Clarke: Follow the money.....

[Liberty]

Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission records shows his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats.

Article


[img]graemlins/popcorn.gif[/img] Yep. He's just a good Republican alright.

[curious]

Originally posted by Liberty:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission records shows his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats.

Article


[img]graemlins/popcorn.gif[/img] Yep. He's just a good Republican alright. </font>[/quote]I'm sure glad we have that great non-partisan defender of American values Sun Myung Moon and his Insight Magazine out there ferreting out such crimes such as Clarke donating money to a couple of Democratic congreessmen.

Yesiree, that old attack machine has some wonderful allies working on it.

If you want to talk about strange bedfellows....

[TXNavy]

Okay Curious, is the culmination of all of this just the least bit suspicious to you or not?

- He's a Democrat.
- He left the Administration on a good note (do whistle blowers do this, or sound off two years later?)
- What he says now on tv is 90 degrees out from what he said a couple years ago. Oh wait, that's just like Howard Dean and John Kerry, I keep forgetting that's "okay" in the Democrat world [img]tongue.gif[/img]
- His book comes out right before the September 11th commission and during election year hype. Gee, tracking smartly along the profit potential curve.
- He picked one of the more knowledgeable people about Al Qaeda in the world to say that "she doesn't get it" because of some vague facial expression. Riiiiight.

Don't you think that if he had really serious allegations of misconduct or negligence, they would have been filed in a deposition before Congress or some other body of governance? Or perhaps another source...even Deep Throat went to Woodward and Bernstein.

Sorry. Just like Wilson is not acting like a man concerned for his wife's safety, Clarke is not acting like a government whistle blower.

I don't usually use such partisans on you, but Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have knocked Clarke right out of the ballpark.

[curious]

Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and the minions of Sun Myung Moon.

Oh gosh. How wrong I was. I see the error of my ways now.

As I have said before, I am not going to "fall on my sword" (as Liberty put it) for Clarke. But I do think he has enouigh validity to be worth at least taking seriously and his opinions debated without him being portrayed as a liar and a Benedict Arnold.

As I have said before, if making money was his main motivation, Clarke could have done quite well as a "terrorism consultant" on one of the cable news nets or writing a less inflammatory book praising Bush, or just blasted Clinton and joined Sean and Anne on the right wing lecture circuit.

He probably kept his mouth shut for so lonmg because he knew what the Bush administration would do to him....I'm surprised he said anything now. Who needs to have his reputation lynched? That to my mind gives him even more credibility that he at least is being honest about what he believes.

People are entitled to change their minds. I accept his explanatyion before the 9-11 commission that he was fulfilling a request to be a spinner for Bush in his background report last year.

He did testify at length to the 9-11 Commission befoire this in closed session. Not a Congressional commission, but an official commission nonetheless.

What he said about Rice was foolish.


And, frankly and in all honesty, I am mainly extremely offended at the way anyone who criticizes the Bush administration is dragged through the mud....This kind of behavior (which is not new) is one reason the Democrats are so angry and are now fighting back in kind. Even the moderate ones.

[TXNavy]

Originally posted by curious:
Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and the minions of Sun Myung Moon.

Yes. Its all a conspiracy. None of us are "independent."

As I have said before, I am not going to "fall on my sword" (as Liberty put it) for Clarke. But I do think he has enouigh validity to be worth at least taking seriously and his opinions debated without him being portrayed as a liar and a Benedict Arnold.

Either he or I was not paying attention to anti-terrorism in '99-'01. I assure you I was.

As I have said before, if making money was his main motivation, Clarke could have done quite well as a "terrorism consultant" on one of the cable news nets or writing a less inflammatory book praising Bush, or just blasted Clinton and joined Sean and Anne on the right wing lecture circuit.

Yeah, right, Bush-defenders are selling really well. Sorry, I think he'll make a little more this way. If he were interested in the truth, why would he paint Dr. Rice in such a way? (Oh yeah - she does have a doctorate in this stuff after all.)

He probably kept his mouth shut for so lonmg because he knew what the Bush administration would do to him.

Like what? Are O'Neill or Wilson getting IRS audits? FBI investigations? So far, Wilson's been able to bring his endangered wife safely and securely on...the announced public speaking circuit. Stellar.

...I'm surprised he said anything now. Who needs to have his reputation lynched? That to my mind gives him even more credibility that he at least is being honest about what he believes.

He. Does. Not. Agree. With. What. I. Saw.

People are entitled to change their minds. I accept his explanatyion before the 9-11 commission that he was fulfilling a request to be a spinner for Bush in his background report last year.

Oh, so Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Tenet were all lying of course Only the one who disagrees two years after the fact must be telling the truth.

Sagan time again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Just like I won't accept Civilian McAuliffe telling me what a bad officer service record looks like, I won't accept someone who sits there and says "Bush didn't pay enough attention...Rice didn't look like she knew who Al Qaeda was..." I mean, come on, what kind of an expose is that?

Let's see, he claims we went "straight for Iraq" and ignored the real war on terror. Oops, he forgot that whole Afghanistan thing and tens of thousands of dead Taliban and Al Qaeda. But that's a minor goof-up.

He claims we didn't put terrorism on the front-burner. Oops, he ignores that anti-terrorism became a separate world after Bush took office with a high profile. Oh, small detail.

He claims we ignored "signs" of September 11th and the government "failed." Oops, guess he forgot the mad friggin scramble all over the place to figure out what was going to happen during 2001.

He. Does. Not. Agree. With. Reality.

What he said about Rice was foolish.

Foolish is as foolish does. Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld take and have taken anti-terrorism extremely seriously since day one.

And, frankly and in all honesty, I am mainly extremely offended at the way anyone who criticizes the Bush administration is dragged through the mud.

Yeah, we should just sit there and say "Gee, they have a good point. I feel so awful now."

I don't think so. Particularly on this one - since everyone and their dog in the federal government during 2001 and has a clue knows better.

...This kind of behavior (which is not new) is one reason the Democrats are so angry and are now fighting back in kind. Even the moderate ones.

Then you must be mortified at Senator Kennedy calling the President a liar from the floor of the Senate. And Howard Dean's little "George Bush is not my neighbor!" Or how about Kerry's insistance that George Bush is a "crook" and a "liar." Or how about Civilian McAuliffe raising unsubstantiated claims of "AWOL" in Bush's Officer Service Record. (Would he even know what one looks like? Does he know the requirements for AWOL/UA? I know Moore doesn't.)

Yes, the moral high ground belongs to the Democrats! Chappaquiddick and Deanlings for [insert popular Democratic theme of the day here] unite!

[RaccaFracca]

Don't forget about Al claiming...no screaming in the microphone that Bush misled and BETRAYED the American people.

This is what I don't get...what exactly did Clarke do during all those years with Bush #1, Clinton and Bush #2 that would have prevented 9/11. According to his own testimony..nothing.

He complained to the panel that none of his ideas and suggestions were implemented. But then immediately following was asked if they were implemented if they would have prevented 9/11.

His answer....."NO"!!!!!

Wha.....Wha......WHAT????

You have GOT to be kidding me! No?

Take a look at this interview with Clarke in Feburary of 2001 (pre-9/11). His attention was not to what eventually happened on that day. His priority was to cyber-security.

When asked if he is OVERSTATING the possiblity of an "electronic Pearl Harbor", he states he believes he is UNDERSTATING the possibility and that "the really major terrorist groups like Osama bin Laden's, Hamas and Hezbollah don't seem to be developing really sophisticated cybertools-yet. The people I worry about are at the low end of the spectrum. Crackers doing it for fun, organized criminal groups that do it for extortion..."

This guy is pathetic. To see him shaking the hands and hugging the family members of the victims of 9/11 makes my stomach turn. He should be the one on trial, not Bush.

[RaccaFracca]

Sorry, here is the link to the article I mention above.

www.thiemeworks.com/write/archives/cybersecurityczar.htm

[curious]

Tex, we're basically having one discussion on two different threads at the moment, which gets a little confusing.

I also don't want to hijack Liberty's basic thrtead here by engaging in my own shooting the messenger, in this case Insight magazine and its owner.

So I won't go into the vast right-wing conspiracy nor the vast left-wing conspiracy here. It's worth a seperate discussion.

I will just make this point (forgetting which thread you said this). You cite your own experiences and those of people you know on the front lines to diuspute what Clarke says. You're in a better position to know that.

But I have heard of many other people in that loop who say some variation of the same things Clarke did. And Clarke is not the only one who believes the way he does.....If he were just some lone complainer, it'd be one thing to dismiss him as a lone malcontent. But he's not.

It is perfectly legitimate to say Clarke is wrong because the facts are x,y or z. Obviously no one who makes the kind of claims Clarke made should be taken at face value. That deserves to be debated (argued) vigorously.

But nonsense like dredging up his political contributions to a couple of Democratic congressmen, or casting aspersions on him because he wrote a book or dragging his entire career through the mud to discredit him personally is a whole different matter.

It changes the subject, and ultimately hurts the ability to know the truth in an objective sense, whether favorable or unfavorable to any particular party.

[Mr. Ray]

Yet another story you won't see on CBS!
It appears that his lies are starting to snowball!

"...I failed you." -Richard Clarke, March 24, 2004

[curious]

Originally posted by RaccaFracca:
Sorry, here is the link to the article I mention above.

www.thiemeworks.com/write/archives/cybersecurityczar.htm

And how does this contradict anything he has said?

He has not said recently that the possibility of cyberterrorismn is not a problem he was concerned with. He said it is still a threat in his opinion.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether he also felt a sense of equal urgency about otehr aspects of security and the WOT.

You're grasping at straws here to demonize this guy.