Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clarke Approved Saudi Flights After 9/11

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nick2
    replied
    And, you are wrong. Because I said so and because I am right.
    Now there's an honest man!

    Leave a comment:


  • FAR52
    replied
    Originally posted by kah2523+Mar 30 2004, 06:50 AM-->
    QUOTE (kah2523 @ Mar 30 2004, 06:50 AM)

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by FAR52@Mar 30 2004, 05:19 AM
    Since even the hard-core Republicans on this thread have admitted that Clarke is telling the truth,
    Except that they haven't.

    there really isn't much place for substantive debate, anyway. 
    Agreed. Clarke's a liar and it has been proven.
    I can only presume you haven't read the thread. That would show you that in contrast to your statement above, your fellow GOPers have admitted that Clarke's statements are factual, and have only taken issue with his "spin." You might also try reading what Clarke said under oath. When you do so, you will find out that in point of fact, Clarke has not been proven to be a liar. In reality, his statements have not even been challenged on the facts.

    I have responded to numerous Republican allegations by stating that they are simply false. Y'all state that Clarke could have stopped the 9/11 Saudi evacuations; that is false. Y'all state that Clarke has been shown to be a liar; that is false. Y'all post an excerpt from a "Time" article that purports to show Clarke contradicting himself, and ignore the fact that the article doesn't actually do that at all.

    Perhaps when y'all make a statement that has some merit and a factual basis, we can have that substantive debate. But when all y'all can do is peddle the same tired GOP smear points, "nuh uh" is, frankly, all that is called for.

    Maybe you could start by thinking about why Clarke was unafraid to raise his right hand and testify under oath, while George Bush's National Security Advisor continues to refuse to do so, and continues to tell bald-faced lies about how presidential advisors haven't been required to testify, when in fact they have.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4623066/

    Then again, when you are a Bush fan, the facts are unpleasant, so perhaps you are best advised to avoid them.

    Leave a comment:


  • FAR52
    replied
    Originally posted by kah2523@Mar 29 2004, 10:37 PM
    While your response, on the other hand, was positively dripping with substance.

    Except that it was.

    Since even the hard-core Republicans on this thread have admitted that Clarke is telling the truth,
    Except that they haven't.

    there really isn't much place for substantive debate, anyway.
    Agreed. Clarke's a liar and it has been proven.


    At least not when the GOP position is "he voted for Gore, and he wrote a book, so don't listen to him."
    Except that isn't the position. Sorry nice try.


    Hey, that's pretty easy. I think I might start trying the 'ol Kah "nah uh" approach. It requires absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever, and it allows me to remain strictly partisan without ever having to admit or implicitely concede that I (and my party) may not always be right. Pure brilliance Kah. Well done.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by FAR52@Mar 29 2004, 09:10 PM
    Fabulous post Kah. I've noticed as of late that you have really become the master of the "nah uh" response. Very effective if I may say so.
    While your response, on the other hand, was positively dripping with substance.

    Since even the hard-core Republicans on this thread have admitted that Clarke is telling the truth, there really isn't much place for substantive debate, anyway. At least not when the GOP position is "he voted for Gore, and he wrote a book, so don't listen to him."

    Leave a comment:


  • Razzy
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Goalie+Mar 29 2004, 09:36 PM-->
    QUOTE (Mr. Goalie @ Mar 29 2004, 09:36 PM)
    Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:02 PM

  • Mr. Goalie
    replied
    Originally posted by Razzy+Mar 29 2004, 09:02 PM-->
    QUOTE (Razzy @ Mar 29 2004, 09:02 PM)

  • FAR52
    replied
    Originally posted by kah2523@Mar 29 2004, 08:51 PM
    He could have stopped those flights if he thought there was an issue.
    Except that he couldn't, since the decision came from the top.

    But it speaks to his character.
    Except that it doesn't. Although smearing Clarke's character does seem to be the Bush Administration's only answer to his testimony.

    Most of what he's said IS true. You are correct.

    But that is not the issue.
    Sorry, I commented on that post before, but it's so damn funny I felt like quoting again.

    f the real issue is understanding the past to prevent a repeat in the future, why are many of you focusing so much on the negative things Clarke has said about Bush?
    The OTHER issue is that the man in charge from January to September of 2001 is asking the people of this country to vote for him for four more years, and the people have a right to know how seriously his administration took Al Qaeda.

    bingo Damtoft
    Anyone who ever types these words about anything really should take a second to think about it.

    It is obvious that he felt slighted by the Bush administration, not so much for not heeding his warnings (because no administration did) but because he was not given a more significant role in the Homeland Security department. Which, he probably deserved. But his childish antics now further cloud the issues at hand.
    Nonsense. Not only is that not "obvious", there is no reason to believe Clarke is motivated by the factors you describe. And it's irrelevant in any case.

    Moe, all of th BS has been refuted. Even by Clarke himself.
    Except that it hasn't, despite that ridiculous "Time" article, which doesn't actually show Clarke "refuting" anything at all.

    But many don't believe that looking at Iraq was wrong.
    Many believe in astrology, magic crystals, and talking to the dead.

    There are supposed links to al qaeda, as reported by the clinton admin and many others
    Supposedly, John F. Kennedy lived and is currently being held in a vegetative state on some Mediterranean island.

    Clarke's conclusions that the Bush Admin was unreasonably negligent were wrong.
    Strangely enough, others disagree. Some people think farting around for eight months without devising any plan to address Al Qaeda was a bad idea. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

    He himself has undermined his credibility to sell a book.
    Except that he hasn't.

    I guess you missed the part were I indicated the book was not helpful.
    No, we got it; we just think you're talking nonsense.

    But what can you expect....We now are talking about crap instead of substance.
    So the Republicans waste the committee's time slandering Clarke, and you blame--Clarke. Bizarre.
    Fabulous post Kah. I've noticed as of late that you have really become the master of the "nah uh" response. Very effective if I may say so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Razzy
    replied
    Originally posted by lazydaze@Mar 29 2004, 09:58 AM
    Clarke describes his book, in the preface, as "factual, not polemical," and he said in an interview that he was a registered Republican in the 2000 election
    Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President George W. Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats.



    FEC records show that Clarke reported no political contributions when he worked in the Clinton administration in the electoral cycles of the 1990s and 2000, when he said he was a Republican.

    nothing damning here, just background fodder.
    Daze,

    That Right-Wing column is really much ado about nothing.

    He made the donations to Democratic candidates AFTER 911 happened, and after he had witnessed on a first-hand basis the ineptitude of the Bush administration.

    And the two Dems he donated money to were companions of his from the Clinton administration that he knew well enough to know that they were qualified for office.

    What does it mean? Absolutely nothing.

    Those Right-wing web site nutjobs better be slinging mud hard in trying to bring Clarke down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    He could have stopped those flights if he thought there was an issue.
    Except that he couldn't, since the decision came from the top.

    But it speaks to his character.
    Except that it doesn't. Although smearing Clarke's character does seem to be the Bush Administration's only answer to his testimony.

    Most of what he's said IS true. You are correct.

    But that is not the issue.
    Sorry, I commented on that post before, but it's so damn funny I felt like quoting again.

    f the real issue is understanding the past to prevent a repeat in the future, why are many of you focusing so much on the negative things Clarke has said about Bush?
    The OTHER issue is that the man in charge from January to September of 2001 is asking the people of this country to vote for him for four more years, and the people have a right to know how seriously his administration took Al Qaeda.

    bingo Damtoft
    Anyone who ever types these words about anything really should take a second to think about it.

    It is obvious that he felt slighted by the Bush administration, not so much for not heeding his warnings (because no administration did) but because he was not given a more significant role in the Homeland Security department. Which, he probably deserved. But his childish antics now further cloud the issues at hand.
    Nonsense. Not only is that not "obvious", there is no reason to believe Clarke is motivated by the factors you describe. And it's irrelevant in any case.

    Moe, all of th BS has been refuted. Even by Clarke himself.
    Except that it hasn't, despite that ridiculous "Time" article, which doesn't actually show Clarke "refuting" anything at all.

    But many don't believe that looking at Iraq was wrong.
    Many believe in astrology, magic crystals, and talking to the dead.

    There are supposed links to al qaeda, as reported by the clinton admin and many others
    Supposedly, John F. Kennedy lived and is currently being held in a vegetative state on some Mediterranean island.

    Clarke's conclusions that the Bush Admin was unreasonably negligent were wrong.
    Strangely enough, others disagree. Some people think farting around for eight months without devising any plan to address Al Qaeda was a bad idea. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

    He himself has undermined his credibility to sell a book.
    Except that he hasn't.

    I guess you missed the part were I indicated the book was not helpful.
    No, we got it; we just think you're talking nonsense.

    But what can you expect....We now are talking about crap instead of substance.
    So the Republicans waste the committee's time slandering Clarke, and you blame--Clarke. Bizarre.

    Leave a comment:


  • lazydaze
    replied
    Originally posted by Trigfunctions+Mar 29 2004, 04:07 PM-->
    QUOTE (Trigfunctions @ Mar 29 2004, 04:07 PM)

  • Trigfunctions
    replied
    Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 29 2004, 05:08 PM
    Trig,

    It's not the failures they're backing away from.

    It's his partisan conclusions.
    Such as?

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    Trig,

    It's not the failures they're backing away from.

    It's his partisan conclusions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trigfunctions
    replied
    Originally posted by lazydaze@Mar 29 2004, 04:43 PM
    well, sure trig, I guess.


    But what can you expect. To make such high charged opinionated accusations on prime time TV and have them go unchallenged.
    They're free to challenge what he said on TV all they want - let them respond in kind on TV. But, to drag that into the hearings is their choice.

    Like you said:
    How the committee itself spent 1.5 hours talking about his book, his political affiliations, his interview with 60 minutes, his interview with fox, instead of terrorism.
    Why are the Republicans inserting these political matters into the hearings?

    Because they don't want to talk about the actual failures he's pointing out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Damtoft
    replied
    Correction - it's all the media WILL headline.

    Leave a comment:

  • Working...
    X