Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you're going to demand that people say things that aren't self-serving, that's a pretty high standard. Just about Bush says is self-serving, and it doesn't seem to bother you.

What I am demanding is that we as a nation take a long and hard look at someone who is willing to point figures in connection with the biggest catastrophe in our history, and one that will have ramifications for probably the next half-century. What I find both particularly disturbing and curious is that he says the Clinton Adminstration "got it" while at the same time did nothing when the world trade center was bombed, 2 embassies were bombed. the Cole was bombed, and the LA airport was attempted to be blown up. This is NOT a dig at the Clintons. It is a dig at Clarke, because I can't see how he could come to that conclusion given those events.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, he said Rumself was inattentive during the meeting, or something like that. Interesting that you just accept the proposition that Rumsfeld wasn't there, as if Clarke must be wrong in a "he-said/she-said" situation.

I accept it because the WH keeps logs for these kinds of things, and the reports I've read are that there is no record of him being there.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop More importantly, so what? Who cares whether Rumsfeld was or wasn't at a specific meeting? It's clear from the book that Clarke wasn't keeping notes all along a la Dean Acheson or someone like that. He wasn't planning to write a memoir, and the book isn't as detailed as other memoirs. But that hardly detracts from the important points about (1) counterterrorism before 9/11 and (2) Iraq.

Again, it's important because it goes to his crediblity. There are some things he has said that I find credible, such as the Administration underestimated the threat. This is obviously true, but it was also true for the Clinton Administration and the rest of the country. 9/11 was the wake up call, and I do not really fault either the Clintons or the Bushies for 9/11, because I don't think it could have been prevented by either. What I don't find credible is his emphasis that Iraq caused us to drop the ball on Al Qaeda. What more could we have done once they retreated to the Paki border? We have just recently gotten the Pakis to be more willing to help us out, but that has taken time and negotiation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The way I saw this, it was reported as if she hadn't heard of Osama bin Laden. The book makes it clear that she knew who bin Laden was, but maybe not Al Qaida. I've seen Clarke "refuted" by someone who pointed out that she knew who OBL was, but this isn't the point. If there's a speech where she knew about Al Qaeda, I'd like to see it, because I haven't yet (not that I've been looking).

Ty, what did she know about bin ladin, if not the fact of aq. "I knew of adolph hitler- painter right?" Its an absurdity, and frankly offensive that anyone would push this.

I will now omit a statement you would find offensive, but drop the Condi is ignorant schtick.

PS: I note an appalling reduction is this board's attention to correct spelling- do not let this be my legacy- please take the time to proof.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I am demanding is that we as a nation take a long and hard look at someone who is willing to point figures in connection with the biggest catastrophe in our history, and one that will have ramifications for probably the next half-century. What I find both particularly disturbing and curious is that he says the Clinton Adminstration "got it" while at the same time did nothing when the world trade center was bombed, 2 embassies were bombed. the Cole was bombed, and the LA airport was attempted to be blown up. This is NOT a dig at the Clintons. It is a dig at Clarke, because I can't see how he could come to that conclusion given those events.

If you read his book, you'll see that he describes at great length what the Clinton Administration did in response to those things. It wasn't nothing.

I accept it because the WH keeps logs for these kinds of things, and the reports I've read are that there is no record of him being there.

Again, I've seen someone's say-so, but nothing about logs. And again, if so, so what?

Again, it's important because it goes to his crediblity. There are some things he has said that I find credible, such as the Administration underestimated the threat. This is obviously true, but it was also true for the Clinton Administration and the rest of the country. 9/11 was the wake up call, and I do not really fault either the Clintons or the Bushies for 9/11, because I don't think it could have been prevented by either. What I don't find credible is his emphasis that Iraq caused us to drop the ball on Al Qaeda. What more could we have done once they retreated to the Paki border? We have just recently gotten the Pakis to be more willing to help us out, but that has taken time and negotiation.

On Clinton, see above. They were on the ball.

On Iraq, the book is pretty comprehensive on this. Take a look. It might change your mind. It's both a question of resources to pursue AQ, and a question of whether invading Iraq strengthens AQ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, what did she know about bin ladin, if not the fact of aq. "I knew of adolph hitler- painter right?" Its an absurdity, and frankly offensive that anyone would push this.

I will now omit a statement you would find offensive, but drop the Condi is ignorant schtick.

PS: I note an appalling reduction is this board's attention to correct spelling- do not let this be my legacy- please take the time to proof.

You don't seem to remember those innocent days before 9/11/01 when we weren't all talking about Al Qaeda. If you or someone else wants to prove to me that Condi was talking about AQ before 9/11, please do.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You don't seem to remember those innocent days before 9/11/01 when we weren't all talking about Al Qaeda. If you or someone else wants to prove to me that Condi was talking about AQ before 9/11, please do.

let me focus my last post,

how does she know about obl, but not aq? what does she know about obl if not aq?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
let me focus my last post,

how does she know about obl, but not aq? what does she know about obl if not aq?

OBL got some play. AQ, not so much.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OBL got some play. AQ, not so much.

So what. When someone knows about OBL, what is it that they know about him? Is he just a rich guy's son? Is that why people know about OBL? Or did they know about OBL because he was the fucking leader of AQ - a terrorist organization hell bent on destroying the west?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
So what. When someone knows about OBL, what is it that they know about him? Is he just a rich guy's son? Is that why people know about OBL? Or did they know about OBL because he was the fucking leader of AQ - a terrorist organization hell bent on destroying the west?

You're right: Who cares if the National Security Advisor had ever heard of Al Qaeda?

The funny thing is, a whole lot of people (hi Hank!) seem to think it's a real slur on Condi to suggest that she hadn't heard of them.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You're right: Who cares if the National Security Advisor had ever heard of Al Qaeda?

The funny thing is, a whole lot of people (hi Hank!) seem to think it's a real slur on Condi to suggest that she hadn't heard of them?

You have totally missed my point. My point is not who cares if Condi knows about OBL/AQ. My point is that knowledge of OBL goes hand in hand with knowledge of AQ. You don't know about OBL without also knowing about AQ. The whole reason anyone knows about OBL in the first place is because is the leader of AQ.

It is just retarded if you think that she could know about OBL and not know about AQ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
You have totally missed my point. My point is not who cares if Condi knows about OBL/AQ. My point is that knowledge of OBL goes hand in hand with knowledge of AQ. You don't know about OBL without also knowing about AQ. The whole reason anyone knows about OBL in the first place is because is the leader of AQ.

It is just retarded if you think that she could know about OBL and not know about AQ.

Then it should be no problem for you to find where she talked about AQ before Clarke said he told her about them. Even with her background as a Kremlinologist.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Then it should be no problem for you to find where she talked about AQ before Clarke said he told her about them. Even with her background as a Kremlinologist.

Are you really claiming that she could know of OBL but yet have no knowledge of AQ? 'Cuz if so, I am done having this conversation with you because you will claim anything no matter how ridiculous simply to try to discredit anyone associated with GWB.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Are you really claiming that she could know of OBL but yet have no knowledge of AQ? 'Cuz if so, I am done having this conversation with you because you will claim anything no matter how ridiculous simply to try to discredit anyone associated with GWB.

That kind of bluster works really well for you as a lawyer, no doubt.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That kind of bluster works really well for you as a lawyer, no doubt.

In fact, common sense arguments like I made go over great with judges and juries. Hypertechnical arguments don't go over so well except maybe at the appellate level.

It is reeeeediculous to say that Condi knew of OBL (the leader of AQ) but had never heard of AQ. That is like saying that she knew of Yassir Arafat but had never heard of the PLO.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
In fact, common sense arguments like I made go over great with judges and juries. Hypertechnical arguments don't go over so well except maybe at the appellate level.

It is reeeeediculous to say that Condi knew of OBL (the leader of AQ) but had never heard of AQ. That is like saying that she knew of Yassir Arafat but had never heard of the PLO.

Uh oh. Maybe you should stop those Google searches. According to tomorrow's NYT: "Still, the reality is that Ms. Rice has virtually no public utterances about Al Qaeda to point to as evidence that she was as engaged in the issue as she was in Mr. Bush's other foreign policy agendas." Wonder if that "virtually" refers to the period between when Clarke says he told her about AQ and 9/11.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Uh oh. Maybe you should stop those Google searches. According to tomorrow's NYT: "Still, the reality is that Ms. Rice has virtually no public utterances about Al Qaeda to point to as evidence that she was as engaged in the issue as she was in Mr. Bush's other foreign policy agendas." Wonder if that "virtually" refers to the period between when Clarke says he told her about AQ and 9/11.

So if I mention Yassir Arafat and know he is a Palestinian terrorist and know all about his history of supporting and conducting terrorism but you cannot find a record of me ever mentioning the acronym "PLO" then that is proof I never had any understanding Arafat was the leader of the PLO?

Come on, Ty. What did she think OBL was then? Some random terrorist acting alone? Just a bored rich kid with nothing better to do?