Recently, my colleague Paul had a little fun with the Navy’s newest attack submarine being named after Jimmy Carter. Lord knows I enjoyed that whole thread, but I have to be perfectly honest — Jimmy Carter was a nuculer submariner, served his country honorably while in uniform, and while an inept president, didn’t bring disgrace to the office. Naming a submarine after him strikes me as an eminently honorable and decent thing to do.
Likewise, I have no problems with the ships named after a few other presidents. Kennedy was a navy veteran. Ronald Reagan led the rebirth of the navy in the 80’s. And George H. W. Bush was a Navy carrier pilot.
Now it’s time for another of my rants — this one about warship names. Since this would probably bore most people, I’m stuffing this in the extended entry.
J.
Update: I’m closing comments on this thread. It’s degenerated into a pissing contest between a fool and an idiot about matters completely off-topic. Thanks for ruining it for everyone, schmucks.
In the old days, the U.S. Navy had a fairly simple system for naming its ships. Battleships were states, cruisers cities, destroyers people, submarines fish, and carriers battles or famous ships from U.S. naval history.
After World War II, though, we stopped building battleships. Since states have Senators and Representatives that vote on navy budgets, cruisers briefly took on that role, then ballistic missile submarines. Now it’s carriers for presidents and other notable leaders, cruisers for battles, destroyers for people (still), and submarines for cities and states. (The latter came about when, as Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy, pointed out, “fish don’t vote.”)
Now, the British, THEY know how to name warships. I have reprints of Jane’s Fighting Ships of World War I and World War II, and just perusing the Royal Navy’s listings makes the heart swell.
Resolution. Revenge. Warspite. Valiant. Audacious. Thunderer. Conqueror. Colossus. Superb. Repulse. Renown. Tiger. Lion. Indefatigable. Invincible. Inflexible. Indomitable. Triumph. Formidable. Irresistible. Implacable. Glory. Vengeance. Magnificent. Majestic. Victorious. Illustrious. Furious. Courageous. Glorious. Vindictive. Terrible.
Even the nicknames the British gave their ships were clever. The Courageous, Glorious, and Furious were absurdly-designed battlecruisers, and earned the name Outrageous, Uproarious, and Curious. Likewise, the Repulse and Renown spent so much time in docks that they were known as Repair and Refit. And the battleships Nelson and Rodney… nah, that one’s too damned obscure to properly appreciate. Trust me, it’s very funny, and very biting.
The United States came close a few times. The best was probably the U.S.S. Reprisal, and that aircraft carrier was canceled and scrapped when half-finished at the end of World War II.
I’m getting a little tired of the U.S. Navy essentially “selling” the names of its warships out for political gain. I’d like to see the next aircraft carrier to be named after one of the proud fighting ships we lost during World War II. We need another Lexington, another Saratoga, another Hornet, maybe even another Langley. I’d also like to see carriers named Yorktown or Wasp, but those names are currently borne by a cruiser and an amphibious assault ship respectively. In fact, the first seven ships of the Wasp class are all named for World War II aircraft carriers.
But that won’t be happening any time soon. As Rickover said so eloquently, “fish don’t vote.” And neither do long-scrapped or sunken warships that served their nation proudly, to the bitter end.
Mr. Nowak:
Are you referring to Clark’s ignorance in the “or his” portion of Mr. Bill’s post, or mine? Just asking.
Mr. Bill:
Yes, one must be suspicious of Clark. Any time a man labels himself, by his declaration, a one-man think-tank surrounded by buffoons, one is forced to question the man’s motives. This is axiomatic.
But it does not suffice to discredit him entirely. Here are some who have discredited Dick Clark:
1) The 9-11 Commission report itself;
2) Tommy Franks;
3) Bill Clinton;
4) Porter Goss; and,
5) The real all-knowing, our Creator.
That’s just a short list. I believe number 5 above is a rather nice description of Mr. Clark, or at least who he thinks he is.
But I’m glad to hear that you met him, and actually spoke with him. That must have been a nice moment, and I’m not kidding here. It’s great to get to meet with someone you look up to.
That’s it for now. I think that we’ve made our differences clear.
Best regards,
KCTrio
Where in the 9/11 Commission report do they so called “discredit” Richard Clarke? I’d like to know ,I have a copoy of it and would like you to cite your references.
KCTrio, my apologies for being unclear.
I was referring to OhTheBill’s apparent ignorance.
The United States’ first major ground actions in World War II were directed against French troops in Africa. I am astonished that anyone could try to use the Allied strategy in the Second World War to argue that counterattacks must only be made against direct aggressors, and amused that others would actually think this was an insightful comment worth repeating.
You’re missing the entire point John N., Clarke’s point was that not only did it make no sense to attack Iraq after 9/11, but it had nothing to do with ANYTHING associated with Al Quieda, or Bin Laden.
“Jay, you’re a warmongering fascist. Also, insensitive.”
If your going to call someone a fascist, tacking on insensitive is pointless. Why not call him ugly while you’re at it?
As a former (enlisted) Navy nuke myself, I’d prefer they name a tender or oiler or some other non-combatant ship after him. That would seem to be more fitting.
My Dear Oh No Its Mr. Bill:
As you probably well know, this is a nice little trick you’re using to somehow show your greatness. Citing page numbers and the like is a ridiculous request and you know it.
Suppose you and I were to discuss Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, and take certain quotes out of context, and that be what underpins our discussion? That’d be crazy and you know it.
I’ll offer up one reference, since when I read the book I didn’t keep copious notes preparing to write a thesis. When one debates a subject like this, one must provide an argument that Clark made in his testimony, and then show an argument made in the report that discredits the point made by Clark. Here’s the example:
Clark argued that the best way to thwart 9/11 was to have more meetings. He said that this approach is what thwarted the LAX millennium bombing. Wrong. An alert, female customs agent did this.
If you want page numbers, I’ll try to find them. But I haven’t time for that now. If you’ve ever had to write an essay that critiques a body of work as massive as the commission’s report, you wouldn’t do it by simply citing page references. Those page references would merely be used as a subtext (in the form of footnotes) to your broader case.
KCTrio
Somehow I’m not suprised that you can’t substantiate your claims with facts or references in the 9/11 report that YOU yourself brought up as evidence of him being discredited. Leave it to republicans to claim something and then say “i dont have time” to back it up with facts, but believe me anyway because I really REALLY know it to be true. Good going!
>You’re missing the entire point John N., Clarke’s point was that not only did it make no sense to attack Iraq after 9/11, but it had nothing to do with ANYTHING associated with Al Quieda, or Bin Laden.
1) It is a shame that Bush didn’t chose to call the War on Al Queida “The War on Terror,” because that would make the objective of the war more clear, except to people who willfully misunderstand things.
2) Are you now claiming that French colonists in Algeria bombed Pearl Harbor? And if not, exactly how did the French colony of Algeria participate in the attack?
Where have I said anything about french colonists? LOL, the only reference to WWII that Ive made was Richard Clarkes analogy that this current Iraq war can be compared to America (as a result of the attack on pearl harbor) attacking Mexico. His point, and it’s hysterical that i have to point this out, was that Iraq had 1. nothing to do with 9/11, 2. nothing to do with Al Quieda, and nothing to do with Bin Laden. MUCH LIKE ATTACKING MEXICO WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PEARL HARBOR.
Mr. Bill:
Did your read what I wrote? Did you respond to a single thing that I stated. Where’s your counter-argument?
I stated that citing page references is not how one goes about the exercise of making a case for or against a given point. Page
references are simply footnotes.
Of course, you either don’t understand this, believe it but choose to ignore it, or don’t believe it but don’t argue why I’m wrong
about citing page numbers.
I gave you evidence. I gave you specifics. Now be a gentleman and respect that. I’ll not fall prey to your self-sealing trap of
an argument that since I refuse to go through finding page numbers then I must be wrong.
Engage or desist.
KCTrio
Wow how did this thread get so out there? Thank you fior the nice post on Mr. Carter. All this being said I actually served in the Navy while Mr. carter was the president, the military brass did not like his policies but in 1976-1980 when I was in there were a lot of Vietnam era leftovers who were given the choice of jail or join, military-wise he didn’t have the best and brightest voulenteers as we do now. So under him as commander in chief I don’t have much outside perspective. I don’t feel he was a great president either, but he was somewhat responsible for the Trident submarine program during that time, which was a mega nuclear boomer submarine that had a mission of maintaining cold war peace. That would give Mr. carter some credability of having a submarine named after him. I think everything else here is for another day.
I gave you evidence. I gave you specifics. Now be a gentleman and respect that. I’ll not fall prey to your self-sealing trap of
You gave no such thing. You gave a list of people who have supposedly “discredited” Clarke. You gave no links, no quotes, no direction at all as to where someone might find these discreditings (except the 911 Commission report, which you refuse to elaborate on). I looked around a bit, and all I could find was a Powerline entry whose sole contradiction with Clarke’s assertions was that Rice said she had no evidence that his meeting with Bush took place. The rest talked about how Clarke failed to stop terrorism under Clinton.
By the way you’re not writing an essay critiquing the Commission report; you made an assertion. Back it up.
>MUCH LIKE ATTACKING MEXICO WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PEARL HARBOR
It’s obvious you still think this is a clever analogy, when in fact, it betrays a hilarious ignorance of actual history. In fact, I’m starting to suspect you’re a kid — I doubt that a grownup could be quite this incomprehending.
Did we make a French colony our first major target in World War II?
Did the French attack Pearl Harbor?
Mantis:
In my original e-mail, I gave a list. In my follow-up e-mail, I gave a specific example. Either you’ve merged these two separate posts into one entity, or you’ve neglected what I said regarding the LAX millennium bombing. That’s specific. Perhaps not as specific as page references, bur as I stated before, I gave an example.
Here’s another: Tommy Franks spoke viscerally about Richard Clarke, and debunked the guy thoroughly.
That’s enough for now.
Best regards,
KCTrio
Hey Bill, John is right about this. Look up Operation Torch and you will see that the first people we fought in WWII were in fact the French in Algeria. We needed the area to launch a second front in North Africa. The analogy could easily be carried to the WOT, with Iraq being our staging point for further battles in same. Whether you agree with this strategy or not is a moot point; the similarities are there. And yes, Iraq did not attack us on 911, but Bush didn’t declare a war on Al Qaeda, he declared a war on terror, just as we didn’t declare war on just Japan, but on all the Axis powers.
KCTRIO,
you gave no information, you gave no credible information regarding the 9/11 commission report, I’ll repeat the question?
Where exactly in the 9/11 report does the report “discredit” Richard Clarke?
If you make a claim, I agree with mantis, you really should back it up with facts. Or, if you can’t ADMIT that you can’t and lets move on to the next point.
Nicely put, Mantis, and smoother writing than I’m capable of.
Of course, if you want tot be hyper-picky, the first aggressive order given in WWII by the White House were actually naval; the US Navy patrolled an exclusion zone in the Atlantic and attacked U-Boats well before the US entered the war. And the first White House level directive seems to have been “Execute unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.”
But yeah, the first ground force invasion of land that was taken and held was on the opposite side of the planet from the people who attacked Pearl Harbor.
Regarding Clark, I think the most damning bit against him were press releases his office produced before 9-11: clearly, his primary concern was organized attacks on the Internet. This is not at all stupid, except with the benefit of hindsight he could not possibly have had. But it absolutely does not fit in with his post-facto Cassandra fantasies.
KCT,
Ok, I will grant you that Clarke was taking credit for something that he shouldn’t have in the millenium bombing capture, however this hardly discredits him.
Here’s another: Tommy Franks spoke viscerally about Richard Clarke, and debunked the guy thoroughly.
Looked around a bit in TF’s book, and the only real dispute I can see, other than he thinks Clarke is pompous and generally doesn’t like him because he’s a civilian, is that Clarke never sent him a piece of actionable intelligence. Don’t know if that’s true, but if it is it jibes with Clarke’s story which is that he couldn’t get resources or attention paid to the Al Qaeda threat. So basically he asserted the threat was real and out there, but didn’t have any specific places for Franks to bomb apparently (I certainly doubt that is true, since we knew where the Afghanistan camps were.) He needed more resources and yes, meetings. But the problem Clarke states is he couldn’t get the principles interested, all his meetings were with lower level functionaries and the threat was basically brushed off as unimportant. Now I don’t necessarily believe everything Clarke says as the whole intelligence game is pretty muddy for us regular Joes, but I still don’t think he’s been discredited.
Btw you still offer no links, quotes, or direct evidence of any kind.
Didn’t Yasser Win the Nobel Peace Prize as well? I don’t believe I would use that accomplishment on Carter’s resume.
Mantis:
You still want links, quotes, page references. As I stated, I am not in the business of writing treatises about Richard Clark or the 9/11 commission report. I am in the business of assessing people’s honesty, and the core conclusions contained in the 9/11 commission report, as well as the overall thrust of the narrative of said report.
Here’s what I will summarize in response to Richard Clark’s importance:
You and others have hung your hat on Clark. I and many others say Clark has been discredited on a number of levels. These are:
1) Taking credit for something he had nothing to do with;
2) The very loadstone of his argument to the 9/11 commission was that there needed to be more meetings, and that this process worked in the millenium bombing. He said that’s what was needed to avoid 9/11 from happening, and nobody listened. So, he gave a false example to buttress his central argument;
3) Anyone who writes a book entitled “Against All Enemies,” and proclaims themselves as the sole bearer of truth surrounded by idiots is suspect to their core. He’s vainglorious, self-centered, and has delusions of grandeur. That’s a very lethal criticism of his motives, and you must address this.
4) Franks on mulitple occasions implied, in his gentlemanly way, that Clark didn’t provide him with anything of much value.
If Clark is your hero, and I say that he’s not as important as he says he is, and has been discredited, and also has baser motives, then the burden is upon you to show us why the weight of his statements and the veracity thereof is greater than the totality of the others that he worked amongst.
You ask me to provide specifics about why Clark is not credible? I say to you, tell me why he’s right and everyone else is wrong. It would seem to me that if you claim he’s so great, then provide me with evidence that his claims are true.
Best regards,
KCTrio
Mr. Bill: It must be nice to live in the bubble that you live in. Obviously nothing is ever going to convince you that Richard Clarke has been utterly, throughly, discredited. He was a civil servant for most of his time at the CIA and, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m fairly sure there has never been a President who was personally familiar with every single person employed by the federal government during his presidency.
If you want to continue embarassing yourself by continuing to beat the Richard Clarke drum, you just go right ahead. We’ll just watch as your already very tenuous connection with reality slips away entirely. Now, for some other matters:
You have, like Eason Jordon recently, made a very serious charge (that Bush was AWOL during his Guard stint) for which you have provided no evidence whatsoever.
Prove it.
You have accused the Vice President of draft dodging during Vietnam.
Prove it.
I’ve got $100 that says you can’t. Real money. Seriously. If you can, I will forward the money to Jay and have him send it to you. So give it your best shot.
Or just keep showing us how proud you are of your ignorance. But not on my nickel.
Links for Richard Clark Lickspittles:
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20384/news_detail.asp
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/040419/20040419044078_brief.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004_04.php#006322
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/clarke.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F03%2F28%2Fdo2804.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15343
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004_03.php#006214
That should be a good start.
Happy reading.
Best regards,
KCTrio
try”>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/DickCheney_VN_Hypocrisy.html”>try here it’s WIDELY known that Cheney had 5 deferrments for the Vietnam war, he’s WIDELY quoted as saying that he had “other priorities” in that era. Call me names all you want, it’s hysterical that you people have to resort to name calling in order to NOT prove your point. but the problem trio, is that you need to have two people in on your wager, and I dont belive that you have that now do you?
Between 1963 and ’65, Cheney used his student status at Casper College and the University of Wyoming to apply for and receive four 2-S draft deferments. As the war in Vietnam heated up, Cheney fought to defend and expand his deferments. Twenty-two days after Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in August 1964, raising the prospect of a rapid expansion of the draft, he “coincidentally”-in the words of a Washington Post profile-married Lynne. The advantage was that even if his student deferment was lifted, his married status might carry some weight with his draft board.
But the Vietnamese were not cooperating with Cheney’s schemes. The war kept demanding more and more young American men, and the range of those who were eligible for the draft expanded rapidly. On May 19, 1965, Cheney was reclassified with the most dangerous draft status: 1-A, “available for military service.” Soon afterward, Lyndon Johnson announced that draft call-ups would double, and on October 26, Selective Service constraints on the drafting of childless married men were lifted. Danang was calling. And it didn’t look like Dick had any excuses left.
But there was one way for ambitious young men to avoid serving their country while maintaining their political viability. If Cheney had a child, he’d be reclassified 3-A, removing him from the pool of those likely to be drafted. Cheney needed a kid-quick. And he got one. Precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service eliminated special protections for childless married men, Cheney was no longer childless. His daughter Elizabeth was born on July 28, 1966. Convenient? Coincidence? That’s not Cheney’s style. Writer Timothy Noah did the math and suggested that the timing of Elizabeth’s arrival “would seem to indicate that the Cheneys, though doubtless planning to have children sometime, were seized with an untamable passion the moment Dick Cheney became vulnerable to the Vietnam draft. And acted on it. Carpe diem! Who says government policy can’t affect human behavior?” Cheney applied for 3-A status immediately, receiving it on January l9, 1966, when Lynne was still in the first trimester of her pregnancy.
sorry, i wrongly referred to trio, when it was cousin dave
Oh Mr. Bill:
No problem. I don’t mind. Spirited debate is fair, as long as it doesn’t devolve into virulent language and insults alone (this stuff might be tolerable if coupled with sound argument, but I digress).
I never cared one way or the other whether Cheney dodged the draft or not. Since when is prior military experience a big factor in one being a President or a Vice-President of the US?
Lincoln, whom many regard as the best we’ve ever had, had served as a Captain in the Blackhawk wars but never saw any active combat. And, during his 2-year tenure in the Congress, he opposed the Mexican war as unconstitutional along with most of the Whigs. But he did vote for providing troops with arms, medicine and uniforms every time.
Folks back in Sagamo County, Illinois were furious with Lincoln’s stance on the war. And, the guy who followed Lincoln in Congress (he made a deal with his fellow Whigs, 3 I believe, that they’d each serve one term) voted against such legislation. Lincoln got smeared pretty heavily because Douglas was spreading rumors that it was Lincoln who’d voted against legislation that provided troops with these things.
Why do you care if Cheney dodged the draft? Why should you care? If you liked Clinton, then you should be happy that Cheney did the same thing.
Now, you might aver that it’s important because Cheney is such a hawk. But this is a false dilemma logic flaw, and has nothing to do with the temperature of spit in China. Clinton authorized the use of troops while in office, and people died under his Presidency, so it’s a red herring.
Best regards,
KCTrio
I’ll repeat the question.
Where in the 9/11 report (not the sources you’ve cited) does it discredit Richard Clarke?
Either you can cite some references that YOU HAVE used, or your argument is totally invalid. You still haven’t proved anything re: the 9/11 commission report.
Here’s an interessting twist on things: Richard Clark doesn’t seem to like the 9/11 commission report:
http://middleeastinfo.org/article4645.html
Slade Gorton doesn’t think Richard Clark was as all-knowing as you seem to think:
http://www.lawac.org/speech/9-11%20commission%20report%202004.htm
Clark’s leaked to an Arab Government that the Clinton administration was going to attack Bin Laden’s camp:
http://www.command-post.org/gwot/2_archives/013749.html
From the 9/11 Report:
Even after bin Laden’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. ‘Mike’ thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.
Here’s a nice article:
http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/aijac-media/tl_rn_210704.htm
Clark says that there’s no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Period. None. From the report:
Page 66:
“In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.”
Page 66:
“According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.”
Page 128:
On November 4, 1998, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”.
That’s a bit for now; I believe that this gets at some of the underlying accusations I was making. The 9/11 Report discredits Clark’s own claims, both specifically and in general.
KCTrio
Nice try, Bill, but no cookie. Although Cheney isn’t as old as I thought he was, he was 23 years old in 1964, the year that LBJ (a Democrat, cough, cough) broadened the war and the draft got going in earnest. That was already at the outer fringe of the draft age. By 1970, he was 29 and way past draft age.
Furthermore, I loved that bit in the article you cited about how he “conveniently” married Lynne and had a child, and about he “opposed the draft for the wrong reasons”. I love it when deranged liberals appoint themselves the arbiters for the whole human race of who is allowed to marry and have children, and who is entitled to break the law and who isn’t. Sorry, no payout on this spin.
But thanks for playing.
Furthermore, I loved that bit in the article you cited about how he “conveniently” married Lynne and had a child, and about he “opposed the draft for the wrong reasons”.
Even sunk so low as to “count backwards” like an old biddy.
Actually, JayTea, as a naval historian, I have to disagree with you vis-a-vis the Royal Navy ship names compared to historical American warship names. The USN scheme actually makes sense, so you know what kind of ship you’re dealing with, whereas with the Brits, you can be all over the map, especially given their propensity for using the same name for different periods to “carry on a tradition”. Most disturbing. Look up HMS Orion or even King George V and you’ll see what I mean.
Also, their names can seem a bit…well, silly. HMS Opossum? How about Flamingo, or Fennel or Marjoram? I mean, how embarrasing is it to be sunk by a rodent, a pink tropical bird, or your mother’s spice rack?
However, subs do need to go back to fish. Except for Shark.
Andrew J.
Anyone who thinks Clarke has not been at least as discredited as Ritter and Lewis just has not been paying attention.
After six months of self-serving, book backing, Bush bashing invective, Mr. Clarke did himself in when answering the question: “Mr. Clarke, even if all your ideas had been adopted would 911 have been prevented?”.
Mr. Clarke, in the first completely honest statement in at least six months, answered: “No.”
KCT,
Just to respond a bit to your exaggerations about me.
You and others have hung your hat on Clark.
I’ve done no such thing. I just asked you to back up your assertions.
If Clark is your hero,
Clarke is not my hero.
then the burden is upon you to show us why the weight of his statements and the veracity thereof is greater than the totality of the others that he worked amongst.
Well, not really, since I made no assertions, I was simply asking you to provide some evidence of his being discredited, as I have not seen it. I never claimed it is not there, nor do I say that Clarke is right about everything he said, nor that his critics are wrong, I just asked for links.
You ask me to provide specifics about why Clark is not credible? I say to you, tell me why he’s right and everyone else is wrong.
See above.
It would seem to me that if you claim he’s so great, then provide me with evidence that his claims are true.
Once again, I never said he was great, and I don’t feel the need to provide evidence that his claims are true, since I never asserted that they were, I just said I’m not familiar with his discrediting.
Anyway, you have supported your assertions now, and from the links you posted it does seem that Clarke has thrown around his share of bs here. I of course will have to check up on those, but I thank you for doing so. However, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t argue against things I clearly never said. And while I appreciate the use of archaic terms, I ain’t no lickspittle. BTW I don’t know how much of what Clarke says is true, and while I certainly intend to look into it more before I come to any conclusions, I’ve always thought he was kind of a pompous ass.
Mantis:
You see why Powerline doesn’t allow comments?
Anyway, you are correct, across-the-board. I inferred from your joining with Mr. Bill that you were of the same mindset. That was inappropriate. Please forgive my mischaracterizations of you, and for me having assumed things about you that weren’t true.
As to the lickspittle comment, I didn’t mention you in the particular, so on that one I’ll simply say that it’s a nicer way of saying ass-kisser. Would you have preferred I use “toady?” Anyway, I didn’t apply the words to you specifically, but if my use of the word offended you, and you took it as me classifying you in that group of Clarke’s worshipers, then again, please forgive me.
Best regards, and thanks for setting me straight on your perspective,
KCTrio
Here’s an idea. How about an open face to face public debate between Richard Clark and Condi Rice on the period between the innaugaration and 9-11? I would have voted for it.
Clark comes across as sure of himself (and yes pompous) while Condi (we never thought they’d use airplanes as missiles) Rice comes across as unsure and after that statement, incompetent.
That actually is an interesting idea. Clarke has actually called for the declassification of ALL documents pertaining to 9/11 and his office, to expose Condesleeza as the liar and hypocrite that she is, but of course they’ve denied the request. I would be all for that debate.