fix
Member
9 posts and you're done?
Mmmmmmmmmmkay. Buh-bye.
Mmmmmmmmmmkay. Buh-bye.
Rumsfeld caught lying yet again...
- Thread starter JitsuGuy
- Start date
- Status
Leatherneck
Member
You might be interested in an e-mail I just received from an old friend who was a Navy CAG-Carrier Airwing Commander- in OEF:
"Sometimes I think we forget about our opponent’s mindset and continue to view them as though they are American. TLAM into Iraq , Afghanistan, etc didn’t impress anyone. 70 ton tanks ruining someone’s lawn or urban renewal via GBU 24 tends to make an opponent more willing to see our side of the story.
Brute force attrition warfare may be the only thing some understand. What did the Afghanis cadres fear most in OEF – one word, ArcLight. B52’s doing the same thing they did 30 years ago. Will our future systems have this option?"
He understands what's needed; too bad the liberals don't have a clue...
TC
TFL Survivor
"Sometimes I think we forget about our opponent’s mindset and continue to view them as though they are American. TLAM into Iraq , Afghanistan, etc didn’t impress anyone. 70 ton tanks ruining someone’s lawn or urban renewal via GBU 24 tends to make an opponent more willing to see our side of the story.
Brute force attrition warfare may be the only thing some understand. What did the Afghanis cadres fear most in OEF – one word, ArcLight. B52’s doing the same thing they did 30 years ago. Will our future systems have this option?"
He understands what's needed; too bad the liberals don't have a clue...
TC
TFL Survivor
freewheeling
Member
If you choose to take offense that's fine, but when you haven't really presented a rational argument, but have begun your so-called analysis with what amounts to a non sequitur, what more is there to say. You believe something I consider totally irrational. I submit that if you think I'm being unfair, then take on the burden to explain yourself more rigorously and, as it were, "get down on all fours" with the problem. I'll use another analogy. If the task is to see who can throw a football the farthest and you start by insisting on chopping the ball in half prior to taking your turn it leaves me with something of a dilemma as to how to respond. I simply don't think you grasp the problem, and in fact fall so far short of comprehending it that we'd have to delve into some of the "priors" that you, no doubt, take to be part of the unexamined context of your assumptions. I simply have no way to address those, and since they remain unexamined for you I don't think it's possible to even bring them to your attention. Many have tried, again and again, with what I think is extraordinary patience and perseverance.
freewheeling
Member
idd:
No, but here's a site that has the scans of the series of memos from Shays . You can take it from there, if you think it's worth the trouble.
No, but here's a site that has the scans of the series of memos from Shays . You can take it from there, if you think it's worth the trouble.
Clarke's words of wisdom
In the testimony he said they were working on it an that it was ready to be implemented when 9/11 happened and that nothing he had proposed would have changed 9/11.
Does anyone think he really dragged him into a room or is this another embellishment to create a negative image of GWB.
And after all his years of practice, he did a great job applying "standard Washington practice" to his new book. He is about as credible as any other career politician.
Do you think he might be highlighting again in his book?
Half truths are whole lies no matter what standard Washington practice dictates.
P.S. IMO - Clarke's apology to the families made me sick. It appeared to be very well rehearsed so he would appear as their humble public servant who had failed them. I could just picture him in front of the mirror trying out the different facial expressions to see which one would give the desired affect.
In the testimony he said they were working on it an that it was ready to be implemented when 9/11 happened and that nothing he had proposed would have changed 9/11.
Does anyone think he really dragged him into a room or is this another embellishment to create a negative image of GWB.
And after all his years of practice, he did a great job applying "standard Washington practice" to his new book. He is about as credible as any other career politician.
Do you think he might be highlighting again in his book?
Half truths are whole lies no matter what standard Washington practice dictates.
P.S. IMO - Clarke's apology to the families made me sick. It appeared to be very well rehearsed so he would appear as their humble public servant who had failed them. I could just picture him in front of the mirror trying out the different facial expressions to see which one would give the desired affect.
I read it. There's no original cite, no full quote. Apparently Clarke used the word "silly" during a briefing. From Shays' letter it just is not clear enough to evaluate Clarke's statement in which he used the word "silly."
Whenver I watch Congress on CSPAN, I hear Congressmen say a lot of silly things, so who knows. Maybe some Congresscritter asked Clarke a silly question.
<shrug>
It's an expression, kinda like "raining cats and dogs."
It's certainly possible. It has been credibly claimed that the Sudanese gov. offered to hand over bin Laden to the US gov in 1996, but that Clinton turned down this offer. I wanted to see Clarke address this point in his book at length. I hope that the 9/11 Commission examines this.
We need to get to the bottom of it regardless of which political party comes out looking bad.
freewheeling
Member
I'm sorry idd but I just don't see any ambiguity here. I could suggest that Rep. Shays is very highly regarded on matters of intelligence (I don't know which party), but that's kind of beside the point. You're engaging in some rather dramatic logical contortions to excuse behavior that's rather obviously questionable. I could see you saying that the fellow was a sinner but has mended his ways (his earlier testimony was in error or is morally suspect, but he's turned a new leaf), or you could say that his earlier testimony is more believable because there was less self interest. As for me, I don't think his actions are partisan. I think they're crassly vengeful, consistent with the sort of life one leads as a high level staffer in a world with little love or natural affection. Someone does you wrong, you pay them back. But if Bush made errors, or regarded terrorism too lightly I just don't think Clarke is the fellow to convince me. A structure can stand only so much termite damage before its integrity is simply destroyed.
The way I see this is twofold:
1. The feeling that whether or not Bush or the government failed us is more important than the evil that attacked us is what some of the folks here would call a "sheeple attitude." It suggests the failed notion exemplified by those first three planes on 9/11, whose passengers sat meekly in their seats trusting the authorities to sort things out. The people who have that attitude are bitterly disappointed and threatened by the fact that their expectations of the state were not fulfilled. And they are willing to blame the administration for not being omniscient and omnipotent. I think this is the paradigm that was destroyed on 9/11, but you think what you like.
2. We have an opportunity to educate folks about what constitutes an effective global anti-terrorism (really anti-totalitarian) strategy. The essential bug that's up Clarke's ass is that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and detrimental to the war (because it made checking off his laundry list of threats more difficult). This is diametrically opposed to my view, which is that regardless of whether WMD existed we need a beachhead for liberal democracy in the Muslim Middle East, and without it the rise of Totalitarianism 3.x is a virtual certainty. Ultimately there'll be a lot worse than Bin Laden to worry about if we don't finish what we started.
It's time for Bush and his administration to make this position clear to Americans, and let them make up their minds about whether to allow him to see it through, or listen to the opposing view that we need more meetings, more international agreements and more mole-whacking.
To be honest, the details of the duo-thuggery involved in the political/electoral battle within our Democratic state bore the s**t out of me.
The way I see this is twofold:
1. The feeling that whether or not Bush or the government failed us is more important than the evil that attacked us is what some of the folks here would call a "sheeple attitude." It suggests the failed notion exemplified by those first three planes on 9/11, whose passengers sat meekly in their seats trusting the authorities to sort things out. The people who have that attitude are bitterly disappointed and threatened by the fact that their expectations of the state were not fulfilled. And they are willing to blame the administration for not being omniscient and omnipotent. I think this is the paradigm that was destroyed on 9/11, but you think what you like.
2. We have an opportunity to educate folks about what constitutes an effective global anti-terrorism (really anti-totalitarian) strategy. The essential bug that's up Clarke's ass is that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and detrimental to the war (because it made checking off his laundry list of threats more difficult). This is diametrically opposed to my view, which is that regardless of whether WMD existed we need a beachhead for liberal democracy in the Muslim Middle East, and without it the rise of Totalitarianism 3.x is a virtual certainty. Ultimately there'll be a lot worse than Bin Laden to worry about if we don't finish what we started.
It's time for Bush and his administration to make this position clear to Americans, and let them make up their minds about whether to allow him to see it through, or listen to the opposing view that we need more meetings, more international agreements and more mole-whacking.
To be honest, the details of the duo-thuggery involved in the political/electoral battle within our Democratic state bore the s**t out of me.
You're right, that is the essential bug up his ass, so to speak. Watching him and reading him, I just really didn't get the impression that was personally miffed about the restructure of the CSG under Bush, and that he could no longer send his memos directly to the president but had to send them through Rice and her assistant Hadley. The major media have focused on Clarke v. Bush over the first eight months, and have tended to gloss over his opposition to the Iraq war.
When Bush invaded Iraq, I admit that I leaned in favor of the war just because I thought it was probably inevitable. I had halfway followed the talk about WMD, and figured that where there's smoke, there's fire, right? Better to take him out now than down the road when he develops nukes. Turns out I was duped. Now I agree with Luttwak that Iraq was a strategic error.
So I agree with Clarke's argument on Iraq; you agree with Wolfowitz. So who is right? Perhaps the passage of time will better answer the question.
fallingblock
Member
{applause} for idd!
"So I agree with Clarke's argument on Iraq; you agree with Wolfowitz. So who is right? Perhaps the passage of time will better answer the question."
************************************************************
Agreement and accord all around.
"So I agree with Clarke's argument on Iraq; you agree with Wolfowitz. So who is right? Perhaps the passage of time will better answer the question."
************************************************************
Agreement and accord all around.
freewheeling
Member
What argument? I guess we could infer (just because it's all he could say) that his objection rests on two points:
1. Increasing US presence in the Middle East goads the Islamo/Fascists, or helps their recruitment, or something.
2. Focus on Iraq distracts us from the "real war" which is hunting down and taking out all the "bad actors."
So it's clear that in both cases he's concerned about not eliminating the bad actors. It's tough to know for sure, but if the Zarqawi letter, which was never intended for infidel eyes and ears, is any guide at all the Clarke paradigm is wrong. What we're doing now is drying up the swamp from which the recruits are derived, and we're either putting the bad actors in a box where we can fight them on our own terms, or use surrogates (Iraqis themselves) to do it for us, or we're apprehending them and cracking into their network. It is probably true that we are doing the latter job less well than we would otherwise, because we have resources on the ground in Iraq. But it's basically a budgeting problem, and a matter of whether to be "penny wise and pound foolish."
But note that CLarke isn't actually even trying to make this case. He isn't providing any sort of logical or reasoned strategic argument. (And Chris Shays says he's not even very good at strategy.) Clarke is simply saying that "Bush lied" about having any diligent plan at all. And I have to think that, in general, Americans are smart enough that the majority won't buy it. The Democrats enlist a known and demonstrable liar as the champion of their cause. What does that tell you about their judgment on this and other matters?
I agree completely!!!
I don't like politics because it is full of politicians. If the parties were made up of average Americans most of the problems would go away because the extremists would not have much influence. Special interest operatives would have less influence over policy (liberal or conservative). Our voice isn't heard because there is no one listening. They only speak the language of politics now.
The 9/11 commission has been fairly balanced with criticism for all sides. I personally found Clarke's statement about using the "standard Washington practice" of half truths for many presidents less than comforting. Saying that his statements only appear to be contradictory because he chose to emphasize different things at different times is typical Washington double talk. The intent to deceive is evident and that is what matters to me even if it does not technically break the law. The same goes for all the politicians.
Based on his full public testimony in various forums it is obvious that his current statements in the book and media are full of half truths. And again in my book, half truths are whole lies no matter what standard Washington practice dictates.
Last edited:
freewheeling
Member
Taurus:
Some are half-truths and some don't even rise to that level. Frist is calling for opening up the prior testimony of Clarke in order to determine whether he has perjured himself. I think it's pretty much an open and shut case. On the one hand he says that the Bush administration increased the focus on terrorism (prior to 9\11) "five-fold" over the Clinton administration. On the other he says they were derelict. If this is simply a matter of "emphasis" I'd be very surprised. Anyway, the Sunday Morning talk shows tomorrow ought to be very interesting.
Plus, I don't really know how much we can ultimately correct things by looking exclusively in the rear-view. If we drove our cars that way we'd be in the ditch most of the time.
Some are half-truths and some don't even rise to that level. Frist is calling for opening up the prior testimony of Clarke in order to determine whether he has perjured himself. I think it's pretty much an open and shut case. On the one hand he says that the Bush administration increased the focus on terrorism (prior to 9\11) "five-fold" over the Clinton administration. On the other he says they were derelict. If this is simply a matter of "emphasis" I'd be very surprised. Anyway, the Sunday Morning talk shows tomorrow ought to be very interesting.
Plus, I don't really know how much we can ultimately correct things by looking exclusively in the rear-view. If we drove our cars that way we'd be in the ditch most of the time.
fix
Member
Did it ever occur to you that the Bush Administration might feel the same way you do?
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
He COULD be saying that even a five-fold increase was STILL dereliction 
Perhaps he is suggesting we should send 100 million armed troops to eliminate Al Qaeda?
Perhaps he is suggesting we should send 100 million armed troops to eliminate Al Qaeda?
freewheeling
Member
FMJ:
That, indeed, would be the logical consequence of the "nanny state" assumption that government ought to be omniscient and omnipotent. We ought to be able to whack every single mole on the golf course.
That, indeed, would be the logical consequence of the "nanny state" assumption that government ought to be omniscient and omnipotent. We ought to be able to whack every single mole on the golf course.
GoRon
Member
It is called taking action BEFORE the threat is IMMINENT.
Or the Bush Doctrine.
You can bet the next time the Government proposes military action like this the intelligence will be as close to airtight as possible.
w4rma
member
Speaking of lying and national security. Here is an outrageously blatant lie. What a whopper from Rice:
Condoleezza Rice Says She's Constitutionally Barred From Testifying Publicly Before 9/11 Panel
03-28-2004 07:33 PM
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
CRAWFORD, Texas -- White House allies and Republicans investigating the Sept. 11 attacks pressed Sunday to hear open testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, with one commissioner calling her refusal a "political blunder of the first order."
Rice said in a TV interview that she wants to meet with the families of the Sept. 11 victims because she knows they are disappointed she cannot testify publicly. "Nothing would be better ... than to be able to testify," Rice told CBS's "60 Minutes."
President Bush, spending a long weekend on his Texas ranch, gave no ground, and several aides said he will not change his mind on letting Rice testify. But Bush sent her and other top administration officials out for television interviews to rebut fresh attacks on the way his administration has handled the threat of terrorism.
Sharpening his criticism, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said President Clinton was more aggressive than Bush in trying to confront al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's organization.
"He did something, and President Bush did nothing prior to September 11," Clarke told NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did before" Sept. 11, Clarke said of the Bush's administration. "They never got around to doing anything."
Clarke said a sweeping declassification of documents would prove that the Bush administration neglected the threat of terrorism in the nine months leading up to the attacks.
He said he sought declassification of all six hours of his testimony before a congressional committee two years ago. Some Republicans have said that testimony about Sept. 11 contradicts Clarke's current criticism.
Clarke said he also wanted Rice's previous interview before the independent Sept. 11 commission declassified, along with e-mails between him and Rice, and other documents, including a memo he sent on Jan. 25, 2001 offering a road map to the new Bush administration on how to confront al-Qaida, and the directive that a National Security Council adopted on Sept. 4, 2001.
The material will prove that Bush was "lackadaisical" about terrorism before the attacks, Clarke said, because "they're basically the same thing. And they wasted months when we could have had some action."
…
http://sandiego.cox.net/cci/portal/_pagr/127/_pa.127/669?view=article&id=D81JMTTO0
She actually is trying to fool people into believing that the U.S. Constitution prevents her from publically testifying under oath. Truth really is stranger than fiction.
If she gets caught lying under oath she gets slapped with pergery, but she can go onto TV and lie all she wants and the only thing that happens is that she gets yelled at.
Condoleezza Rice Says She's Constitutionally Barred From Testifying Publicly Before 9/11 Panel
03-28-2004 07:33 PM
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
CRAWFORD, Texas -- White House allies and Republicans investigating the Sept. 11 attacks pressed Sunday to hear open testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, with one commissioner calling her refusal a "political blunder of the first order."
Rice said in a TV interview that she wants to meet with the families of the Sept. 11 victims because she knows they are disappointed she cannot testify publicly. "Nothing would be better ... than to be able to testify," Rice told CBS's "60 Minutes."
President Bush, spending a long weekend on his Texas ranch, gave no ground, and several aides said he will not change his mind on letting Rice testify. But Bush sent her and other top administration officials out for television interviews to rebut fresh attacks on the way his administration has handled the threat of terrorism.
Sharpening his criticism, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said President Clinton was more aggressive than Bush in trying to confront al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's organization.
"He did something, and President Bush did nothing prior to September 11," Clarke told NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did before" Sept. 11, Clarke said of the Bush's administration. "They never got around to doing anything."
Clarke said a sweeping declassification of documents would prove that the Bush administration neglected the threat of terrorism in the nine months leading up to the attacks.
He said he sought declassification of all six hours of his testimony before a congressional committee two years ago. Some Republicans have said that testimony about Sept. 11 contradicts Clarke's current criticism.
Clarke said he also wanted Rice's previous interview before the independent Sept. 11 commission declassified, along with e-mails between him and Rice, and other documents, including a memo he sent on Jan. 25, 2001 offering a road map to the new Bush administration on how to confront al-Qaida, and the directive that a National Security Council adopted on Sept. 4, 2001.
The material will prove that Bush was "lackadaisical" about terrorism before the attacks, Clarke said, because "they're basically the same thing. And they wasted months when we could have had some action."
…
http://sandiego.cox.net/cci/portal/_pagr/127/_pa.127/669?view=article&id=D81JMTTO0
She actually is trying to fool people into believing that the U.S. Constitution prevents her from publically testifying under oath. Truth really is stranger than fiction.
If she gets caught lying under oath she gets slapped with pergery, but she can go onto TV and lie all she wants and the only thing that happens is that she gets yelled at.
0007
Member
So now she going to "testify" be careful what you ask for...
freewheeling
Member
w4rma:
Why is it the anti-Bush people don't seem to know what a lie is? Rice can probably testify, but according to the legal interpretation they're utilizing doing so would set a precident that would undermine the executive in time of war. Other legal interpretations say it isn't so. At any rate I imagine she'd love to testify. The Democrats are furious about the fact that the Bush people haven't walked into the trap.
BTW, the reason Clarke began calling for disclosure of all transcripts is that he knows that doing so would undermine US security, so it'll never happen. He's attempting to innoculate himself from prosecution for perjury by making a patently unreasonable "demand." I guess you never heard about this leaked Democrat intelligence committee memo, which assumes the conclusion before the investigation:
In short, they're using these hearings, that are supposed to be about "intelligence" leading up to 9/11, in order to wedge in their apriori conclusions about the Iraq War. And, in a rather striking coincidence that's exactly what Clarke is doing. He knows next to nothing about foreign policy, so rather than make the case that Iraq was detrimental to the War on Terror he chooses the topic that's covered by his expertise, and implausibly argues that Bush did nothing to avoid 9/11. It's an outrageous bait and switch, that cynically employs an enormous tragedy in order to score political points during a presidential election. And it has absolutely convinced me, a Democrat, that it would be utter folly to vote Democrat in November. (And, btw, Clarke voted for Gore in 2000. Ain't that a surprise!)
There are lots of us who can argue that Iraq was not only the right thing to do in the War on Totalitarianism but was an absolutely necessary part of the strategy. On that score Clarke is simply wrong. Which makes him pretty much wrong about everything, I guess.
Why is it the anti-Bush people don't seem to know what a lie is? Rice can probably testify, but according to the legal interpretation they're utilizing doing so would set a precident that would undermine the executive in time of war. Other legal interpretations say it isn't so. At any rate I imagine she'd love to testify. The Democrats are furious about the fact that the Bush people haven't walked into the trap.
BTW, the reason Clarke began calling for disclosure of all transcripts is that he knows that doing so would undermine US security, so it'll never happen. He's attempting to innoculate himself from prosecution for perjury by making a patently unreasonable "demand." I guess you never heard about this leaked Democrat intelligence committee memo, which assumes the conclusion before the investigation:
In short, they're using these hearings, that are supposed to be about "intelligence" leading up to 9/11, in order to wedge in their apriori conclusions about the Iraq War. And, in a rather striking coincidence that's exactly what Clarke is doing. He knows next to nothing about foreign policy, so rather than make the case that Iraq was detrimental to the War on Terror he chooses the topic that's covered by his expertise, and implausibly argues that Bush did nothing to avoid 9/11. It's an outrageous bait and switch, that cynically employs an enormous tragedy in order to score political points during a presidential election. And it has absolutely convinced me, a Democrat, that it would be utter folly to vote Democrat in November. (And, btw, Clarke voted for Gore in 2000. Ain't that a surprise!)
There are lots of us who can argue that Iraq was not only the right thing to do in the War on Totalitarianism but was an absolutely necessary part of the strategy. On that score Clarke is simply wrong. Which makes him pretty much wrong about everything, I guess.
Under oath he says they were working on it an that it was ready to be implemented when 9/11 happened and that nothing he had proposed would have changed 9/11.
Under oath he says they were working on it but not as fast as he would have liked, on TV he says they ignored it. Clarke seems to be very adept at lying on TV and then changing his story under oath. It seems that he assumes everyone else (e.g. Rice) would do the same thing. Is he projecting his apparent inability to separate sworn truth from public lies on others? Hmmm...
Hey Richard, you keep them distracted with that crap you're spouting in the news and they won't have time to look too hard at me. We can't make them trust me with my voting record so let's try to make them distrust that other guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/readersopinions/26SNAP.html
"The Axis of Weasel"
Decide for yourself but I think there is a resemblance. Just look at those little beady eyes. IMO
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/readersopinions/26SNAP.html
"The Axis of Weasel"
Decide for yourself but I think there is a resemblance. Just look at those little beady eyes. IMO
Last edited:
freewheeling
Member
Taurus:
I'm with you on the merits, but have never thought the Bush people were really very good at politics, and it appears that the Copperheads (obscure Civil War reference) may have them boxed in for the moment. The only sure way out of the box is if Clarke did, in fact, perjure himself. Or at the very least, that it can be shown how what he says publicly diverges from what he has said under oath. And it appears that the Democrat defense to this is to demand that all the documents be disclosed, so they can go on a fishing expedition to embarass Bush about who-knows-what. (To hell with national security, apparently.) This entire commission was an ambush from the get, so it'll be interesting to see if the Bush folks are savvy enough to turn it around.
I'm with you on the merits, but have never thought the Bush people were really very good at politics, and it appears that the Copperheads (obscure Civil War reference) may have them boxed in for the moment. The only sure way out of the box is if Clarke did, in fact, perjure himself. Or at the very least, that it can be shown how what he says publicly diverges from what he has said under oath. And it appears that the Democrat defense to this is to demand that all the documents be disclosed, so they can go on a fishing expedition to embarass Bush about who-knows-what. (To hell with national security, apparently.) This entire commission was an ambush from the get, so it'll be interesting to see if the Bush folks are savvy enough to turn it around.
bountyhunter
member
Which seems extremely unlikely since it was he who was demanding publicly that the white house declassify the entire text of his testimony so it can be made public. Clarke is claiming that the white house it taking words out of context to try to bash him, and that he has never committed perjury. Other's who have seen the documents say similar. It would be unusual for a perjurer to be demanding that the information which will send him to federal prison be made public..... it's put up or shut up time for the white house, and the silence is deafening. And given the fact Ms Rice was on one end of a lot of the disputed "inetractions" and "communications", I think it will be snowballs and sleighrides in hell before she allows herself to get put under oath and questioned about it. Truth tellers usually break your door down to tell their story, liars generally find reasons why they can't speak (you do the math). Nixon fell back on "National Security", Clinton "wanted" to talk but couldn't because of pending litigation, etc...... Ms Rice claims she WANTS to testify but can't because it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a member of the white house staff to be questioned (?) Yeah, it's dangerous if they know stuff that would get their boss impeached....
bountyhunter
member
And by "it", one could very well infer that Clarke means they were ignoring the suggestions and recommendations he was screaming about at the time as to what they should have been doing to stay on top of Al Qaeda and the WOT. I don't think Clarke ever said that nobody in the Bush admin paid ANY attention to the WOT, what he has said (which is completely true) is that Bush entered office 100% fixated on destroying Hussein and the Iraqi regime. he looked for any thing at all to justify a war there. He "shaped" intel reports and pressured his subordinates to come up with what he wanted to hear. Given all that, Clarke's assessment that the admin was no adhering to his (Clarke's) warning that Al Qaeda was the most imminent threat to the US and that it (Al Qaeda) deserved top priority is completely accurate... and not perjury by any stretch or manipulation of reality.
- Status
