T Nation

60 Minutes


I'm sure many of you avoid this liberal propaganda, but they'll be featuring a story that many of us "off topicers" might find interesting. Worth checking out, I'm sure we'll have many different opinions of the piece on this board (on, second thought, no, I'm sure most will bash it! - kidding)...

Sunday @ 7pm EST - CBS.


Why do you call it liberal propaganda? Clark worked for Reagan, Bush Sr., and shrub as the top counter-terrorism official.

Guess when you criticise the Gvmt. now your an "un-American liberal" and whatever bullshit labels the hawks use to try and discredit & smear - because they can't disprove the facts.

There are also alot of true conservatives & some Republicans such as McCain who understand.

That was a good piece on Clark. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say in front of the 9-11 panel this week.


Well, what did you think?


Clark, is trying to make a room for himself in the Kerry cabinet (if there is ever goinf to be one) . Heck, George W. Bush Jr. practicly, fired him. Demoting his postion at least. And, why is his book coming out now?


All this 'liberal propaganda' rhetoric is just the tail end of a scared conservatist viewpoint aimed at discrediting those who would rock the boat. At this point in America the most blatant propaganda I've witnessed is conservative. It's so transparent: it is usually largely irrational, emotionally charged, and you can almost sense the person made to deliver the bogus information doesn't really believe what they're saying. This comes across with voice cracks and awkward pauses in the middle of important topics the speaker should be fully engrossed in presenting. Instead their mind seems to be reeling with internal contradiction that they know one thing and yet are forced to continually espouse bogus 'information' or lose their livelihood. All this talk of patriotism is pretty interesting as well. As though those who are haphazardly pursuing policies that are putting our nation in greater danger are really protecting it. There seems to be a bubble of stupidity hanging over certain portions of the country where people actually buy this shit, "Just keep the blinders on folks, and everything'll be allright." There are two options: Either we wake up and make changes voluntarily, or we let time make them for us, but if time is left to make changes it will mean our situation will have gotten far more dire, the choice is ours.



Let me see if I understand your point. Clark is making his case to obtain a cabinet position by being extremely critical of his boss. Why on Earth would Kerry want to hire someone like that?? Doesn't really sound like something that Clark could place at the top of his resume.

Oh, he released the book now to make money.


"Why do you call it liberal propaganda? Clark worked for Reagan, Bush Sr., and shrub as the top counter-terrorism official."

-->Kuri, calling it "liberal propaganda" was a sarcastic reference to the many conservatives on this board who feel the mainstream media is bias, in favor of liberals. I agree that Clark's cross-party experience gives him a unique, and valuable, credibility.

"Clark, is trying to make a room for himself in the Kerry cabinet (if there is ever goinf to be one) . Heck, George W. Bush Jr. practicly, fired him. And, why is his book coming out now?"

-->As I watched, I knew the cons on here would harp on this. 60 minutes pressed him on this also (like a good news show should), and he denied any interest in taking a job with Kerry or working for his campaign. It is also interesting that Clark teaches a class at Harvard with someone from Kerry's camp.
How come, of all of the revealing things that were stated, THIS is the sort of thing that you remember and point out? Even if he was interested in a position with Kerry, would that automatically discredit what he's said about GWB? Especially after successful tenures with RR, GB, and BC.

"Demoting his postion at least."

-->The platform that GWB is hoping to re-"take" the presidency on - being tough on terrorism - is the exact area that he failed to sufficiently acknowledge before 9/11. Doesn't the fact that Bush demoted Clark indicate this to some degree?


Calling this "liberal propagnda" is no worse then when liberals call every person with a coservative viewpoint a religious extremist. Having absolutely no political affiliation whatsoever it makes me laugh watching the two sides go at it and act exactly the same. It's like watching two little kids fight over a toy. Very amusing.



As an independent pricipled person, I find your viewpoints really interesting. Unfortunately you typed 500 words and said absolutely nothing. Can you please speak in specifics? I honestly would like to know what it is that is bullshit in your opinion. Just as I would like for the others on this thread to explain why Clark's stuff is propoganda.

I do agree that Clark's release is very appropriately timed. And, I may go so far as to say that Bush probably was overzealous in dethroning a man who tried to have his father killed. On the other hand, I do feel that if my tax dollars are going to feed and support people around the world who are too dumb to move where natural resources exist, then I think that dethroning a dictator who has killed thousands of his own people for their religious and political beliefs is also appropriate.

I look at our position in the world, and our war against Iraq as this: Being a T-Man, I find myself walking down the street and see a guy beating the shit out of his own girlfriend (Saddam killing his own people). Since I am a T-Man (the US), I am perfectly capable of stopping this travesty. Unfortunately, I may take some damage (soldier's lives), so I decide to call the police (the UN). The police say that they will not intervene as they have interest in maintaining trade relations with the guy doing the beating (many european countries needed trade with Iraq, so no blockade was possible). So, as a T-Man, knowing that the police were unwilling to act, and seeing this guy beating his girlfriend again and again, I think it is my duty to step in....

Iraq was in bed with too many countries for the UN to make any truly damaging moves (blockades and trade embargos). The same humanitarians who whine about saving starving lives and crimes against humanity, are not willing do go in and dethrone a leader who killed his own people for religious and ethnic reasons (isn't this what Hitler did on a grander scale?). I gues a quick death by a bullet is tolerable, but a slow starvation is not.

I feel this viewpoint is exactly what this site is based on...we know that something had to be done..morally. But, even though we know what is right, are we to just stand by? Will lives be lost... yes. I hate this part also, but soldiers are soldiers. I would personally rather pay our soldiers a good wage than to feed the ignorant masses who live in the various barren wastelands around the world, but that is another point entirely, and is biased by coming from a family with men in the military.

So, did Bush know about Bin Laden? Yep, as did Clinton. Should we have killed this piece of trash a long time ago. Yes, as there are dozens of terrorist cells we should take out presently... colateral damage or not. If you are hiding terrorists, you are a terrorist, not an innocent civilian.

Has Bush gone overboard with Hussein? Not in my opinion, but he never should have tried to link Iraq with terorism. Iraq never complied with our treaty, therefore we had the right for the past 10 years to continue (note this word), continue our Desert Storm campaign. We never had to ask for permission to wage war, we only stopped because they told us lies. When we realized they were lies, we should have finished the job we started a decade ago.

So please Rick, please state what exactly is conservative propaganda so we can all be enlightened. Be principled and factual. Touchy feely opinions do not amount to anything, and is the main problem with the left. Moral relativism leads to men like Hitler. It allows the mass to decide what is moral, without principles. So please, use facts and principled arguments... chics argue with feelings, men use logic and facts...it is both of our natures to be this way, so.... are you a nancy-pants?

Please repost, and do better. It is your obligation as a T-Man. Otherwise I will have to cut and paste your post on I-Village.


I haven't seen it yet but I'll look for the transcript. As I understand it, his political affiliation doesn't really matter because he was an apparatchick, and he gave the same reports of urgency to Clinton as he did to Bush before 9-11.

As for Rumsfeld immediately wanting to attack Iraq after 9-11--if it's true--it's important to remember that the Cheney and Rumsfeld corner (graduates from the old school) had a thing for Iraq as the one American enemy that would defy us with attacks and go unpunished. So they wanted an excuse to attack Iraq all along (I don't think I've ever said anything different on this board.) Since Rumsfeld was already imagining Iraq was flirting with terrorism and had attempted to assassinate Bush, I can see Rumsfeld suggesting "no time like the present" for a more comprehensive assualt (which had been battleplanned under Clinton). After all, we had been bombing Iraq regularly. Cheney and Rumsfeld probably wanted to say to the world, "America is not taking your shit anymore, got it?" Spreading democracy wasn't even an issue yet, until more neoconservative notions started mixing with what Cheney and Rumsfeld learned from Nixon and Kissinger.


Richard Clark on CNN's American Morning tomorrow at 7 am, EST. I'm sure it will be more of a book plugging than an in-depth interview piece, but you may catch a bit of what was said on 60 minutes.


Richard Clark on CNN's American Morning tomorrow at 7 am, EST. I'm sure it will be more of a book plugging than an in-depth interview piece, but you may catch a bit of what was said on 60 minutes.


Monsuer Ijaz (sp) ripped Clark a new ass this AM on Fox. You may recall MI was the guy that brokered the deal twixt the Clinton Admin and the Sudan to hand over Bin Ladin. The deal that Clint passed up. MI said he would be happy to sit across from Clark in any format to challenge him on what are lies. For the record, I think both dems and rpub are full of shit, but MI knows his stuff.


Fairly hypocritical Silvertone

Although your view on the Iraq war was incredibly enlightening it had nothing to do with why we went to war. WMD? Remember those? That bullshit about freeing the Iraq people was just an after thought to try to appear humanitarian and later to save face while the true scale of the fuck up was being revealed. You being the great T-man and saving girlfriends was a prety great anecdote though. You seem to have accepted the 'blinders' More specifically did you manage to catch the director of the CIA trying to explain how he did not believe the information supplied by the CIA suggested WMD were a present threat and yet stood as administration used it as such, "sometimes the information doesn't comport with intended results" He became so flustered with actually being made to answer a straight question he nearly wet his pants. Your threats to fwd my post to I-village was pretty interesting as well, so much so I googled it to see what the fuck you were talking about, feeling a little threatened by an opposing viewpoint are we (see my original post, thanks for confirming it).



Wow, your level of reading comprehension suggests to me that you may be, at this very moment, living up to your full potential....as a PE coach. It is guys like you that caused the SAT to re-centered so many times in the past thirty years, that I was able to score 160 points higher than my father even though he is twice as smart and educated as I was. If you are wondering, I scored just under what the president on west wing scored.

So, let me break my post down all simple like for you:

My point about Saddam killing his own people is what should have been our reason, along with the simple, very simple fact that Iraq never even began to live up to our treaty requirements. That's it. No WMD nescessary, nothing else necessary.

Now, President George, in trying to justify us going to war used other reasons, such as terrorism (so far all bullshit), and WMD (so far all bullshit). I remember all of this very well. I also remember many, many democrats who also saw the same intelligence reports, coming to the same conclusion about the WMD. Did they all think that going to war over it was necessary? Nope. Do I agree with them? Yep. Like I said before, President Bush was probably blinded by his father's assasination attempt, and was just reaching for the latest scary propaganda to justify the war.

I think that we should have decided to actually go and inspect wherever we wanted, no matter what Saddam said, and the UN should have backed this as it was part of the original agreement, but probably not war.

Those reason being addressed, do I think we should have gone in there and gutted Saddam for his practices of killing his own people? Yes. Sorry, I do. If we had the same dominant power back in the late 30's, I would say we should have gone in and crushed Hitler also, not help him to kill the Jews like the French did. (What is funny is that we actually care what France thinks... have they won anything since Napoleon? Do they contribute anything except high end fashion, art, and body odor to the world? I think they had a decent soccer team a few years back... other than those few things, that's it. Plus, didn't they not allow us to use their airspace a while back during some military actions? What we should do is tell them to cram their Maginot Line up their....)

Economic sanctions against Iraq were not a possibility due to the nature of their resource and its need in Europe, so military action is the only solution.

While Bush fell onto this reason late, as you have correctly pointed out, I felt it was the correct reason from the start. He was just using false fears to justify what was already justified...therefore, he should face the music he is right now.

What you failed to grasp is that our views on what you said are very similar. I am not a republican by a long shot. I am principled, and therefore definitely not liberal either. There is a vast difference between the three. But, if I were going to post a thread and run my cakehole, I would try to back it with some logic and reasoning. Not just simple touchy feely rhetoric (view your own original post).

I hope this helps. I tried not to use any big words, and organized this as simply as possible to accomodate your level of reading comprehension. If you get really angry at me, I am sure you can vent about it on an I-Village thread, which I am positive you have Bookmarked.

If you are still unsure of what my views are, I can put together some simple questions with answers for you to review. But, judging by your last thread, it probably wouldn't go very well.


a potentially interesting thread has been killed by personal attacks---what a suprise.

Right Side Up - wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic, its hard to decipher via a forum.

Condi Rice (who refuses to testify under oath at the 9-11 hearings) has starting attacking Clarke today. Of course they can't disprove any of his statements, but only try and discredit him - the classic response of those without truth on their side.

Between Clarke, O'Neill, and Karen Kwiatkowski (USAF Colonel who worked in the Office of Special Planning) (see:http://militaryweek.com/ ) all blowing the whistle on the White House maybe, just maybe more people will begin to wake up and take in interest.


Wow Kuri,

My bad. Just trying to promote a little principled debate here instead of the sludge that normally passes through these threads. You are right, I should know better. Your point is exactly why I stopped attending a state school.... can't stand debating with those who justify nothing and spew feelings. That is my issue though. Enjoy your thread. I will leave you all to your 'feel good about ourselves session'.


Is this the reply where I call you gay or talk about your mom?



Either one, I expect nothing more or less from you... as you are simple. But, you did hold off from the name calling for quite a while, and my mom and I both appreciate you not bagging on her. Bravo Rick!

I have to go back to posting about lifting... and let the masses remain as they always have..... the wisdom of our founding fathers shines brightly even today.


Silverback, Nice work.

Rick, I am a little surprised. proclaiming that the righties are being duped and following blindly, all while wrapping yourself in lefties flag? The Left and right both serve their purpose, it is to balance each other out, the truth almost always lies somwhere in the middle. I think that is more along the lines of what silverback was getting at.

A true free thinker will observe and determine the truth for himself, sine the far right and far left hold very little truth by themselves. It is easy to see why when one espouses views of either, they clearly did not put much effort into finding truth.

Take some time to think on this, for we all have much to learn.

Be Well