Anyone see 60 Minutes last night?

[Tatooman]

Former Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke PUMMELLED Bush on his mishandling of terrorism and 9/11. Clarke said Bush had ignored warnings about 9/11 and actually TOLD him to "get something on Iraq" even though Clarke and CIA Director Tenet said there was no connection in any way to Iraq over 9/11. The evidence against the Bush Administration is damning.

More in this link

[Jimsween]

Ohhhhhhhhh.... snap. No he di-int.

[lunchbxpat]

i didn't see it, but i read about it in newsweek. kerry must have shit his pants in joy when clarke's book came out.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Hmm.. That's funny, it's the same Richard Clark that turned down Osama bin Laden when Sudan offered him to the US in '98.

That's also funny that it's the same Richard Clark that kept insisting that the United States was gonna be attacked by cyberterrorism, and was demoted by Bush because Bush did not feel that the cyberterrorism threat was not as significant as that of other forms of terrorism.

That's also funny that The Free Press, publisher of Clark's book, is a subsidiary of Viacom, which owns CBS.

[ReiperX]

That's also funny that it's the same Richard Clark that kept insisting that the United States was gonna be attacked by cyberterrorism, and was demoted by Bush because Bush did not feel that the cyberterrorism threat was not as significant as that of other forms of terrorism.

We were hit by cyberterrorism a while back, just our backups worked pretty damned good. The World Wide Servers or something like that were being hacked or something like that, which could have crippled the interenet, but not all of the servers were hit, and only slowed the connections down a little. Would really hate to see what would happen if it happened again with the people that did it the first time knew what they did wrong and they hit all of the servers harder.

[second-sun]

it's going to be really fun when bush loses the election, which he definitely will, and then demand a recount, which is a pretty good chance. That's going to be really fun to watch.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/22/04 03:44 PM, second_sun wrote: it's going to be really fun when bush loses the election, which he definitely will, and then demand a recount, which is a pretty good chance. That's going to be really fun to watch.

It'll be even more fun bookmarking that statement of yours in case he wins.

[bumcheekcity]

At 3/22/04 03:45 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: It'll be even more fun bookmarking that statement of yours in case he wins.

I think he will win, because I think he's got something up his sleeve for four months time.

[Proteas]

And why should we believe anything Clarke has to say?

[RedSkunk]

At 3/22/04 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote: And why should we believe anything Clarke has to say?

Because it reinforces our already made up opinions?

[trigo]

At 3/22/04 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote: And why should we believe anything Clarke has to say?

because it's not surprising in the least and very probable. Look at everything going on. And if a governmentally funded news station wants to cover it, then its damn serious.

[second-sun]

At 3/22/04 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote: And why should we believe anything Clarke has to say?

And why should you believe everything Bush has to say? Don't you think blindly trusting either is kind of dumb? The only difference is that Clarke really has little to gain from what he told America, whereas Bush has everything to lose. US politics have turned into "The following statement is true: The previous statement was false."

[UnfocusedFenix]

i personally bush knew that we were gonna be attacked, and alowed it to happened. this might seem crazy, but i think he wanted them to attack so that he could eventually attack iraq and take back the pride that his father lost thier. i dont think he ever imagined somthing the size of 9/11, but im sure he wanted somthing to happen

[trigo]

At 3/22/04 06:50 PM, UnfocusedFenix wrote: i personally bush knew that we were gonna be attacked, and alowed it to happened. this might seem crazy, but i think he wanted them to attack so that he could eventually attack iraq and take back the pride that his father lost thier. i dont think he ever imagined somthing the size of 9/11, but im sure he wanted somthing to happen

well actually, thats not crazy at all. I agree, but obviously more than you. I believe that 9-11 was completely staged by our own government. I believe it, but i can't back it up.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/22/04 07:57 PM, implodable wrote: I believe it, but i can't back it up.

Terrific

[trigo]

At 3/22/04 08:25 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: Terrific

you'd think so huh? but nah i think it kinda sucks. oh well

[Proteas]

At 3/22/04 06:31 PM, second_sun wrote:

At 3/22/04 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote: And why should we believe anything Clarke has to say?

And why should you believe everything Bush has to say?

I didn't say I did, you did.

Don't you think blindly trusting either is kind of dumb?

No, I think it's suicidal.

The only difference is that Clarke really has little to gain from what he told America, whereas Bush has everything to lose.

Of course he's got something to gain; sales. All he's doing is pandering to the democrats and liberals so he can pay his bills, doesn't anyone else see that?

US politics have turned into "The following statement is true: The previous statement was false."

A he said/she said situation, everything is taken at face value and people believe you wether you have proof or not. No exchange of ideas, just arguments over who's better.

Much like some of the arguments on these boards....

[RedSkunk]

At 3/23/04 08:08 PM, Proteas wrote:

The only difference is that Clarke really has little to gain from what he told America, whereas Bush has everything to lose.

Of course he's got something to gain; sales. All he's doing is pandering to the democrats and liberals so he can pay his bills, doesn't anyone else see that?

But his story is matching up admirably with all of the other dissenters, especially the last one.. Who was it.. I can't remember.. 'Paul Bremer?'

And how can you simply rule it out because he stands to make a bit of money? Would this not rule out any such tell-all books, from either side of the spectrum?

And he could of gained a lot more, I'm sure, if he had instead dropped the book and got a cushy job as a consultant or a lobbyist.

[Proteas]

At 3/23/04 08:21 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote:

At 3/23/04 08:08 PM, Proteas wrote:

The only difference is that Clarke really has little to gain from what he told America, whereas Bush has everything to lose.

Of course he's got something to gain; sales. All he's doing is pandering to the democrats and liberals so he can pay his bills, doesn't anyone else see that?

But his story is matching up admirably with all of the other dissenters, especially the last one.. Who was it.. I can't remember.. 'Paul Bremer?'

I never read his book, nor do I remember a controversy when it came out. What's your point?

And how can you simply rule it out because he [Clarke] stands to make a bit of money?

Because he's been out of job for the past two years? Because that severance package he got from the government only lasts so long? Perhaps he likes eating?
Look at it from this perspective: It's an election year, a nice portion of the population is just looking for reasons to vote democrat or liberal, it's the perfect time to publish a tell-all-anti-bush oriented book and rake in the cash. It would be naive to say that

Would this not rule out any such tell-all books, from either side of the spectrum?

Quite possibly. You wouldn't only be making quite a chunk of change from sales of the book, you would be getting revenge on the person it's written about by making them look bad in the public eye.

And he could of gained a lot more, I'm sure, if he had instead dropped the book and got a cushy job as a consultant or a lobbyist.

A consulting job with who? Lockheed Martin?

[Proteas]

I should have said "It would be naive to think otherwise."

[RedSkunk]

At 3/24/04 11:31 AM, Proteas wrote: Because he's been out of job for the past two years? Because that severance package he got from the government only lasts so long? Perhaps he likes eating?

It takes time to write a book.

A consulting job with who? Lockheed Martin?

Anyone! It's what they almost all do.

[Proteas]

At 3/25/04 02:33 PM, Red_Skank wrote:

At 3/24/04 11:31 AM, Proteas wrote: Because he's been out of job for the past two years? Because that severance package he got from the government only lasts so long? Perhaps he likes eating?

It takes time to write a book.

True, but don't you think it's kind of coincidental that it was released now and not 6-8 months after he quite his job as czar?