GOP terror attack machine: Criticism of Obama is irrational, irresponsible and painfully partisan

Soooo, what was criticism of Bush?

Immutable Truths About Liberals #23. Liberals can dish it out, but they can't take it.

No Bad Clark is a Partisan... There was bad blood between him and the Bush administration and if you would have taken a few seconds you would have seen it.

Just something easy as easy as looking at his Wika page.. and looking deeper says a lot more..I am not going to discredit this man ..Just point out he has a expressed agenda.

Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush Administrations in March 2004, when he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, released his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies, and testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush Administration's attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and of the decision to go to war with Iraq. Clarke has received criticism in turn for various reasons, including his strong disagreements with the Bush Administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

He is not a guy without a history.... Just saying!

Just a little more research on him... might if your Intellectually honest say ... he had already PICKED A SIDE! But that is just MHO

My Bad ... I thought you were going to be intellectually honest in your thread... Knowing someone has a predetermined biases ... should call their statements into question... Someone that is strong right wing would be questioned if they questioned the President... but someone thatt is strong left wing ....Their words are GOLDEN? ...

Intellectual Honesty ... Bad you didn't win the argument .. I will not debate someone that accepts a false premise as fact.. knowing that the person that stated it has a KNOWN BIASE....

Have a great day. You will never get a real and honest debate! If you dismiss as a known fact ... Clark is biase againtst the Republicans position. He has stated it to many times!

Yet you BELIEVE HIM and question anyone else! ..No room for DISCUSSION ..Kind of like Global Warming ...settled science .....only for you its Settled Policy! Why Debate?

And you don't want to debate... you just reference the ARTICLE! ... Think for yourself!

Jim,

Since when does bias equate to invalid and untrue? OK, granted, Richard Clarke is biased. Does that make his claims otherwise unable to be evaluated?

I'm a big Saints fan. I love watching the New Orleans Saints play football. I would go so far as to admit that I am heavily biased toward the Saints over every NFL team other than the Dallas Cowboys. Does that make it any less true when I tell you that the Saints won the Super Bowl?

So, back to the matter at hand. Clarke has an agenda. He sharply disagreed with the way the Bush administration handled defense and terror issues. That doesn't automatically disqualify his observations. He might be right, after all. Intellectual honesty just means that we recognize that someone's views come from a bias and do our best to eliminate it. We'll never completely eradicate bias because everyone views every issue from a different perspective. So, the only way reduce such bias is to gather information from as many viewpoints as possible.

Thus, the "intellectually honest" thing to do is to listen to what Clarke has to say and do your best to evaluate it on its merits, taking into account other information that you have available about the given subject. However, to attempt to discredit the article by saying, "He's biased, so we shouldn't listen," is an ad hominem fallacy.

Is it false that the Republicans have criticized the Obama administration for doing things that they were perfectly happy to let Bush do? Absolutely not. Do Democrats play the same political game on other issues? Of course. However, I think Clarke makes a good point when he says that a terrorist attack could occur no matter how failsafe your system is designed to be. And by continually talking about how unsafe Obama is making us (although, I can't recall any real security measures that have been rolled back on his watch), they seem to be setting themselves up to be able to say, "I told you so," if an attack does occur. I sincerely hope they are above that level of gamesmanship.

holmane ..

Well said and I really have nothing to disagree with you on, until you said

talking about how unsafe Obama is making us (although, I can't recall any real security measures that have been rolled back on his watch)

Now there...is where we part ways... When the Christmas Bomber... says he knows of others training and coming to attack us... and the administration ... stops questioning him and reads him Miranda rights..and gives him a lawyer! I have a problem.

After 50 mins of interrogation... That man has no ..I repeat no rights under the Geneva Conventions or no Rights under the United States Constitution.

He is a combatant .. not wearing a uniform fighting for a course that is not represented by a flag or a country. He is not a common criminal.. He is a TERRORIST. He had actionable intelligence, that should have been gained quickly .. yet after 50 mins of interrogation,(understandably he was weak and needed sleep, and should have been allowed to do so) when he was awaken he was given Miranda Rights which are only available to citizens... and provided a lawyer and therefore now knew he DID NOT HAVE TO TELL US ANYTHING about any possible future attacks on this country ..

Now let me ask a question... based on a premise.

The premise being that electing President Obama would make us more liked and respected by the international community. And improve both our standing and security in the world.

CONCLUSION...

We are weaker and preserved to be very weak

And we less secure, and many other world powers are treating us as a second world country, one not to be feared or respected!

If you find fault in my conclusion ..please tell me in what way and why!

I'm trying to reconstruct your argument from the end, and I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise.

The premise is that Obama was elected because his capacity for statesmanship could elevate our standing in the international community.

How does it follow that we are weaker? Whether we are a weaker nation, or perceived to be a weaker nation is unrelated to Obama's diplomacy. Attempting to win respect in the international community and having strong national security are surely not mutually exclusive.

You seem to be drawing your conclusion based on your above analysis of Mirandizing this prisoner. First, I would say that the reading of Miranda rights does not mean that you will get no intelligence or answers out of a prisoner. Apparently, intelligence was gathered from the prisoner after the fact, anyway. Richard Clarke makes this claim, and since it is an imminently verifiable claim, I'm going to give it some credence. Also, since the Supreme Court has ruled that terror trials ought to take place within the Criminal Justice system rather than the Military Justice system (which is actually less well-equipped to handle the workload), wouldn't you agree that all parties involved in the prosecuting of terror cases ought to follow the law correctly? Any police, prosecutor, investigator, or other party connected to the investigation and prosecution of the case ought to make sure there are no problems with the case. Would you rather the FBI didn't read this young man his Miranda rights and have his case potentially thrown out or compromised at a later point?

Overall, the United States has a generally functional and capable intelligence and security system. We are not made safer by ignoring international human rights accords, the constitution, or basic moral strictures against torture and other inhumane treatment. Somehow, we let Dick Cheney get away with saying that torture (excuse me, enhanced interrogation) was the only thing standing between us and another 9/11. And somehow when saner heads have realized that we lose our moral authority in the world if we torture people, he still gets away with (and in some places cheered) for saying that that decision has made us vulnerable.

The weaknesses in our system are bureaucratic (i.e., the information necessary to prevent this attempted attack was available, but not acted on), and they will appear from time to time. So these are the areas that an effective strengthening of our national security should address.