Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (36189)	3/23/2004 2:51:56 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

Sometimes it may actually be safer to be loved than feared. An Israel that took risks for peace might find unexpected rewards. Did the year 2000 ever exist? As for Israel not reaping benefits from the anarchy, obviously it doesn't intend to kill Yassin and pull out tomorrow. It makes no sense to critique this a single operation. It is clear that Israel has a problem leaving a Gaza ruled by Hamas, and no one else intends to do anything about it. So Sharon is rolling the dice - that part I can agree with. And if the PA collapses too, who should mourn for it? It's not like the PA has been a benign influence for anybody except Arafat's cronies.

To: LindyBill who wrote (36189)	3/23/2004 2:57:56 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

The untold story of another tell-all By Boston Herald editorial staff Tuesday, March 23, 2004 There ought to be some sort of official warning label on books (and statements) by ex-government officials who tell tales out of school - something like ``Beware: The author may have his own hidden agenda.'' What Richard A. Clarke's motives may be - above and beyond hawking his new book - are the subject of much speculation. That the book's debut and Clarke's making the rounds of major media outlets coincide with his appearance today before the 9/11 Commission are surely not accidental. Neither is the fact that all of this is taking place in the heat of a presidential election year. And just to set the record straight, Clarke, who has been widely described as an counterterrorism adviser to President Bush [related, bio] until his resignation a year ago, also served in that same capacity during the Clinton administration. So while Clarke charges Bush with everything but giving the keys to White House to Osama bin Laden, it should also be noted that he was an adviser to President Clinton at the time of the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole and the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania. And while Clarke is really adept at throwing stones at the Bush administration, he hasn't addressed the question of why Clinton didn't have bin Laden arrested as far back as 1996, when the CIA reportedly had him in its sights. Clarke also insists that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ``looked skeptical'' when she was warned early in 2001 about the threat from al-Qaeda. ``Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before,'' Clarke wrote. Her facial expression! In addition to being condescending, Clarke's description blurs the line between fact and fiction. And when Clarke in January 2001 wrote a memo to Rice on improving U.S. security, he dealt entirely with possible overseas targets - no targets within the United States were on his list. Way to go, Dick. So what is all this about, other than, of course, hyping book sales? Well, there is one very telling line in the book when Clarke writes: ``One shudders to think what additional errors [Bush] will make in the next four years to strengthen the al-Qaeda follow-ons: attacking Syria or Iran, undermining the Saudi regime without a plan for a successor state?'' Ah, the next four years. Hmmm. Clarke, you should also know, is a close associate of Rand Beers, who served for a time as Clarke's deputy. Currently Beers serves as a national security adviser to Democratic president contender John Kerry [related, bio]. No wonder there's speculation as to motive and timing of Clarke's revelations. It's one thing to try to make a buck off with something that purports to be a tell-all from inside the White House. It's quite another to besmirch reputations for both profit and for political purposes.