|
RICHARD CLARKE on Charlie Rose tonight
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
Tommorow's show looks even more interesting. A look from the neo-con perspective on Richard Clarke:
TUESDAY, March 23, 2004
A DISCUSSION ABOUT RICHARD CLARKE’S NEW BOOK with
RICHARD PERLE
American Enterprise Insititute
Co-Author, "An End to Evil"
Richard is my hero
 ;) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Eh, wasn't impressed with Richard Clarke.
Though I have to admit, he seems to be the first person I've met that is apparently strong against Al Qaeda, yet opposed the war on Iraq.
I hope you guys understand what I mean by this. Altough many 'lefties' are strong against Al Q they never argue to use as much force against them as the 'rightwingers' do.
It sort of makes me question his authenticity. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Eh, wasn't impressed with Richard Clarke.
Though I have to admit, he seems to be the first person I've met that is apparently strong against Al Qaeda, yet opposed the war on Iraq.
I hope you guys understand what I mean by this. Altough many 'lefties' are strong against Al Q they never argue to use as much force against them as the 'rightwingers' do.
It sort of makes me question his authenticity. |
I'm strong against Al. Q yet against the war in Iraq ... dunno if I'm a "lefty" though .... damned socialists. :) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm strong against Al. Q yet against the war in Iraq ... dunno if I'm a "lefty" though .... damned socialists. :) |
Your not a lefty... u didn't work for Clinton!:D |
|
|
| surferfb |
| Clarke isn't a lefty, he is a registered republican and worked for reagan and bush 41. He just saw that the war on iraq wasn't making us safer, doesn't make him a lefty :rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by surferfb
Clarke isn't a lefty, he is a registered republican and worked for reagan and bush 41. He just saw that the war on iraq wasn't making us safer, doesn't make him a lefty :rolleyes: |
Well just to get everything out in the open, he also worked for Clinton during his term in office. However, he was a very strong anti-terroists proponent and was an advocate for the cruise missile strikes against Sudan during that time period. Furthermore, he was also an advocate for Israel by turning a blind eye towards Israeli weapons sales to China during the Regean administration. Hehe indeed ... he is a difficult man to attack when taking into account his very mixed past history. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well just to get everything out in the open, he also worked for Clinton during his term in office. However, he was a very strong anti-terroists proponent and was an advocate for the cruise missile strikes against Sudan during that time period. Furthermore, he was also an advocate for Israel by turning a blind eye towards Israeli weapons sales to China during the Regean administration. Hehe indeed ... he is a difficult man to attack when taking into account his very mixed past history. |
Hehe, only here would I be able to get the gist of these political figures summed up so neatly. This forum always saves my lazy ass a lot of work. For that I'm grateful :D
...now back two twiddle my thumbs here at work... |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well just to get everything out in the open, he also worked for Clinton during his term in office. However, he was a very strong anti-terroists proponent and was an advocate for the cruise missile strikes against Sudan during that time period. Furthermore, he was also an advocate for Israel by turning a blind eye towards Israeli weapons sales to China during the Regean administration. Hehe indeed ... he is a difficult man to attack when taking into account his very mixed past history. |
It's interesting to say the least. The Republicans are going to have to employ a different strategy to discredit Clarke in my opinion, as I don't think the usual 'leftist lies', or simply connecting it with the Democrats isn't going to be as effective. Right wing condemnation of the war is more damaging than left wing condemnation, as it breaks from the norm. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
It's interesting to say the least. The Republicans are going to have to employ a different strategy to discredit Clarke in my opinion, as I don't think the usual 'leftist lies', or simply connecting it with the Democrats isn't going to be as effective. Right wing condemnation of the war is more damaging than left wing condemnation, as it breaks from the norm. |
Yea, but I think it will also prove that he's a sell out.
I mean, I think Clark molded his views on Iraq because of the election. I recall quiet nicely how he went on CNN and other networks as a military corrospondent and said Iraq must be attacked, they pose a threat, and that something should be done sooner than later.
Then post Iraq, things get a little messy (nothing that a Vietnam vet should think is messy by any means mind you) and he goes 180.
I don't know.. makes me doubt these guys. I don't like my politicans when they change their views so quick, and try and play it like this was always their view.
I have no problem with view changing, but don't deny what you believed and why you believed it... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
And just to set the record straight, Clark stated last night in an interview with that guy on PBS (sorry, his name escapes me ATM) that he is not going to be a part of Kerry's staff, should Kerry get elected.
So I think the conservatives need to leave that attack alone which attempts to tie him to a future political staff motivation. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
I don't think there's a single person (or very few on the extreme fringes) who after Sept 11th would not advocate taking a brutal and strong stand against Al Qaeda. You can’t negotiate with those fanatics. Personally, after I saw Colin Powell give that speech at the UN, it initially convinced me that Iraq might have needed to be invaded. Now of course we know that Powell's moderate advice was not even listened to for the most part.
It's hard for me to believe that such a respected man as Powell would whore himself out in such a manner, and I don't want to believe it.
It's going to take more investigation however to reveal the truth, but it seems more truth comes out every day.
I was an idiot for trusting those guys, and there is no question the US media was complicit in convincing so many that Saddam and September 11th were linked. Even if you disagree with him on some domestic issues, you still would like to be able to trust the leader of your country (especially after a terror attack).
I do hope for the sake of the world's safety, that those disparate Iraqi groups can indeed live together. If not we may have turned Iraq into another breeding ground for world terror on an even greater scale than Afghanistan. I do also hope for the sake of world safety that the Israelis and Pals. can learn to live together. I do not believe that there would have been a Sept 11th, or at least it would have been less likely, if there had been peace in the Middle East at the time.
Fox News and Limbaugh are already trying their best to discredit Clarke as a democratic operative etc etc. Key Bush Admin officials including Condi Rice also recently met with Rupert Murdoch in Mexico, presumably to discuss how they are going to whitewash the Clark allegations through the media.
The one legit criticism is the question of why he waited so long to bring these allegations to light. His answer is that the White House had to actually preview his book before he could release it. I don't really know if that cuts the mustard, but when he testifies hopefully it will be cleared up. Also, let's hope the other 4 eyewitnesses he pointed out will be subpoenaed.
As Occrider said though, it's going to be hard for them to discredit him since Clarke is such a respected (Republican) statesman in Washington.
I'm pissed I missed the Charlie Rose interview, but I had already seen the 60 Minutes interview anyways.
The September 11th commission is convening right now on C Span 1.
http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.a...30&ShowVidDesc=
Clarke will be on later.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Tommorow's show looks even more interesting. A look from the neo-con perspective on Richard Clarke:
TUESDAY, March 23, 2004
A DISCUSSION ABOUT RICHARD CLARKE’S NEW BOOK with
RICHARD PERLE
American Enterprise Insititute
Co-Author, "An End to Evil"
Richard is my hero
;) |
Perele used to be a Democrat, which is interesting.
He makes a fool of himself every time I see him on TV however, and so does Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Cheney is by far the best liar of the bunch though. He's quite amazing to see in action, but you can only spin a web of lies so long before it begins to become unraveled. In fact I can think of no greater definition of high crimes and misdemeanors than taking advantage of those patriotic feelings of the people after Sept 11th, and exploiting them in such a manner.
I do personally think that it should bother everyone regardless of their own personal political bent that so many high ranking Republican administration officials have quit to speak out against the alleged ineptitude of the administration. |
|
|
|
|
