RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 9/11 Familes Blast Clarke

Thirty-two family members of 9/11 victims have signed a blistering open letter to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke, accusing him of "profiteering" from the 9/11 tragedy by writing a book and acting to "divide America" with his testimony before the 9/11 Commission:

"The notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us....We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away...Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales. .."As family and friends of those killed on 9/11, we believe it inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to profit from and politicize 9/11, and further divide America, by his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

The letter goes on to praise President Bush:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them.

Granted, other 9/11 familes have held the opposite view. However, what's important here is to note that neither side has a monopoply on the opinions of the 9/11 familes and the unfortunate trend among the democrats and their willing accomplices in the liberal media to make it appear otherwise needs to be countered.

While I feel, and will continue to feel, for their loss, they are not involved in any of the machinations that led to the events of 9-11. It is mandatory for this country to bring to public light what was or was not at play leading up to Sept. 11, 2001.

.....poor whomod

Hang on, is it unreasonable to say that Bush making a video about the affair as part of his bid to get reelected later this is also exploiting it? In this case, both sides are obviously at fault, so there's no real point in getting sniffy about some right wing nuts accusing a left wing nutcase of fibbing. The truth isn't a factor that politicians on any side give a flying fuck about, so let's not give them more credit than they deserve.

I haven't read the book yet, so I can't comment on it. Nor have I had a chance to see Clarke's complete testimony (although I have it on tape, and will watch it at the first opportunity I get.)

As for the White House not having the power to censor Clarke's book, I don't think it's a question of censorship so much as a responsibility to the truth. Let's say, just for arguments sake, that Clarke's book is inaccurate. If you were one of the people who were in charge of approving this book, and you caught a significant inaccurate fact, how would you handle it? Would you want to bring the error to light, and offer evidence that would allow Clarke to correct the mistake? Or would you let it go as is? People are going to be reading this book believing it to be the truth (some of them, anyway), and you have an opportunity to make sure that what they're reading really is the actual truth. Wouldn't you feel a responsibility to the truth to make sure that the readers get the whole story?

Quote:

---

If you were one of the people who were in charge of approving this book

---

i dont think your still understanding this, the govt wasnt responsible for approving or disapproving the book, only making sure their was nothing classified in the book.....there approval was only in those matters not anything else....

Quote:

---

if they caught something that was unquestionably inaccurate or false in the process, should (or could) they have done something just to make sure that the true story got out?

---

have you been watching the news since it's came out? they have been making sure the true story got out.

do you think out your questions?

What's a pedderast, Walter?

Donny, we're you paying attention to the Dude's story?

This is something I was waiting for. G-Man and I stand at opposite sides of the spectrum. I am not a Democrat, but I am a liberal. Not the same thing, but I would never vote purely for party, because it's like joining a fraternity.

Still, researching this thing (or reading books on it), working for government offices and having relatives who work in high levels of government, I was kind of waiting for Clarke to step up to the plate.

For my money, and I will stand by this, Greg Palast, as an investigative reporter, usually gets his facts straight. Not about huge conspiracies as much as exposing hidden truths kept from the masses, while others benefit from this. Comes out to bite people in the ass later on, and we end up asking ourselves, "Why didn't we know?" or "Why didn't we do anything?"

This is important for WHOEVER'S in charge. Be it DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN. Remember that. Being greedy and capable of self-indulgient abuses of power is open to anyone. Clinton gave pardons for money, had his cock sucked, smoked pot, and did some other questionable or devious things.

But his turn is over. Now we address who is in power. The current crisis. The current things we can handle. Don't want to be asking ourselves "Why didn't we know?" "What could we have done?"

Clarke had been a member of four presidential staffs. Goes back to Reagan. Only one was a Democrat. He left under Bush, and he writes complaining about what we did not do. Now, I don't know about you, but I have heard a lot of other people complain too.

When the initial hearings happened in 2002, the FBI and CIA were forced to take the main brunt as a failure of intelligence agencies. Truth is, these guys down in Florida, the company where those guys tested the plane simulators? THEY DID CALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. Being handed cash made them suspicious, and the situation was investigated.

A lot of small links to these guys were investigated. But there was a general doctrine that Bush was trying to enforce. Remember how they stipulate they were adhering to Clinton's policy in dealing with terrorism?

One of the things was leaving Bin Laden alone. He was, regardless of everything, Saudi Royalty. This part bothers the hell out of me. I'm not saying Clinton left Bin Laden alone, but one of the general understandings in the CIA and FBI was to NOT ACTIVELY INVESTIGATE BIN LADEN. When Bush came aboard, this policy was reinforced. It went from being not "encouraged" to "DON'T DO IT" Seems agencies would find ties to Saudi money or something, and it would damage relations with Saudi Arabia, which was already slipping. Always about oil.

So FBI DID had reports on these people. Not all of them, but some were arrested, or in the case of that one car, pulled over on a Baltimore Highway. Others did interesting things that were reported. Puzzle pieces were coming together.

Agents would file their reports and give them to surpervisers who handed them up, and they reached a point where they went no further. That policy above. Politics.

So, that is part of Clarke's big beef. We had the intel. He saw it. But we didn't do enough to act on it. We did not take enough proactive measures to act on it. We just let... nature take it's course. So he blames himself and the government for failing the people.

And it becomes the blame game. The GOP is attacking him, because this could change tide, or at least take credibility from the President. If people believe what Clarke says, that is true. Leaves them with the either/or choice. "Do I stick with the Republican who might have been lying to me, or go with a Democrat who might be different." No sign the situation will be better. Democrats are banking on it, Republicans trying to descredit it.

Based on what I know, watched, read, and come across, Clarke is telling the truth. I think it addresses one of the questions that always dogged me. You know, being in Afghanistan, and suddenly going to Iraq. Only person who wanted us there was Bush. I was working at Fort Meade, and other reporters, officers, whatnot simply did not understand the logic, but they knew better than to question it. This was their job and livelihood.

But it seems Bush was not just grasping at straws, but looking for any reason to go to war with Iraq. Was it Clarke, or someone else, who said that upon day one of coming into office, Bush made it his agenda of having his people come up with plans for attacking Iraq. Problem was, they had no crucial reason, did they? 9/11 helped, but not that much, then he comes and says intel suggests Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. No weapons found. Must be bad intel.

Is Iraq better with Saddam? Clarke was asked that question. They are, but at the same time, Clarke raised a good point, we fell into Bin Laden's propaganda trap. He had been arguing about how the US wanted to take over the Middle East and control oil. We invaded Iraq, and were having a majority of control over how it's ruling body was going to work out, and, to be honest, I am still confused on why gas prices are high.

Interesting that we invade a major oil producing country, and our President owns oil refineries in Texas, and yet gas cost more than ever.

As for Clarke publishing his book. He writes people his views. He tells them what happened. He has more credibility than most politicians, because his job is to keep people safe. Anyways, if he wants to make a few bucks, fine. I think more than not, he wants to put a blunt in Bush's campaign, because he does not trust him to protect Americans here or abroad, and he has stated as much.

As for 9/11 members who blast Clarke. They are victims themselves. I do feel for them. This opens some old wounds that... I am not sure Clarke wanted to open or not. Can't state his stance on that. He apologized for the government and himself failing them, but speaking of it indicates it as preventable, when these people are trying to move on with their lives.

You know, seeking solace in relgion, or finding answers that "It was God's Will" or their time. Whateever. then saying that maybe it was because someone wasn't doing their job. Or a lot of people weren't doing their job. It fractures illusion that people are safe, and makes them angry. Kind of like saying God isn't real. They won't think God isn't real, they will hate you for being the deliverer of bad news. You know the old line: Don't kill the mailman.

ZOD finds it funny because these hearings would have been compared to the McCarthy Communist witch hunting in any other light.