Obama Campaign Rolls Out Richard Clarke To Hit Back At McCain's "Sept. 10th Mindset" Attack
Richard Clarke made an appearance as an Obama surrogate on a conference call with reporters moments ago, hitting back very hard against the McCain camp's claim today that Obama has a "September 10th mindset."
"I'm frankly disgusted at my friends on the McCain campaign," Clarke said, perhaps being a bit optimistic in describing those folks as still being "friends" of his. Clark referred to the McCain camp's claim that Dems only favor a law enforcement approach to terrorism, and accused McCain advisers of "completely and utterly distorting the record of that party."
"They said that about Bill Clinton," Clarke continued. "They said that about John Kerry. And now they're saying it about Barack Obama. I'd like them to show where in the record Barack Obama has favored only a law enforcement approach."
The Obama camp hastily assembled the call after the news spread this morning about the McCain camp's attacks.
Clarke emphasized that Obama has unveiled a comprehensive anti-terror plan and has said that he would be willing to act on actionable intelligence to pursue Al Qaeda suspects in Pakistan. "This is the Karl Rove strategy of taking what the truth is, and stating the opposite," Clarke said of the McCain team's charges.
This attack today by the McCain team signals a new phase in the race and is a major test for the Obama campaign, which will need to respond far more effectively to this sort of stuff than John Kerry did. And it was a good move to roll out Clarke as a way of signaling that the Obama team will indeed respond aggressively and fast.
Late Update: Here's the audio from the call:
Life was good on September 10th. John McCain has a Reichstag Fire mindset. Say No To Fascists!
June 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they should have been less defensive and more on offense.
State Obama's positions and move quickly to knock down McCain who has said he'll follow bin Laden "to the gates of hell" [INSERT CREEPY SMILE HERE] then never talks about going into Pakistan or confronting Musharraf. Also that he supports a never-ending occupation in Iraq which has deterred us from getting the people who attacked us on 9/11.
June 17, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Richard Clarke is a good one to reply to the outrageous crap that the McCain camp is propagating. BUT, when the McCain surrogates have so little of substance to make their argument, it is indeed very easy, actually necessary to answer with a pack of lies. Let us all remember that Richard Clarke is the one person who told the truth, and even enduring the trashing by this group in the White House, he remained calm and steadfast. That is the wonderful thing about truth-telling. You do not have to dissemble afterwards because you have put forth facts. Expect a bunch of anti-Clarke info to stream out of the McCain camp and even from the White House. Amazing that the old Bush hate McCain machine is now supporting him. Strange how that happens when dissembling makes bedfellows out of a bunch of liars.. Unfortunately, McCain has sold his straight-talk-express for a mess of pottage. Poor thing!!!!
June 18, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a great response from Clarke.
And from my perspective, this is what Obama meant about bringing a gun to a knife fight.
I love the quick responses - they don't give the McLame campaign time to turn one of these attacks into some kind of accepted wisdom with the media. They come right back and I find that thrilling.
June 17, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. It seems that they've taken a page right from the '92 Clinton playbook with rapid-respone. Something I've felt that Gore and Kerry didn't do very well.
June 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were terrible. Kerry tried to be above it all and that was a terrible mistake. He let the swiftboaters have their way with him.
June 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Kerry let his overpaid Beltway Asshat consultants have their way with him. Kerry's first instinct was to hit back fast and hard. His campaign people, however, looked into into their 1990s Democratic Beltway Asshats bag of tricks and didn't find "respond quickly and forcefully" among their battle-tested strategy options. Instead, they urged him to select from their standard menu of choices:
a) cower, cringe and whimper before incoherent Republican bellowing and chest thumping about national security issues.
b) triangulate
c) ignore the problem and hope it goes away on its own
d) set up photo op where candidate can be photographed in ridiculous hat and/or outfit
e) collapse into fetal position and suck thumb
f) try to change the subject to the economy
Kerry, afraid the Republicans were trying to lure him into a Sonny Coreleone trap, as they did with his buddy McCain in 2000, chose the default Democratic option, option c.
June 17, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really sorry Kerry let them do that. He's a good man with a wonderful liberal record and I was heartsick over what happened in '04.
It was textbook Rove and I foresaw the whole thing, up to and including Rove stealing the election. I just didn't know where it was going to be until about 9 PM on election night. I can't believe Kerry's campaign staff couldn't see it. O wait, now I remember who was around him.
Yeah I can believe it.
June 17, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us all remember that Kerry did win. He was unelected by a very rigid, stacked, far right supreme court (no caps on purpose, they have no right to deference).
June 18, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Obama makes sure to get the responses out in the same news cycle as the attack. That way when you report one if you want to have any sort of illusion of objectivity you have to report the other.
June 17, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree
June 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barackarate!
June 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeedy!
June 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick, there is no need to repeat the charge in your response. Don;t call fo them to prove their accusation. Just tell those poor reporters what's what.
The attack is scurrilous, because Obama has a real plan to protect this country that includes aggressive action against terrorist and renewing our image around the world, not least by respecting our own laws and a values.
The attack is scurrilous because this administration dropped the ball before 9-11.
The attack is scurrilous because the Bush mindset is not making us safer and JOhn McCain only offers more of the same.
That's all.
June 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...the Bush mindset is not making us safer..." excellent point given all the terror attacks that have taken place in this country since 9/11 compared to the rest of the world!(Stick to economics)
June 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And 9/11 was on who's watch???
What kind of argument is that???
June 17, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, Bush was more than 7 months into his administration when the attacks took place. How many have taken place since?
June 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize that success was defined as having only one massive terrorist attack committed on US soil per administration.
June 17, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had been asked on the morning of September 11th while you were watching the towers crumble if Bush could keep another attack from happening during the next 7.45 years, would you consider that a success you would have responded...?
June 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just not going to to white-wash an administration for not allowing two massive terrorist attacks. "Hey, I haven't fucked up since that last time I fucked up!"
June 17, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it's your opinion that the entire responsibility for the attack of 9/11 falls on Bush and his administration?
June 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not! Just use the Family Circle method for assigning responsibility:
Mommy: "President Billy, who let the USA get attacked on 9/11?"
Pres. Billy: "Not Me!"
June 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the Family Circus excuse.
Mommy: "President Billy, who let the US get attacked?"
Pres. Billy: "Not Me!"
June 17, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize for the double post. I got an error the first time, and the post didn't appear. Then when I posted again, they BOTH appeared. Again, sorry.
June 17, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to say they're "entirely responsible." Some of the issues that led to the attack were passed from President to President to President, and so on.
However, to say they deserve credit for their performance is ridiculous. They were given strong warnings of the threat and they dropped the ball. For all the talk of how the Bush administration "has kept us safe for the last seven years," let's bear in mind that while there was only one major attack on their watch, that's one more attack than a long line of other administrations who didn't advocate torture or mislead the American people to sell a preemptive war.
June 17, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...who didn't advocate torture or mislead the American people to sell a preemptive war." I would argue that neither of those apply to this administration as well, but then NCSteve would call me a cocksucker again and that's for another forum.
June 17, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Not at all, just wanted you to get a sense of exactly how foul a personal attack it is to accuse those who oppose your policy positions of being personal friends, passive sympathizers or active collaborators with mass murdering enemies of our nation by exposing you to one that's equally as offensive.
June 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is entirely Bush-Cheney's fault. The Clinton NS apparatus made it very clear that OBL and Al Qaeda were priority one, but Bush-Cheney, in their contrarian default mode (if Clinton says to do something, we shall do the opposite) intentionally ignored those warnings, just as they did those of Clarke and the CIA. Remember the August memo?
It's all on them.
June 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously you haven't read the memo...
June 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prior to 9/11 only Bush and the small circle of advisers around him were privy to the knowledge that Al Quaeda was planning a strike using aircraft. As President, yes he is responsible for what he does about the threats he's informed about. The President get a security breifing every day, Wallace. The rest of us don't.
After 9/11 the entire body of the American people were aware of othe full extent of Al Quaeda's intensions- by virtue of the Bush Administration's failure in August 2001. Millions of Americans have been on their guard since then. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Bush is personally more responsible for keeping us safe from terorism than the rest of the American people are?
June 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace asks;
"So it's your opinion that the entire responsibility for the attack of 9/11 falls on Bush and his administration?"
Of course it was all Bush's fault, unless of course, you can enumerate the actions Bush undertook to keep 9/11 from happening.
I'll check back now and then to see your reply.
June 17, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that Bush felt he could up the ante by killing more U.S. citizens (soldiers) by sending them off to a needless war in Iraq.
Is that a success? Send Americans to die over there so they won't over here?
June 17, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
History's most expensive decoy operation. Apparently this is more effective than actually going after the terrorists who attacked us.
June 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
If you had been asked on the morning of February 26, 1993 while you were watching the tower's damage if Clinton could keep another attack from happening during the next 7.9 years, would you consider that a success you would have responded...?
June 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our allies have been attacked in Istanbul, London, Madrid and Bali. Of course, we were supposed to think that "Fightin' them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" meant Eye-Rak....
June 17, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you forgotten the anthrax attack?
June 17, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The anthrax attack on Congress, which I believe goes unsolved and unpunished, was an act of terrorism that occured after 9/11.
June 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that Bin Laden is still at large, adn if memory serves, Bush doesn't think about him very much anymore, but also wants him dead or alive, and also took the focus off Afghanistan and started a war of choice in Iraq.
The Buish mindset sucks.
June 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but they hit the week after...you gotta give him a little time to "emplace the mindset."
June 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try the mass arson in WA conducted by the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Force on April 3, 2008. Why is this a terrorist attack? Because it was the use of force (or threat of same) for the purpose of altering public opinion and/or public policy. They were unsuccessful in their aims, but it was a terrorist attack nonetheless.
June 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Try the mass arson in WA conducted by the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Force" I actually hadn't thought of them...but be careful lableing them terrorists that's the base of your party in the north west.
June 17, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly.
The ELFs are not the base of any politcal party, much less the Democratic party.
June 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's a trollish comment. Is that right-wing echo chamber getting extra-echo-y these days? Getting lonely over there in freeper-land?
June 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait! I thought our base was the Marxists.
June 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's in the North East.
June 18, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Bush agrees:
June 17, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Embassies are considered sovereign territory, yes? I think I remember attacks on U.S. embassies in Syria, Yemen and multiple attacks in Iraq.
June 17, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
Remember the anthrax attacks. Bush-McCain fans sure won't.
June 17, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, what douglasfactors said....
June 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many took place in the 8 years before Bush?
And haven't about 4000 Americans died in Iraq, a country we invaded without just cause, during Bush's Dick-Stretching, Oedipal War of Political Opportunity. That's even more than died at the Trade.
It may be that, just as your side is fond of mindlessly repeating, "Fight them there to avoid fighting them here," our enemies say, "Thanks for sending your boys over here, it keeps us from having to go over there."
The lies the administration and its toy generals have spread on the subject of Iraq are worse than the lies about Vietnam.
June 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, cause there's only 4,000 dead soldiers and counting in the Iraq war.
June 17, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not allowed to argue that point, unless you concede the fact that the war in Iraq is part of preventing further attacks here. Which will lead to all your buddies here attacking you.
June 17, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would never concede that point, because it doesn't make a bit of fucking sense.
June 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then the 4000 soldiers have nothing to do with protecting us from any attacks since 9/11 and have nothing to do with the point you were rebutting.
June 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, swift logic! Except your original point and implication, that the sole measurement of a safer America is the number of domestic attacks since 9/11, isn't any measurement at all. Since you apparently feel you've made an excellent argument, I apologize for not hitting you over the head with the point earlier.
I might argue, for instance, that destroying our intelligence agencies by promoting party hacks over career foreign service officials would make us unsafe. But then again, that might just be shortsighted of me.
June 17, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
We haven't had any asteroids hit the earth since 9/11, so therefore, the Bush mindset is obviously keeping us safer, wouldn't you say?
June 17, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
...except the UK, Spain, Australia, Russia, Egypt and Indonesia haven't been hit with asteroids either.
June 17, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're too modest in your argument. The whole freaking planet hasn't been hit by asteroids, ergo, the Bush mindset has kept us safe. Q.E.D.
June 17, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No...but they have been hit with major terrorist attacks during the "era of the Bush mindset."
June 17, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Madrid train bombings occurred on March 11, 2004. A few days later, the opposition party won the election. About a month later, the new Spanish government withdrew its troops from Iraq. Since then, I'm not aware of any terrorist attacks in Spain on the scale of the train bombings.
I'm not aware that Russia or Indonesia ever sent troops to Iraq.
So I'm not sure how having troops in Iraq prevents terrorist attacks.
June 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on Sarge, you're giving the Army a bad reputation in the stright-thinking department.
June 17, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a moron! The war in Iraq has nothing to do with preventing further attacks here. Al Queda wasn't in Iraq until we got there and the Iraqis were uninterested in and incapable of attacking the US.
The War in Iraq has made the world and the region less safe. When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran. Now, Iran is gaining power both within Iran and the region.
June 17, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and about the "your buddies" part? Fuck you, you cocksucking McCarthyite poseur.
June 17, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is some high quality reasond debate.
June 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must strenuously object.
Wallace is an authentic McCarthyite.
June 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the fuck are you to tell us what we are and are not "allowed" to argue?
June 17, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better watch this "you are not allowed" stuff, lest it come bite you in your ass.
June 17, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the morons at the airport check my flip flops real closely now. I feel so much safer. Thank you, George W!
June 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad he didn't make it safe on 9/11.
June 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
markatl,
hahahahahaha, excellent point.
June 17, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your remark ignores the attacks on our allies in London and Madrid.
If we continue Bush's "all the counts is the U.S. and fuck the rest of the world" cowboy attitude, then we can't be surprised when all our allies refuse to send troops to any future "coalition of the willing." Surprise, surprise, even Bush's "good friend" Britain is leaving Iraq -- leaving our military so stretched that other attacks abroad and even at home are conceivable.
June 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prisoners held with no charges for years, all e-mail and phone calls tapped (yes, I said 'all'), the end of the checks and balances created by the Founders in the Constitution, attacking countries that never attacked us, the destruction of two more world cities (Baghdad and New Orleans,) the prevention of voting,...
How many more terrorist attacks on America should I list here? You just don't recognize a terrorist. A bunch of Saudis killed three thousand Americans and destroyed some real estate. This administration has destroyed the US Constitution. Given a choice, believe me, Bin Laden would rather take credit for the latter..
Wake up and smell the cat food...
June 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
" This administration has destroyed the US Constitution. Given a choice, believe me, Bin Laden would rather take credit for the latter..
Wake up and smell the cat food..."
That should be y'alls message this year...you'll win New York California and Vermont...you may be able to pull out Mass. in a squeaker.
June 17, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that you were saying the same thing in 2006. Then you laid low for a while, IMO hoping people would forget about it.
June 17, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're missing the very large letters that most would agree constitute the "writing on the wall"....60% of Americans want us out of Iraq sooner than later and don't think we can win. That 60%. That's a bit more than just Vermont and Massachusetts or whatever bullshit you are referring to. The most amazing thing is that you and your pal John McCain are still talking like you represent the great "silent majority" that no longer exists.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
June 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so crazy I don't see how you got past the E-5 board, much less to E-7.
June 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're whistling past the graveyard.
June 17, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
So the anthrax attacks after 9/11 didn't really occur?
June 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace says:
"...the Bush mindset is not making us safer..." excellent point given all the terror attacks that have taken place in this country since 9/11 compared to the rest of the world!(Stick to economics)
Given this way of thinking, Bill Clinton protected this country from a terrorist attack longer than Bush, since the WTC was attacked the first time about 28 days after Clinton took office.
Bush had 11 months to protect us from al Qaeda, he failed. (stick to FreeRepublic.com)
June 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep it simple folks:
Here is all that needs to be said, and just keep repeating it over and over. Make placards and bumper stickers of it.
John McCain Has A George W. Bush Mindset.
June 17, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's this for simple?
Peace vs. war
Hope vs. fear
Young vs. old
Take your choice.
June 17, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard Clarke is a pompous jerk. But a brilliant pompous jerk whom I'm in total agreement with!
June 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Tena and FreeRider. The issue for us here is not so much the substance of McCain's attacks, for, as is par for the course, McCain's charge is the kind of baseless, fear-mongering, dog-whistle politics we've grown accustomed to hearing.
What must be perfected is not just the rapidity of response of the Obama camp, but the ability to predict when the mud gets slung. Doing poorly in the polls, with the glaring incompetence of his campaign for all to see, McCain slings an accusation that is charged with code words and innuendo, requiring thoughtful yet time-consuming responses. Let's see Obama's people get out in front of these slanderous attacks, and diffuse them preemptively. As said above, get on Offense.
June 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Greg. The best way to show toughness is in how swiftly and brutally you respond to the attack
That's the Chicago Way
June 17, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what Obama needed, another popus ass to connect with the Regan-Dems out there...
June 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to make a dumb point, at least spell Reagan correctly.
June 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or at least spell "pompous" correctly. I'm not sure what a popus is....
June 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
...sure you were, or how would you have known what I misspelled?
June 17, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure if you have a popus-ass, you should see a doctor.
June 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I misspelled pompus too...trying to work and argue at the same time...
June 17, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misspelled it again. It is pompous.
June 17, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least I got "ass" right the first time.
June 17, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
June 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one here doubts that you're familiar with that word, Wallace.
June 17, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well we would hope you can spell your own name.
Kinda a low-bar there don't ya think?
June 17, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he's referring to one of the daughters from King Lear?
June 17, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or perhaps he meant Donald Regan, the chap who revealed that Nancy and The Gipper were using an Astrologer to plan the President's schedules. Now that is truly a "faith based" operation.
Those Republicans sure are an enlightened bunch, aren't they. A friggin' Astrologer calling the shots on how the nation was being run.
June 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regan Democrats work for Merrill Lynch?
June 17, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible he's referring to Donald Regan. Who knows, really.
June 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, maybe McCain can hire Larry the Cable Guy to be his Director of Homeland Security.
June 17, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
...at least he realizes who the enemy is, and he'd probably get alot more "Archie Bunker" votes than Clakre.
June 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you mean Clarke that time or Brett Favre? I'm having trouble following.
June 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Favre would probably get you more votes than Clarke...(you're gonna lose Texas anyway and win Minn. and SF by enough, those are the only 3 places Favre would lose you votes).
June 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not familiar with the state "SF."
June 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was one of the 57 Obama visited during the primaries...
June 17, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarke served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence.
Next.
June 17, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! what bridge did you slink out from under, you mouth breathing troll? What exactly is popus?
June 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again...a troll "is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." If your "normal on-topic discussion" is "Give me an O...O...give me a B...B...give me an A...A...give me an M...M...give me another A...A...we love Obam now pass the kool aid!" then I guess you can call me a troll. If your "normal on-topic discussion" is the content of the article above, then I'm not. I try to remain on point and the only emotional response I seek to elicit is the occasional laugh...and yes I do sometimes breath through my mouth.
June 17, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace is not a troll imo. He says things I don't agree with 90% of the time, but he's right, that's different from trolling.
June 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only 90%...one of us is shifting...
June 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that you are not a troll and that you spelled "ass" correctly further up the thread.
Seriously, I think people like you are important around here. It hurts when you live in an echo chamber on either side. Look at freerepublic or DU.
Posters like you force us to realize that yes, there are competing points of view.
June 17, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually why I come here, getting kicked around by the opposition is much more entertaining than sitting in the echo chamber shouting "go team," and there's always the hope that I'll be able to convert at least one of y'all...someday...
June 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
More likely, you'll wind up voting for Obama. Deep down, you know you want to. That's why you're here. You're a self-hating conservative.
June 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha...now that is funny. Now if Zell Miller was running against Olympia Snow I would actually consider voting for the Democrat...
June 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, because you don't like accomplished women in general, or you just prefer complete asshats like Zell Miller?
June 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I love accomplished women...Libby Dole, Condoleezza Rice, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Barbra Olsen (God rest her sole)...
June 18, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the new phase is the "kitchen sink" approach, because nothing else is working.
NOt to quibble with wordsmithing, or anything, but why the adjective "hastily"? It implies that the Obama campaign threw this together at the last minute, when, in fact, you don't know anything of the sort. Isn't it possible that the Obama campaign anticipated this line of attack, had Clarke teed up and ready to go, and the campaign call was rolled out as soon as McCain launched this attack?
Seriously?
June 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great minds, etc. I should have been first, but a client called while I was typing!
Drat!
June 17, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noted that and it bothered me too. Implies unprepared, and I feel they are very prepared. John Kerry warned Sen. Obama to quickly respond to any attack, and he is. No problem with the response, just having the two hit the same news cycle is all that matters.
June 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Was the phone call assembled "hastily", or was it assembled "quickly"? Or "expeditiously", or "nimbly"?
Roget's defines hastily as "Characterized by unthinking boldness and haste." Is that really how you meant to frame this response?
June 17, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or even "unscheduled"....I'm with you on this one...see above.
June 17, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, I noticed that adverb too. Team Obama seems so well-organized; it is hard to imagine them doing anything "hastily" -- other than finding where ESPN is on the hotel television set.
June 17, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarke for VP!
(I got some weird error last time, not sure i was logged on properly)
June 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could only be so lucky!
June 17, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, the war in Iraq does have something to do with combatting terrorists, but the terrorists are a very small part of the insurgency and opposition. This raises questions about how best to use our resources.
On balance, I don't see how any rational, honest person can argue that our anti-terror resources are best deployed trying to impose democracy on a country that either does not want it or is not prepared to make it work, in light of the genuine terrorist threats in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
June 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
They certainly do have a role there now.
Check out Francesca Hamilton's excellent blog from this morning on the role of Al Qaeda in the Iraqi insurgency, the US military response to it, and the implications for long-term stability of the Iraqi government as we exit:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/iraq-the-price-of-the-surge-an.php
June 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Don't get me wrong, I am a great admirer of Clarke, but I don't think he's right for a VP slot. Doesn't strike me as the second banana type. I think he'd make a hell of a National Security Adviser, though.
June 17, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a tad confused on how you get out in front of an attack when you don't know it's coming or what it's going to be.
I'm not arguing with y'all - I must be missing something. Obama campaigns on his differences from McLame; McLame comes out with some kind of stupid attack and Obama Barackarate's him with Richard Clarke. That's the same style the Obama campaign has been using throughout and it's worked so far.
I don't mean to be obtuse...
June 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: You are right. I thought the same reading some comments, however well intended. As I said above, the response was swift, they all have been in recent weeks and I suspect will continue to be; all that matters in the end is that when the news tonight airs McCain's attack, they also air Obama's response.
June 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I assumed Obama's group knew this was coming, had relased their plans for national security, but was content to wait until McBush spewed it, at which point they promptly pulled the trigger on Clarke.
June 17, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with CT Voter...
This is a feeble, red-herring attempt by McCain to shift focus away from his own negative qualities.
I've heard it said a few times and I think it's accurate that this election is about Barack Obama and not John McCain, and so far Obama has been up to the task of sticking it right back in the GOP's face.
I think a lot of right leaning voters read the "obama has a 9/10 Mindset" comments from the McCain campaign and groan.
June 17, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
mccain has a going to war, bush mindset
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
June 17, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, that's a pretty solid counterpunch.
And didja notice the ancillary punch?
Calling Fox and WSJ's political analyst an out-and-out liar?
Haw!
June 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I did and it made me very happy!
June 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, well done.
June 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree.
June 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha. That was meant for HusseinTenaX @ 1:10. It's still AM where I live.
June 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
JOHN McCAIN HAS A GEORGE W. BUSH MINDSET.
June 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Via Marc Ambinder, Kerry takes a swing:
June 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is saying here that being in an ongoing state of war - having an ongoing military presence in the Middle East - is the appropriate response to global terrorism. Obama needs to argue why that is not the appropriate response and articulate what is.
June 17, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarke strikes me as the type of guy that is so straightforward and common sense on the issue of terrorism that no one listens to him.
The political game in D.C. and the media who feed on it have a strange deaf ear for people who really understand the issue at hand. It's because those who understand any issue talk about shades of grey, which doesn't make interesting news. So the news focuses on the people on the fringes with a much worse understanding of the issue at hand, but they're willing to speak in black and white terms.
Meanwhile, the sensible person in the middle gets token coverage and is then ignored.
June 17, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama has a November 4th mindset!
June 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do these folks really believe that this "9/10 mindset" silliness still works? That's a 2002 mindset, if you ask me. Can't they come up with something original? People of all political stripes aren't falling for it these days.
I think there are a small but vocal number of beltway insiders who seriously think that a terrorist is going to jump out of their closet one night and kill their family. On the one hand, they think they can still scare people into voting against their best interest. On the other hand, I think they're really scared, almost irrationally so. And they're the "daddy party"?
June 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain/Bush has had no problem abandoning many of the ideals of this country....I'd say he has a 'July 3rd mindset'
June 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really have no idea who they are dealing with if the McCain camp think they will get this stuff to work again.
We've seen McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry go down because of this crap, and fortunately we have a candidate who won't take it any more.
Democrats won't take it any more. Democrats won't accept that they don't love America, or that they are 'soft on defence', with the reasoning that the GOP are somehow superior 'patriots' and Dems should sit down and shut up because a POW tells them to.
Not any more.
June 17, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is still riffing on the old chords. Obama is writing a new symphony. Obama knows how to handle McCain. McCain has no Idea what to do with Obama.
June 17, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also don't consider McCain's attack to be a major test.
But I do find it dissapointing that the press is ignoring Obama's current push on economic issues while at the same time breathlessly playing up those national security/Iraq attacks coming out of that doddering old fart's campaign.
June 17, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press is part of McCain's base, so expect lots of "breathlessly playing up" to go on...
June 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah the memo, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US".
Can John McCain be trusted to be sharp enough to be able to read HIS memos?
June 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to just add a Clark to his ticket, rather than rely on the lesser Clarke variety. Clark could combat this approach head-on, and probably win. then what else do McCain and the Republicans have?
June 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that the response needs to be a little more on offense than defense. However, points for the rapid response, and Clarke has cred. Would "act on actionable intelligence..." is good, and bring up the "the Karl Rove strategy of taking what the truth is, and stating the opposite," was a nice touch.
Needs a punchy sound bite to counter the "Sept. 10th Mindset" attack. Kerry's "He's proving every day that he doesn't understand Iraq, or the Middle East, or the war on terrorism..." is serviceable, or something to the effect of "The failed post-Sept. 11th mindset of George Bush and John McCain". They cannot say "George Bush", "failure", and "John McCain" in the same sentence too many times.
June 17, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. "And *that's* what I call kickin' yer butt!"
(In the immortal words of Drew Barrymore.)
June 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having Richard Clarke as a spokesman is gold. He was the ONE PERSON in the White House screaming the warnings that were ignored prior to 9-11. He was ONE and only one in the Administration that apologized to the victums families during the Hearings. He has more integrity than everyone in the Bush Administration combined. I hope we hear more from him from Camp Obama.
June 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't a "a law enforcement approach to terrorism" exactly what we need? Terrorists aren't representatives of any nation. There's no leadership-- civilian or military-- that can surrender. What's the use of all this military talk? Funny thing is, stuff like expanding powers under FISA-- which this administration thinks is vital to fight terrorism-- is, in fact, a law enforcement approach!!
Why is that now such a bad thing?!?
June 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish we HAD gone with a law-enforcement approach. It's much easier to make a distinction between violent extremists (criminals) and people with legitimate political grievances. And making that distinction makes all the difference when trying to resolve conflicts in the world. Much much easier to address those grievances without the barriers of societal and physical destruction violence from both sides creates.
Add to that the fact that we wouldn't have all the time and resources wasted on solving the detainee/habeas clusterfuck, or war-profiteering, or PTSD, or our loss of prestige, etc.
June 17, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly what I've always said - they aren't an army, they are international criminals. Bush has enobled their fucking cause by treating them like armies and like heads of state.
Meanwhile, Europe catches their terrorists, tries them and puts them in prison.
To date, I cannot think of one successful prosecution for terrorism in this country.
June 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about:
"Let's not elect another 8/6/2001 President! John McCain is supported by GW Bush, who failed to respond to his 8/6/2001 Presidential Daily Briefing warning that Bin Laden was planning a terrorist attack inside the U.S.
Just to clarify, President Barack Obama will read and react to his Presidential daily briefings."
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
June 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, he responded, all right:
June 17, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again Obama is playing defense, never offense.
That is the mindset that I would find so disconcerting as a president. I do not see the leadership. Just a lot of rhetoric, responses and "clarifications".
Could someone please supply a link to this comprehensive anti-terror plan? His site covers "Homeland Security" and "Foreign Policy" neither of which has any specifics on this so-called anti-terror plan.
June 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad Obama's camp responded quickly, and Clarke is the perfect guy to do it, but it's a pretty sad state of affairs that McCain is using slogans from Bush '04. It's like he doesn't even have enough money to hire his new propagandists. He's just recycling old pot roast that's been in the freezer for four years.
McCain is going to lose, and he will take over Bob Dole's position as spokesman for Viagra, and the world will move on.
June 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He isn't just stealing old Bush slogans from 2004, he's stealing Obama's current slogan. "Leadership We Can Believe In"? Come on...show at least some originality!
June 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cuneformist --
You're absolutely right.
Last time I checked, we had 130,000+ soldiers in Iraq doing nightly patrols. Again, that's law enforcement, not military action.
June 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
c'mon mccain...
that's not a lie we can believe in.
you'll have to do better.
June 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This shows how bankrupt the McCain trainwreck 08 really is. They truly have nothing to throw at Obama so they resort to the old line of attack.
June 17, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you respond to a smear attack, you have no choice but to be on the "defensive". I don't know why there is anything wrong with this, it's called defending yourself.
Clarke is a great surrogate on this topic, since he knows more about counter-terrorism than the whole McCain camp put together.
He should bring up that Obama is willing to bomb Al Qaeda sites in Pakistan, a position that McCain thinks is TOO aggressive.
June 17, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This attack today by the McCain team signals a new phase in the race and is a major test for the Obama campaign, which will need to respond far more effectively to this sort of stuff than John Kerry did. And it was a good move to roll out Clarke as a way of signaling that the Obama team will indeed respond aggressively and fast."
Thank you again for your continual authoritative judgements on the events of this campaign. We'll be sure to mark down our instructed line of thought on this and future episodes, as we have dutifully been doing thus far.
June 17, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We'll be sure to mark down our instructed line of thought on this and future episodes, as we have dutifully been doing thus far."
What kind of dropshot is this, that doesn't even clear the net?
June 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is good that they are quickly refuting McCain's distortions. It is equally important to keep them off balance by making them play defense. Obama has the advantage of having the truth on his side. Simply requiring McCain to defend his actual (albeit shifting) positions should keep him pretty uncomfortable.
June 17, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
With regard to response time, what's interesting to me is that during the primary against Clinton, Obama seemed hopelessly slow. He would let cling-gate sit out there for a while without addressing, as well as other slights. I worried that he was going to take the Kerry-like approach of staying above the fray. But now he's becoming a quick counterpuncher. Very quick.
June 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was a black man seeing ahead to the effect his actions might have on white women of a certain age. A good thing, too, seeing as how he underestimated their touchiness and their idolatry.
June 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, the Obama camp always struck me as extremely touchy and idolatrous. Just ask Greg, who probably still has the bruises from every time he posted something during the primaries that wasn't sufficiently laudatory of Obama or condemnatory of Clinton.
June 17, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon. Slam the Obama supporters on this site for criticizing Greg, but don't slam the Obama campaign for being reactive.
Equating the readers here on this site with the Obama campaign has to be one of the biggest stretches I've seen.
June 17, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama camp should have used the same kind of language to strike back. They could have said that McCain has a 1990's mindset, one where Iraq is a threat to the world and Bin Laden is allowed to roam free. It would also paint McCain as old, and last century.
June 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were Obama, I'd give serious consideration to Richard Clarke for DEPT of HOMELAND SECURITY.
June 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent idea!
June 17, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel the retort was too defensive again. Again they are letting the repugs frame the issue.
Team Obama has got to play offensive.
June 17, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a good defensive move, but I agree, it was defense. Obama needs to keep on offense.
June 17, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush "Mindset"? Are you kidding me? Your assuming he actually HAS a working mind to set...
The terrorist don't HAVE to attack us again, they already met all their goals with that single attack on the WTC.
Turn world opinion against us - check
bankrupt our economy - check
have us self implode and take away our own freedoms - check
Mission accomplished...
Only "winners" in this war have been KBR and the other war profiteers.
June 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As per Naomi Klein, welcome to the Shock Doctrine.
June 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all seen the front page of TPM? There is a button that will be handed out at the Repug convention. It says:
If Obama is elected,
will we still call it the White House?
Everyone who gave me shit yesterday for saying the Repugs are the party of racists can now apologize.
The hell they aren't.
June 17, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goddamn...
June 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it!
June 17, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's to the concern trolls who believe Obama should avoid the foreign policy debate and only embrace domestic issues. Foreign policy is the debate Obama is spoiling for.
June 17, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for once, I'd love to see someone defend police work. I mean, isn't it time this country began to understand that sending the troops into places like Iraq is just about as effective as sending an elephant to stomp on fish in the sea? Kerry was right about undercover ops and intelligence in controlling terrorism. This crap about military operations does one thing and one thing only: feed the military-industrial beast and keep the defense contracts flowing. Get a grip everyone, this whole war on terrorism crap is as big a bunch of hooey as the Cold War arms race. Meanwhile, we've got about 12 people who speak Arabic and Farsi in the intelligence services.
June 17, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain is a dangerous old fool with outdated ideas and no clue about how to move America forward. He and his rich and very weird wife need to get on her jet and fly back to the brewery distributorship in Arizona and stay there.
June 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
AP is reporting the following:
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama says he'll take no lectures from Republicans on who will keep America safer. GOP rival John McCain's campaign criticized Obama Tuesday for speaking approvingly of the successful prosecution of terrorists.
A McCain aide said, "Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set" and does not understand the dangers posed by U.S. adversaries.
Obama told reporters that the Republicans have no "standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9-11."
this seems to be more of a counterpunch than the purely defensive stance some were suggesting he'd taken. it's a really powerful strike considering it'll be dominating the network news tonight instead of simply 'mccain sez obama thinking like sept. 10th!'
He said they "helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11." He said Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because of their failed strategies."
June 17, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
damn!
my comment of "this seems to be more of a counterpunch than the purely defensive stance some were suggesting he'd taken. it's a really powerful strike considering it'll be dominating the network news tonight instead of simply 'mccain sez obama thinking like sept. 10th!'" was supposed to be AFTER the end of the article...
June 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! This is what he needs to put out there. Perhaps, if Bush and Co. had some mastery and appreciation of the rule of law, Obama and his people would have been apprehended back in Fall 2001. They chose instead to let him slip away and to spend our resources - both money and American lives - on this unjustifiable war in Iraq.
June 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for a preview function, huh?
;)
June 17, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoopsie! Well...we're a friendly crowd here.
June 17, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abu Qatada: Radical cleric to be released 'in next 24 hours'
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:12PM BST 17/06/2008
Radical cleric Abu Qatada, described as "Osama bin Laden's right hand man in Europe," is to be released in the next 24 hours.
PA
Abu Qatada came to Britain in 1993
Qatada, who is accused of giving advice and support to terrorists including the leader of the September 11 hijackers, has been described in official documents as a "truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda."
He has been convicted twice in Jordan in his absence for conspiracy to carry out bomb attacks on two hotels in Amman in 1998, and providing finance and advice for a series of bomb attacks in Jordan planned to coincide with the Millennium.
It was those convictions which allowed him to argue in the Appeal Court he would not get a fair treatment in his home country.
June 17, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abu Qatada: Radical cleric to be released 'in next 24 hours'
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:12PM BST 17/06/2008
Radical cleric Abu Qatada, described as "Osama bin Laden's right hand man in Europe," is to be released in the next 24 hours.
PA
Abu Qatada came to Britain in 1993
Qatada, who is accused of giving advice and support to terrorists including the leader of the September 11 hijackers, has been described in official documents as a "truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda."
He has been convicted twice in Jordan in his absence for conspiracy to carry out bomb attacks on two hotels in Amman in 1998, and providing finance and advice for a series of bomb attacks in Jordan planned to coincide with the Millennium.
It was those convictions which allowed him to argue in the Appeal Court he would not get a fair treatment in his home country.
June 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for those 4100+ U.S. deaths since we invaded Iraq--THEY don't count? It's been too easy to kill Americans over there for them to bother killing us here. Christ, you wingnuts are SO STUPID! You walked right into their trap! And what is accomplished? Are we really any safer? Of course not. We've spent $400 billion, the economy and budget are a wreck, the price of oil is sky high, the whole world hates us, and we've got over 30 THOUSAND casualties of the war who will need some kind of major medical assistance for the rest of their now-miserable lives. YOU FUCKED EVERYTHING UP!
Now go to the wilderness for the next 40 years where you belong.
June 17, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Context: This was supposed to be nested way up above in response to that wallace guy who thinks Bush protected us from ANYTHING. Shit, he and Condi had the whole thing laid out for them and they IGNORED IT in August '01. Incompetent fools let the 9/11 attacks happen.
Anyway, better posters than I already went over this ground above earlier.
June 17, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those inclined to defend the "War on Terror," here's something to chew over from McClatchy's investigative piece:
"In interviews, former U.S. Defense Department officials acknowledged the problem, but none of them would speak about it openly because of its implications: U.S. officials mistakenly sent a lot of men who weren't hardened terrorists to Guantanamo, but by the time they were released, some of them had become just that."
IN another snippet, the former commander of Guantanomo acknowledges that there is probably a fully functioning Al Qaida cell at Gitmo.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Feith et al have committed almost unspeakable atrocities against the ideals of this nation.
June 17, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Sizable F*ck Cluster Wallace still trolling here?
I'd like to try to understand what's so terrible about Richard Clarke from a Right Wing Conspiritor's perspective ??
He did his job, I guess that's pretty bad since none of the Bush crowd do theirs ...
He kept his eye on the people actually attacking us, that's pretty bad since the Bush crowd delights in creating expensive. bloody distractions ...
And he actually tried to tell Condi and Bush that Bin Laden was a problem and that attacks by hijacked airliners were possible (as Georgie-Pie and Condi should have known, since in July '01 they weren't allowed to stay on land but had to stay on ships at sea during the G-8 Conference they attended in Italy due to alleged threats of attacks via hijacked airliners) ... when they were determined to ignore the warnings !! What a f-ing traitor that Richard Clarke is !!!
June 18, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always wished they'd called it The War Against Terror instead. Better acronym. Great t-shirts.
But unfortunately, there is no such war. You can fear terrorists, if you feel the need. You are more likely to die in your bath tub. I'll save whatever fear I may have for the real enemy: our government.
June 18, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink