Dan defends Dick: > I don't think this is all that clear. In this morning's paper, he was > defended by Powell, saying he was a dedicated public servant. > Let me quote > from a NY Times story in the Houston Chronicle > > "In a television interview, Powell said Clarke had 'served > his nation very > very well' and was 'an expert in these matters' referring to > counterterrorism. > > While saying that Clarke's book is 'not the complete story' > Powell said on > PBS's NewsHour that he was 'not attributing any bad motives' > to Clarke."
Powell is a class act. Unlike Clarke. > 1) Clarke is the real thing: a zealot in defending the US against > terrorism. There is evidence that he can be abrasive or even rude, but > there is more evidence that he is very dedicated to > preventing terrorist > attacks. Obsessed is a word that I've seen used. Unfortunately, he's not very good at it, is he? Obsession does not equal competence. Clarke has no successes I have heard about, just bitching that his bosses were to blame for him not doing a good job. > 3) If he is opposed to the Iraq war because he things it > hurts the war on > terrorism Then that's a policy disagreement. It doesn't explain the way he's making his case nor the timing. There are strong arguments on both sides about this. Personally, I think what we've done in Iraq has discombobulated and highly annoyed the Islamofascists. Al Qaeda seems to agree with me, given their behavior lately. They're worried as hell. > 4) If he decided to still "fight the good fight" from the > outside, writing > a book would be a reasonable action. He needs publicity to > make his case > and he needs to have his ideas well developed to have a > chance to work in > opposition to the White House PR machine...which he must know he would > trigger. I know lots of people just like Clarke. They are pissed off that they aren't in charge. They know that if they were running things, everything would be ever so much better. They fight constantly against their idiot bosses and the idiots in the other offices. Everybody is an idiot except for them. They are quite sure that the only thing keeping them from running things is their incredible intelligence and integrity. People like Clarke are talented and narrow. They are in love with their own ideas and certain they are right because their ideas have never been really tested. As I've gotten older, one of the most important things I've learned is that reality has a way of kicking the shit out of my bright ideas. I can have this great idea, and everyone else thinks it's great, and when it's implemented unforseen factors and details make it spiral down into a morass of meaninglessness. Getting things done takes a lot more than having a great idea. Bush is doing a great job running the war on terror. How do I know this? Because nearly every time I think he's really screwed up this time, things turn out sort of OK. Bush is an awesome executive. He gets that it's about more than the ideas. You have to settle for something that most people will go along with, and Bush pushes the envelope on that as much as possible. He annoys people like you and plans that people like you don't count. If you think Bush is stupid, you are. He's not articulate (god protect us from the articulate incompetent). If Clarke were running things, or Kerry, we'd be a lot worse off. Both are articulate incompetents. > 6) The fact that he gave background briefings that > accentuated the positive > even though he had grave reservations should not be > surprising. Even in > business, one is expected to accentuate the positive before > customers. That is the most pussified thing I think I have ever read. This is not about spinning the virtues of your latest widget to customers because you're a paid marketing whore in a short skirt. This is serious business. If Clarke went out there and lied his ass off to protect the Bush administration on this, then he's not just pathetic, he's evil, with a little "e". You don't get to play "Angry Young Man" and "Corporate Sycophant Suck-Up" at the same time. Whatever else he is, Clarke is not brave. That's probably why he's trying so hard to sell himself as that. > 7) He probably really believes that, while Clinton didn't do > enough, he was > actually better than Bush at fighting terrorism. You're making it hard for me to be nice to you. It's idiotic to say that Clinton did a good, much less prescient, job of fighting terrorism. I'm not bashing Clinton here, I'm bashing you. Nobody in power took these Islamic freakazoids seriously till 9-11. Unless Clarke can prove that he said, Mr. President, I have intelligence that shows UBL is going to crash airplanes into our stuff, and Bush said, Is Saddam involved? And Clarke said, I don't think so, and Bush said, well, then, who cares? Then who cares what Clarke says? You're just trying to muddy the water, and I get that because you and the rest of the Dhimmicrats are desperate. Depending on Clarke...wow, what a strategy! Bush is going to win in November. Get over it. Be grateful for it. It's what will keep the Islamazoids from killing a few million of you. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
