Against All Enemies.........

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
Did you check the link or not, lefty?

If so, and you care to comment, that's fine.

If not, I'll leave the thread to you.

One thing at a time j2... . If he was fired and is acting out of pique then I think that should be dealt with and not swept under the carpet.

I asked for your source that claimed he was fired. You refused to provide it and as far as I can tell are continuing to refuse to provide it.

In the link you posted it says he resigned.

Which is it? Fired or resigned?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by leftism@24 March 2004 - 11:49
In the link you posted it says he resigned.

Which is it? Fired or resigned?

it's kind of a debatable point with people in this sort of position.....they are not as a rule "fired" rather invited to resign. One could argue the same thing in reality but it's just political speak.
Of course he may very well have decided to resign because he wanted to persue a career elsewhere ( as an author perhaps )

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+24 March 2004 - 13:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 24 March 2004 - 13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Did you check the link or not, lefty?

If so, and you care to comment, that&#39;s fine.

If not, I&#39;ll leave the thread to you.

One thing at a time j2... . If he was fired and is acting out of pique then I think that should be dealt with and not swept under the carpet.

I asked for your source that claimed he was fired. You refused to provide it and as far as I can tell are continuing to refuse to provide it.

In the link you posted it says he resigned.

Which is it? Fired or resigned?[/b][/quote]
Odd.

I thought the link was Clarke&#39;s hosannah to Bush and his efforts against terrorism, which would have the large effect of giving lie to much of what Clarke says in his book.

As to the rest of my posting, these are my conclusions, based on my thoughts, based on information that I have gleaned from various sources.

I didn&#39;t have to google anything to arrive at my assertion.

Here&#39;s a better idea, lefty-go stream the video of Clarke&#39;s testimony so you can watch it live (he is testifying now), rather than rely on the relative deficiency of googling.

You may arrive at the same viewpoint I have, or find that defending Clarke is untenable.

In either case, that which you presume to lie "under the rug" will be of no further consequence.

[leftism]

The link you provided doesn&#39;t mention Iraq at all. The most damning (imho) of Clarke&#39;s allegations is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq, after 9/11 and wanted Clarke to find a connection between Saddam and the attacks even though he was told there was none.

If you look at the top of that interview you&#39;ll see that it says "Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003."

Thus your sources contradict each other. Was he fired or did he resign? This is an important factor in judging his motivation. After all, it was the first point you raised with the word "fired" highlighted in bold. Yet now you say it is of no consequence?

All you have to do is provide the source(s) that claimed he was fired so the rest of us can judge their merit for ourselves. Why are you refusing to do so?

Btw I&#39;ve searched for "clarke testimony video stream" on google but nothings come up. If someone can provide a link I&#39;d appreciate it.

[J'Pol]

I have no opinion on this subject, before today I didn&#39;t know the difference between this chap and a bar of soap.

Here is a link which paints him in quite a disingenuous light. I have no knowledge of the accuracy or relevance of the material, however it is interesting reading and makes what appear to be decent points regarding his motives.

Judge for yourself

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=12673

[leftism]

Can&#39;t say I&#39;m too impressed by that article J&#39;Pol.

We now know that this dogma was false, and Iraq did in fact support and collaborate with al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups.

It also refers to him as a "clintonite" and totally ignores the fact that he&#39;s worked with every President since Reagan.

This is why I&#39;m undecided. Too much spin coming from partisans on both sides of the fence.

[J'Pol]

Like I said, I really have no opinion or prior interest in this. There are several things however which strike me as worthy of note. These primarily relate to whether he has aligned himself to a particular candidate, the timing of the release, the fact that CBS appear to be owned by the same company which published the book itself.

My gut tells me that there is more to this than someone releasing a book. I await developments with interest. Once again this board has introduced me to a subject which otherwise I would not have bothered with.

[j2k4]

Lefty-

You overlooked a very important fact:

The link I provided was to a transcript of a background interview given by Clarke which took place in August of 2002.

What you apparently missed is made obvious by your statement thus:

Quote: leftism
The link you provided doesn&#39;t mention Iraq at all. The most damning (imho) of Clarke&#39;s allegations is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq, after 9/11 and wanted Clarke to find a connection between Saddam and the attacks even though he was told there was none.

Clarke&#39;s information was in reference to GWB&#39;s policy moves as to terrorism beginning January, 2001, literally days after taking office.

9/11 was still over 7 months away&#33;


In light of this duly referenced FACT, I suggest you re-assess your posting, for it is flawed.

BTW-

I thought the topic was the man, his book and his credibility.

What, specifically, are you banging on about Iraq for?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@24 March 2004 - 14:55
I have no opinion on this subject, before today I didn&#39;t know the difference between this chap and a bar of soap.

Here is a link which paints him in quite a disingenuous light. I have no knowledge of the accuracy or relevance of the material, however it is interesting reading and makes what appear to be decent points regarding his motives.

Judge for yourself

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=12673

Another interesting link, J&#39;Pol.

Methinks Mr. Clarke&#39;s credibility problems are manifold.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by leftism@

The link you provided doesn&#39;t mention Iraq at all. The most damning (imho) of Clarke&#39;s allegations is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq, after 9/11 and wanted Clarke to find a connection between Saddam and the attacks even though he was told there was none.

9/11 was still over 7 months away&#33;


In light of this duly referenced FACT, I suggest you re-assess your posting, for it is flawed.

BTW-

I thought the topic was the man, his book and his credibility.

What, specifically, are you banging on about Iraq for?
[/b]

J2k4. Its not difficult.

The main allegation Clarke has made is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq after 9/11, demanding that he find a connection that didn&#39;t exist. That is a major part of his book is it not?

That article you posted doesn&#39;t mention this at all, because as you stated 9/11 hadn&#39;t happened yet. That didn&#39;t pass me by

All that article "proves" is that the guy didn&#39;t slag off his boss whilst he was still employed by him. How many whistle blowers do? It doesn&#39;t mean he&#39;s wrong.

Now for the 3rd (or is it the 4th time) are you going to provide us with the source of your info that said he was fired (you did put it in bold text so I assume it was important to you)? Or should I just put it down to a figment of your imagination?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Another interesting link, J&#39;Pol.&nbsp;

Methinks Mr. Clarke&#39;s credibility problems are manifold. [/quote]

If you read it properly you&#39;ll see it&#39;s extremely biased and factually incorrect as I have already pointed out. Al-Queda in cahoots with Iraq? Look out for the flying pig, it&#39;s behind you

The more I see of this the more I think Clarkes on to something. The partisans are out in full force and are ready to do battle.