C-SPAN now - Richard Clarke's book: politically motivated?

[chimpymustgo]

Already spinning.

[59millionmorons]

1. Might work

If it wasn't a fact that he was a registered republican in 2000(CNN). If he didn't start out in the Reagan administration. I smell desperation.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I don't see the political motivation.

Except to clear one's conscience with the truth. These old government types do have a higher calling. Not like the new breed that jump from the business to the government sector in order to spark their stock portfolios.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Reading NYT story (by Judith Miller) on air. Still damning.

first caller - oh yeah, it's politically motivated.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Someone needs to ask them WHERE exactly is the political

motivation? This man served under more Republican presidents than Democratic. His information always pointed to Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration has vindicated him by saying that they stopped listening to him, almost from the beginning. That was their choice. If they dismissed him because of the USS Cole, then how are we to respond to the Bush Administration for making choices that led to 9/11?

If this is politically motivated, then what can you say about people like Scalia that are so entrenched in the process?

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. but the next administration will be dem!

basicly, i wish we could get someone to speak up who didn't have a book to sell. the profit motive blunts the message.

[nostamj]

13. Paul O'Neill didn't make $ on "The Price of Loyalty"

FWIW.

but... I agree that having a book to sell gives the repubs ammo they don't deserve.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. What better way to let the mainstream have the information, but writing

a book? I don't have a problem with people who write a book, because they at least put all the cards on the table. It's better than politicians who pass bills in Congress and then sneak away to some cushy private sector job in a corporation that they benefitted with their political votes.

[bearfartinthewoods]

16. why didn't he speak up sooner?

why did he sit on all this stuff during the build up? sorry, i have no respect for people who hold onto info like this until after the ink dries on the book contract.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Maybe he did, but no one listened?

Where was he going to go? Until Spain decided to withdraw from the coalition, when did the American media ever take this kind of thing seriously? Look what happened to DiIulio, look what happened to O'Neil. They were the early voices and the media skewered them.

And not to mention, that Karl Rove and the Republican party are known for punishing those who step out of line. Clarke was biding his time. Maybe he was worried about far more important things than a book signing?

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. well maybe oneil would have been viewed as more credible

if clark had backed him up at the time? and if i remember,, wasn't clark interviewed for a previous book? i don't remember those details coming out then. maybe he wouldn't have been a media darling but he would have been on the record and it would have been a record untainted by profit motive.

[Kimber Scott]

20. He did speak up when he resigned.

I remember reading his resignation letter. If anyone can find it, it would be nice to get it circulating again. Someone else is speaking up who doesn't have a book and that is Karen Kwiatkowski. At least, I don't think she has a book. Nobody seems to be listening to her. So, maybe you need a book just to get some attention? I don't know, but somebody needs to get O'Neil, Kwiatkowski and Clarke all in the same room. Let's finally get the spotlight on this mess.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Good point. The media is covering this issue because there's a book

about to be published. If it weren't for the publication, I doubt they would have given the information any air time at all.

[jrthin]

15. Ms. Miller is still around?

Wow. I guess the NYT needs her around to write more bogus stories.

[Mel]

3. did you catch who's article he read from

Judith Millers and her reporting was lame she left out key information in her article.

Better reporting here.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1079824207491&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Bush doing 'terrible job on war:' Clarke

WASHINGTON (AP) — Richard Clarke, former White House counter-terrorism co-ordinator, has accused the U.S. administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaeda threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and then manipulating Americans into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.

He accused Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism." </snip>

[chimpymustgo]

5. Reading Condi's plea in WP: would have been irresponsible

NOT to look at Iraq.

Next caller calls Clarke a true patriot. Served under Presidents since Reagan. The man has come up with something this White House will be hard pressed to defend.

[Mel]

6. true about Condi's plea

she should just stop digging, ya know?
I just wanted to post a more detailed report in case anyone out there hasn't read the story.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Of course it would have been irresponsible

Unfortunately they looked almost nowhere else - and saw what they WANTED to see, not what was there!

[prodigal_green]

7. A priori

Heres the thing--this misAdministration starts every action by looking at the political consequences before looking at human/economic/moral consequences of their actions and they assume everyone else does too.

Perhaps Clarke is politically motivated...NOW. He saw a huge problem, probably had to struggle with his own party loyalty (Republican) for a bit, but finally came to the conclusion that this misAdministrations culpability for 9/11 was bigger than politics. Now he has done his moral duty and told the truth.

It's kind of like when people say journalists and academics are liberal. Perhaps they are that way because they see more of the world and study more how the world works and the only logical conclusions fall to the left of current American policy.

[Sparkly]

10. Wrong Question!

The question should be: Is it TRUE? And it is.

I don't understand why talking heads are acting as though this is something they've never heard before. In the summer of 2001 my husband and I ranted frequently that the administration was ignoring terrorism and returning to Star Wars with talk of "ICBMs from rogue nations." Tom Daschle made a speech in August 2001 about misguided use of defense funds, urging that terrorism was the threat, not ICBMs. Even Al Franken discusses Richard Clarke's efforts to get the administration's attention regarding terrorism in "Lying Liars."

The push for Iraq was documented with Rumsfeld's meeting notes where he'd written "S.H." and was already discussed in the news last year. Wes Clark has spoken over and over again of hearing from Pentagon sources about the zeal to go into Iraq from the start, and the decision to use 9/11 as a rationale.

So, why are the talking heads (and idiot phone-callers) screaming about the timing and "political motivation?" Should the 9/11 investigation be called off until after November? Sheeeesh. I just don't get it.

[kodi]

12. if jesus himself said what clarke did the GOP would still say "poltics"

as clarke says about bush, "outrageous" in describing the assault on clarke's integrity by the busheviks.

[OKNancy]

18. Want a good read?

a bit of a flashback here. I just don't get it. How people can be so dumb about the lack of connection between Saddam and bin Laden and how they hated each other. I've known that for years. I remember reading about it after Gulf One, and when the Taliban blew up the Buddist statues in Afghanistan.

Anyway, here is something I re-read this morning.
Check out the whole article. It was written one year ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,919618,00.html


Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap.
There was always a risk for Bin Laden that worldwide sympathy for the US might thwart his long-term aim of holy war against the Great Satan. He needn't have worried. With the Bush junta at the helm, a camel could have foreseen the outcome. And the beauty is that it doesn't matter what happens in the war.

Imagine how it looks from Bin Laden's warped point of view...