Clark busted again, this time it's really bad... - Page 2 - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Lawson · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

I don't believe so.

You don't think that saying Bush did nothing, then saying he increased the CIA budget 5 fold is contradictory?

Lawson · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

And I imagine if the commission believed he had been, they'd have asked for clarification.

Which they have.

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

What was the question, and what was the answer?

Lawson · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

What was the question, and what was the answer?

I thought you said you watched it.

dgg9 · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

Read the transcripts of Clarke's testimony and the rest of the 9/11 commission testimonies to answer your questions.

I did already (the Clarke testimony) and they answer none of my questions. According to Clarke, from 1998 - 2000, Clinton simply couldn't figure out what to do in Afghanistan hence did nothing. IMO, the most obvious reason for that was that Clinton was pre-occupied in saving his own hide and couldn't be bothered with such irrelevancies as national security when the far more important issue of his historical legacy was at stake. No rationale was given for the Wag the Dog bombings.

And there was no mention of "Clinton didn't act in Afghanistan because of partisan obstruction." So the one thing the transcript did refute was YOUR argument.

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawson

I thought you said you watched it.

I did, but I didn't memorize it. Now, will you answer my question?

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawson

You don't think that saying Bush did nothing, then saying he increased the CIA budget 5 fold is contradictory?

Where did he say Bush did nothing, and Bush increased the CIA budget for covert operations 5-fold. Please stop being dishonest.

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

Quote:

CLARKE: That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

ROEMER: So as the Bush administration is carefully considering from bottom up a full review of fighting terrorism, what happens to these individual items like a response to the USS Cole, flying the Predator? Why aren't these decided in a shorter time frame as they're also going through a larger policy review of how this policy affects Pakistan and other countries -- important considerations, but why can't you do both?

CLARKE: The deputies committee, its chairman, Mr. Hadley, and others thought that all these issues were sufficiently inter-related, that they should be taken up as a set of issues, and pieces of them should not be broken off.

ROEMER: Did you agree with that?

CLARKE: No, I didn't agree with much of that.

ROEMER: Were you frustrated by this process?

CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

ROEMER: When was this?

CLARKE: Probably May or June. Certainly no later than June.

And there was agreement in that time frame, in the May or June time frame, that my request would be honored and I would be reassigned on the 1st of October to a new position to deal with cybersecurity, a position that I requested be created.

Quote:

CLARKE: President Bush was regularly told by the director of Central Intelligence that there was an urgent threat. On one occasion -- he was told this dozens of times in the morning briefings that George Tenet gave him. On one of those occasions, he asked for a strategy to deal with the threat.

Condi Rice came back from that meeting, called me, and relayed what the president had requested. And I said, "Well, you know, we've had this strategy ready since before you were inaugurated. I showed it you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy any time you want."

She said she would look into it. Her looking into it and the president asking for it did not change the pace at which it was considered. And as far as I know, the president never asked again; at least I was never informed that he asked again. I do know he was thereafter continually informed about the threat by George Tenet.

Lawson · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

Where did he say Bush did nothing, and Bush increased the CIA budget for covert operations 5-fold. Please stop being dishonest.

In his book.

Now can you explain how him saying one thing then, and the opposite now, equals being consistent to you?

We all want to understand how you are able to perform these mental flip flops so easily....

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

Quote:

GORTON: And later in 1998, of course, we had the explosions, the attack on the two embassies.

CLARKE: Right.

GORTON: And shortly after that the administration took its one military response to terrorism in the attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan. Were those actions taken on your recommendation? Were you a part of the decision-making process in calling for that reaction?

CLARKE: Senator, I was. But if I may be a little picky, this was not the administration's first or only use of military action in response to terrorism.

The administration began in the first five months -- the Clinton administration -- the first five months of the administration, six months to use military force in response to terrorism.

GORTON: The first to Al Qaida.

CLARKE: The first time that we had an Al Qaida attack on the United States facilities -- it was the first time that Al Qaida had attacked us and we had been told it was Al Qaida.

In retrospect, many years after these attacks occurred, FBI and CIA began to say that things like the World Trade Center attack in 1993 might have been done by an early stage Al Qaida.

GORTON: In August of 1998, did you recommend a longer-lasting military response or just precisely the one that, in fact, took place?

CLARKE: I recommended a series of rolling attacks against the infrastructure in Afghanistan. Every time they would rebuild it, I proposed that we blow it up again much like, in fact, we were doing in Iraq, where we had a rolling series of attacks on their air defense system.

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawson

In his book.

Now can you explain how him saying one thing then, and the opposite now, equals being consistent to you?

We all want to understand how you are able to perform these mental flip flops so easily....

You have read the book, and he explicitly states that Bush did nothing? Please cite this for me. It sounds dishonest.

You have not shown how he's said two opposite things. Merely two ambiguous statements that can be believed to be opposite.

Lawson · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

You have read the book, and he explicitly states that Bush did nothing? Please cite this for me. It sounds dishonest.

You have not shown how he's said two opposite things. Merely two ambiguous statements that can be believed to be opposite.

They are the opposite. It's hilarious to watch you squirm and claim they are not.

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

"You have read the book, and he explicitly states that Bush did nothing? Please cite this for me. It sounds dishonest.

You have not shown how he's said two opposite things. Merely two ambiguous statements that can be believed to be opposite."

Where's the citation, JLB?

Lawson · 03-25-04

RICHARD CLARKE, FMR. WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In August 2002, then-White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke told reporters that the Bush administration -- from day one -- told him to "vigorously pursue" the Clinton administration policy that allowed the United States to kill Osama bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

In addition, he said that in the spring of 2001 Bush committed to a "five-fold" increase in CIA resources dedicated to going after the al Qaeda leader.

"What we ended up with was a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda," Clarke told reporters in August 2002. "So the president recognizes very early on that you don't want to roll back al Qaeda over this long period of time, you want to eliminate al Qaeda on a much more accelerated timetable."

Please explain to us all how these two statements are the same, as you have said there is no contradiction.

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

I can't prove that they don't contradict each other. The burden of proof is on proving they DO contradict each other. I honestly can't see the contradiction, but I admit that I can not logically prove that.

SirVLCIV · 03-25-04

I think part of your problem is ignoring that Clarke DID say that "I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue"

Lawson · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

I can't prove that they don't contradict each other. The burden of proof is on proving they DO contradict each other. I honestly can't see the contradiction, but I admit that I can not logically prove that.

No, you said they don't contradict each other, so the burden is on you.

Please explain.

Lawson · 03-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

I think part of your problem is ignoring that Clarke DID say that "I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue"

I have no problem. My side is not lying and flip flopping and then refusing to explain how black is white.

You have the problem.