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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (127491)	3/27/2004 3:18:40 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Check out the first chapter of Clarke's book Oh, I think not. He's not a reliable source. The problem with that response, CB, is that what Clarke says in that chapter could have been refuted by an enormous number of folk. And none have taken a shot. With Bush out of town, Rice asked Clarke to organize the federal government's actions from very soon after the plane hit the first tower to many days later. It's interesting to note, that no one has argued with that.

To: Ilaine who wrote (127491)	3/28/2004 10:12:55 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; The recent Bush attacks against Clarke are due only to Clarke's pointing out that Bush bobbled the war on terrorism by going into Iraq. Before Clarke spoke out on the Iraq fiasco, he was considered a golden boy by the neocons. For example: Clinton’s Loss? National Review Online, September 11, 2003 ... At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law ... ... If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day. ... nationalreview.com You've suggested that Clarke really didn't have much of a role to play in Bush's administration, and that the only reason that Bush didn't fire him was because he felt sorry for Clarke's nearing retirement, LOL. Clarke was listed in the "who's who" in the war on terror, in the 4th position, right after the President and the director of homeland security: WHO'S WHO: CNN, October 27, 2001 George W. Bush: U.S. president Click here for more. Laura Bush: First lady of the United States, she has become more visible since the terrorist attacks, making public appearances urging parents and teachers to help reassure children that everything is being done to try to keep them safe. Click here for more Tom Ridge: Director of the U.S. Office of Homeland Security, a new Cabinet-level position Click here for more Richard Clarke: Head of efforts to safeguard information systems for the Office of Homeland Security ... cnn.com Key homeland security deputies appointed CNN, October 7, 2001 ... Richard Clarke, already on the National Security Council as a special adviser for cyber security, will take over a new post in charge of combating cyber terrorism and protecting essential information networks. ... cnn.com In other words, Clarke is a great guy, a true patriot, as long as he is saying good things about Bush and bad things about Clinton, LOL. In other words, it's just more partisan bickering. The fight is not in Iraq, it's in the borderline Republican / Democrat states, and the battle is not for the hearts and minds of the Islamic peoples of the world, it's a battle over American voters in the ballot box. As far as Clarke turning on his ex boss, if that's a surprise to anyone, then they've probably never worked for a boss who has a habit of firing people for doing stuff like telling the media the truth. -- Carl