Richard Clarke - Against All Enemies

What is ludicrous is that just become some one cries "perjury" people are stupid enough to think that perjury even happened, or was even possible from his comments.

Here is an example of someone caught in perjury.

Prosecutor to defendant: "You said you had never been at the apartment of the victim."

Defendant: "Yes, I have never been at the apartment of the victim."

Prosecutor: "They how do you explain these security photos of you entering and leaving the apartment of the victim, how do you explain your fingerprints all over the apartment of the victim, and how do you explain that your DNA was found in the apartment of the victim?"

In Clarke's case, he could have thought the administration was doing a good job at the time, and now thinks the administration did a bad job.

It is called forming an opinion, which is subject to change.

Even if he did change his opinion for purely vindictive reasons, or he did change his opinions for partisan reasons, that doesn't mean he is lying now, or lying then.

No, as he is only offering up his opinion. Opinions aren't facts, aren't true or false, just opinions.

What the Republicrats are doing is trying to minimize the FACTS by attacking the man and his opinions, as the facts are what matters, not Clarke's opinion.

If you can't attack the facts, attack the man who presents them.


Quote from waggie945:

The reason that I brought Condoleezza Rice into my discussion is because it went to the credibility of Richard Clarke, who you have already stated "is a liar . . . and it has been proven."

Hardly.

This is absolutely absurd especially given the fact that these documents have yet to be "declassified" AND as ArogueTrader has pointed out, Bill Frist's statement concerning Clarke is simply voicing an opinion, and not fact. You've got a lot to learn if you think that IT has "already been proven."

As for George Tenet, you failed to answer my question . . .

Unless the way that you answer a question about the Bush Administration ( of which Tenet is a part of ) is to simply throw it back to Bill Clinton and his administration, which I have already pointed out is a distinct and highly typical tendency of yours. If you think that George Tenet is a Clinton "flunkie" then why hasn't Bush fired him? Tenet dropped the ball on 911, he dropped the ball on the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and once again on the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and yet Bush hasn't dismissed him. Why is that?

Again, you still haven't answered that specific question.
More...
 
Quote from cuz:

Sorry partner I can't provide you with physical proof but it was on FoxTv,
but I guess you can request the minutes from the Senate Committee.....................LOL
More...

"FoxTv" ... that's all you need to know to realize it's bullshit.

m
 
For what it's worth:

Bill Clinton was obsessed with Osama bin Laden.
Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden's assassination.
George Tenet now says that the CIA was unclear of President Clinton's wishes/order.

Richard Clarke also criticizes the Clinton Administration in his book, but of course we don't hear this from the liberal media.

For example, Clarke states that the Clinton Administration failed to bomb the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where hundreds and thousands of terrorists were being trained, and then sent out all over the world to do their evil deeds. The Clinton Administration only bombed the camps in Afghanistan once and then never bombed them again because they were taking on criticism and negative public opinion that the only reason Clinton was bombing Afghanistan was to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

For what it's worth, Richard Clarke also says that George Bush, Sr. gets the highest marks for managing our country's national security out of the four President's that he served.
 
Quote from waggie945:

For what it's worth:

Bill Clinton was obsessed with Osama bin Laden.
Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden's assassination.
George Tenet now says that the CIA was unclear of President Clinton's wishes/order.

Richard Clarke also criticizes the Clinton Administration in his book, but of course we don't hear this from the liberal media.

For example, Clarke states that the Clinton Administration failed to bomb the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where hundreds and thousands of terrorists were being trained, and then sent out all over the world to do their evil deeds. The Clinton Administration only bombed the camps in Afghanistan once and then never bombed them again because they were taking on criticism and negative public opinion that the only reason Clinton was bombing Afghanistan was to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

For what it's worth, Richard Clarke also says that George Bush, Sr. gets the highest marks for managing our country's national security out of the four President's that he served.
More...
Only thanks to Monica, Clinton took a few terrorists out; for the wrong reason.
 
For those of you that believe that George Bush was focused on terrorism and Osama bin Laden in the beginning of his administration, one only has to read Bush's own words in Bob Woodward's book, "Bush at War" in which President Bush acknowledges that bin Laden was not his focus and that there was no sense of urgency conerning Osama bin Laden.

Read the book and you will see this stated in Bush's own words.

Moreover, if anyone actually remembers the first 8 months of the Bush Administration, the only talk about National Security involved a National Missile Defense System. For 8 months, this is all that was talked about. In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell came back from a trip from Afghanistan and pounded the table for more troops there. Yet, he got shot down by Rumsfeld and the Defense Department because they didn't want to divert any military resources away from their obsession with Iraq and the violations of no-fly zones, etc.
 
Nice try buddy, but your logic is totally convoluted.

Due to the movie "Wag The Dog" Clinton was politically weak and could not afford to attack the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Had he not bowed to public sentiment and the politics of the Lewinsky scandal he might have exterminated thousands of terrorists whose only goal is to kill Americans.
 
It is a fact that the CIA knew, and later the FBI knew that 2 suspected al-Quida operatives ( who later became 2 of the hijackers ) were inside the Country prior to 911. The CIA had tracked these 2 individuals coming into the Country in early 2000, yet this was never relayed to the FBI or even Richard Clarke for that matter who was the head of terrorism under National Security. An FBI "bulletin" finally was released by FBI Agent Williams out of Phoenix, Arizona regarding all of these Arab men taking flight school lessons in the Summer of 2001. But since there was no sense of urgency regarding terrorism, unlike the period of time when our Country was bracing itself around the Millenium and had daily national security meetings regarding terrorism, Agent Williams was never able to obtain approval at the top of the FBI to make these Arab men in flight schools a priority.

The "Firewall" and turf-war between the CIA and the FBI obviously failed us. This and a lack of a sense of "urgency" regarding terrorism failed our Country and allowed another "Pearl Harbor" to occur. Remember, the first 8 months of the Bush Administration involved talk after talk after talk about a National Missile Defense System.
 
Me, speaking completely hypothetically:
>Well, perhaps they know they CAN'T get
>it declassified and thus it is a FREE PASS
>to say he was lying.

>There are lots of reasons in the game
>called Washington.


Max:
>Please... And have it come back and haunt
>them at some unknown time? Give me a break.

Cuz:
JB ........you honestly think that the media and the
Dems would not exploit this in the future if the
Reps were wrong. Like in a future election.
I mean they dredge things up from 30 years ago
for political propaganda

Max and Cuz. Your own logic fails here -- you seem to imply that if someone thinks there is a chance they might get caught "in the future" or "some unknown time" that they won't try to pull some stunt or twist a truth or two. Ok, according to that logic then Clarke must be telling the truth. Why would he lie (especially under oath) if there is a chance at some "unknown time in the future" it might "come back to haunt" him?

The only way your logic works is though a completely partisan filter which says "my party guys don't ever lie and their party guys do". Those of us that don't apply a partisan filter find that position laughable.

The answer of course is that "unknown time future haunting" doesn't stop most in washington (or elsewhere for that matter) from steaming full lie ahead, damn the torpedos.

If it is "proven" that Clarke lied...prove it.

JB
 
There was no "imminent" threat by Iraq.

Unless you call some aluminum tubes that the Department of Energy laughed at as a threat, or forged reports about the small African country of Niger and uranium a threat, or the British Intelligence "dossier" that was plagiarized by a graduate student on Iraq, circa 1991 that Secretary of State Colin Powell held up so proudly at his speech in front of the UN on February 5th, 2003.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top