LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 778
0 members and 778 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-23-2004, 10:54 AM   #4651
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
slime & defend hits Richard Clarke

Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I think what's bothering my people the most is the assertion that Rumsfeld immediately jumped from 9/11 to bombing Iraq as a response. In the big picture, whether Bush should have been prepared where Clinton wasn't is very much subject to partisan debate. Whether Bush and co. were looking for reasons to bomb Iraq, even at the expense of bombing other threatening enemies, is something the American public is, I'm sure, very much interested in hearing about.
Just curious: here's the admin's response to that point. Are you saying, you doubt this response is truthful, or are you saying that it's nonresponsive, or . . . what?

"Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.

The Facts: The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.

When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qa'ida and Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it."
bilmore is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 10:58 AM   #4652
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
Sure its bubble gum tripe, but you can dance to it

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'll dumb it down, so I can understnad:

Clarke says: AQ is an urgent threat- implied or explicit- We should do something about the threat.

Rice says: What should we do, Czar?

Clarke says: We should have a meeting.

SAM, we didn't need a meeting we needed to go into Afghanistan. As I understand it Clarke did suggest this, and the administration had a plan ready on this before 9/11. At that point, however, how would that have stopped 9/11? The guys were here, they knew how to fly.
(a) You can stop being a dick now.

(b) With the caveat that I have ordered, but not yet read the book (which I understand does cover his entire WH career):

Neither I nor Clarke ( I think) suggest that it would/should have stopped 9/11. I rather doubt it could have at that point without some massive manhunt that we may not have had evidence to properly direct.

Nor do I think that, except in perfect hindsight, the Administration was a pack of fools for not having terrorism/al Qaeda absolutely at the top of the priority list.

At worst, they may have had some misplaced priorities and perhaps didn't give AQ the threat priority it turned out to deserve. Happens all the time, to everyone. However, this is all inconsistent with the image that the Administration has worked so damn hard to project.

That's why I think that the most important part of this whole thing may be the way the Administration is reacting to it. They seem not to be taking the Hank Chinaski-recommended approach (as you said for the WMD/threat issue re Iraq) of just plainly saying:

"OK. Maybe some mistakes were made, in hindsight, but no one is perfect and we did the best we could (or anyone could expect) with what we had."**

This Administration's default instinct is to hit back, hard, when challenged. That reaction may not always be the best one -- not substantively nor with public perception. We'll see.

S_A_M


**Note the use of the special Washington D.C. grammar -- the "post-passive exonerative".
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:00 AM   #4653
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
Reality TV

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sorry SAM. To have said OM, instead of Falstaff or Buckhorn shows that you were raised in the lap of luxury.
Ok. pal.

I'll see your Falstaff and raise you Pabst Blue Ribbon.
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:04 AM   #4654
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
slime & defend hits Richard Clarke

Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I think what's bothering my people the most is the assertion that Rumsfeld immediately jumped from 9/11 to bombing Iraq as a response. In the big picture, whether Bush should have been prepared where Clinton wasn't is very much subject to partisan debate. Whether Bush and co. were looking for reasons to bomb Iraq, even at the expense of bombing other threatening enemies, is something the American public is, I'm sure, very much interested in hearing about.
Hello
Yeah. The statement that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz bitched about -- [paraphrase] how there was nothing good to bomb in Afghanistan, so let's bomb Iraq instead -- was rather eye-catching.

S_A_M
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:06 AM   #4655
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
Reality TV

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ok. pal.

I'll see your Falstaff and raise you Pabst Blue Ribbon.
PBR=Falstaff? please. to poor people you sound like JFK talking to JFK about how he wishes his yacht were bigger.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:07 AM   #4656
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
Sure its bubble gum tripe, but you can dance to it

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
"OK. Maybe some mistakes were made, in hindsight, but no one is perfect and we did the best we could (or anyone could expect) with what we had."**
But, if they are disagreeing with his account of the meetings, and the reasons for those meetings, and the role he played, and what he knew about what they were thinking at the time, why would they do that? Having read all of the interview transcripts, as well as all of the WH responses, I don't see this as merely differing interpretations of complex events, but as completely mutually exclusive accounts of motivations and personal thoughts that can not coexist in truth.
bilmore is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:08 AM   #4657
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
Reality TV

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ok. pal.

I'll see your Falstaff and raise you Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Back when we were drinking Fox Deluxe, we used to sit by the curb and watch the PBR guys drive by in their daddy's new cars.
bilmore is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:10 AM   #4658
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
Time to listen?

If you have a radio, Powell is testfying now.
bilmore is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:11 AM   #4659
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
slime & defend hits Richard Clarke

Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious: here's the admin's response to that point. Are you saying, you doubt this response is truthful, or are you saying that it's nonresponsive, or . . . what?

"[i]Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.

The Facts: The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.
I'd say that, like any good advocates, they've framed the question (or "myth") in a manner that predetermines the outcome. I agree with the first paragraph of the "facts" as far as it goes -- although I think it hides the ball a bit -- and have no reason to doubt the sequence laid out in the rest of the passage.

All of which shows Bush lined it up fairly well in the immediate aftermath -- but that at least some of his senior advisors just plain wanted to go kick Iraq's ass. Which they ultimately did.

As usual, I think the media is focusing on the flashy stuff at the expense of the more telling though subtle points.

S_A_M
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:12 AM   #4660
Did you just call me Coltrane?
Registered User
 
Did you just call me Coltrane?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Throwing a kettle over a pub
Posts: 14,753
Reality TV

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
PBR=Falstaff? please. to poor people you sound like JFK talking to JFK about how he wishes his yacht were bigger.
I like PBR. It got destroyed by the A-B/Miller marketing machines, but it's probably a better light beer than what either of those two brewers put out. PBR is light beer's betamax.

How about Red White & Blue. That's pretty terrible. Or Black Label.
__________________
No no no, that's not gonna help. That's not gonna help and I'll tell you why: It doesn't unbang your Mom.

Last edited by Did you just call me Coltrane?; 03-23-2004 at 11:15 AM..
Did you just call me Coltrane? is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:15 AM   #4661
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
slime & defend hits Richard Clarke

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yeah. The statement that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz bitched about -- [paraphrase] how there was nothing good to bomb in Afghanistan, so let's bomb Iraq instead -- was rather eye-catching.
You mean the one that was made about 22 days before we began bombing Afghanistan?
bilmore is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:19 AM   #4662
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,147
Reality TV

Quote:
Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I like PBR. It got destroyed by the A-B/Miller marketing machines, but it's probably a better light beer than what either of those two brewers put out. PBR is light beer's betamax.

How about Red White & Blue. That's pretty terrible. Or Black Label.
what was the 30$ beer?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:21 AM   #4663
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
Sure its bubble gum tripe, but you can dance to it

Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Having read all of the interview transcripts, as well as all of the WH responses, I don't see this as merely differing interpretations of complex events, but as completely mutually exclusive accounts of motivations and personal thoughts that can not coexist in truth.
Maybe. (Although you seem to describe something reagrding thoughts and motivations that would be open to deeply subjective interpretation.)

So, terrorism was their highest priority, and they think that they did everything right? Then stand up and shout it loud!

Small for instance, though: Handley (current deputy NSA) initially said that there was "no evidence" that Bush had ever made that Iraq statement to Clarke on 9/12. But the WaPo reporter writing the piece on Clarke in yesterday's paper said that two other aides present had confimed the exchange took place and that Condi had witnessed it. Condi's op-ed and the bit you just posted don't deny that it occurred -- they say Bush was just acting responsibly.

I think its a mistake to believe that the truth is all on one side or the other here. That's why, as I said, the _reaction_ of the Administration is the most interesting and important part.

I hope they keep Cheney out front, and I hope it gets nastier and nastier. Kerry doesn't have to say a word.

S_A_M
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:21 AM   #4664
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
slime & defend hits Richard Clarke

Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious: here's the admin's response to that point. Are you saying, you doubt this response is truthful, or are you saying that it's nonresponsive, or . . . what?

"Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.

The Facts: The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.

When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qa'ida and Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it."
I honestly wish this conversation was not taking place, as I'm hearing stuff I'd rather not hear. CBS News has a bit of the quotes from 60 Minutes, and (paraphrasing), the quotes were more-or-less "on 9/11 they were talking about Iraq... on 9/12 they were talking about Iraq".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607622.shtml


So showing me that they eventually accepted that it was bin Laden and Afghanistan on, e.g., 9/17, 9/20, 10/anything, is not responding to the concern, and it appears to be a disingenuous non-response to the implication of Clarke's information. He says they were fixated on Iraq and predisposed to blame Iraq for things like 9/11. They say, well we didn't bomb Iraq, we ended up taking Afghanistan out etc....

Of course they took Afghanistan out, and I'm glad they did, and I just argued with a coworker yesterday that there is reason to believe Kerry would not have done so and could not have done so with his international consensus approach. So Kudos for a strong response on the Afghanistan front. However, in the bigger picture, the idea that they might have initially treated it like an automatic reason to attack Iraq, is certainly of great interest to the public. Combine that with, e.g., the WMD debate, and you can see how this adds to the argument of his detractors. Frankly, the WH recognizes how well Clarke is being received. I mean, who in the administration hasn't tried to counter Clarke in the last 2 days?

My bottom line, and it only reinforces what I (and I suspect you and/or many other conservatives on the board) believe, is that Rummy (and Ashcroft) are huge political liabilities. Ashcroft should have been dumped more than a year ago, and Rummy should have been given notice about 6-12 months ago, once his "tactical" disagreements with the military brass came to light.

Or, they could just say that Rummy wasn't already fixated on Saddam on, e.g., 9/11.

Hello

EF grammar
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'


Last edited by Say_hello_for_me; 03-23-2004 at 11:26 AM..
Say_hello_for_me is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:22 AM   #4665
Did you just call me Coltrane?
Registered User
 
Did you just call me Coltrane?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Throwing a kettle over a pub
Posts: 14,753
Reality TV

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what was the 30$ beer?
I believe it was any non-micro/specialty domestic.
__________________
No no no, that's not gonna help. That's not gonna help and I'll tell you why: It doesn't unbang your Mom.
Did you just call me Coltrane? is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:57 AM.