Deinonychus antirrhopus

Its becoming clearer that far from having any embarrassing revelations ( which would really not be unreasonable - any administration has its embarrassing moments ), Clarke has no credibility at all and is quite dishonest.

Of course, the media is doing almost nothing to actually test his allegations.

I've been working on this one for the past day or so...Clarke's story is not internally consistent, which we know is the measure of a man's statements, at least according to Kevin Drum.

I've got posts here and here.

Are we now allowed to judge people based on the looks they have, as Clarke says? Okay, Clarke looks like a man pleased with himself and his newfound fame with dollar signs in front of his eyes.

Are we now allowed to judge credibility based on consistency, as the New Republic and Kaplan at Slate say? Okay, Clarke is very inconsistent, therefore his book should not be treated as the Bible of What Happened about Terrorism as it is being treated even at the "9/11 Commission."

Limbaugh just played a part of the interview from '00......10 million people just heard Clark's credibility go straight down the toilet.

What's Nader's take on all this, anybody know? With the lack of comment by Kerry, I think Nader can sneak in and steal the ABB vote. This is the chance that Nader has been waiting for.

Nader/Dean in '04! Put me in coach, I can make it!

Outstanding, Steve. I excerpted you mercilessly over at Obsidian Wings.

Believe me, I support Bush and his efforts and what he has done. But this thing with Rice, Clarke claimed Rice seemed not aware of what al Qaeda was. The interview with Rice,used to debunk what Clarke has said, Rice uses Bin-laden and never says "al Qaeda," once. Technical? Well,with the liberal bias, if we are to nail Clarke, we have to be exact.

Bizarre Russell. Al Queda was Bin Laden's creation and at the time of the interview the term was less well known.

Clearly if we got a "do-over" knowing what we know now, in January 2001 Bush would start mobilizing the troops immediately for invasion of Afghanistan and would put out the word to hunt down the 9/11 19 and have them all arrested or killed on sight.

Certainly, and would have been lambasted for being a reckless cowboy by the same morons who are bitching about preemption in Iraq.

Oh and as Steve says, Henry you are a machine - wow.

What Russell said.

Personally, I think trying to divine someone's thoughts from facial expressions is akin to palm reading.

But since so many people have made such a big deal about how this WJR interview proves what a big liar Clarke is, why can't we see a quote where she actually says the words "al Qaeda"?

Does the interview prove what you claim, or not?

Quaker,

When you get to that level of hair splitting I think the argument is pretty much over. Rice was aware of such threats and if we are going to split such fine semantical hairs I'm sure we can sit around proclaiming just about everybody ignorant on just about anything.

But since so many people have made such a big deal about how this WJR interview proves what a big liar Clarke is, why can't we see a quote where she actually says the words "al Qaeda"?

Oh and Clarke isn't telling the big lies. No, he is telling the little ones that make the other side look foolish and himself look good. If he were telling the big lies (say for example he was all set an prepared to personally stop all 19 highjackers single handedly) we'd know him for a liar.

What hair splitting? Henry says the interview proves Clarke is a big liar because he thought Rice had never heard the term "al Qaeda." He's made a great big deal about it and you've linked to it.

But the only quote he's posted from that interview never uses the term!

I'm not saying Henry's wrong. I just want to see the goods. Does he have 'em or not?

As long as we're doing double posts, I'll play.

It's not like I think that Clarke's claim is all that important. Personally, I had never heard the term "al Qaeda" until after 9/11. I had heard of Osama bin Laden.

But when blog posters start making inflated claims about what their cites prove, sometimes I smell the barnyard.

Clarke didn't claim she'd never heard of bin Laden. He didn't claim she didn't know where Afghanistan is. His claim was specific. Henry wants to rebut that specific claim.

Where's the evidence?

You are still splitting hairs here.

At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I believe that much of CHurchill's warnings during his wilderness years were aimed at Adolf Hitler. He may have mentioned the Nazi Party, but almost certainly it was rarer than his mentions of Hitler.

More to the point, Churchill, for all his intelligence, probably did not understand the precise mechanisms of control within the National Socialist Workers' Party.

Does this mean that, somehow, Churchill did not understand the threat posed by the NAZIS, b/c he only mentioned HITLER??

Get real, folks. WHY would Osama bin Laden be a threat? If it isn't, at base, tied to the organization that he heads? (Little pun, there, heh heh.) After all, one tall Arab w/ a kidney condition ain't exactly the issue---one tall Arab w/ a kidney condition who not only has beaucoup bucks but the willingness to use it (and al-Qaeda is his mechanism of disbusement) IS.

So, puh-leeze. Get real.

Steve, I'm still convinced Quaker=Brian, btw.

Hmmm...I'll check IPs but I doubt it. Quaker actually answers questions.

Granted, but both are obsessed with posting non sequiturs.

I'm pretty sure Rice thought OBL was operating totally alone, all by himself, no organization, no help, nothing but one Lone Islamist (maybe with a nifty black mask, but no Tonto). That's why he was so dangerous. How could you possibly capture or kill one man who could be anywhere, without anyone helping so no one could tell you where he was. Also, since he was only 6'6" tall and bearded, he wouldn't stand out in a crowd. (Although, much like Sherlock Holmes, he is a master of disguise, and can easily disguise himself in mere seconds as Nadia Comaniche.)

So, nope, no al qaida. Rice obviously never, never considered the Lone Islamist having sidekicks. If she had but listened to Clarke, we could have easily rounded them up. Never heard of no al qaida.

You guys should read the Daily Howler for Thursday, 3/25 (scroll to the last item).

Yes, a fine example of semantical hair splitting. She mentions OBL, but never Al Qa'ida, therefore she never heard of Al Qa'ida and thus Clarke is a truth teller. Right.

Steve writes:

"Yes, a fine example of semantical hair splitting. She mentions OBL, but never Al Qa'ida, therefore she never heard of Al Qa'ida and thus Clarke is a truth teller. Right."

Are dittoheads *really* this stupid, or do they just pretend to be? *Everyone* knew in October 2000 who OBL was; that Rice mentioned him a few times has no relevance to Clarke's impression that she hadn't heard of Al Qaeda. OTOH, the fact that she *never mentions Al Qaeda in the interview* adds plausibility to Clarke's impression. Clarke writes that, when Rice appeared not to have heard of Al Qaeda, he explained that they were OBL's network, but more than that. Of course he knew that she knew who *OBL* was. It's not "semantical hair splitting", it's simple logic, something apparently beyond your capabilities.

JorgXMcKie writes:

"I'm pretty sure Rice thought OBL was operating totally alone, all by himself, no organization, no help, nothing but one Lone Islamist (maybe with a nifty black mask, but no Tonto)."

This is incredibly idiotic. In October 2000, everyone who pays any attention had heard of OBL and knew that he had lots of fanatical followers -- I did, didn't you? But very few people had heard of Al Qaeda -- I hadn't, had you?
Apparently neither had Sovietologist Condi Rice, since she never mentions them in her interview.

steve writes:

"When you get to that level of hair splitting I think the argument is pretty much over. Rice was aware of such threats and if we are going to split such fine semantical hairs I'm sure we can sit around proclaiming just about everybody ignorant on just about anything."

The point is that she's supposed to be national security advisor; she's supposed to have a lot more knowledge than a random news junkie. She's supposed to know the name, size, and reach of OBL's organization, and that it's more than that, it's a network, which is what Clarke explained to her when she appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda. You dittoheads have claimed
that Rice's WJR interview shows Clarke's statement to be false, but you're LYING and now you're BACKTRACKING. How typical.

All those bureucratic hair splitting lawyers
certainly looked useless as Faluja revolted.
The problem obviously is systemic.
$$$ billion wasted dollars & they think they can fix it with a billion more.

The enemy walked into
the general's tent(pentagon)
Fire the lot downsize INTELL
With the rising ani americanism on the street & in the global economic arena
prior to 9/11
any awake person could tell
something was up
It happened under Bush watch .