Richard Clarke says Bush "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism"

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

I love to watch you all backpedal!

Here we have a top terrorism advisor who worked alongside Bush basically saying exactly what I've been saying all along: No connection between Hussein and Al Queda. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had been plotting to invade Iraq for years before 9/11.

But, even when someone who worked with Bush says the same thing(He obviously knows a LOT MORE THAN YOU DO, ya think?), you still stand up for little Georgie and stick your heads in the sand.

Wake up folks. You CAN be wrong. The truth will set you free, but first it wi!ll p!ss you off.

Please, could one of you conservatives explain how you know more than this guy? Lol.

"Please, could one of you conservatives explain how you know more than this guy? Lol."

Sure... As soon as you explain how he could not get clinton to act on UBL for 8 years. As soon as you explain why Sadam should get off scott free for the act of terror that Clark admits he comitted agianst the US 8 years earlier.

I cant wait to hear this one.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I'm pretty conversant with most of the major rhetorical fallacies, and I'm at a loss to see which one RiggoDrill is employing that hasn't been employed by many posters on this thread.

Claim: x

Attacks:

(1) x is false because the person who said x is a Democrat. (Ad hominem)

(2) x is false because the person who said x has written a book about x. (Ad hominem & non sequitur; you decide)

(3) x is false because a large corporation will generate a lot of publicity by revealing x (Non sequitur)

RiggoDrill's defense:

(a) {Employing ad hominem to attack Clarke is OK} -> {Ad hominem arguments are OK}

( {Ad hominem arguments are OK} -> {I can question the credibility and motivation of an article's writer}

© No one posting on this thread is a hypocrite

Given ©, we need only refer to attack (1) above to note that (a) obtains. Because (a) obtains, ( obtains. Thus RiggoDrill is justified in his argument.

[DeathByLinebacker]

Bush's numbers are going to go into the toilet after 60 Minutes tonight. Clarke came off as very believable.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Recap, DBL?

[Destino]

If you guys are going to debate the article at least try to get it right. I keep hearing this "no credibility" and "sour grapes/axe to grind" thing.

The guy claims he brought up al qaeda BEFORE 9/11 and that this admin told them they didn't want to hear it. Now if you want to call a guy that worked for every Pres since Reagan a liar then do it. Don't be a sissy and attack the man or pretend he's bitter because intel warnings aren't the number 1 issue at the moment.

[Tarhog]

Look Destino...if the 'administration' reacted to every 'warning' or 'possibility' it received it would have time to do nothing else. I've heard voluminous complaints about the 'terror warning' system currently in place and how it creates stress on the public and offers little in the way of preventitive advice. I get sick of this blame game. Any honest person knows damn well its not GWB's fault that 3,000 people died on 9/11. You damn well know it.

I have no personal knowledge of Clarke. He may be right, honest, sincere. It doesn't change anything. No one KNEW what was coming on 9/11, and those that were responsible for the safety of the American citizenry, from Bill Clinton to GWB, did the best they could to keep these kinds of attacks from happening. As for what transpired after the attacks, again, I keep asking (and getting no response), whats the point of Clarkes assertions if the Bush Administration ultimately went after Al Qaeda as he himself felt was the appropriate course of action?

Whether or not the eventual war on Iraq was based on a 'grudge' is a legitimate issue, but as far as 9/11 goes, I just don't know how anyone could have expected Bush to have done any more than he did.

[Fred Jones]

Reference 60 Minutes,

I want to add that the Deputy Director from the NSA the Administration brought to refute Clark looked like a fool. Especially when Leslie called him on a meeting Clark claimed occurred and the guy said never happened. Leslie retorted with independent witnesses confirming Clark. The Deputy Director also offered no real direct evidence to refute Clark other than the same old rhetoric.

I kind of dismissed O'neal when he critisized the administration. Mr. Clark, however, brought me out of the fog and into the light.

[Mad Mike]

Would someone please address this...

And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!

That is Clark admitting that Iraq did in fact attack us. 8 YEARS!!!? Why the hell did it take 8 fcking years to make them pay? THATS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW!

Debate over. End of discussion. The man admits Iraq attacked us and Clinton did nothing. He admits that Iraq is GUILTY of attacking us. If another nation attacking us is not just cause for war WHAT IS? The only remaining question is why did it take so long.

[Ghost of]

Odd

Clarke doesn't say a thing for how many years until his book comes out?

More critically, Mike is right.

But what people NEVER pay attention to, are Iraqi links to WTC 93.

Hell, the fact that Saddam harbored Abu Nidal, gave money to terrorists, helped train terrorists and harbored a man responsible for WTC 93 makes him a legit target for war.

That and all his abrogations of the Desert Storm cease-fire.

[Fred Jones]

I agree with Taghog that both administrations are to blame for 9/11 and even that’s unfair. I personally don’t think it could have been prevented. In fact, that is the only thing I disagreed with Clark about.

What gets me is this:

It appears blatantly obvious that the administration wanted to remove Saddam from the day they took office. Bush went to Iraq for really no good reason. Iraq “The center of terrorist in the world” was a big lie. It didn’t occur to me until Clark pointed it out, but by invading Iraq we have strengthened their cause, not weakened it. Iraq didn’t have terrorists until after the U.S. got there.

From day one the administration has criticized everything and anything the Clinton administration did. The RWC (right wing conservatives) blamed Clinton for everything from the way they handled the Middle East, Israel, to claiming Clinton didn’t do enough to stop Osama. Now it’s revealed the administration is just a bunch of hypocrites.

And on a side note, Bush didn’t even want a Department of Homeland Security at the beginning. He just grudgingly went along with it.

[Fred Jones]

Madd,

Clark did address that subject. The US bombed some intel buildings and issued warning through diplomatic channels that they would remove the existing government if any further attacks occurred. Well, as Clark said, there hasn’t been an attack in 8 years.

[Mad Mike]

But what people NEVER pay attention to, are Iraqi links to WTC 93.

Ding, ding, ding!

I think that is what he is refering to. We also know now that AQ had a hand as well. Sounds like cooperation to me. And if I were president I would damned well want a long hard look at it as well. That's called doing your job.

[Mad Mike]

The US bombed some intel buildings and issued warning through diplomatic channels that they would remove the existing government if any further attacks occurred.

WHAT !!!!! They Iraqis BOMBED the finacial center of the United States and they bombed some fcking intel buildings and issued a warning in response?!!!!!!! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHTING ME!!!!!!!!!

That's not a response. That's asking to be attacked again. It's fcking outrageous.

[Fred Jones]

Noooo,

The last terrorist incident by Iraq was the assasination attempt on former President Bush 8 or so years ago. Your talking 1993 World Trade center bombing that was AQ. Iraq was not involved.

[Ghost of]

FJ

There's evidence that you are being too rigid in that position.

[Fred Jones]

Ghost,

I guess I am just tired of all the hypocracy

[Ancalagon the Black]

WHAT !!!!! They Iraqis BOMBED the finacial center of the United States and they bombed some fcking intel buildings and issued a warning in response?!!!!!!! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHTING ME!!!!!!!!!

2004-8=1996. Not '93. He isn't referring to WTC 1.

[Mad Mike]

U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

U.S.: Iraq May Have Helped 1993 WTC Bomber After Attack

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98373,00.html

The Al Qaeda Connection, cont.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/889jldct.asp

Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.''

[Fred Jones]

First of all some quotes from the articles

“Cheney had said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that "we don't know" if Iraq was involved but said some suggestive evidence had surfaced.”

“The Bush administration has often tried to rhetorically link Al Qaeda with Iraq, particularly as it made its case to invade the country. President Bush, though, said last week there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 2001 attacks.”

“The second description was clearly hostile in tone--"henchmen of the regime" and "woe unto them." Analysts weren't sure what to make of the introduction or the list, but suggested Uday Hussein may have simply republished a list of "henchmen" distributed by an Iraqi opposition group without realizing he was publicly linking his father to Osama bin Laden.”

And lastly, from the VP,

"Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93?" Cheney said. "We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did in fact receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact."

These were all published in July or August of last year. Do you have anything more current?

Hopefully, the Sept 11 commission report, due out later this year, will provide more accurate information.

[kameuh]

Not sure how to quote but Tarhog said "much ado about nothing"

That quote pretty much sums up all broadcast media anymore. Some non story is made into a story with both sides overhyping its appeal.

Right- "I cannot believe this I'm Livid! That hairstyle went out in the eightys and new public circus a victim 1 should be executed!!"

Left- "I cannot believe this, I'm Outraged! That hairstyle went out in the sixtys. We need a new tax to supplement government created hairstyle locations where the underprivlidged can receive free modern hairstyles!"

Rational People the world over- This is freaking ignorant, but whatever.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

2004-8=1996. Not '93. He isn't referring to WTC 1.

On further review you may be right. I seem to remember having the same reaction to the assasination attempt response. In that case we should have bombed whatever palace we thought Sadam was in at the time and if we were not sure, bomb them all.

However. I still believe that Bush was doing his job when he told Clark to look for the link. And I still believe that the link exists.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I'm pretty conversant with most of the major rhetorical fallacies, and I'm at a loss to see which one RiggoDrill is employing that hasn't been employed by many posters on this thread.

Claim: x

Attacks:

(1) x is false because the person who said x is a Democrat. (Ad hominem)

(2) x is false because the person who said x has written a book about x. (Ad hominem & non sequitur; you decide)

(3) x is false because a large corporation will generate a lot of publicity by revealing x (Non sequitur)

RiggoDrill's defense:

(a) {Employing ad hominem to attack Clarke is OK} -> {Ad hominem arguments are OK}

( {Ad hominem arguments are OK} -> {I can question the credibility and motivation of an article's writer}

© No one posting on this thread is a hypocrite

Given ©, we need only refer to attack (1) above to note that (a) obtains. Because (a) obtains, ( obtains. Thus RiggoDrill is justified in his argument.

:no:

Sorry, AtB. Wrong again. Not even in the same ballpark. But since you have decided to become so presumptous, I'll let you figure it out on your own.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

U.S.: Iraq May Have Helped 1993 WTC Bomber After Attack

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98373,00.html

The Al Qaeda Connection, cont.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/889jldct.asp

MM -

You have to understand that liberals are prone to frequent bouts of "selective amnesia". It's typical, really.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by OaktonSkins/BushFan

Sorry, AtB. Wrong again. Not even in the same ballpark. But since you have decided to become so presumptous, I'll let you figure it out on your own.

I plead ignorance. Enlighten me?

[Soliloquy]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

2004-8=1996. Not '93. He isn't referring to WTC 1.

Read it again. He said this in 2001.

2001-8=1993.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."