Does the Richard Clark interview on 60 minutes change anyone's mind?

Wow, a Democrat hack playing politics. That's big news, for sure.

News flash: They had attacked on American soil before. Does the '93 WTC bombing ring a bell? Given that, his whole line of BS is just that, BS to try and make Bush look bad.

So, Benny the fluffer has, as usual, no point.

 

'93 WTC bombers were from Iraq too...

 

This about says it all concerning the 9-11 commision-related finger-pointing concerning the "failure" to pevent the WTC attack.

 

There was one even better than that.

Louis Freeh, the former FBI Director, said that Dick Clarke wasn't present at most, if not all, of the terrorism briefings given to the Clinton Administration. His testimony made Clarke look like the liar he is.

In a nutshell, Mr. Freeh all but proved that Clarke's book is BS and that he's nothing but a bitter ex-employee. Funny but his testimony isn't getting any press by Rather & company. Go figure.

 

Typical crap posted by those who dislike personal freedom and despise the bill of rights. The twit that wrote the article seems to think that you can't have fairness, due process and civil rights while fighting terrorism and crime at the same time. This logical disconnect is a staple of the far right since the 1950s.

But I do agree with her insinuation that some liberals are not tough enough or agressive enough in dealing with despots and criminals. (But I can't wait to see that photo of Rummy hugging Saddam when they met back in the 1980s )

 

How so?

 

Clarke claimed to be HMFIC as far as terrorism is concerned in his book.

Louis Freeh said that he was absent from all the high-level terrorism briefings, something that would be unthinkable if his claims were true.

Therefore, Clarke was nothing of the sort and everything he claimed was bullshit. His whole house of cards came falling down on his head. Freeh pretty much painted the picture that Clarke was a mid-level nobody and ultimately was an ex-employee with an axe to grind.

Unless you choose to believe that terrorism briefings to the officials at the highest levels of the administration would take place without the Big Tuna. Only Team Atomic could believe that one.

 

Mike, what is HMFIC?

And I wonder if/when CBS will seriously analyze the controversey of Clarke's veracity (real or imagined) given that its parent company has a vested interest in Clarke's book sales.

 

I translated that as Head Mother F'er In Charge. In reality I believe Clarke chaired a commitee on counter terrorism but the actual name escapes me at the moment.

 

Yeah, Joe, you got the acronym.

As for CBS, you're not serious, are you? What you suggest would put Bush in a favorable light. Dan Rather will be dead before CBS News does that.

As for Clarke, he claimed to be an official in the administration. I don't recall anything about a committee. But the long and the short of it is that he claimed to be The Man on terrorism and Mr. Freeh pretty much debunked that myth.

The fact that Freeh's testimony has recieved virtually NO coverage in the media is also hardly a surprise. Anything not damaging to Bush isn't given the time of day. Probably just a coincidence.

 

Heard of Whitewater? Monica Lewinsky? Last-minute presidential pardons? I don't think Bush has a monopoly: you are in office, don't f'up if you don't like bad press.

 

MTK,

Most of those who claim left-wing media bias seem to have forgotten about those things mentioned by Papa. It was unrelenting, constant and daily criticism of Clinton.

But maybe you are too young to remember al that. Seriously, how old are you?

As for my CBS remark, I merely wondeer what kind analysis if any they will do. Given the conflict of interest, it is a good question.

 

I'm 34 and I remember all that.

I also recall that much of it came from Fox and such. Mr. Rather was too busy kissing Bill's ass to play hardball with him.

Have you seen anything from Mr. Freeh on CBS/NBC/ABC?

Did those same networks give you every second of Clarke's testimony? Or at least every bit of damaging testimony?

Freeh's testimony makes it clear that Clarke is full of shit. Yet, only one of the two gets airplay.

Combine that with the fact that TV journalists voted for Clinton at twice the national average in the last election ('96; where Bill was a candidate).

Concindence? I don't think so. I've seen more than enough evidence to convince me that there's a left-wing bias in the major media. Your mileage may vary.

 

Its not a myth that Clarke was part of the administration. What is at question is how significant Clarke's contribution was. Clarke sees himself as the authority and many others have portraid him as a bit player. Is this where you stop listening because Clarke's ego maybe a little out of balance? I contend that both sides of the argument maybe true. Clarke wrote memo's that Rice (among others) dismissed or didn't receive them with the same importance that Clarke intended. Again, I think both sides have told this story and we can conclude thats the way it happened. Its easy in hindsight to say Clarke was right to be alarmed and it also seems as though the administration wasn't persuaded enough to act which is hard to second guess. All agree that reacting to Clarke's memo's would not have avoided 9/11. Bush presented his side of the argument very well in his address this week and honestly I think the situation in Iraq has eclipse the 9/11 commission in the national interest. I hope the 9/11 commission comes back with some helpful suggestions for a more unified counter terrorism effort within our government. But at the moment I'd like to hear that a day passed without us lossing another soldier abroad.

 

No, the bottom line is that if Clarke was the HMFIC as he claimed, then it's flat impossible that these briefings took place without him. Since they did, regularly, take place without his attendance, either Clarke's story is a load of horseshit or everyone else's story is a load of horseshit. There's no middle ground. If you're the Big Tuna, these things don't take place without you.

For Clarke's story to be true, you have to believe that he's the HMFIC as he claimed and also that terrorism briefings, for the top officials in the administration, took place without his input or attendance. Either Clarke is a liar or we're supposed to believe that the President, National Security Advisor, Head of the CIA, etc. got briefed on terrorism on a regular basis and the head dude on terrorism was no present or even involved.

That's not even getting into the contradictions in his own testimony. That's just a simple, logical evaluation of the facts as presented. Or are we to believe that Louis Freeh is carrying water for the Bush administration and lying about who attended what briefings? The folks who brief the President said he's a nobody. Clarke says he's not only sombody, but The Man, and yet he never made any of the briefings. Which claim is credible?

Clarke also claimed that Dr. Rice knew nothing of Al Queda, "based upon her facial expressions" when he brought up the subject. The fact is, she'd given two speeches on the topic not more than a year before. How much credibility are you going to continue to give this joker before you call him the bullshit artist that he is? This guy can't open his mouth for five minutes without throwing out yet another whopper of a lie.

 

I think your missing my point. Clarke held a significant position where counter terrorism is concerned. He considers himself to be an authority on the subject. His message, either delivered personally or by proxy, was integral in decision making in his former capacity. I don't think any of that can be denied (read the 9/11 commission briefings). Of course Clarke has a big ego, and so does everyone else involved, but are we to conclude he's a liar because his personal assessment of his contribution isn't an agreeable point? I don't think so. There is a paper trail and corroborating testimony to back Clarke up so we know he contributed -- that's not in doubt. But Clarke doesn't know how his memo's were received -- he can only offer his side. I commend Condelezza Rice for giving her side of the story which led me to believe that Clarke was one of many voices on the subject that consulted her but was not influential ultimately. I don't fault her for that. If she had no listened I would fault her but thats not her story.

I continue to think that your operating for an uninformed point of view. Your assertions are not supported by 9/11 Commission Reports but are popular rhetoric. I refuse to let the loudest rhetoric form my opinions but if your willing to mindlessly join in the chorus then this discussion is pointless.

So to sum this up, I don't think anyone is lying but I think there are some big ego's, some hurt ego's, and some conjecture about the weight of others opinions. The more principle figures that testify the easier its getting to seperate truth from conjecture. What I do think is clear is that our infastructure pre-9/11 was a major contributor to operational inefficiency which I really like to see addressed (I don't think the Patriot Act will do) as the legacy of the 9/11 Commission.

 

No, the difference is, you give credibility to the 9/11 Commission.

I don't. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

The reason being, we've now come to find out that one of the big players on the Commission was an official in the Clinton Administration. She shouldn't be on the panel, she should be testifying before the panel, just like Dr. Rice. Yet, instead, she's being allowed to run the show.

Don't you see a bit of a problem with someone who's got skeletons of her own to hide running an "investigation?"

But you're right, I haven't listened to all of it and definitely have no intention of doing so. Testimony from victims families is meaningless, yet the Commission wasted one day listening to this drivel. Much of the other stuff they've dug into was equally worthless. If 90% of your product is crap, I'll pass on the other 10%, thanks.

What I HAVE seen is enough evidence that Mr. Clarke is full of shit to make me discount ANYTHING the man has to say. Sorry, but once he's been tagged in a half-dozen whoppers and can clearly be shown to have an axe to grind, his credibility is zero. Clarke's testimony was billed as "the smoking gun." Now, what we've got is, at best, the bleatings of a mid-level nobody who thinks he's more important than he really is. Or at worst, a bitter ex-employee with an axe to grind and a political agenda. Neither one gives me any reason to give him the time of day.

The 9/11 Commission is equally worthless in my view. It has clearly become nothing more than a forum for Democrats to sling mud at the current administration. They've made it painfully clear that Bush's eight months of control are the focus, while Clinton's eight years of control are off the table. So I'd no sooner listen to these jokers than I'd listen to Sarah Brady on the value of gun control in modern society.

These are the same assholes who were decrying "racial profiling" right after 9/11. Now they're crying that not enough was done beforehand. Does the phrase "damned if you do" ring a bell?

 

That's fair. I can see your point of view and oddly enough I have some of the same arguements concerning the 9/11 commission makeup. Still, they are just the folks asking the questions and I think the balance of the commission makes up for a few curious selections. I think one reason for the perceived emphasis on Bush's 8 months is that the backstory has been covered already by previous 9/11 sessions. That is most of what has been published so far. Typically a 10 page brief contains only a couple paragraph's concerning Bush's administration. I gather the reason is that the Bush administration hasn't been available to testify. For the members of our current administration it must be hard to be vigilant to their "day job" and defending your actions from 3 years ago -- hats off to them all. IMHO, the commission seems like less and less of a witch hunt as more people testify. I think alot of problems have become undeniably clear and I hope that is an impetus for change.

 

didn't Dubya pick the panel?


regardless, I'm getting sick of this fingerpointing crapola from the panel. I wish they'd just get on to something that might actually make a difference like making recommendations, and for the life of me I can't figure what would make any of them experts anyhow

yesterday some blowhard panel member pontificated so long on the question there was no time for the respondant to answer... like that's gonna accomplish anything.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during the closed hearings.
Bush gives an answer and Halliburton Dick says "No, what the president meant to say was... "

Clinton says "I made two mistakes : 1) we'd should have retaliated and 2) that I'd had that damn dress dry cleaned"

FBI says "we were too busy deleting evidentiary photos of Mr Hoovers in his dress and pumps"

Where the hell is Jesse Ventura when we really need him???