Politics: J'accuse!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know you catch a lot of flak for this decision, but you should have neither the time nor the inclination to explain yourself to any person who rises and sleeps under the influence of the very Forum you provide and then questions the manner in which you provide it. You should just ask that they say "thank you," and went on their way.

You do realize that Jessup was eventually hoist on his own petard in that movie, right? At the end of the day, despite all the fun quotable stuff Jessup says, it was just another Aaron Sorkin joint. Either you know this, and are being ironic, or you were one of the people writing letters to CBS in 1971 saying that Norman Lear should be fairer to Archie because he's a good man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
you were one of the people writing letters to CBS in 1971 saying that Norman Lear should be fairer to Archie because he's a good man.

I'm not 60 fucking years old.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't received more play. Is the public just tired of the Iraq debate -- and the 9/11 stuff seemed more shocking and relevant?

The public is finished with the Iraq debate. You cannot blame them - no one is going to shed a tear for SH and because there were no homeland attacks, it is hard to prove in a tangible way that it harmed the war on terror.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
You do realize that Jessup was eventually hoist on his own petard in that movie, right? At the end of the day, despite all the fun quotable stuff Jessup says, it was just another Aaron Sorkin joint. Either you know this, and are being ironic, or you were one of the people writing letters to CBS in 1971 saying that Norman Lear should be fairer to Archie because he's a good man.

Another urban myth deflated by the ever-huggable Al Franken.

Oh please tell us again about how there is no Easter Bunny?

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I'm a little surprised that [Clarke's harsh critique of the Iraq war] hasn't received more play. Is the public just tired of the Iraq debate -- and the 9/11 stuff seemed more shocking and relevant?

1. The Democrats would have to own up to the fact that they either have no balls or are incompetent. After all, the Senate democrats could have prevented authorization of war on Iraq.

2. When the public's choices are whether a few hundred billion will be wasted -- A. on Bush's war in Iraq, B. the Republicans buying votes from rich people, or C. the Democrats' buying votes from the senior citizens and poor people -- the war on iraq doesn't look so bad.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't received more play. Is the public just tired of the Iraq debate -- and the 9/11 stuff seemed more shocking and relevant?

I'm a little surprised that no one has noticed that the story Clarke is telling now is essentially the same story told in the Bob Woodward puff piece Bush at War. If Clarke's account is inaccurate, Woodward's is as well. Why isn't the White House attacking Woodward's book?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm a little surprised that no one has noticed that the story Clarke is telling now is essentially the same story told in the Bob Woodward puff piece Bush at War. If Clarke's account is inaccurate, Woodward's is as well. Why isn't the White House attacking Woodward's book?

The story is OK as hagiography, but not if it's criticism.

Slave -- I said the 10 "most moderate" Dem senators, not that there are 10 moderates. Pay attention.

[sgtclub]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3574503.stm

[French legal team to defend SH]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You do realize that Jessup was eventually hoist on his own petard in that movie, right? At the end of the day, despite all the fun quotable stuff Jessup says, it was just another Aaron Sorkin joint.

Times change. Right now at gitmo you can get away with beating guys up providing they don't catch you answering the call to prayer, or facing Mecca and whatnot.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Started working as an analyst in the OSD in the Nixon administration (1973). Depty Asst. Sec'y of State for Intelligence during the Reagan Administration. Asst Sec'y of State for Politico-Military Affairs during the Bush I Administration.

Left federal service in March, 2003.

P.S. to Bilmore: I'd be surprised if it were about money for Clarke. Greedy people don't make careers working for the Feds (although he could have a bunch of kids in college now, who knows?). if his book does misrepresent or misinterpret the situation, I'd wager its ego. All accounts say he is/was a very aggressive, abrasive, (and very smart) guy.

Just to add to this, I'm pretty certain that I read late last week or early this weekend that Clarke basically dedicated his most of his life to this issue. In fact, it made him sound as if he was rather obsessed with his job, and indicated that he was not one who shrank from going toe to toe with people if he needed to get his point across. The article I read stated that he was unmarried w/no kids, so that doesn't seem to be his motivation here. I would agree that the motivation probably isn't greed. I think his being pretty pissed off about what he sees as the failures (of both Clinton's and Bushes Administrations) that allowed 9/11 to happen, is what is behind this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Just to add to this, I'm pretty certain that I read late last week or early this weekend that Clarke basically dedicated his most of his life to this issue. In fact, it made him sound as if he was rather obsessed with his job, and indicated that he was not one who shrank from going toe to toe with people if he needed to get his point across. The article I read stated that he was unmarried w/no kids, so that doesn't seem to be his motivation here. I would agree that the motivation probably isn't greed. I think his being pretty pissed off about what he sees as the failures (of both Clinton's and Bushes Administrations) that allowed 9/11 to happen, is what is behind this.

The Boston Globe had a fascinating article about Clarke this morning, much of it gleaned from interviews with childhood friends from the Boston Latin school and elsewhere, some of whom kept in touch. Basically indicated that he was about the only Republican around in those days, taking the more conservative positions regularly in debate, but a true and hard-core policy wonk from the outset. Read Foreign Affairs on the T. While his career was really made under Reagan and George I, when he was appointed to the National Security Council, he apparently has a very deep admiration for Clinton's command of the policy issues.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't received more play. Is the public just tired of the Iraq debate -- and the 9/11 stuff seemed more shocking and relevant?

I think the public is tired of all of this. Most seem to have moved on to the important campaign stuff - the hair, the attack ads, the gaffes, the elective surgeries. You know, the things with which we chose our leaders.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Is someone missing something here?

Senate Democrats, turning up the heat in their long-simmering feud with President Bush over judicial nominations, vowed on Friday to block all new federal court appointments unless the White House promises to stop installing judges while Congress is in recess.

* * *

In his remarks on Friday, Mr. Daschle asserted that no president has "ever used a recess appointment to install a rejected nominee on to the federal bench,"

(rest of NY Times article)

Uh, has Bush?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Just to add to this, I'm pretty certain that I read late last week or early this weekend that Clarke basically dedicated his most of his life to this issue. In fact, it made him sound as if he was rather obsessed with his job, and indicated that he was not one who shrank from going toe to toe with people if he needed to get his point across. The article I read stated that he was unmarried w/no kids, so that doesn't seem to be his motivation here. I would agree that the motivation probably isn't greed. I think his being pretty pissed off about what he sees as the failures (of both Clinton's and Bushes Administrations) that allowed 9/11 to happen, is what is behind this.

The analysis piece on the Commission testimony which I read in the WaPo on Saturday noted that there is evidence/testimony that Clarke was constantly pressing the Clinton Administration to do more against terror/al Qaeda, but that many Clinton staffers thought he was "exaggerating" the al Qaeda threat, some "loathed" him, and some "wanted him fired."

This could place his 1998 promotion to Counter-Terror "Czar" in a new light. Did it come only after the embassy bombings had, in effect, proven Clarke right?

But despite everything Clarke was unable to prevent the 9-11 attacks -- and was left shitting a brick that afternoon when he learned that some of the names on the passenger manifests were known to the CIA -- but not previously to the FBI or the FAA -- as al Qaeda agents.

Pity poor Cassandra.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is someone missing something here?



Uh, has Bush?

Speaking of this, did anybody see 60 minutes last night on Pickering? What the DEMs are doing to him is frickin shameful. I particularly liked Medgar Evers' brother (who knows and has worked with Pickering) grilling the NAACP representative about the appointment.

Edited to chage Evers' to "Evers' brother"