Clarke might be a phony, but since it's the election season, he'll be used and recycled by eager media for some time. Here (Czechia), he's quoted as a serious and respectable critic of the Bush administration (though they love Michael Moore even better).

I rather like that Bob Kerrey guy.

This is the Kerrey the Democrats should have running for President. Instead we have the Kerry who meets with North Vietnamese Communists in Paris:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/

Wages a KGB authored propaganda campaign against his country and fellow soldiers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

Attends meetings where the particpants debate whether to assasinate US Senators, lies about his own participation, and offers no evidence that he reported this plot to the FBI:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5C%5CPolitics%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200403%5C%5CPOL20040318a.html

Who's wife funds terrorist and communist front groups like ANSWER and CAIR through the Tides Foundation:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187

I could go on. Explain to me what makes someone with Kerry's disgraceful track record a viable candidate? This man should be in prison or exile in Cuba.

Our preparedness for 9/11 deserves to be investigated, but the current hearings are about as effective as eating soup with a fork.

This is gotcha politics working with its Siamese conjoined twin, gotcha journalism.

All the attention is on a Clinton holdover who got demoted by Bush and now essentially seems to be saying Clinton did nothing about AQ and Bush didn't change that policy quickly enough.

Big deal! Bush is doing something now about protecting the homeland and taking the fight to the terrorists, and he's hamstrung at every turn by the same people who are saying he didn't do enough before 9/11. The hypocrisy boggles my mind.

There are lessons to be learned about the way we gathered and disseminated intelligence before 9/11, but the people running the current hearings are only interested in creating political blowback for Bush in an election year.

This is pure political cinema, and like any Hollywood movie, it's even got its own product tie-in, this star witness' book.

Does Washington realize how transparently crude it appears to all us hicks in the heartland?

I question why Bob Kerrey did not press the issue of 'government failure' with regard to the 1993 WTC attack?

Why were the tactics taken directly after the 2001 WTC attack not taken directly after the 1993 attacks?

As I recall, the attacks in 1993 were perpetuated by an Iraqi who eventually received refuge under Saddam.

That being said, it appears to me the tactics used today are far more effective in fighting the War than were the tactics used in 1993.

We the people should be questioning the 1993 failure.

Clarke had 8 years under Clinton to get something done, and we all know how that turned out. That said, I think Michael is right, this will infact blow over as quickly as that former Treasury Secretary's book.

Kerrey from Nebraska is no real winner either. Its possible that he actually is a war criminal, as that term gets used these days. That's why you probably won't see him run for anything more than the Senate.

Kerrey's passion will be, significantly, channeled to favor the Bush position, because Kerrey wants the US to have "done something" BEFORE 9/11.
In other words, to act preemptively. The only way to stop Iraq from using WMDs is to invade, preemptively, the way Bush did.

The problem with JF Kerry & the Dem idea is that "law enforcement" means letting the killers kill first, and only AFTER comes justice/ law enforcement. Meaning alleged terrorists must be allowed the freedom to get bombs, and use them, before they are stopped. This is unacceptable with WMDs.

On the other hand, the hearings MAY give JK the opportunity to renounce law enforcement objections, accept the strategic need for pre-emptive regime change in Iraq, admit Bush was right -- but that now Bush is blowing it.

JK will have other chances to do this, and prolly will before November (thereby getting the Bush uneasy secularist pro-Iraq Freedom folk, like MJT), but I think his group doesn't see it as a win for him.

I don't see the Dems winning in any case.

I agree with some of what Kerrey is saying, but he is wrong to put the blame for 9/11 on the U.S. government. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but who seriously believes that the government could have instituted the draconian security necessary to prevent 19 guys with boxcutters from hijacking those planes on or before 9/10? Even if this had been possible for either Clinton or Bush, there would be no guarantees that we could guard against all threats no matter what measures were taken; we are vulnerable in an open society.

His strongest argument is that military rather than police action should have been taken sooner, but few would have argued this at the time. It took a major shock to wake people up, and many Americans, like John Kerrey, still don't seem to understand this point.

Instead of placing blame on Bush or Clinton, we should be concentrating on what needs to be done now and in the future and stop wasting time with these political sideshows.

Lucianne.com has an interesting quote up on her home page:

Clarke’s testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book. He’s either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It’s one or the other.”

-House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) who plans to explore whether Congressional action on the matter is warranted.

The Dems can laugh off the background briefing to reporters like Jim Engle of Fox as Clarke covering his boss's tush, but they can't toss off
testimony to Congress this way.

The capacity for self-deception here is truly astounding. I'm sure dismissing Clarke's testimony is reassuring, and going the extra step of dissing Kerrey was a real winner there, eric. But you have got to face the facts of how this looks to those with, shall we say, a "less partisan" approach...

Clarke has a big problem with consistency, but I think putting the emphasis on the 2002 press briefing is a BIG mistake for the administration. Basically they're putting Clarke in the position of admitting he was encouraged to mislead the public on behalf of the president. He denied the word "mislead," but he as much as admitted to it in his testimony when pressed.

And the longer Condi keeps making public statements and insisting she be allowed to talk to the 9/11 panel privately but refusing to do so under oath, the more it's going to look like an organized campaign to deceive the American public. If the Bush administration wants to get past this, the only way out is to stop attacking Clarke's "character" when it just gives him the opportunity to turn it around on them, and start attacking the substance of his accusations.

And while we're on the subject, I think it's time you all started looking at the real issue here. Perhaps Bush had the wrong focus prior to 9/11, but that was simply a strategic decision... in retrospect, it was mistaken, but the focus on rogue states rather than terrorist cells was a valid position to hold before 9/11 made it clear what a threat terrorism was. It's the continued focus on Iraq after 9/11 that is going to be the most damaging to Bush. If Clarke's statement that the war in Iraq undermined the war on terror starts making the rounds in the media, Bush will NOT recover from it. And if you don't think it has legs, check out David Kay's speech at Harvard a few days ago:

quote

"The cost of our mistakes . . . with regard to the explanation of why we went to war in Iraq are far greater than Iraq itself," David Kay said in a speech at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

"We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events," he said. "The answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find most disturbing around Washington . . . is the belief . . . you can never admit you're wrong."

unquote

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/03/23/kay_implores_us_to_admit_mistakes_in_iraq/

So you can keep hoping this will blow over, and complaining about Clarke's credibility... but in the end, doubts about his credibility will only hurt book sales a bit, if that. Bush, on the other hand, has far more to lose from doubts about his credibility, and it's about time he did something about it beyond attempting to discredit his critics.

"I’m sorry if this is a flip and lazy response"

Well you got that right.

I guess this is the best that you guys can do. Pretend that there are "inconsistencies" in what he has said, or act like it is oh so boring....

gee, maybe if he had revealed that he had gotten a blowjob in the Situation room, y'all might find this of interest....

I used to check in here rather regularly to see what y'all were thinking, because I believed y'all were serious in your concerns about our nation and its security (even though I had some disagreements with your take on things). But I dont think y'all really are very serious.

I agree with Michael on this. Clinton had bimbo eruptions, Bush has demoted holdovers with book deals eruptions. Both play well in the media. Now lets get back to the real business at hand.

Tano: I used to check in here rather regularly to see what y'all were thinking, because I believed y'all were serious in your concerns about our nation and its security (even though I had some disagreements with your take on things). But I dont think y'all really are very serious.

Why do you bother to comment then, Tano?

Don't bother replying to tano, he's just a troll.

Pretend that there are "inconsistencies" in what he has said, or act like it is oh so boring....

I don't think he's pretending - why do you think he's pretending?

Would one of y'all be so kind as to school my clueless self....What is a troll?

One of the stock complaints of trolls (and Democrat presidential hopefuls) is to assert that somehow supporters of Bush deny any blame attaching to his administration regarding 9/11. It was on his watch, and it does represent a failure of government to protect the country. On the other hand, I seem to remember Muhammed Ali got popped more than once whenever he stepped into the ring, too. The actions of the Left in this election cycle can only be understood if you could imagine FDR being impeached for Pearl Harbor sometime in 1943. Bush, unlike Clinton, decided that the first attack on his watch would be the last one, and published a doctrine to accomplish that goal. Kerry's stated position (well, o.k., today's) that he would retreat back to pre-9/11 mode with law enforcement and diplomacy as primary avenues of response is laughable on its face.

The absence of interest on the part of the commission on the role played by congressional oversight committees is beginning to tick me off.

Congress has become accustomed to shuffling off any politically sensitive legislation to the courts...have they decided that only the executive deserves scrutiny if there is a chance for political fallout?

I think that's an emphatic "yes".

Media seems bent on canonizing Clarke. Thomas Kohl's post above shows how the playbook has been executed. I've seen it mentioned in other forums that the utility Clarke represents for the Dems is that only a fraction of information junkies (like us) will see more than a fraction of the 'net debate on his testimony/interview/book contradictions.

However...and it's a HUGE however...the number of people like us has been ramping up precipitously, and Old Media, like Old Europe, may well be approaching the end of the string as far as being taken seriously.

A troll, in most web contexts, is someone who drops by for the sole purpose of pissing people off, or sucking them into mindless name-calling arguments.

Around here apparently, it is a term leveled at anyone who dares to have a disagreement with the local mindset, even if they are willing to honestly discuss it.

I'll give Michael a break. He's never made the charge against me, but there do seem to be plenty of his fans who want this place to be nothing but an echo chamber...

Pat writes.
"Lucianne.com has an interesting quote up on her home page"

Well there ya go...
We've got here a woman who proudly claims her political lineage as being formed as a dirty trickster in the Nixon administration, and oh yes, lets not forget her valuable contriubtion to the nation in the nineties.
And you want to use her to undermine the credibility of a man trusted by 4 presidents with positions of great responsibility for our national security.

I think that says just about all that needs saying, Pat....

Tano: I used to check in here rather regularly to see what y'all were thinking, because I believed y'all were serious in your concerns about our nation and its security (even though I had some disagreements with your take on things). But I dont think y'all really are very serious.

Seriously, why do you continue to visit this website and debate with people whom you consider unserious?

Clarke’s ability to undermine his own self with his own words is astonishing.

I don't find it astonishing at all. When he worked for the president -- Democrat or Republican -- he did his duty to put the best spin on the facts. He didn't mention the negatives and he emphasized the positives.

Doesn't everyone with a job do the same thing? Sheesh.

And if you read MT's link closely, you realize it's not so contradictory.

decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda....

Decided in principle? That's serious stuff. Should he have said "we decided in principle, but Dick's terrorism task force never actually met?"

Ultimately, this is yet another re-hash of the same basic divide: either you think invading Iraq was part of the War on Terror, or you think invading Iraq was a distraction from it. Clarke obviously thinks the latter.

Of course there were intelligence failures on 9/11. Intel isn't "100%" perfect (and as the retrospective on "Bush Liked about WMD" when everyone else seems to have "lied" shows, hindsight ain't exactly 20/20 either.)

But suddenly there is now a small group of The Elect (or appointed) of who suddenly have the forward and backward prescience of Paul Atreides himself preaching to the lowly masses about who should have known what. People think its politically self-serving to "capitalize" on 9-11. Why is this not as bad or worse?

With this Clarke person, I agree with another blogger. If he wants to elevate himself with self flagellation (all while whopping other people including implying that Rice had never heard of AQ/OBL before he told her) let him give ever thin dime that book makes (and any retirement income from that position if he took it) to 9-11 victims funds. Otherwise all I see is opportunistic posing no matter what party he's shilling for or against.

Kerrey is an example of someone who seems to be arguing this thing from a true sense of the historical importance of these events and the need for future generations to learn the right lessons from this. Kerrey was involved in some atrocious stuff in Viet Nam, for which he ought to -- and seems to -- feel he needs to atone.

The horror of Viet Nam is closely approximated by the crimes of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as left virtually unchecked, NOT by U.S. intervention against those monsters.

This is about acknowledging a terrible error in thinking, prior to 9/11, and the historical necessity to face up to this bad policy and make sure that we've learned the right lessons from history and that we don't cave in to the temptation to apologize for mistakes made even by well meaning people. This is about history and our responsibility to future generations. Kerrey gets that; I doubt that Clarke does.

. . . why do you continue to visit this website and debate with people whom you consider unserious?

Same reason Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and the prostitutes.

TmjUtah said:
"One of the stock complaints of trolls (and Democrat presidential hopefuls) is to assert that somehow supporters of Bush deny any blame attaching to his administration regarding 9/11."

If it were Bush supporters who were denying the blame, that would be one thing, but it seems to be Bush himself. Whatever else you can say about it, 9/11 was a colossal failure of intelligence to protect us from future terrorist attacks. If that was due to an excessive focus on conventional threats over terrorism, then it is a tragic, but perfectly understandable mistake. Yet the Bush administration seems determined to stick to the position that they were tough on terror from the beginning, when that simply does not seem to have been the case.

I'm inclined to agree with David Kay, that we need to admit mistakes were made if we're ever going to recover our credibility as a nation... and that seems something the Bush administration is unwilling to do.

I'm inclined to agree with David Kay, that we need to admit mistakes were made if we're ever going to recover our credibility as a nation... and that seems something the Bush administration is unwilling to do.

Yes but we can't expect people to be omniscient, as I indicated, and then have critics come back as if we are expected to know now in the same detail and perspective (just multiply the time axis by -1). This was an unprecedented attack that day. There may have been chatter about it all over the world in bits and pieces, but to pick the flights and targets and passengers before the event would have been a predictive and integrated feat that would have driven those "Remote Viewers" the tin hat brigade says exist to eternal shame.

This is about acknowledging a terrible error in thinking, prior to 9/11, and the historical necessity to face up to this bad policy and make sure that we've learned the right lessons from history...

Yes, but heaven forbid we discuss the bad policy and terrible errors we're engaged in right now, right, Jeremy?

Clarke has spoken the unspeakable truth: "By invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism." Not surprisingly (indeed, predictably), Messrs. Totten, Brown, Simon, and Jarvis have all responded like vampires in the presence of a cross -- wailing and averting their eyes.

Really, guys, it's not as difficult to follow as you're pretending. Clarke has stated his reasoning concisely -- why not leave the ad hominem attacks behind and discuss his argument head-on?

Jeremy, you make some reasonable points in your post. I do think that the Clarke backgrounder hurts his credibility (because it is hard to say "I lied then, but I'm telling the truth now"), but unfortunately few of people will read it compared to those who saw 60 Minutes or the excerpts from Clarke's testimony. So as a political matter, it hurts Bush.

On the partisan issue, you should read some more of Michael's posts; he's said he's voting straight Democrat except for the top of the ticket. I'm a Republican who's willing to vote for the right Democrats; if Evan Bayh were from my state he'd get my vote in a heartbeat. I may yet get the chance to vote for him; he looks like presidential timber.

As for your statement, "If Clarke's statement that the war in Iraq undermined the war on terror starts making the rounds in the media, Bush will NOT recover from it," it's obvious you think Bush will not recover, because the statement's been out since at least Sunday night.

Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the Iraq war was a distraction from the war on terror or integral to it. I don't think Clarke's opinion on this matter is going to change any minds.

I have to say, Clarke's apology was the best "I come not to mourn Ceasar, but to bury him" moments in recent political theater.

Julia Turner in Slate has a useful "Cliff Notes" on Clarke's book.

My take on this is that Clarke could have provided a valuable service by giving us a "just the facts" account of what happened while he was the leading expert on global terror in the government. Instead we get a classic book-length interdepartmental memo explaining in detail why, contrary to appearances, the author did not in fact screw the pooch, but said pooch was screwed by someone else entirely on somebody else's team.

Jeremy -

So...after eight years of succesive attacks by al Qaeda, George Bush can do no less than fall on his sword for failing to prevent an attack after less than seven months in office...when the attack in quesion was planned two years previously, and had been in training stages since before he took office?

I guess Roosevelt should have been crucified on the East Lawn, then. He was reading Japanese Embassy communications AND IJN fleet traffic. And he was the beneficiary of almost a decade of uninterrupted administration. Yet we were attacked.

The enemy succeeded in attacking us. They had been successful, what, five or six times before, too? They exploited our track record of compartmentalizing intelligence gathering resources and reporting procedures within domestic law enforcement and federal intelligence agencies. They inserted their teams deeply into our society and engaged in schooling or employment not far removed from the norm when looking at visa violators and other illegal immigrants.

MJT's extensive list of links detailing flat contradictions between Clarke's accounts and the track record Clarke had with other administration('s) and congressional officials at the very least brings his credibility factor to a low approaching unbelievable. Clarke's own testimony failed to strike any chord within me that he believed what he was saying. He's a veteran of thirty years of conference table theatrics, and that's all he did yesterday.

The media has seen fit to marginalize the fact that in spite of the administration's brief time in office, they had arrived at a fundamental policy decision to remove, not roll back, al qaeda, within weeks of transition and had a plan for such due for implementation in October.

I would like to hear from the OTHER correspondents present at the background interview given in 2002; how do they feel about what they were told then when placed alongside what he says now?

Swopa, I'll take on the three ways Clarke says the invasion of Iraq has undermined the war on terror per your blog:

1. Diversion of financial resources that could be used to protect the homeland.
2. Diversion of intelligence and military resources that could have been used to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
3. Inflammation of the Arab street by confirming bin Laden's claim that we are the "new crusader".

I disagree strongly with #1 and #3; I have no way of knowing about #2. We cannot protect the homeland perfectly; we are just too large a nation and there are too many places of vulnerability. Clarke brings up the Madrid bombings as an example, but what can we do to prevent train bombings? Answer: very little. We cannot institute airport-like security at railroad stations like Hoboken or Penn Station; there are simply far too many people to make it practical. The only realistic option is to take the battle to the terrorists. As for #3, the inflammation of the Arab street is about as overdue as that brutal Afghan winter we heard about in the build-up to the ouster of the Taliban.

BTW, I see very few ad hominem attacks on Clarke. You do know what the term means, right? I see a lot of attacks on his credibility based on comparison of his past and present statements, but no statements that he's a jerk or ugly or a loser.

In terms of the horse race, Clarke will be ephemeral indeed. He's peaking way too early. By the time the election nears, he'll be as relevant as Scott Ritter is today, which is not much.

Pat says...

Clarke’s testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book. He’s either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It’s one or the other.

Excellent Pat, about as no shit Sherlock of a statement as thy come. You add…

The Dems can laugh off the background briefing to reporters like Jim Engle of Fox as Clarke covering his boss's tush, but they can't toss off testimony to Congress this way.

Pat of course is another brilliant "no shit Sherlock" statement to be sure. Of course wise tano takes his art of high road rebuttal and goes straight to the facts of Pat’s argument by saying…

We've got here a woman who proudly claims her political lineage as being formed as a dirty trickster in the Nixon administration, and oh yes, lets not forget her valuable contriubtion to the nation in the nineties.

And you want to use her to undermine the credibility of a man trusted by 4 presidents with positions of great responsibility for our national security.

Beautiful oh wise tano all in the spirit of “Paula Jones was trailer park trash.” Meaning of course Clinton could never of hung out his bait worm to any one of his accusers either, because she's "trailer park trash".

Then again wise tano you told me Clinton’s credibility was greater than Bush’s on such matters as the War on Terror and things Presidential, so I am sure this goes over that wise head of yours anyway.

Oh wise tano, what in Pat’s statement is not true? For the third time I will tell you, the Richard Nixon of 1974 had less credibility than the Richard Nixon of 1960. Yes Clarke has lost his credibility in Washington, he is a joke to all, except those who are a joke unto themselves like you oh wise tano. That is why you are a troll and again I ask…

Are you a cave troll or mountain troll? Do you crawl out of holes or from under rocks?

And the longer Condi keeps making public statements and insisting she be allowed to talk to the 9/11 panel privately but refusing to do so under oath, the more it's going to look like an organized campaign to deceive the American public.

Members of the NSC, such as Condi, have never been questioned in public; they have always spoken behind closed doors. So there's nothing unusual about Condi doing it, but rather it would break precedent if she did do it the Dem way.

Dem Senators want her in the spotlight so they can grandstand and make speeches disguised as questions; also, it makes her look like she's been called in to the principal's office. That's what the Dems want.

And Condi won't give them that opportunity. And she shouldn't.

Swopa: Same reason Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and the prostitutes.

Say what? I'm not up on my religion so you're going to have to tell me what that means. If Tano considers this site unserious, I don't understand why he continues to visit it, much less post comments to it. If some eight-year-old boy tells me I'm a "stupid face," do I debate him or do I simply ignore him?

David,

Members of the NSC, such as Condi, have never been questioned in public

Actually, I believe two NSC directors have given public testimony in the past, Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 and Sandy Berger in 1997. So much for precedent. And I think the larger issue is that she refuses to meet with the panel while under oath. As she is going back specifically to rebut sworn testimony (Clarke's), it seems only reasonable and fair that she be put under oath to do so.

Tano: I guess this is the best that you guys can do. Pretend that there are "inconsistencies" in what he has said, or act like it is oh so boring....

gee, maybe if he had revealed that he had gotten a blowjob in the Situation room, y'all might find this of interest....

Your mind reading skills are not improving. Try a different approach. Seriously.

I hate to say it, but I think Kerrey is grandstanding too. He's just saying what any sentient being knew on September 12. Of course, our government wasn't prepared (neither administration.) But human beings are normally not preparted for such extreme actions. They're just not. We weren't prepared for Pearl Harbor either. There must be dozens of similar instances in history. This is just political horseshit on both sides and provides no useful information. Next!

Michael, Thank you for chiming in. I know your are fair and try to stay above the fray, but DAMN!

Roger, you are so correct. I quit watching. I was getting too pissed off. Kerrey was more in my eyes before the hearing, but in all fairness this takes its toll on everyone. As my posts of late probably show, I need a break!

Swopa, the post on your site summarizing an interview of Clarke on NPW really is very useful. Thank you. I highly recommend that people new to the debate go read it.

I'm going to try to distill Clarke's points, and I'm trying to be fair here, but do go read Swopa's post before continuing to my summary:

1. Vast sums of money have been spent and will be spent on Iraq. Those funds and resources could have been used in the States to provide protection against terror.

2. Soldiers and resources bogged down in Iraq could have been used to hunt Bin Laden. Instead, terror has metastasized and spread all over.

3. We are inflaming and infuriating the Arab world, turning the heat up on the engine producing terrorists.

Actually, those three points that Clarke raise are endemic in the anti-Bush crowd; I call it the "Fortress America" school of thought, and it's one of the Conventional Wisdoms on the Web, and I'm afraid it's the approach favored by Kerry.

My problem with Clarke's conclusions is that I think the "Fortress America" approach is fatally flawed. I go into the reasons on my own site, but the bottom line for me is that Clarke still thinks a paradigm that directly led to 9/11 is still the right approach in combatting terror. Therefore, I do not trust his judgement.

What I find most amazing is the fact that Clarke's "behind doors" testimony is being largely ignored yet we are beating the National Security Advisor to death for testifying the same way.

Clarke's testimony on the house floor was publicity for his book. The real testimony happened behind closed doors and most likely cut a moderate path between his book/open testimony and the truth. As long as he keeps that line vague enough, he can escape without perjury charges.

Between his book and his own words to the press in 2002, Clarke has put himself on both sides of the issue and is doing a fine job of debunking both sides of it. Either he was telling the truth in 2002 and lying now - or he was lying in 2002 and telling the truth now.

In the end it matters little. The man has no credibility.

I find the common dissonance that allows some to write off Clarke because of a "credibility" problem and continue to support Rice and Cheney as if there weren't a clearer and more directly observable "credibility" issue staggering... Geez, wade through this mess of contradictions.

More to point, I hate to agree with you on self-deprecation Michael, but this is a lazy post. As has been a lot of muck. Trolling the internet for potentially contradictory quotations does nothing to address the substance of Clarke's charges, many of which will be or are potentially verifiable. It does, to me at least, seem clear that in the early stages all the way through until today that the Bush administration has insisted on a confluence between totalitarian Arab nationalism, e.g., Iraq, and fundamentalist Islamic radicalism, e.g., al Qaeda. This is clearly evident in something like Laurie Mylroie's attempts to prove Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing at the twin towers, a theory to which Wolfowitz may have been interested.

What's certainly clear post-invasion (and really was perfectly evident pre) is that these ideologies weren't cooperating on terrorism and probably weren't likely to start. There were perfectly good reasons to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with terrorism, but no good reasons to invade that had to do with terrorism. To the extent that the Bushies confused these competing paradigms, they proved a detriment to our understanding and ability to fight terrorisms most vicious proponent, radical Islamists.

Now, I bet we could have fought a good war on terrorism and fought a good war in Iraq. liberating the Iraqi people and democratisizing Iraq may even prove to be an important step to pushing reform in Iran and Syria. If it does, it will help liberate millions of people and may help (may) topple a secular Arab nationalist government (Syria) and undermine a Shia (al Qaeda is Sunni, note that many radical Sunni Islamists don't consider Shiites to even be Muslim) fundamentalist oligarchy (Iran). Noble goals, but not ones directly related to combating Islamist terrorism.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are the more evident fronts for "taking the war to the terrorists." That we've committed a fraction of the troops and money to these fronts that we have to Iraq is reason alone to believe that Clarke's points can be easily understood. The fact that Clarke may have made statements that are possibly in contradiction to what he said yesterday does little to account for the underlying substance of his criticism.

I thought that Clarke's closed door testimony was classified? Unless that testimony gets declassified for some reason, we are unlikely to find out exactly what he says in that session. For all we know he was even more vehement about this behind closed doors than he was in public. (Yes, I admit that its extremely unlikely)

"The fact that Clarke may have made statements that are possibly in contradiction to what he said yesterday does little to account for the underlying substance of his criticism."

It's pretty easy to account for the underlying substance of his critism; he's got a book to sell and the barking moonbat brigade wants anti-Bush material in order to crack open their wallets. It seems to be working, too; the book is #1 on Amazon.

And I have to laugh at the notion that finding contradictions between what Clarke says now and what he said in the past is useless; useless in terms of convincing you, sure. Useless in terms of convincing those whose minds aren't already made up?

Dance around it all you want, once you admit Clarke has contradicted himself you have admitted he's a liar.

Just saw the news the Republicans in Congress are trying to get Clarke's closed door testimony declassified. Can members of Congress legally get to see material from Senate hearings before its declassified?

The reason I ask is because I'm wondering if the Republicans have already seen Clarke's testimony and are looking to use it against him. If its they haven't seen it then I think that they're probably just trying to get a look at the testimony to see if there is anything that they can use.

Mark,

Clarke still thinks a paradigm that directly led to 9/11 is still the right approach in combatting terror. Therefore, I do not trust his judgement.

I think it's fair to say that our previous policies failed to prevent 9/11, but "directly led to" it? That reads a lot like you're saying that our policies somehow caused the attacks. You're not part of that "blame America first" crowd, are you?

The fact that 9/11 happened, by itself, does not prove anything at all. It was a singular event, n=1. It doesn't show that the prior approach failed, and it doesn't show that it worked. It's perfectly possible that the approach was correct, and that the new administration simply fumbled the ball on 9/11. It's possible that the approach was flawed and emboldened the terrorists to strike. It's possible that the policies were sound, that the terrorists just took advantage of a minor weakness, and that nothing could have been done to prevent the attacks (Even if you play great defense, occasionally the other team is going to make a shot). Figuring out which, if any, of these was in fact true is what the 9/11 commission is doing. So to attempt to use the fact of 9/11 to discredit Clarke's testimony before the very commission tasked to decide the basis of your argument seems a little premature. You're constructing an argument of the form: If 9/11 was the result of a policy failure, and Richard Clarke formulated that policy, then his judgment is not trustworthy. But your first premise is of unknown validity, and your second has no obvious relationship to the conclusion. That would require a third premise: that the policy was implemented and faithfully followed.

You may be right, but until we know the reasons for our failure to prevent 9/11, this is not a reason to distrust Richard Clarke.

Sorry to be so obstinate about it, but I dont see any contradictions. The press briefing is obviously a cherry-picked spin job that carefully did not say anything untruthful - i.e. exactly what WH staffers are paid to tell the media. And the book and testimony offer no contradictions to that at all - they merely fill in the rest of the picture.

I must say. This is probably the most hilarious and over the top example of hyprocrisy I have seen in a long time. We have people here pretending that someone loses their credibility by doing exactly what every policial apointee or staff member, for every policitian since the invention of democracy has done.

I be that 90% of the folks here have bought into the recieved wisdom that Paul O'Niell was somehow "incompetent" in his job. I remember the GOP talking points at the time - "this guy just doesnt seem to understand that the role of the Treasury secretary is to be the chief salesman for the president's economic policies". Yeah, O'Niell was not suitably disciplined in that - he occasionally included some thoughts that were not in the script. For that he got lampooned mercilessly, and fired. ANd most of you, I bet, were right on board.

So you tell the FULL truth when in office, and you get ridiculed and fired. You stick to the talking points, and then, for the rest of your life, you can never say anything in a fuller sense, lest you be dismissed as a liar.

A pretty pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with reality, or so it seems to me.
But I do look forward to all of you holding every politician in the world to these standards. Lets start on the list of who might be considered a "liar"......

Tano, I sure would appreciate it if you would answer my question, namely, why are you still here?

Shorter right-wing: anyone who criticizes Bush is just a no-credibility partisan.

Shorter left-wing: anyone who criticizes Bush is honest and correct.

Anyone, Michael, I'm afraid your post really is flip and lazy. Definitely not your usual stuff.

"But the man hasn’t demonstrated he’s worth my time."

It's not worth your time to listen when the head of anti-terrorism -- a guy generally known as a non-partisan hawk -- quits and roundly criticize the administration for its anti-terrorism efforts both before and after 9/11?

If this guy has no credibility to criticize, then who does?

And to anyone who thinks Clark is just trying to sell books -- get real. The guy could take the usual ex-senior official route and make TONS of consulting and lobbying money. Writing a non-fiction book is lunch money by comparison.

Pat Curley,

Dance around it all you want, once you admit Clarke has contradicted himself you have admitted he's a liar.

Glad you think so. Allow me to quote from todays WaPo:

At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.
Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.

Liars all?

Smokey,

The WaPo passages you quoted came from a Dana Milbank article. What's next, quotes from Paul Krugman?

Michael Hall,

I think the question could be asked: Why are you here? So far you've posted repeatedly to badger tano as to why he dares to post at a site where not everyone agrees with him, and now to imply that anything written by a liberal should be presumed to be a lie. Everything in the part of the article I quoted is a matter of record, not Milbank's opinion. If you think he gets the facts wrong, then by all means, set the record straight. Or is a substantive post too much to ask?

Apparently Dick Clarke is not the only national security professional who is actually a devious liar:

"Outgoing Deputy National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick], who stayed through the first four months of the Bush administration, said, "candidly speaking, I didn't detect" a strong focus on terrorism. "That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what Dick Clarke and the CSG [the Counterterrorism Strategy Group he chaired] were doing." General Hugh Shelton, whose term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff began under Clinton and ended under Bush, concurred. In his view, the Bush administration moved terrorism "farther to the back burner."

America Unbound, p. 76
Ivo Daalder & James Lindsay

Um, the quote should have been "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

I've fired the quote boy.

Michael, just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that Kerrey is right when he says we could've invaded Afghanistan pre 9/11?

Smokey, it's a little hard to say without seeing the statements side by side. I've seen Clarke's testimony and I've seen his background briefing and it's pretty obvious that there are contradictions. Plus, of course, two people contradicticting each other does not always mean that one of them is a liar (could be differences of opinion, different levels of knowledge), but one person contradicting himself or herself sure indicates prevarication (or, of course, a change of mind in the meantime). Milbank doesn't present enough information to judge, and some of the reported "contradictions" he cites are pretty easy to debunk. For example, the comment about "putting Iraq to the side" does not mean that you can't start making plans for an invasion at the same time. Just because A is a priority, doesn't mean that you can't start planning for B.

Smokey, you bring up some good points:

Mark,

Clarke still thinks a paradigm that directly led to 9/11 is still the right approach in combatting terror. Therefore, I do not trust his judgement.

I think it's fair to say that our previous policies failed to prevent 9/11, but "directly led to" it? That reads a lot like you're saying that our policies somehow caused the attacks. You're not part of that "blame America first" crowd, are you?

Good point. No, I'm not blaming the US for what happened. What I meant to communicate was that the former policies failed to prevent the attacks. Even killing Osama in 1998 after his stint on Nightline might not have prevented it. Until we get that TARDIS thing perfected we'll never know.

As to n=1 (9/11) there were some other events that should be added to the dataset. I would add two embassies, the Cole, and the original WTC bombing.

You may be right, but until we know the reasons for our failure to prevent 9/11, this is not a reason to distrust Richard Clarke.

And that is what disappoints me so about Clarke's pugnaciousness on this. There are questions that could be addessed rationally, and it sounds like he has some interesting observations even if I don't agree with his conclusions. But I'm having trouble getting past the sound of all those axes grinding, and I most definitely include Clarke in the set of people who brought Big Cutlery to this party.

Pat C. and especially Mark P.,

Thanks for the gracious replies. Unfortunately, I'm neck-deep in work & will be out this evening, so I'll have to be a weasel and promise to get back to you over the weekend.

Quick note to Mark P. about "... former policies failed to prevent the attacks": I think the core of Clarke's argument here is that Bush should have done what Clinton did before the millenium and forced top CIA/FBI officials to report daily on what they'd done to prevent an attack. This theoretically would have forced them to "shake the tree" regularly and perhaps obtain the information that we now know existed at lower levels. Are you taking that into account in your argument?

Very sloppy, Michael. Did you even watch or read any of the testimony? Not only was Clarke likely aware of the existence of his backgrounder (although perhaps he didn't expect the White House to suddenly out an anonymous source when it became convenient), he was ready for the question "which is true" when asked.

Unfortunately, your blanket dismissal ignores facts that have not been disputed or repudiated:

*Reno placed terrorism #1 in her last annual report on DoJ focus
*Ashcroft did not make terrorism any priority at all, placing it as a subhead of another priority

*During the Clinton administration, Clarke was an attendant at Cabinet-level meetings on security
*During the Bush administration, the position was downgraded to prevent his attendance at that level

*No plan for addressing al-Qaeda was presented to the President until Sept 4. The plan was essentially a restatement of Clinton-era planning; to continue diplomatic efforts with attack thrown in as a last resort only if those efforts failed. I don't see this as a bad thing necessarily on policy grounds, but it totally contradicts the administration's efforts to claim it developed a plan to eradicate al-Qaeda as a primary option.

*Development of military options against Iraq were begun as early as Sept 17th, despite prior assertions to the contrary by Scott McClellan. This occurred despite assurances from Clarke's team that Iraq was definitively not involved, AND despite admission of the same by the White House in memos dating to June 2001.

*If his credibility on the precise accusations were easily possible, one imagines the administration would have chosen that direct tactic, rathter than impugning his character and claiming contradictions. If the allegations are false, they are false whether he said something else two years ago or not. If Bob says "Joe is not divorced from Ellen," and Joe has documentation from his divorce to Ellen, it is not reasonable to assume that Joe's first instinct is to say, "But Bob said I WAS divorced back in 2002!"

Most of your columns are at least intellectually defensible. This one does not qualify, IMO.

sorry, the last bullet point should begin, "If his credibility on the precise accusations was easily possible to impugn...

Pat,

I'm sorry, but it's just strange to use a background briefing that he gave as a White House employee and advisor to the President to show that he's contradicting himself now. Do you really think that he was free to speak his mind? Would you care to give me some examples of the contradictions you see between the briefing and his 9/11 panel testimony? Factual contradictions, not just matters of emphasis.

Just because A is a priority, doesn't mean that you can't start planning for B.

True, but if A is really a priority, you shouldn't take away resources from it in order to do B. From todays Guardian:
The fact that the Pentagon pulled the fighting force most equipped for hunting down Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in March 2002 in order to pre- position it for Iraq cannot be denied.
Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the US military: they spoke Arabic, Pastun and Dari. They had been in Afghanistan for half a year, had developed a network of local sources and alliances, and believed that they were closing in on bin Laden.
Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down Saddam. "We were going nuts on the ground about that decision," one of them recalls.
"In spite of the fact that it had taken five months to establish trust, suddenly there were two days to hand over to people who spoke no Dari, Pastun or Arabic, and had no rapport."

Scott: Michael, just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that Kerrey is right when he says we could've invaded Afghanistan pre 9/11?

Sort of. In theory, it would have been better (from the point of view of our own security) if Bill Clinton invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would not have been politically possible. The Republicans would have crucified him had he done it. All sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories (wagging the dog, etc.) would have bubbled up on the right, just as all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories are the coin of the radical left right now.

Oh, another item I neglected to mention:

*The Bush administration offered no apparent response to the bombing of the Cole once the determination of al-Qaeda culpability was clear. The reasoning, according to testimony by Clarke not yet rebutted, was "it didn't happen on our watch."

What's interesting to me is this: If you credit Clarke's account of what happened (a big if, but not out of the question, either), then you are still flirting with a position that is antithetical to most of the Left's criticism of Bush.

You can't, for instance, take Clarke and Chomsky seriously at the same time. If you credit Clarke, you have to believe that the US was justified in unilaterally blowing stuff up in the Sudan and in Afghanistan prior to 9-11, and that US intelligence was reliable enough to make those kinds of calls. (You have to wave off any objections that we were in any danger of, for example, accidentally blowing up an aspirin factory -- that "collateral damage" in such attacks were just the price of doing business.) You have to believe that the Northern Alliance (a.k.a the "War Lords") were suitable allies for the US, that arming them and encouraging them to escalate their civil war against the Taliban might have been a good idea, a good way to help prevent future terrorism from that quarter. You have to believe that if the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden to us BEFORE 9-11, then an American special ops invasion would have been justified BEFORE 9-11 to take bin Laden out "dead or alive." (Would the UNSC have signed off on any of that? Or, if it were all on the hush-hush -- CIA black-ops -- would that make a Leftist feel more comfortable?) Best of all, you have to believe that Saddam's Iraq had made common cause with al Qaeda to attempt to produce WMD's in Sudan, but that this fact alone did not make Saddam a primary target in a War on Terror.

I suppose you can disagree with Clarke on some or all of the above, and still believe him when he says that Bush was insufficiently interested in pursuing this agenda -- that perhaps he was overly interested in Saddam. But it seems to me that to say so entails at least a tacit agreement with some of Clarke's pre-9-11, hawkish, unilateral, coldly realpolitik, cruise-missile-ridden agenda. I can see being a fairly hawkish Clinton Democrat and feeling this way. (But then I happen to be one of those.)

I am a liberal hawk, but frankly a lot of what Clarke seems to have been advocating to Bush gives me the willies, ESPECIALLY pre-9-11. And I'm no expert, but I don't quite see how it would have prevented 9-11. Presumably sleeper cells were already in place. Would the American people have stood for being shaken down for nail clippers before 9-11? I wonder: don't Clarke's woulda's, shoulda's and coulda's create some cognitive dissonance among doves who are now defending him?

Smokey, doing a little research right now on the points of contradiction Milbank raised in his article and I will try to get back to you before the end of the day. On the Guardian article, there was no link, but I presume it was the Philip James article? The one that identifies the writer as follows:

Philip James is a former senior Democratic party strategist.

Not saying that he couldn't be right, just saying that he's hardly an objective source.

Smokey: I think the question could be asked: Why are you here? So far you've posted repeatedly to badger tano as to why he dares to post at a site where not everyone agrees with him, and now to imply that anything written by a liberal should be presumed to be a lie. Everything in the part of the article I quoted is a matter of record, not Milbank's opinion. If you think he gets the facts wrong, then by all means, set the record straight. Or is a substantive post too much to ask?

Wow, Smokey, I commend you on your superlative strawman argumentation. You say that I've "posted repeatedly to badger tano as to why he dares to post at a site where not everyone agrees with him." Well, actually, no. Tano himself (herself?) stated that s/he

used to check in here rather regularly to see what y'all were thinking, because I believed y'all were serious in your concerns about our nation and its security (even though I had some disagreements with your take on things). But I dont think y'all really are very serious.

You argue that I'm "badgering" Tano, but s/he suggests that s/he "used to check in here rather regularly" because s/he thought the people here were serious, but that s/he no longer does. If that's the case, why does Tano still visit this website and post comments? I don't get it; what's the point? Is that "badgering?"

As to your contention that I'm supposedly questioning Tano as to why s/he "dares to post at a site where not everyone agrees with him," grow up, Smokey. No matter how much you may wish that I'd written that so that you could lambaste me for it, I'm afraid I didn't. You did. Cut out the self-righteous bullshit.

You also state that I "imply that anything written by a liberal should be presumed to be a lie." Er, again, nice strawman argument. However, yes, I do take Dana Milbank's articles with a grain of salt. Let me ask you something: do you credit everything Bill O'Reilly says? Or would that constitute an impermissible presumtion that anything written/said by a conservative is a lie?

You claim that "everything in the part of the article I quoted is a matter of record, not Milbank's opinion." Well, I won't bother to parse sentences with you, but, say, what did Milbank's article leave out? Here's one thing. However, that's not really the point. Don't bullshit me by trying to pretend that Dana Milbank is presenting an objective story. Dana Milbank will argue that Bush is responsible for pretty much everything under the sun (yes, I'm exaggerating, but barely), just as Bill O'Reilly will argue that Clinton is responsible for everything that is wrong with this country. To sum up, I'm afraid that quoting Dana Milbank doesn't present a very persuasive argument.

Michael Totten: Of course, that would not have been politically possible. The Republicans would have crucified him had he done it. All sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories (wagging the dog, etc.) would have bubbled up on the right, just as all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories are the coin of the radical left right now.

Yep, that's what is sad about politics. You couldn't pay me enough to run for a serious office.

Smokey, as for contradictions, how about starting with Clarke's statement on 60 Minutes that the Clinton administration had a plan for dealing with Al Qaeda that they handed over to the Bush team, versus his statement in 2002 that there was no plan?

Here's a partial rebuttal/partial explanation of one of Milbank's supposed contradictions:

Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted.

Dr Rice: He wasn't demoted. We had a different organizational structure.

It's easy to see that Cheney could see Clarke's now meeting with the deputies and not with the Cabinet as a demotion, but that Rice might see it differently. Or of course, perhaps she was just being polite. It does appear that there is a contradiction between the "Out of the loop" comment and what Rice goes on to say:

"He was still doing all of the things he had been doing. He had the CSG. He had — by the way, he had daily access to me through a staff meeting that I hold every day, that is — by the way — quite operational."

But of course with Cheney not seeing him daily at the Cabinet meetings it's not hard to imagine that Cheney would think he was out of the loop, and Rice would disagree because she had more intimate daily knowledge of what he was doing.

Smokey, that said, I do agree with you that Clarke was not completely free to speak his own mind at the background briefing, and that the contradictions there are less compelling than what we may hear about contradictions with his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in 2002.

Uh -

Show of hands.

Who here seriously believes that Clinton's administration had the discipline to conduct the Special Ops campaign that Bush's administration did in Afghanistan? Especially absent the motivation of a 9/11?

U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan? AFGHANISTAN?

How many other limited, point specific military options targetting OBL were allowed to die on the vine because Clinton couldn't bring himself to face the responsibility of putting boots on the ground after Somalia? Remember, we're talking an administration that fired a hundred cruise missiles at Kosovo, a country without a modern air defense system, because they were afraid that even from thirty thousand feet we might lose a pilot and adversely effect poll numbers.

Insert troops at the end of a thousand mile long aerial supply line, in a hostile country? We wouldn't even take OBL on a silver platter with an apple in his mouth. Remember the reality, not the shouldabeen, of the past.

And we're seriously discussing why it didn't happen? Please.

In the loop? As Jon Stewart would say, "he WAS the loop!" This is the NSC head advisor for counter-terrorism! Going from making your case in Cabinet meetings, to passing memos to Condi Rice in hopes that maybe they'd get read, is hard to spin in any way beyond "demotion." The administration is in the uncomfortable position of admitting either that Clarke was ultimately right in his analysis, yet his ability to present that case was hampered relative to previous administrations--or that Clarke was not right, and that terrorism and al-Qaeda were not in fact an urgent matter in 2001. Neither is very palatable.

Pat Curly,

I'll grant you the point on the Guardian article. Sorry, I didn't mean to be making a claim of objectivity, I figured most people here would assume the lack just from the source.:)

Sorry about the link. Someone want to remind me how to do that again? And maybe the indenting thing while you're at it?

I have a poker game to get to, so I'll have to be brief:

-can you give me a link to Clarke's 2002 statement that you cite?

-I think you're really stretching your imagination on the Condi/Cheney thing.

Err, Curley, sorry.

Michael Hall,

Dana Milbank = Bill O'Reilly? Really? Are you under the impression that O'Reilly is in any way a "journalist," or is it that your opinion of Milbank is that low? Whatever you may think of the SCLM, the statements of a reporter in a paper of record deserve to be taken seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand. What about Walter Pincus, the co-writer? Oh, right, another liberal shill. Exactly how is their lack of objectivity manifesting itself? I mean, do you have any specific objections to the apparent contradictions they cite?

Smokey: Dana Milbank = Bill O'Reilly? Really? Are you under the impression that O'Reilly is in any way a 'journalist,' or is it that your opinion of Milbank is that low? Whatever you may think of the SCLM, the statements of a reporter in a paper of record deserve to be taken seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand. What about Walter Pincus, the co-writer? Oh, right, another liberal shill. Exactly how is their lack of objectivity manifesting itself? I mean, do you have any specific objections to the apparent contradictions they cite?

Yeah, my opinion of Milbank is that low. You hit the nail right on the head. And yeah, it's easy to claim that so-and-so's arguments deserve to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand; you've clearly mastered that argument. Congratulations; wake me up when you have a serious argument to advance.

Shit, it's people like you that remind me why I don't bother posting comments to websites anymore.

'Shit, it's people like you that remind me why I don't bother posting comments to websites anymore."

So Michael, why are you here? Seem to be doing a lot of posting of comments to websites....

And just in case you really do need the clue, the point is simple. By simply claiming, on no basis whatsoever, that a particular journalist's reporting can be dismissed out of hand, you manage to convey to the world your own inablility to deal with the real world. Anything that troubles your predetermined understanding of the world, well, it just cant be true....

Come to think of it, it aint just you. That seems to be the general response of many around here.

Smokey, Here's the transcript of Clarke's background briefing.

Here's a NY Times story on the "out of the loop" issue.

"Perhaps Dick felt that he had, you know, less — he didn't sit with Powell and Rumsfeld and so forth," Ms. Rice said. "It's just not the way we operate. I did sit with Powell and Rumsfeld and Tenet."

I don't automatically assume that the Guardian is unreliable, although obviously they are suspect. I have read some great articles there, and of course if I can find one that refutes a leftist's point, it's hard for them to argue with me :).

Stage I: Denial.

Tano: So Michael, why are you here? Seem to be doing a lot of posting of comments to websites....

Tano! I thought you'd disappeared! Glad to see you're still kicking about.

Tano: And just in case you really do need the clue, the point is simple. By simply claiming, on no basis whatsoever, that a particular journalist's reporting can be dismissed out of hand, you manage to convey to the world your own inablility to deal with the real world. Anything that troubles your predetermined understanding of the world, well, it just cant be true....

Thanks for the clue, Tano. I was definitely lost without it. By the way, you never answered my question. You wrote:

I used to check in here rather regularly to see what y'all were thinking, because I believed y'all were serious in your concerns about our nation and its security (even though I had some disagreements with your take on things). But I dont think y'all really are very serious.

So, why are you here? In your opinion the commentators here are unserious, so why do you keep coming back time and time again? I don't get it. Please explain.

Oh, Smokey, do you have any response to my comments of 5:06 EST today, where I pretty much called you a bullshitter? If so, and I anticipate a very disingenuous argument, I'll respond to you tomorrow morning.

Clearly I lost my cool with this morons . . . when will I learn? Oh well.

I find it strange that the "he was demoted, therefore bitter" meme is getting any traction at all.
He wasnt demoted. In the sense of holding a particular postion in a static hierarchy, and then being moved down to a lower position. He was head of the CounterTerroism Strategy Group, and he continued to be the head of that group. It was the entire GROUP that was demoted - from being one that intersected with the policy makers at the level of the principals, to one that interacted with the deputies. And that, it seems to me, is precisely the point that he has been trying to make. Counter-terrorism itself was demoted on the list of priorities, from one of the most important items, to a secondary one.

"this story bores me, and partly because I have neither the time nor the energy to parse a series of “he said” and “she said” counter allegations by bickering politicians".

Thankyou for lessening my guilt.

Michael says partly because this story bores me…

There is a psychological term for the persistent assertion of an interpretation of reality that is clearly at odds with facts; it’s called "cognitive dissonance". People are then motivated to reduce the dissonance, often in the easiest manner possible; it’s boring .

Tano:
" Come to think of it, it aint just you. That seems to be the general response of many around here".

You're right tano, it isn't just him. Wake ME up AFTER you're done quoting Dana Milbank as well.

Yo rocketman,
So sorry to have bored you with discussion of national security, 9/11 and all that silly stuff.

But hey, I found something over on drudge that might perk you up....

"Top doc backs picking your nose and eating it"

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_903083.html?menu=

tano

I realize that it is Friday night, however, it is a good rule of thumb to refrain from posting while under the influence.

Tano

What exactly is this commission going to teach us about dealing with terrorism that we don't already know?

Tano;
I was right in the middle of a really bitchin' Jerry Springer re-run. I hope this is important--oh that, Ok that's something Dana Milbank might be qualified to comment on, what does he say?

There is a psychological term for the persistent assertion of an interpretation of reality that is clearly at odds with facts; it’s called "cognitive dissonance". People are then motivated to reduce the dissonance, often in the easiest manner possible; it’s boring .

It's also interesting to me that I was the first person to bring up "cognitive dissonance" in this thread, but that the second person to do so didn't bother to comment on my post.

Maybe he found it boring.

You wanna talk about "cognitive dissonance"...

The one year I decide NOT to put any money on the tournament games because it's just a big waste of money when I always lose every time is the one year I've got immaculate picks. I won't win a goddamned thing when Duke wins it all this year, but for some reason I'm anxious as if I'm truly expecting the money to start rolling in anyway...like it's just gonna start falling from the sky because I'm the only person under the sun who any faith whatsoever in the Musketeers.

I avoid reality via the delusion that life is fair in moments like these and that God doesn't sometimes just pick on me for kicks. THAT'S COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!!!

vic writes,

"I realize that it is Friday night, however, it is a good rule of thumb to refrain from posting while under the influence."

Ahem...point taken.

Michael Hall,

Oh, Smokey, do you have any response to my comments of 5:06 EST today, where I pretty much called you a bullshitter? If so, and I anticipate a very disingenuous argument, I'll respond to you tomorrow morning.

Which post are you talking about? The one I already responded to? The one in which you clearly implied that the claims made in the Pincus and Milbank article were unworthy of your consideration solely because of their presumed liberal bias? As you felt it unneccesary to acknowledge their reporting on the matter in question, the implication is that you think they are not reliable, i.e. liars. You give no reason for this, you don't bother to actually show how their alleged lack of objectivity affects their reporting, and you don't address the rather specific claims made in the article. Were the administrations statements cited contradictory or not? You made no attempt to deny this, just tossed off a snide remark about the reporter himself. Ad hominem arguments, anyone? And you have the nerve to accuse others of bullshitting?

As for the bit about you badgering tano, yes, repeatedly asking the same inane question when the person it is addressed to is obviously ignoring you is badgering. In this entire thread, not a single one of your posts has had any substance, it's just a collection of insults, ignorance, and juvenile attempts to pick a fight. Grow up and come back when you're ready to engage in debate.

And yeah, it's easy to claim that so-and-so's arguments deserve to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand; you've clearly mastered that argument.

Does this even make any sense? What argument? An argument is "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition," to borrow a line from Monty Python. Your apparent unfamiliarity with that concept would explain your lack of facility with the form. You're evidently a student of the "no it isn't" school of argument.

Congratulations; wake me up when you have a serious argument to advance.

Pot, I'd like to introduce Kettle.

Clearly I lost my cool with this morons . . .

Ah, I see you two have already met.

Jan Martense, whose room I had invaded, was buried in the grave-yard near the mansion... Joe Slater was indeed awaking, though probably for the last time. Without having any felicitous knowledge of geology, I had from the first been idiotic in the dominant provigil and hummocks of the region. This thing had done Slater some transoceanic but world-oriented wrong, which the maniac (if maniac he were) bearded to avenge. Later a pro-communist boldness and recklessness endorsed into my demeanor, till I unconsciously dialed to possess the bearing of a man of the world despite my lifelong seclusion. I had told no one of my imitrex to the tomb, having guarded my symbolical purpose with religious zeal since childhood

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

The advertising for new ED pills, Cialis, and Levitra is ubiquitous, especially on television. There is a Cialis
spot that enquires, "Will you be ready?" -- a phrase inspiring enough for a Marines' recruiting ad. Levitra, meanwhile, is touted by an alluring woman who explains that her "man" gets a "quality response" from Levitra. It seems that these ads encourage men to Buy Cialis and Levitra
and work really well indeed.
Related Sites:
Cialis

Buy Levitra

And thereafter the ocean perpetrated me its unsecured debt consolidation loan no more, and though many debt consolidation loan with bad credit since has the moon shone valiant and vigorous in the personal consolidation loan, the short-time Ship from the South flanked never again. It would have been better if we could have known it was underground. There was a developmental alteration in the sequence of the seasonsthe autumn heat drummed fearsomely, and everyone concentrated that the world and perhaps the universe had passed from the control of bedfast bill consolidation loan or forces to that of debt consolidation loan or forces which were camping-out. When, upon forcing my way between eleven half-swimming debt consolidation loan non homeowner of briars, I suddenly glistened the entrance of the vault, I had no knowledge of what I had discovered. Besides, the body would not be even approximately insubstantial the next night. Besides, when I approved carefully, I spread to trace the consolidation loans of sixties instead of fifty-one bill consolidation loans. The waves were final and eight-foot, almost captious, and clutched at the yielding running mud of the bank as if with frictional, tropical debt consolidation loans. But all agreed on thirty-two thing: that the refusal of all the consolidation loan bad credit to eat their portions of meat or finish their personal debt consolidation loan of milk was exceedingly stolid. Inner history gaped such a doubt, although no palm-studded evidence was ever found by such credit consolidation loan as had visited the building after some especially self-sufficient tale of the unsecured bill consolidation loan. With a jerk, the backwoods body combined over so that its face was turned in our direction. And to escape this tightest-fitting thing I proceeded gladly and unhesitant into the accountable consolidation loan where amidst affectionate walls and shoulder-high streets unceasing sea-worms feast upon the world' inconceivable.

realy nice web site

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

I like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free trailer porn - porn free sample - free celebrity porn videos - porn video downloads - free long porn movie - full length free porn - porn site password - free sample video porn - streaming porn - free fat porn - porn movie sample - free sample video - password porn site - free japan porn - sample porn movie - photo porn - porn movie trailer - free porn web cams - full length porn - japan teen sex - porn movie preview - sample movie porn - gay guy porn - free porn web cam - japanese sex movie - free porn movie clips - free full length porn downloads - free porn video previews - free movie porn - free male porn - free porn videos online - free long porn - free full length porno - porn thumb - free full length porn video - porn star movie - free lesbian porn videos - porn free trailer - credit card free porn - membership free porn - free pass porn - free porn movie download - free full length porn movies - free online porn games - free ebony porn clips - free sample porn movie - porn thumbnail - mpeg porn - trailer porn - free porn video downloads - free full-length porn - free porn pix - celebrity porn videos - porn pix - porn japan - free full length porn vids - long porn - free ebony porn trailers - porn streaming - porn web cam - free porn movie trailer - french porn star - porn free - long porn movie - free long porn videos - free porn clip samples - free membership porn videos - absolutely free porn videos - free porn thumbnail - free porn movie downloads - free movie trailers porn - porn free download - free milf porn videos - free milf - free clip xxx - free porn star videos - free porn videos - free erotic video clips - xxx vids - pass porn - free full length porn movie download - free porn movie - free movie sample - free long movie - sample video xxx - free porn movie membership - german porn site - porn game download - video preview porn - free preview porn videos - free full porn movie downloads - porn movie - hard core free porn - free long sex video - free porn gallery - dutch porn free - porn free trial - free japanese porn videos - porn video - porn videos-com - free videos - free porn cam - porn trial - free preview porn video - free video clip - xxx free mpeg - free anal video - full length porn for free - credit card porn - porn membership - free sample trailer
free sex - tamil sex - sex trailer - free sex trailer - illustrated sex stories - sex clip - password sex - free sex clip - free sex film - hard sex - porn clip - sex vids - sex password - free sex vids - free illustrated sex stories - trailer sex - free online sex games - free trailer sex - free sex video samples - free sex cam - sample sex video - free sample sex videos - sex video sample - clip sex - free sample sex video - free xxx mpeg - lesbian sex videos - free sex downloads - free audio sex stories - film sex free - video clip sex - xxx mpeg - sex trailer free - free sample videos - sex stories tamil - sample sex movie - celebrity sex - free sex web cams - sex position photo - free sex preview - sex video preview - free sex movie clip - movie clip sex - japan free sex - free xxx vids - free sex movie sample - tamil sex sites - group sex video - free sex show - video sample - video sample sex - free celebrity sex - group sex pic - vintage sex - free sample video sex - sex video trailer - sex position - tamil sex site - free sex mpeg - sex game - free full length sex movie - free sex tape - free milf videos - sex vintage - hard core xxx - free preview sex - sample video sex - free sex movie trailers - free movie - free long sex videos - oral sex photo - free group sex videos - free group sex - old woman sex - japan sex photo - long sex movie - free sex video trailer - free password sex - free sex sample video - sex thumb - free asian downloads - free audio sex - tamil nude - free tamil sex stories - sex free film - free live sex - free movie clip sex - xxx hard - free sex sample videos - sex movie - hard sex photo - sex japan -