Richard Clarke: Liberal Neal

[bart]

But with his retirement, Clarke's career accomplishments should be noted.

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.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.

Didn't want this buried in the bottom of a highjacked thread, so here is the left's latest anti-terror hero. He was Clinton's principle anti-terror consultant, who heroically prepared the country for the onslaught of cyber attacks.

The guy is a complete idiot and is beside himself for being so thoroughly discredited. Remember, it was on his watch that a plane left Sudan with Osama on it and he did NOTHING. He had the influence to have done something and he did not. Now real men are doing the fighting, and he is a little sour grapes kid.

What better leftist terror expert. Shows just how far gone the mental capacities of the lefties really are...

 

[ShawnC]

I like how he considers "Follow up and update in two weeks," to mean "Wrong Answer."

Now he did make some suggestions that Bush did implement, like arming the Predators.

 

[slide33]

So nobody ever thought of arming UAV's till this guy said something? yeah right.

 

[Swass]

He's making a run for a job if Kerry gets elected, what a joke.

 

[Mr. Cole]

You guys do know that he served under Reagan and Bush I right?

 

[CA1900]

You guys do know that he served under Reagan and Bush I right?

...and the dittoheads fall silent, once again.

 

[Satan]

LOL, they always do

 

[Mr. Cole]

And a registered Republican.

 

[ShawnC]

And a registered Republican.

He's a career bureaucrat, that lost his position because Bush didn't want his as the Deputy Director of Homeland Security. Now he has a book that he wants to sell, and what's the best way to get press, make outrageous claims.

 

[Mr. Cole]

I don't know, seems to fit well with what we've heard from others such as O'Neill and a few weapons inspectors.

 

[ShawnC]

I don't know, seems to fit well with what we've heard from others such as O'Neill and a few weapons inspectors.

Who had his own book to promote.

I hear conflicting reports from the US weapon inspectors, the first was that pedophile, that flip flopped, and another which said that the French were spying on them providing the inspection dates to the Iraqis.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

What a crock...

Someone finally pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes...and the Republicans on this board want to argue the point. Bush ordered the CIA and others to manufacture evidence supoorting a war on Iraq. The whole thing was a very deliberate lie. Trying to deny the facts is a ridiculous waste of time, but seems to be the New Republican MO. Just say something didn't happen, repeat as necessary, and eventually people will go along with you. Here's a fun link to Donald Rumsfield doing just that:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/



He gets called on his pompous lies, and just ignores it. "Folklore"...where do they find these guys?

 

[enigma]

This guy Clark had ample time to fix the problem under previous administrations, yet he only speaks up when he has a book to sell and has a bone to pick after being passed over for promotion.

Sorry but he has no credibility.

And another thing, the guy Clark attempts to make the case that W tried to force him to give up Iraq as the [primary culprits for September 11th, but the fact is this: We went into Afganistan FIRST. Had W been looking to frame Saddam, don't you think that we would have just gone for him to begin with?

You libs need to get over your hatred for W, and start thinkin.

enigma

 

[Eagleflip]

OK, here's a thought.

Do you guys trust Bob Woodward? Remember, he's the Washington Post journalist who, along with Carl Bernstein, broke the Watergate story.

So, if you remember him, do you trust him?

If so, read his latest book, Bush at War . It's been out for at least a year and gives what seems to be an accurate account of who said what to whom during the aftermath of 9-11.

If not, nevermind. You probably figure that all journalists are liberal, in which case I will not attempt to disuade you from your paranoia.

If you read the book, however, you may be surprised. I won't lead you to conclusions--read, and figure it out yourself.

 

[sqwkvfr]

He's a career bureaucrat, that lost his position because Bush didn't want his as the Deputy Director of Homeland Security. Now he has a book that he wants to sell, and what's the best way to get press, make outrageous claims.

100% correct. Another bureaucrat with an over-inflated sense of self worth who's pissed because W (who dislikes career bureaucrats) bounced him out of his job into what DICK considered an "underemployment" of himself.

It turns out that DICK was out of the loop on most of the important terror issues and meetings......and really isn't qualified to speak on this subject. BUT he gets a book deal with Simon and Schuster and a ton of free publicity and a VERY softball interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."......without so much as a hint that CBS and Simon and Schuster are owned by the same parent company, Viacom and that Viacom will benefit financially if his book somehow gains some credibilty and sells well......CBS is once again showing it's complete lack of journalistic integrity.

He's also an instructor at the indisputably liberal Kennedy School of Government......he works with John Kerry's national security adviser.

You Democrats who seem to enjoy these conspiracy theories would have a lot of fun with this......IF it suited your purpose.

 

[bart]

Bush ordered the CIA and others to manufacture evidence supoorting a war on Iraq. The whole thing was a very deliberate lie.

HEY! You are not as stupid as you look, or are you? Why don't you just share a copy of the memo, bright guy? I am sure that someone other than a stupid has been with an axe to grind was directed to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11...

Seems everyone who received that directive, got it straight from the President in the dark corner of a room that the President never entered that day...

The guy is a Neal hoping for enough money from the book to buy a spot in Kerry's Administration, plain and simple.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

Memo????

Well, the first flaw in your theory presupposes that Dumbya can read and/or write. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he can scratch something with his crayon on a piece of paper. Do you think anyone as crooked as Bush hasn't learned not to leave a trail? Do you expect him to take out an ad in the WSJ, advertising that he really, really wants to invade Iraq, so he's going to lie to the country to get the ball rolling?

And don't you find it just a little odd that his story is almost identical to Paul O'Neils? Pure coincidence, I'm sure. Or maybe it's another one of TimeBuilders's liberal conspiracies.

By the way, I'm not a liberal. My question is how you can support Bush if you're a Republican? Don't you think we can hold the Republican Party to a higher standard? There are many qualified Republicans to choose from, all with an IQ greater than their shoe size. Why are you content to put up with this idiot? Why am I FORCED to vote Democrat, simply to get rid of him?

 

[secks]

Re: Memo????

Well, the first flaw in your theory presupposes that Dumbya can read and/or write. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he can scratch something with his crayon on a piece of paper.

Well, he was smart enough to make it through UPT. Not many people can say that. Lacking the ability to speak articulately in public doesn't make one an idiot. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he functions as little more than a puppet.

By the way, I'm not a liberal. My question is how you can support Bush if you're a Republican? Don't you think we can hold the Republican Party to a higher standard? There are many qualified Republicans to choose from, all with an IQ greater than their shoe size. Why are you content to put up with this idiot? Why am I FORCED to vote Democrat, simply to get rid of him?

I agree. Conservatives are being taken for granted by the Republican Party. The party leaders understand that conservatives are opposed lax border security, pandering to illegals, exporting jobs, socializing drug costs, corporate welfare, and launching wars under the guise of patriotism. Of course, it doesn't matter, because conservatives will stubbornly vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[LAZYB]

there you go...

Of course, it doesn't matter, because conservatives will stubbornly vote for the lesser of two evils.

I don't understand how it came about that the incumbent freezes out any real choice within a party.

But I'm more of a libertarian, whatever that means.

Don't think the bipolar things is working. Black/white, north/south, republican/democrat?

 

[Snoopy58]

You guys do know that he served under Reagan and Bush I right?

Yeah, and the reason he was promoted from career bureaucrat to political appointee & terrorism czar under Clinton was because his intellect didn't intimitate Madeline Albright.

Yeah, that team "did everything they could, everything they could think of " to stop Al Qaeda, and yet nothing of any susbstance was done in response to (a) first twin towers bombing, (b) Khobar Towers bombing, (c) embassy bombings, (d) the Cole bombing, (d) Al Qaeda involvement in Somolia, (e) the other acts of terrorism against the US that failed for various reasons. And no, shooting a bunch of cruise missiles periodically at Iraqi SAM sites & a pharmecutical factory & a remote training camp doesn't qualify as substantial. Sure didn't intimidate our enemies, anyway.

Of course, GWB is taking on REAL threats to national security, whereas Clinton took on those awful threats to our vital national interest like Haiti, Bosnia, Somolia, and Kosovo. Under him, use of the military for rediculous "peacekeeping" deployment soared, yet never in pursuit of anything that achieved very much in terms of vital US national interests. Peripheral, cause-du-jour, hyped on TV "crises," you bet... Clinton's team was all over those.

And what of lasting consequence did he achieve? In Haiti... um not much. In Bosnia... unending deployments for our military to keep people from killing each other, who still want to as much as before. Somalia... exactly nothing. Kosovo... what exactly were we *trying* to achieve there, anyway???

Then, at the very end, they come up with some grand half-baked plan about Al Qaeda, hand it over to the new administration, and want to make political hay now over the fact that the new administration didn't act on their wonderful little "plan, strategy, whatever you want to call it" immediately, without studying the problem & perhaps designing their own solution to it... eliminating the Taliban instead of rolling it back, for instance.

For sombody whose efforts did roughly NOTHING to slow the growth of Al Qaeda's power for years, Clarke is the last person with any credibility to say "boo" about the Bush administration's response. He wants to curry favor with Kerry, plain & simple. Utter loser.