul O'Neill comes to mind. Oh wait, he too is a hack. How about Karen K. (can't remember her last name) and her expose on the OSP? Oh, right, I guess what we have here is a far left conspiracy to discredit the president.


What would be in it for him to risk American lives unless it was necessary. I am tired of people challenging the president's motives. Maybe he doesn't make all the best decisions in hindsite but I believe his motives are genuine.

I am happy you have a faith based belief in Bush. I however, don't, and would like to see the substance of Clarke's accusations addressed.


Hmmm ... her facial expression you say? Your contention is based on her facial expression. Interesting.

You offer nothing more substantial than your unsupported belief that Bush's motives are "genuine". How can you know this? At least Clarke has had one on one conversations with these people, you haven't.



"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."


Lieberman wasn't inside the WH during this time, how could he possibly know? Others were inside the White House and Pentagon tell very similar stories to Clarke.



Even better ... the plot thickens with this Clarke character ... what I don't understand is how anyone is so ready to believe someone like this?

Clarke is going to testify under oath on Wednesday. So if he is lying, it will be quite easy to charge him with perjury.

Interestingly enough Condi Rice refuses to do the same. Nor will Bush or Cheney. Why?

Perhaps they learned from Clinton, you aren't accountable unless you lie under oath.



NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

How does this reflect on Clarke? All it shows is how incestuous the media is?

You haven't debated one fact, just tossed around personal character attacks.

/rant

Feel free to use any of this if you wish. LOL!

I appreciate it!

but folks here have gotten used to disruptors coming onto the board and slapping up a set of RW talking points they got "from a friend", asking us to dispute them.

After the 400th time it starts to get a little old.

So, if you are really here to find out the truth, here you go:

"At the end of the day, Clarke was in charge of counter-terrorism for many years. If he wants to start pointing fingers at people, he doesn't have far to look. And all that carp about Bush being blood thirsty for Iraq is nuts. What would be in it for him to risk American lives unless it was necessary. I am tired of people challenging the president's motives. Maybe he doesn't make all the best decisions in hindsite but I believe his motives are genuine."

Bush may not have been bloodthirsty about Iraq, but just about every single person around him WAS. It's been documented since the first Bush term. There has been a desire and plan to go into Iraq (for starters) for decades. They were just waiting for the right opportunity. Go here to find out just who in the Bush Admnistration had a hard-on for Iraq:

http://www.doyouknow.org/features/introtopnac.html

Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence from a wide variety of sources that there was a big push to go into Iraq very early on even though the evidence showed there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11 and that Hussein was nowhere near having the weapons capabilities the WH was claiming. One of the first major press mentions about the push came in TIME just a few weeks after 9/11, in an article that said, just four hours after the strikes, Rumsfeld asked for plans to go into Afghanistan as well as to "take out" Hussein.

You can go here and scroll through to find mainstream press articles that prove those points.

http://www.doyouknow.org/topics/foreignpolicy/index.html


Everything Clarke is saying has been backed up by other officials, witnesses, and the Administration's own actions.

If your "friend" can't see it, well, there are none so blind...

I've been lurking for months here, over my husband's shoulder. The other board I refer to is a private board for moms with kiddos born in December '02. I really meant everything I said up there, and want to try to open some of my girls up to other points of view besides those that are being fed to them. I realize my post count isn't high, but that'll take a little while, no? ;)

This is a heck of a lot more info and responses than I expected, and I really appreciate everyone taking the time to write! Thank you all, you rock!

Glad to have you here, part of the Truth Squad!

So now America conducts hearings about national security on network broadcasts, cable shows, and internet chat? WHY ISN'T EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM BEING PUT UNDER OATH BY THE CONGRESS? Answer that question and everything else will simply fall into place.

---

There are two sides to every story ... Yes I saw it and let's just say this guy is trying to sell his new book, and also jockey for a spot in the possible Kerry administration. Clarke used to run his mouth about the Clinton administration and how he could never get them to commit to taking any action, actions that he deemed necessary at the time (vs al Qaeda).

---

He probably is just trying to sell his new book. Clarke is not someone to be trusted entirely. His motives ARE suspect. He claims that he's coming out with this information because he thinks that American lives are in danger, but waited until he got a 6-figure advance for the book. However, that doesn't discount his statements. As far as Clarke complaining to the Clinton Admin about thier lack of action regarding terrorism, I'd like to see the source on that. Other than pure rhetoric from the right saying that Clinton didn't do enough about terrorism that it's his fault that 9/11 happened, most of what I've read leads me to conclude that Clinton was actually, almost obessed, really, with Al-Qaeda. It has been fairly well established that he pass over much information to Bush we he took office.

---

At the end of the day, Clarke was in charge of counter-terrorism for many years. If he wants to start pointing fingers at people, he doesn't have far to look. And all that carp about Bush being blood thirsty for Iraq is nuts. What would be in it for him to risk American lives unless it was necessary. I am tired of people challenging the president's motives. Maybe he doesn't make all the best decisions in hindsite but I believe his motives are genuine.

---

First off, the idea that the Bush administration had intel that actually supported the idiotic idea that Iraq had an active WMD program is laughable. Obviously, this was not the motive. It's impossible that this was the motive. Iraq was not a threat. Let's put it this way: Both Iran AND Kuwait, who had been invaded by Saddam's Iraq, KNEW that he was not a threat. They weren't affraid of Saddam, just the US, the most powerful nation on the planet. Does that make sense? Iraq had sanctions imposed by the UN for TEN YEARS. It had weapons inspectors in the country SEVERAL TIMES. It had been bombed by US/UN forces multiple times every year. The chemical and biological agents that they had in the late 80s has a shelf life that expired in the early 90s.
To any rational human being, Saddam could not have been conceived as a threat. If you are talking about terrorism, well...the only way to be absolutely, 100% sure that you eliminate terrorism is to eliminate all societies including your own.

---

Clarke wrote that Rice appeared to never have heard of Al Qaeda until she was warned about it early in 2001, and that she "looked skeptical" about his warnings.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday.

Hmmm ... her facial expression you say? Your contention is based on her facial expression. Interesting.

---

This "argument" is idiotic, and your friend seams to be smarter than this. He either had a brain fart or is insulting your inteligence with this one.
He takes one quote out of context and says that "his contention is based on her facial expression", when Clarke clearly stated that her facial expression gave him "the impression" that she hadn't heard the term before. This is not any kind of proof, and he doesn't claim it is.

---

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush -- who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election -- was focused more on Iraq than Al Qaeda 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."

---

Lieberman is a pro-war guy who is holding hands with the Bush Administration. Hell, he's practically a moderate republican.
But, then again, WHO CARES? Lieberman and Joe Biden might be some of the smartest guys in the world who know all about the war on Terrorism, but the fact remains that Clarke was one of THE counter-Terrorist personality of the US for YEARS! Whether your freind wants to admit it or not, what he has to say is much, much more relevent than what Lieberman or Biden has to say, and is JUST AS RELIABLE a source as Condie Rice is.

---

Even better ... the plot thickens with this Clarke character ... what I don't understand is how anyone is so ready to believe someone like this?

---

Someone like this? Your friend should take a look as who this man is before he makes a blanket statement like this.
http://www.cfr.org/bio.php?id=9805

Here's a brief bio of Clarke:
Clarke served the last three Presidents as a senior White House Advisor, as Special Assistant to the President for Global Affiars, National Coordinator for Security and Counter-Terrorism, and Special Advisor to the President for Cyber Security. Prior to his White House service, Clarke served in the Pentagon, the Intelligence Community, and the State Department. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence in the Reagan Administration, and Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs in the Bush (41) Administration, where he coordinated diplomatic efforts to support the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the subsequent security arrangements.

Hell, he's a much better source of information on terrorism than Bush is.

The real question is: Why is anyone so ready to believe someone like Bush?

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

A real "story".

I should have said "type" instead of "say" :) Cut-and-paste, all the way, LOL