It takes very little around here, sometimes, to fill up the band wagon.

[hang a left]

It takes very little around here, sometimes, to fill up the band wagon.


I think everyone is being played.....big time. This guy was "inside" for a long time. I am highly suspicious of Clarke and the WH responses to his book and statements. Supposedly the WH vetted this book for months......come on people. And the damn thing is released two days before televised 9/11 testimony, and to really juice things up he apologizes to the American people for not having "done enough." Please............this reeks to high heaven. Don't be so damn gullible! All of a sudden there are calls from this board for Clarke to be VP, Clarke to be SOS, you want to erect a statue of Clarke. You have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.

This guy is a tool. He has been offered to shape opinion, and to assist with the fall of this administration. Why? Because a new one is waiting in the wings. They are redirecting and refocusing attention on the "real" enemy Al Queda. Yeah....OK.....whatever. THis is a ploy that we are seeing the initiation of, forget about Iraq, it's too late now, we can't leave, we have to stay and fix what we broke. But please American, we need to move on, there are bigger fish to fry. We are changing course now, follow us. Mark my words, this is the beginning of something new, all we need now is an event. And I believe we will see it soon, at least within the next 3-4 months. Hold on to your ass, cause we are going for another ride.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

1. Like what?

You have seriously piqued my curiousity.

[sniffa]

3. hi bedtime

:hi:

[bedtimeforbonzo]

74. hi right back

:)

[mmonk]

2. I can't really see how Clarke, if critical of the bush

administration on its pet issue, helps bush whether he is on the inside or not. It starts people digging and 9/11 family members demanding more answers.

[dawgman]

32. it doesn't help Bush, it helps Kerry the "new administration waiting in

the wings."

[hang a left]

34. thank you dawgman.

n/t

[Heyo]

4. I have to agree with you there....

Some people will support anyone or anything... I mean ANYTHING.. as long is it is against Bush...if Ted Bundy said he hated Bush.. he'd have fans here... it's too much blind hatred for my taste for one man who so many people blame for everything...reason has gone out the window..

This guy (Clarke) is just bitter, and he is the one playing partisan politics with 9-11..

I'm sorry, but both political parties make me sick right now...

-Heyo

[mmonk]

5. So

what's your criteria since anyone challenging the bush admin will be labeled partisan? Nobody critical of the bush administration is credible? If you believe any of it, you're being duped? Just curious.

[Heyo]

25. News flash...

All of the finger pointing re:Sept-11...

it's all sickeningly partisan! Every bit of it.

There is NO other point to it other than *politics*...

Don't give me that "we need to learn from our mistakes", "find out the truth so it doesn't happen again" crap... that'd be nice and all but it's not the reality.

"Clinton didn't do this or that"... "Bush didn't do this or that"... "this person knew this"... "this person sent this person this memo on this date"..."so and so's mom had 'M. Atta' in magic marker on her underwear"

It was an attack and nobody saw it coming. The rest is just partisan backstabbing.

It's ALL so partisan in fact, that neither the democrats nor the republican invloved in this give 2 craps about the real truth.. to them the only "truth" is whatever makes the other side look bad.

The rest of the people (the masses) are just treated like fools, talked to in sound bytes like children. Politicians (left and right) have a big shock coming when they realize people are not as stupid as they've tried to talk them into being.

Heyo

[hang a left]

27. I am not in this camp.

"It was an attack and nobody saw it coming."

I am camping with the MIHOPPERS.

[mmonk]

31. So let's drop it

It's partisan politics. No truth to it at all that the Republicans were interested in global hegemony, not terrorism so put it on the backburner.

The global war for hegemony is the war on "terrorism". Convenience came their way. Wake up to what Clarke is trying to make a distinction about that nobody is picking up.

[samsingh]

66. Clarke is defending your rights and mine.

he is coming out with the truth regardless of the personal attacks he is suffering. He could easily have made more money by jumping on the Cheney gravy train than in anything he is able to do now.

We owe Clarke a debt of gratitude.

[hang a left]

67. How do you know where his money comes from?

How do you know what he will be receiving in return? How do you know who's payroll he's one?

Maybe he'll be the next director of the CIA? I would imagine that he is already employed by them anyway.

[hang a left]

7. It is politics alright, Clarke is not bitter, he is doing a job.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Anything To Substantiate That "Job" Thing

Or are we just idiots if we disagree?
The Professor

[hang a left]

23. No, noone is an idiot. I didn't mean to imply that, and if I have

insulted you, I apologize.

How do you expect me to substantiate a belief that I have arrived at after watching what has happened in our once great country over the last three years, and I might add with the help of alot of DUers.

Sometimes we hate Bush so much that it clouds our thinking. I have evolved into someone who stands back and observes. I have a paranoid nature. I always try to figure out motive and take nothing at face value. I rarely let emotion guide me anymore in events that take place in the media.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. OK

However, i still don't know that i agree with your original assessment. Until Clarke had the wherewithal and employment/financial options to drop a dime on the buffoons, he needed to stay where he was. Hence, it was pragmatism not bribery that could have resulted in this timing. Once he had his options worked out, boom.

However, he and his publisher had no idea, 15 months ago, that the commission would make it's belated start and that the hearings would take place. So, i'd question the conclusion you reached about the timing.

Clarke, no matter whose tool you think he was, wouldn't be able to time the completion of the book, the editing, the printing, the distribution and release all to the week of hearings that weren't scheduled when the project started. Geez, even the commission wasn't stable back then. How could anybody possibly know the date of the hearings?

I am practiced in, and have taught dozens and dozens in techniques of logical problem solving and data analysis of complex systems. It's what i do, so i'm not prone to kneejerk reactions and emotional blinding either.

But, there is a difference between being blinded by hatred for Bush and seeing things that aren't there due to blinding cynicism, is there not? What's the difference between what you're suggesting, and someone accepting Clarke at face value? From your perspective, he could be Ghandi or King and you'd suggest he was a tool because his timing was good. Right?
The Professor

[hang a left]

36. You got me there Professor.

"But, there is a difference between being blinded by hatred for Bush and seeing things that aren't there due to blinding cynicism, is there not? What's the difference between what you're suggesting, and someone accepting Clarke at face value? From your perspective, he could be Ghandi or King and you'd suggest he was a tool because his timing was good. Right?"


A blinded cynicist, you got my number. That is me. I analyze too much and think way too much. Can't help it. But now that I have admitted what ails me, I still won't change my mind. It is just the perspective I see the world from.

I don tinfoil for every occasion.

[sangh0]

58. Then you haven't admitted what really ails you

If you weren't in such denial, your admission that your argument is irrational would lead you to take a more rational approach. Who knows? Maybe you'd even consider a fact or two. Instead, we get I still won't change my mind"

Nope, no denial there

:crazy:

[hang a left]

63. I don't think that I admitted that my argument was irrational.

I think what I admitted to is the perspective I watch things from. I would never admit being irrational, I am in denial.

[goclark]

10. Clarke is my Hero

I don't care if he is bitter. I would be bitter too if I was a Conservative and I finally realized that I was being played for a fool by ChimpCo. It is normal to be bitter under those circumstances.

What he is saying is not way off the mark for anything that the 911 Commission has determined to be the facts so far.

So, as much as we may not like it,in the final analysis, all things are political. We can either put our heads in the sand and say we are tired of all the mess(and sometimes that is easy to do) or we can fight like hell to make this world a better place.

Unless I am totally fooled, I believe that Clarke wants to make this world a better place for all of us.

[JustinCredible]

11. Clarke

is bitter that the admin didn't take a bigger effort to stop the possibility of a 9-11. He's a registered republican and he worked for Reagan and Bush the first before Clinton and Bush the second...

How can you assume he's a just partisan? Can no people actually do what they think to be right in the world without being attacked from all sides?

Think about it. If you were him, and you thought the pres failed the country, would you not want to share your truth with the world to stop him from being in charge again?

I saw Clarke this weekend on Meet the Press, and he said he's not running for the gov, and he has no desire to work for the gov anymore no matter who is president.

[hang a left]

24. In a perfect world and if you believe that these people have our

best interest at heart. I don't.

"Think about it. If you were him, and you thought the pres failed the country, would you not want to share your truth with the world to stop him from being in charge again? "

THis alone should alert you to the fact that this guy is a serious insider.

"He's a registered republican and he worked for Reagan and Bush the first before Clinton and Bush the second..."

[tnlefty]

16. If Ted Bundy said that he hated Bush* I'd crap my pants since the state

of FL executed him a few years ago.

I have a great deal of respect for anyone who has the courage to state the facts/truth especially when the consequences of doing so can be quite serious.

[hang a left]

28. What consequences does Clarke face?

[tnlefty]

38. I would think that the conventional wisdom would be:

defamation - the attack dogs have been unleashed

threats to one's personal safety, loss of employment, etc. However, he was probably ready to retire anyway. Possible employment opportunities could be a factor.

If he truly is a tool none of these would seem to be consequences. If he actually is a whistleblower then I don't think that he would appreciate the attacks against his character, accomplishments during his career, etc.

[hang a left]

40. Clarke has just as many powerful friends as he has enemies.

You know what they say "you can't please everyone so you might as well please..........."

[sangh0]

6. Another conclusion so certain

it doesn't need to be explained.

Not one argument, nor any evidence cite, that indicates Clarke is insincere. Just unsupported allegations that Al Quesda isn't a threat. I guess OBL was just "playing along" when he claimed responsibility for leading the attack, not that OBL's "playing along" makes him or Al Queda any sort of threat.

And of course, accusing the Bush* admin of blowing the War on Terrorism is the Bush* admins way of saying "Move along". Yeah, it really makes sense to say that the admin is trying to distract attentions away from their mistakes by having someone testify about those mistakes.

Some people just hate it when someone makes an effective attack against Bush*. The left's circular firing squad never sleeps.

[hang a left]

14. I don't hate the effective attack of Bush*. I am on record for

despising everything about this evil man. I am elated he is having his day in the court of the press. I am a subscriber to "Nothing in politics happens on accident."

"Not one argument, nor any evidence cite, that indicates Clarke is insincere."

No your right, it is just a deep belief, that there is a big time right-wing conspiracy going on in this country that is abetted by both Democrats and Republicans.

"And of course, accusing the Bush* admin of blowing the War on Terrorism is the Bush* admins way of saying "Move along". Yeah, it really makes sense to say that the admin is trying to distract attentions away from their mistakes by having someone testify about those mistakes."

You missed my point that I don't believe the *Bush clan has any desire or permission to continue on for another 4 years. We are in Iraq, we are not leaving.....mission accomplished. I believe that by the admission and exposition of blowing the war on terror, will remain a talking point for refocusing efforts on our never ending war and will set the stage for our next involvement, whereever that may be.

[dawgman]

35. I agree one hundred percent.

that's the road we are all merrily running down. Now the question is, will we still march if it is a Dem that takes us into syria or iran or venezuela or whatever oil rich country is next on the board?

[rdfi-defi]

50. "now the question is, will we still march if it is a dem that takes us

into syria or iran or venz. or whatever oil rich country is next on the board?"

great question, i have posted something similar more than a few times hear on du. i would feel a little easier about voting for kerry in nov. if i knew most dems would answer your question 'yes.'

[dawgman]

61. I would like to believe that we are less hypocritical than the repubs but

.....Who knows? I know I'll march and protest just as loudly as I did when Bush took us to Iraq, I hope everyone here is as consistent.

[sangh0]

46. More faulty arguments don't help

The fact that acknowledge a "deep belief" in something while also admitting that there is not one fact to support that belief has me wondering and it still doesn't explain how you get from "there is a right-wing conspiracy going on" to "Ricchard Clarke is a part of the right-wing conspiracy". Is everyone involved? I must not have gotten the memo?

You missed my point that ....

Since you're unwilling to defend your point with facts, I ignored your point, and rightfully so. After all, like your claim that Clarke is deceitful, you have provided no reason to believe that this scandal will result in "a talking point for refocusing efforts on our never ending war" besides your "deep belief"

I didn't come to DU for religion. I came for information and reasonable discussion.

[hang a left]

48. Then find another thread.

n/t

[sangh0]

55. I miss the fun of your "deep beliefs"

Sorry, but I've bookmarked this thread, and I intend on sticking around to comment on your irrational arguments

[hang a left]

57. OK then I will have a little fun back

:- >

[hang a left]

54. OK here is another faulty argument.

Bush's core campaign substance for re*election is 9/11 tough guy. And Clarke has been released to take away the only strength this scumbag has in the eyes of the public.

On edit; and this ironically comes at a time just after *shrubs 9/11 ads with the stuntmen in them politicizing 9/11. BAM

the timing, well, it is just too perfect.

"Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election. "

You leave the guy nothing else to run on. He is done. No BBV needed.

[sangh0]

56. Incoherence doesn't make your argument more persuasive

I have no idea what the faulty argument is or what the fault with it is. Maybe it would help if you took a deep breath. Just don't forget to exhale

[hang a left]

60. What is incoherent about my theory.

I believe that bush is going down "according to plan"

[lostnfound]

68. "Hook Line &Sinker"..good cop / bad cop..I agree 100% also.

On some level -- the geopolitical world war level -- the two parties are playing the good cop / bad cop routine.

Dems & Reps BOTH wanted and voted for the war on Iraq, for the most part. Strategists want control of that oil for the next century.

I think your message is don't fall for Clarke 'hook line & sinker'. It is a relief that someone is calling the bad cop (Bush) to task for bad behavior. But the goal remains the same -- to enable maintenance / expansion of an empire.

Isn't that the question that we were discussing? Is Clarke talking about the wrongness of empire building? No. I cannot judge the man. I am very happy that he is speaking out. But I agree with you. We need to be careful that the wind in our sails is larger than one man defecting from the dark side.

We mere mortals on the left are not too deft at capturing powerful forces for our own purposes..we are too diffuse..we tend to be swept up in a wave which is not of our own making.

[seaglass]

8. I don't get your complaint. There are two main points that

Clarke is making 1.) that invading Iraq took our focus of the WOT and 2.) that the Bush administration did not treat the al qaeda threat with urgency.

Do you believe those statements are false?

What exactly are you afraid of?

[hang a left]

15. I think that post 14 addresses your questions.

[troublemaker]

12. Oh please...

I agree that people go overboard jumping on bandwagons but this is a two party system. There are no heroes in a two party system, nor can there be. Principle is actually impossible when the goal is winning over 100+ million people because there are no core principles supported by more than about 25% of the population.

Clarke can be a hero and a drag at the same time. It's all relative.

A lot of people jumped on the Dean bandwagon even though he was just another hack politician. But he appeared to be 1% less a hack than the others. Such is the nature of heroism in a two-party system.

And to anyone who thinks they can expand the range of options into a multi-party system, please bear in mind that the two party system is all that keeps this country from going fascist. The largest consistent American voting bloc is right-wing religious nuts and in a parliamentary system they would call the tune. (Hitler never got more than about 42% of the vote but that plurality was enough.)

[hang a left]

17. Please show me recent evidence that our country actually

operates within a two-party system. I see poiticians masquerading as Democrats. Spineless Dems my ass, they have been complicit all along.

[Blasphemer]

13. Disagree....

I don't think Clarke is part of any kind operation. Setting aside what I perceive as complete sincerity from him, I don't think Iraq would be part of the debate if it was some kind of "job". The last thing the Admin and their interests want the people discussing is Iraq and their real motivations. If he only discussed 9/11, there would be a better argument for an intentional fall. They have been trying to make us forget about Iraq but Clarke has been shedding light on it.

[hang a left]

21. You can't accept the premise that our media is owned and

controlled by RW, corporatations that wish to manipulate and disinfoize the masses on one hand, and then accept that they have had a change of heart on the other. THat doesn't make any damn sense.

Look at the run-up to the war. Look at the cover-up in the media of a stolen election until it didn't matter anymore. Look at the BBV issue. Look at the 9/11 cover-up and the media's complicity. And on it goes ad infinitum.

It always kills me when someone makes a statement like "the media is finding it balls" "that (media person?)if finally getting it." Come the hell on, these people report what they are told to. Like they are really able to tell it like it is, or be independent.

You can't have it both ways.

[OneBlueSky]

18. let's not forget what the Commission thinks they're doing . . .

as opposed to what we think they SHOULD be doing . . . as Condi said this morning, she doesn't want to appear because the Commission is examining POLICY, not what happened on 9/11 . . .

if you think back to when the Commission was formed, this is exactly what their charge was, because it was all BushCo would accept . . . looking at Clarke's testimony in this light you realize that, yes indeed, it's only about policy, and has nothing to do with the events . . . that's where the Commission is heading, and they'll likely have some nice unanimous recommendations for better coordination between agencies and stuff like that . . . nowhere will there be any examination of what actually happened on 9/11 -- why the country's air defenses failed, how the towers fell, what actually hit the Pentagon, how debris from the Pennsylvania crash was strewn over ten miles, why Bush sat in the classroom after being informed, etc. . .

so while Clarke's testimony might SEEM to be important, in reality it's just part of the larger effort to make it seem as if the Commission is actually DOING something important . . . but neither the Commissioners questions nor Clarke's testimony touches on what really happened that day or who's responsible for it . . . and neither will their report . . .

[troublemaker]

19. We will see...

Newsweek: 9/11 Panel Likely To Conclude 9/11 Attacks Could Have Been Prevented

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

[Robbien]

20. You sound like Brit Hume. "Move On 9/11 families, nothing to see here"

Excuse me but Clarke is saying what we have believed since 9/11. And your telling us to move on will not wipe out a belief held for almost three years. Sorry, no deal.

[hang a left]

30. MIHOPPER here. I hope that answers your charge that I am

asking you to move on.

[Robbien]

37. Not a believer in made/let it happen

I believe that the reason this brouhaha came out of the blue is that the media has dropped the ball since 9/11. If they would have done their jobs, we would have been aware of Clarke and his ilk long before now.

[Beam Me Up]

22. I tend to agree--a lot of this is CIA orchistrated

I even felt that way about the MoveOn.org documentary, "Uncovered."

It has been said here and elsewhere many times that the CIA (or, at least, certain elements within it) want to bring Bush down--and they have the smarts and the means to do so. It looks to me like that is what they are doing.

The trick is to bring down the Bush administration by IMPLYING the 'Let it Happen on Purpose' scenario WITHOUT IT BECOMING the 'Made It Happen On Purpose' scenario in the greater public consciousness. LIHOP can bring down Bush. MIHOP, on the other hand, could bring down not only the government BUT THE CRIMINAL ELITE WHO PROFIT FROM WAR.

[Blue_Roses]

26. Have you read his book?

Because the "tone" of the book is not just that of a very intelligent man, but one who makes it crystal clear he can't stand incompetence.

AS for the "bandwagon," effect...it's called hope...desperately grasping for any kind of hope that we have those who support the "little people," in this fiasco of an administration.

[hang a left]

33. I bought the book a week ago, but have not read it yet, it is sitting

here right on my desk. But, I expect that the book will fulfill it's intended purpose.

"desperately grasping for any kind of hope"

That was exactly the motivation that drove me to DU. I have learned and watched way too much since then. Nothing other than my pessimistic world view makes any other sense.

[KoKo]

39. liberalnproud, while I'm probably closer to your viewpoint, I have to say

that I saw all of his interviews yesterday on the pundit circuit and the one thing that gave him credibility with me was that he defended Clinton's "war or terrorism." I've not heard many defenses of Clinton.

And, he got it correctly when he said that Iraq increased the threat of terrorism not diminished it. I think he's the real thing, although he would be more hawkish than I, that was his job.

I think folks here turning him into a saint or urging him to become VP are OTT, but just expressing the excitement that those of us who've been here and been so disappointed time after time after time, no longer have the innocence to express. So, I wouldn't be too hard on them.

But, I sure know where you're coming from with this. Some of us have reason to be suspicious of everything going on now, because we've seen so much hype and hope and promise be turned back around on us. So, I enjoyed your post cautioning about being "irrationally exhuberant" to quote Greenspan. :D

[Blue_Roses]

45. Reading the book

will enlighten and probably make you feel alot more secure with Clarke. It really is a good book, not just because he criticises Bush's lax on terroism, but I've learned much more about the "workings" of how terroism evolves into our society. He (Clarke) reminds me of someone I used to work with who ate, slept, and drank their job. I'm glad to know someone like him is obsessed with our national security.

As far as the so-called "grandstanding" or "arrogance," that they are trying to label him as being, I've learned from personal experience that those who make those kind of accusations are the ones who are extremely insecure and incompetent--look who's making them--the Bush administration and the GOP.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Everyone has opinions, don't they?

[hang a left]

42. Yup, that is what GD is all about IMO.

n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

43. Although...

I for one think way too many people here see every event that happens as some kind of meta-orchestrated happening designed to further an agenda, like a perfectly timed machine.

I will never believe that for a second. In politics, there are too many variables that cannot be accounted for. Things that would appear on their face to support team A wind up helping team B.

I'm especially tired of the "that serial killer report is designed to throw the news cycle off of Bush*'s latest folly". Puhleasse... for god's sake some things just happen and the current crop of morons in the white house cannot manage a simple war/occupation much less control the minds of the public through a series of carefully staged events.

I don't necessarily think Clarke is some huge hero, but I also don't think he's a mole. And even if another terrorist attack happens in the time frame you mention, that doesn't mean it is all controlled by the man behind the curtain.

Trust me - if this administration had that kind of power Bush would not be being questioned at all and he certainly would not be polling below 50.

[hang a left]

44. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

THat is what I love about DU. And I appreciate your respectful disagreement.

[loftycity]

47. I believe they have an agenda

I just don't think they are all on the same page. And, they have proven again that they are not that smart.
After reading your post I thought about it for a couple hours.
The one line that sticks out is the "Preserved in amber from the Reagan years."

I don't know? What do you think?

[kaitykaity]

51. I just don't think the Bushistas are that smart.

If you look at the playbook for the past three years, it has been an in your face, in the moment reaction game.

They do document dumps, they bring out the attack dogs, they stage photo-ops, they make big announcements about impossible programs (i.e., Mars). I just don't see the level of sophistication you're attributing to them.

I also believe there are some people in Washington, in the upper echelons of our power structure, who have souls, who have consciences, who are 'good Americans', and these people have genuinely turned.

[robertpaulsen]

52. Just curious, how does Diebold fit in this scenario?

I believe either the manufacturer or the President of Diebold is on record as saying he will help deliver Ohio to Bush in November. We know the effect Diebold had in 2002 was to the detriment of Democrats in Congress. How will Kerry be helped by this?

You might be right anyway, about the Iraqi quagmire objective being acheived just to give the Democrats a mess they can't possibly clean in four years. The goal may be to paint President Kerry in the media as "ineffectual". If successful, comparisons to other one-term Dems like LBJ or Jimmy Carter will become prevalent, paving the way for Jeb Bush to take the White House in 2008.

Of course, if Kerry does create those 10 million jobs...

[hang a left]

53. Well I have thought about that.

I think that BBV is a tool used for congress and state elections ala Arnold. It is also useful in passing initiatives that they want passed. It basically is the last effort to completely remove any power from the people as a voice in their own government.

Also I know that there are others that are uncomfortable with the way Kerry basically was elevated to front-runner overnight from the middle of the pack. So BBV was used here to get the selected candidate.

Now the next step is to destroy the incumbent in the media.

[9215]

59. Sorry liberal

Clarke's testimony is not doing good things for Bush. No way.


But I do agree that Bush is going to do whatever it takes to stay in power.

[hang a left]

62. That is my point 92, it is supposed to not do good things.

Kerry is the chosen one.

[KoKo]

65. And, there's that little matter of Rockefeller saying "no one knew too muc

about the Middle East..." that was posted here. If a Rockefeller suddenly acts like he got hoodwinked by the Shrub, it does make one wonder if Michael Ruppert's comments about "the powers that be" will decide when the "Chimp" becomes a liability and they will install a new "caretaker, when the time comes." (paraphrasing Ruppert)

[9215]

70. OK, I get where you are coming from.

I guess you are referring to puppetmasters above the BFEE who are "letting" Kerry get in control, is that correct?

[usscole]

64. The new rumor is that . . .

the Republican attack machine is going to plant stories that Clarke is gay. See wonkette.com.

[kaitykaity]

69. Welcome to DU!!

:toast:

[RichardRay]

71. It seems like there's a choice here

between helplessness and belief that there is some hope of useful change short of revolution. LnP seems to feel pretty helpless - the right wing to too powerful, too smart and too well entrenched for us to do anything about, so we might as well spend out time playing with tin foil.

LnP states that he has no fact or support for this statements, that it's based on his feelingings about what's he's seen in the last three years (post #23). He then says that he bases his statements on analysis and thought (post #36). Although LnP claims to be rational it doesn't look like that to me. It looks like plain old despair and helplessness. I find helplessness and bitterness unrewarding and certainly no fun, so I'll just go on holding out for improvement.

LnP may be right. If so, then we're all going to hell in a handbasket and there's nothing we can do about it. OTOH, he might be wrong. In that case it's worth at least giving it a shot.

[bain_sidhe]

72. I don't entirely share your view, but...

I do think it's good to remind those who are beginning to see Clarke as some kind of "great liberal hero" that he wanted (and as far as I can tell, still wants) MORE surveillance, MORE power to investigate "possible" terrorists, MORE intrusive government measures to fight terrorism. Some may actually be called for, but some of those can be abused (as Asshat has so clearly demonstrated).

Clarke is doing a good thing, and I give him kudos for standing up to the Bush fascists and telling the truth. But we should remember that it doesn't necessarily mean that he's a knight in shining armor to those of us concerned with civil liberties, or that his every word should be taken as gospel.

[Sophree]

73. I've been thinking the same thing.

I posted last night that I agreed with Mike Ruppert's assessment- The elites are turning on B*shco now that he's done his job (invade Iraq) and especially since he has messed things up so royally.

I'm VERY happy that a lot of the truth is coming out now, but Clarke IS an insider, has been given protection while he outs the * admin for their "incompetence" and paves the way for a new admin.

His apology was appropriate and I'm glad SOMEONE said it, but it was also the SMART thing to do, in order to insulate himself from personal attacks while making the Cabal look guilty and small. I guess I'm saying I think it was calculated.