rawstory.com— Rice gets caught in her lies today by the pdf of the actual memo from Richard Clark that demonstrates the contradiction.
Sep 26, 2006View in Crawl 4
The NY Post ran the "Rice calls Clinton a liar" headline on their front page in ginormous type today. Something tells me they won't be running the "Oops, Clinton was telling the truth all along" story anywhere near the front page...
@ th3p0p3:Here's your critique of someone's comment a couple of posts above this:"Please tell me this is supposed to be some immature joke"And then you've got the gall to declare:"If people can't make reasonable arguments without fluffing it with personal cracks they need to find a different place to post their opinion."Here's a personal crack for you: You're a hypocritical wingnut (yes, I realize that's a redundant statement about 99.9% of the time). STFU, please.
2 Pages of an investigation of the current administration after he'd been gone for 8 months? I'd say he must have been doing something then.As opposed to Bush's 8 months of bickering with the CIA and DoD about who gets to use predator drones, and who has to pay for them. Too bad they were so busy arguing about what to shoot OBL with, that they forgot to find out where he was.
longer than it takes the average digger to knock a story that makes Republicans look good.There are two liars in this story and most diggers only point the finger at one. I got news for you kids, they are all crooked. You can't get to the top of the hill in politics without getting dirty.
I agree completely. The f**king document is attached. How can it be inaccurate? Digg must provide a remedy for preventing a few boneheads from casting doubt on what is verifiably true.
Two things...one, did you read the Clarke book, or are you reading one quote? Because the book is pretty clear...the quote is not.Second, and this is key. Clinton inherited a military engagement from his predecessor -- Somalia. He found himself in the middle of Black Hawk Down as one of the first things he faced in office. Republicans and conservative Democrats were clamoring to beat a retreat from Somalia after the incident, and Clinton and other Democrats (including John Kerry) were opposed to a hasty withdrawal, instead opting to have an orderly transfer of the mission to the UN over a period of six months. The military saw Clinton as a draft dodger and were not quick to support him, and tended to blame him for failures. It was a mess he was handed, and he always felt that if he had handled it from start to finish instead of picking it up halfway thru, he could have handled it better (a fair assumption, true of anyone.)Part of the reason Clinton didn't authorize the all out assault on Afghanistan in December 2000 was not only that the CIA and FBI and DoD couldn't agree, but also that he didn't want to stick his replacement with a military engagement started by someone else, as he had been stuck in Somalia. He chose to hand off a detailed plan to do Afghanistan, and Bush did nothing with it. As Clinton saw it, that was Bush's choice and his responsibility. If he chose to act or do nothing, or do something in between -- that would be the incoming President's choice alone. He wasn't going to stick Bush with Afghanistan the way he'd been stuck with Somalia.You blame him for failing because he left the plan in the hands of do-nothings. Where is the responsibility for Bush and his people, who scrapped any response to the Cole in order to task DoD with missile defense and Justice with porn and drugs, and who knows what with the CIA? There's blame and error to be found in hindsight with some of this, but you make the whole thing sound so easy when it was pretty complicated. You make it seem like Clinton bears all blame, when in reality it's shared (and at least Clinton accepts the blame he's genuinely due.)Do you assign the same burden of responsibility on Bush -- the CinC who has had five years to get Bin Laden AFTER 9/11, and still hasn't gotten him? Do you hold him responsible for the rise in terror attacks worldwide? Do you hold him ultimately responsible for his failure to stop al Queda from metasticizing? The big question is...if and when al Queda hits us at home again -- will you hold Bush responsible and question his leadership? Will you wonder if everything he said about being safer was just talk? Or will you fall in line and give him the plenary power he asks for?At the very least, the one thing that should not be in dispute is that Clinton did give the Bush admin the "best guy in the country" in Richard Clarke, and the Bush admin demoted him and ignored him. Now he's in the private sector, and he thinks the Bush admin's "central front in the war on terror" Iraq is a sad joke. There aren't five people Bush hired who add up to one of that guy -- and as soon as Clarke said that Bush wanted to pin 9/11 on Iraq, the Bush apologists were casting aspersions and assassinating his character. That's a fact. That's their failure. They let their politics get in front of national security, again.
"The big question is...if and when al Queda hits us at home again -- will you hold Bush responsible and question his leadership?"Um....no. How long has he kept that from happening?"At the very least, the one thing that should not be in dispute is that Clinton did give the Bush admin the "best guy in the country" in Richard Clarke"May be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most if not all administrations put their own people in power? How is Bush doing anything wrong here?Did I read the book? Yes. Did I believe all of it? NO. Do you?
Comprehensive... like the Bush plan for post war in Iraq? No, more comprehensive than that. Like the Bush plan for destroying Social Security? No less comprehensive than that. When its a memo scratched on a napkin by Bush, it's a plan.When it's a detailed 13 page report of "actionable items", its just a loose group of opinions.
felchdonkeySep 27, 2006
The NY Post ran the "Rice calls Clinton a liar" headline on their front page in ginormous type today. Something tells me they won't be running the "Oops, Clinton was telling the truth all along" story anywhere near the front page...
mudanieSep 27, 2006
Imus,I can honestly say i've NEVER been to freerepublic...not even once to see what it's like.
anachronautSep 27, 2006
@ th3p0p3:Here's your critique of someone's comment a couple of posts above this:"Please tell me this is supposed to be some immature joke"And then you've got the gall to declare:"If people can't make reasonable arguments without fluffing it with personal cracks they need to find a different place to post their opinion."Here's a personal crack for you: You're a hypocritical wingnut (yes, I realize that's a redundant statement about 99.9% of the time). STFU, please.
corvidaeSep 27, 2006
2 Pages of an investigation of the current administration after he'd been gone for 8 months? I'd say he must have been doing something then.As opposed to Bush's 8 months of bickering with the CIA and DoD about who gets to use predator drones, and who has to pay for them. Too bad they were so busy arguing about what to shoot OBL with, that they forgot to find out where he was.
h2gofastSep 27, 2006
longer than it takes the average digger to knock a story that makes Republicans look good.There are two liars in this story and most diggers only point the finger at one. I got news for you kids, they are all crooked. You can't get to the top of the hill in politics without getting dirty.
philonousSep 27, 2006
I agree completely. The f**king document is attached. How can it be inaccurate? Digg must provide a remedy for preventing a few boneheads from casting doubt on what is verifiably true.
edverbSep 27, 2006
Two things...one, did you read the Clarke book, or are you reading one quote? Because the book is pretty clear...the quote is not.Second, and this is key. Clinton inherited a military engagement from his predecessor -- Somalia. He found himself in the middle of Black Hawk Down as one of the first things he faced in office. Republicans and conservative Democrats were clamoring to beat a retreat from Somalia after the incident, and Clinton and other Democrats (including John Kerry) were opposed to a hasty withdrawal, instead opting to have an orderly transfer of the mission to the UN over a period of six months. The military saw Clinton as a draft dodger and were not quick to support him, and tended to blame him for failures. It was a mess he was handed, and he always felt that if he had handled it from start to finish instead of picking it up halfway thru, he could have handled it better (a fair assumption, true of anyone.)Part of the reason Clinton didn't authorize the all out assault on Afghanistan in December 2000 was not only that the CIA and FBI and DoD couldn't agree, but also that he didn't want to stick his replacement with a military engagement started by someone else, as he had been stuck in Somalia. He chose to hand off a detailed plan to do Afghanistan, and Bush did nothing with it. As Clinton saw it, that was Bush's choice and his responsibility. If he chose to act or do nothing, or do something in between -- that would be the incoming President's choice alone. He wasn't going to stick Bush with Afghanistan the way he'd been stuck with Somalia.You blame him for failing because he left the plan in the hands of do-nothings. Where is the responsibility for Bush and his people, who scrapped any response to the Cole in order to task DoD with missile defense and Justice with porn and drugs, and who knows what with the CIA? There's blame and error to be found in hindsight with some of this, but you make the whole thing sound so easy when it was pretty complicated. You make it seem like Clinton bears all blame, when in reality it's shared (and at least Clinton accepts the blame he's genuinely due.)Do you assign the same burden of responsibility on Bush -- the CinC who has had five years to get Bin Laden AFTER 9/11, and still hasn't gotten him? Do you hold him responsible for the rise in terror attacks worldwide? Do you hold him ultimately responsible for his failure to stop al Queda from metasticizing? The big question is...if and when al Queda hits us at home again -- will you hold Bush responsible and question his leadership? Will you wonder if everything he said about being safer was just talk? Or will you fall in line and give him the plenary power he asks for?At the very least, the one thing that should not be in dispute is that Clinton did give the Bush admin the "best guy in the country" in Richard Clarke, and the Bush admin demoted him and ignored him. Now he's in the private sector, and he thinks the Bush admin's "central front in the war on terror" Iraq is a sad joke. There aren't five people Bush hired who add up to one of that guy -- and as soon as Clarke said that Bush wanted to pin 9/11 on Iraq, the Bush apologists were casting aspersions and assassinating his character. That's a fact. That's their failure. They let their politics get in front of national security, again.
Closed AccountSep 27, 2006
"The big question is...if and when al Queda hits us at home again -- will you hold Bush responsible and question his leadership?"Um....no. How long has he kept that from happening?"At the very least, the one thing that should not be in dispute is that Clinton did give the Bush admin the "best guy in the country" in Richard Clarke"May be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most if not all administrations put their own people in power? How is Bush doing anything wrong here?Did I read the book? Yes. Did I believe all of it? NO. Do you?
Closed AccountSep 27, 2006
Duh > Left
generalfaultSep 28, 2006
Comprehensive... like the Bush plan for post war in Iraq? No, more comprehensive than that. Like the Bush plan for destroying Social Security? No less comprehensive than that. When its a memo scratched on a napkin by Bush, it's a plan.When it's a detailed 13 page report of "actionable items", its just a loose group of opinions.