PDA

View Full Version : Fmr. Terrorist Czar Richard Clarke Endorses Obama!



Gayle in MD
05-12-2012, 11:46 AM
A hearty endorsement from former counter terrorist czar, Richard Clarke, during an interview by Bill Mahr, last night.

He made it clear what a disaster Bush was, and how important it is that we get the RIGHT man back into the White House.

It was a pleasure to listen to one who is hands down, one of the most knowledgable in the world, on counter terrorism, as he gave accolades to President Obama's accomplishments in smashing al Qaeda in Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and ab\le to do so without breaking any laws.

He mentioned sp[ecifically, how this president does not spy illegally on our citizens, annd always goes to the FISA courts for the approval to listen in on phone conversationas.

This absurd attempt of the right to continue to suggest that this president has adopted Bush's policies, is outrageous, particularly when one of the very fist things he did, was to do away with Bush's torture program, and illegal spying on Americans.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-12-2012, 02:29 PM
I think Clarke is right in his endorsement.

However, I question whether he's right that the federal government under Obama isn't spying illegally. I presume it is.

It may be a technical question of what is legal or not, but two Democratic senators I respect have stated that if the American people knew how the laws in question (specifically, the PATRIOT Act) are being interpreted as to their scope, they would be shocked and appalled. Despite it all being 'legal.'

So I'll reserve my opinion as to the legality of the spying until the actual interpretations of those laws by this administration is revealed. And, as I stated, I do presume their practices stretch the law to, and beyond, the breaking point.

Note to LWW: notice how I 'defend' the Obama administration here? By publicly stating my doubt that they have stopped illegal spying.

Frankly, I don't think Clarke has any access anymore to really know that what he said is so.

Gayle in MD
05-13-2012, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Clarke is right in his endorsement.

However, I question whether he's right that the federal government under Obama isn't spying illegally. I presume it is.

It may be a technical question of what is legal or not, but two Democratic senators I respect have stated that if the American people knew how the laws in question (specifically, the PATRIOT Act) are being interpreted as to their scope, they would be shocked and appalled. Despite it all being 'legal.'

So I'll reserve my opinion as to the legality of the spying until the actual interpretations of those laws by this administration is revealed. And, as I stated, I do presume their practices stretch the law to, and beyond, the breaking point.

Note to LWW: notice how I 'defend' the Obama administration here? By publicly stating my doubt that they have stopped illegal spying.

Frankly, I don't think Clarke has any access anymore to really know that what he said is so. </div></div>

I can't agree that this president is doing any illegal spying, my friend. Clarke was very adamant is his statements, and included a suggestion that the focue is not on Americans, but on foreign phone calls.

If Richard Clarke states that this administration does not spy illegally on Americans, IOW, as he stated, goes everytime to the FISA court for permission to listen in on phone conversations here, then IMO, given Clarke's consistant reputation for always speaking the truth, I fully believe his statements.

Also, I believe he knows just about everything there is to know, even now, about how our country is being protected, and even the parameters of current methods.

Why? Because he still lives in the D.C. area, and after all of his years of experience in fighting terrorism, his close relationship with so many others who are still active in that field, among them, Joe Biden, and the President, I suspect he is up on most everything.

These Washington D.C. government folks who have served together in the upper levels of government, have very close and long established relationships.


His most recent book was a very in-depth account of current threats, ie., of his own on-going interest in our current and future cyber threats, for example.

About terrorism policy, and methods, I suspect after so many years working with others in the field, while perhaps not publicized, he is probably "in on" far more than one might think.

But then, I must admit, that after I read his book, Against All Enemies, I knew I would always take his word as gold ever after.


Additionally, for sure, he's not the type to say things that aren't true. His a sterling reputation and his credibility has always met the highest standards.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

G.

eg8r
05-14-2012, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He mentioned sp[ecifically, how this president does not spy illegally on our citizens, annd always goes to the FISA courts for the approval to listen in on phone conversationas.

</div></div>What did he say about the illegal execution of an American citizen? What did he say about the illegal murder of bin Laden? Hmm, you didn't hear those questions being asked? LOL, normal softball BS question one lefty gives to another.

eg8r

eg8r
05-14-2012, 07:26 AM
LOL, I will tell you what I noticed..no snide remark about the lack of foul language. That must only be used by Lovitz or those speaking out against Obama.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-14-2012, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He mentioned sp[ecifically, how this president does not spy illegally on our citizens, annd always goes to the FISA courts for the approval to listen in on phone conversationas.

</div></div>What did he say about the illegal execution of an American citizen? What did he say about the illegal murder of bin Laden? Hmm, you didn't hear those questions being asked? LOL, normal softball BS question one lefty gives to another.

eg8r
</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Killling bin Laden was not illegal. You just swallow up every little morsel of BS they feed you do't you?

Killing bin Laden was the policy of Clinton, Bush and Obama, and none of them were the first presidents to subscribe to that policy, which has always been America's policy, since colonial days.

Only someone who is ignorant beyond hope, would even try to contend that killing bin Laden, was against our laws. Likewise for the former American citizen, who gave up his citizenship the moment he joined our enemy, and began training them for battle.

G. </span>

Sid_Vicious
05-14-2012, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He mentioned sp[ecifically, how this president does not spy illegally on our citizens, annd always goes to the FISA courts for the approval to listen in on phone conversationas.

</div></div>What did he say about the illegal execution of an American citizen? What did he say about the illegal murder of bin Laden? Hmm, you didn't hear those questions being asked? LOL, normal softball BS question one lefty gives to another.

eg8r
</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Killling bin Laden was not illegal. You just swallow up every little morsel of BS they feed you do't you?

Killing bin Laden was the policy of Clinton, Bush and Obama, and none of them were the first presidents to subscribe to that policy, which has always been America's policy, since colonial days.

Only someone who is ignorant beyond hope, would even try to contend that killing bin Laden, was against our laws. Likewise for the former American citizen, who gave up his citizenship the moment he joined our enemy, and began training them for battle.

G. </span> </div></div>

I can't believe even Ed would defend a dead terrorist. There is no hope Gayle. It does get to be humorous fodder though ;-) sid

eg8r
05-14-2012, 10:21 AM
Killing bin Laden was definitely illegal considering where and how it was done. Will Pakistan do anything about it, probably not other than withhold access to the country. Right now they are holding military supplies that were destined to Ashcanistan. Could they, theoretically, yes and are currently giving us the cold shoulder. Would any other country defend them, no not really. I understand why there has been little backlash on the President and I am fine with it. But unlike yourself I will still call a spade a spade. I don't change my opinions based on the (D) or the (R) like you do.

eg8r

eg8r
05-14-2012, 10:23 AM
I never did defend a terrorist. Come on stupid, open your eyes and read what I posted. Go back to when this happened and read my responses. I post was about Obama you idiot, NOT Osama.

How dumb can you get?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-14-2012, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Killing bin Laden was definitely illegal considering where and how it was done. Will Pakistan do anything about it, probably not other than withhold access to the country. Right now they are holding military supplies that were destined to Ashcanistan. Could they, theoretically, yes and are currently giving us the cold shoulder. Would any other country defend them, no not really. I understand why there has been little backlash on the President and I am fine with it. But unlike yourself I will still call a spade a spade. I don't change my opinions based on the (D) or the (R) like you do.

eg8r </div></div>



<span style="color: #990000"> Ha ha ha....Sid is right. One can only laugh at your posts.

If President Obama had done anything at all that was illegal, those blood thirsty Repiglicans would have started impeachment proceedings the very next day!

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that much. As for your opinions? Your opinions are more like the old adage about opinions than I am at liberty to describe.

G. </span>

Gayle in MD
05-14-2012, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He mentioned sp[ecifically, how this president does not spy illegally on our citizens, annd always goes to the FISA courts for the approval to listen in on phone conversationas.

</div></div>What did he say about the illegal execution of an American citizen? What did he say about the illegal murder of bin Laden? Hmm, you didn't hear those questions being asked? LOL, normal softball BS question one lefty gives to another.

eg8r
</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Killling bin Laden was not illegal. You just swallow up every little morsel of BS they feed you do't you?

Killing bin Laden was the policy of Clinton, Bush and Obama, and none of them were the first presidents to subscribe to that policy, which has always been America's policy, since colonial days.

Only someone who is ignorant beyond hope, would even try to contend that killing bin Laden, was against our laws. Likewise for the former American citizen, who gave up his citizenship the moment he joined our enemy, and began training them for battle.

G. </span> </div></div>

I can't believe even Ed would defend a dead terrorist. There is no hope Gayle. It does get to be humorous fodder though ;-) sid </div></div>

Well you know Sid, those who get their income from wars and killing have a whole different view of our foreign policies.

They don't like nice, clean, precise operations, that come off incredibly well, a mission accomplished, for real, and with only a handful of special ops, without thousands of boots on the ground, and millions for the war profiteering, insane Republican right.

It's all about M-O-N-E-Y. That's what runs all opinion on the right, and consistantly, they have no clue what they're talking about.

After a while I always find it necessary to put RWers on ignore. It's really best to only read the things our fellow Liberals are writing, since those are the only posts worth reading. The rest are from La La Land.

G.

llotter
05-14-2012, 04:14 PM
Would you please provide a link showing that 'hearty' endorsement.

Thanks

Soflasnapper
05-14-2012, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Killing bin Laden was definitely illegal considering where and how it was done. Will Pakistan do anything about it, probably not other than withhold access to the country. Right now they are holding military supplies that were destined to Ashcanistan. Could they, theoretically, yes and are currently giving us the cold shoulder. Would any other country defend them, no not really. I understand why there has been little backlash on the President and I am fine with it. But unlike yourself I will still call a spade a spade. I don't change my opinions based on the (D) or the (R) like you do </div></div>

It really depends on what Pakistan wants. What they want, they may not be able to admit, because of their restive tribal areas, particularly the Pashtuns.

Perhaps they welcomed the killing of bin Laden, and there is reason to think so. Apparently, they now state they were the ones who tipped off the US as to his location, and also, eye witnesses described Pakistani forces surrounding the place prior to the incursion.

Soflasnapper
05-14-2012, 05:03 PM
Gayle, the FISA courts were badly abused, by administrations (plural) going to them with misrepresentations, and for normal criminal matters for which the FISA act was not intended.

We've all perhaps heard that they approved all but 3 out of 3,000 requests or something like that. Rarely is it mentioned that of those 3, 2 were denied right in a row toward the end of that line, because the FISA courts' judges got wise on how they were being lied to. That is, they had 'national security' or 'terrorism' waved at them in government briefs and presentations, when what they were really going after were RICO-eligible drug crime gangs.

THEORETICALLY legal, as the FISA courts were petitioned, and the search warrants or wire taps allowed, but that is not justice if the petitions were phonied up with false information.

A guy like Clarke may very well wish to honor the letter of the law, and not care much if its spirit is dishonored. That is the practicality of needing to protect this country. Bend a few rules, here and there.

Once Al Gore was in a strategic WH discussion, and the subject of illegality was raised over a proposed course of action-- that a foreign country be entered, and terrorists kidnapped in rendition without due process of law. He said, 'well, that's why you do a covert op to make it happen.' I should think Clarke would share that world view.

Gayle in MD
05-14-2012, 11:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, the FISA courts were badly abused, by administrations (plural) going to them with misrepresentations, and for normal criminal matters for which the FISA act was not intended.

We've all perhaps heard that they approved all but 3 out of 3,000 requests or something like that. Rarely is it mentioned that of those 3, 2 were denied right in a row toward the end of that line, because the FISA courts' judges got wise on how they were being lied to. That is, they had 'national security' or 'terrorism' waved at them in government briefs and presentations, when what they were really going after were RICO-eligible drug crime gangs.

THEORETICALLY legal, as the FISA courts were petitioned, and the search warrants or wire taps allowed, but that is not justice if the petitions were phonied up with false information.

A guy like Clarke may very well wish to honor the letter of the law, and not care much if its spirit is dishonored. That is the practicality of needing to protect this country. Bend a few rules, here and there.

Once Al Gore was in a strategic WH discussion, and the subject of illegality was raised over a proposed course of action-- that a foreign country be entered, and terrorists kidnapped in rendition without due process of law. He said, 'well, that's why you do a covert op to make it happen.' I should think Clarke would share that world view. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">
I think we all know the history of Law Enforcement as regards padding documents, for the end goal, which is supposed to justify the means, but my interpretation of the conversation was that Clarke was addressing the subject of the FISA Court, as regards our foreign policy, terrorism, specifically, and addressing the changes in policy, from Bush, to Obama, and among those changes, an end to torture, an end to illegal wire taps, and stricter adherence to the FISA laws.

His statements were offered, and not answers to questions.

What I know of Clarke, and while he might share the world view of which you write, it certainly doesn't fit his personality or character, that he would bring the matter up as he did, and make the statements he made, when he could so easily have said nothing about it at all.

G.




</span>

eg8r
05-17-2012, 09:35 AM
From your response I don't see where you would disagree with what I posted. I agree with the ideas you propose and add them to what I already think.

eg8r

eg8r
05-17-2012, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ha ha ha....Sid is right. One can only laugh at your posts.

</div></div>LOL, I sure am glad you chose to mention Sid and not sofla. If you take a look at sofla's post you will see what a knowledgeable answer looks like. If you look at Sid's post you will see why he gets his butt kicked at the local pool hall for sitting there googely eyed at someone else's girl.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If President Obama had done anything at all that was illegal, those blood thirsty Repiglicans would have started impeachment proceedings the very next day!

</div></div>LOL, funny to see you hypocritically take the position that Reps have taken for long time in defending Bush not being taken to court for his actions.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-18-2012, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ha ha ha....Sid is right. One can only laugh at your posts.

</div></div>LOL, I sure am glad you chose to mention Sid and not sofla. If you take a look at sofla's post you will see what a knowledgeable answer looks like. If you look at Sid's post you will see why he gets his butt kicked at the local pool hall for sitting there googely eyed at someone else's girl.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If President Obama had done anything at all that was illegal, those blood thirsty Repiglicans would have started impeachment proceedings the very next day!

</div></div>LOL, funny to see you hypocritically take the position that Reps have taken for long time in defending Bush not being taken to court for his actions.

eg8r </div></div>
Skipping over your usual juvenile irrelevant yapping, there was nothing illegal about killing bin Laden.

I repeat, there was nothing illegal about killoing bin Laden.

The rest of your self-serving BS, isn't relevant to the adult discussion.

G.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> </span>

eg8r
05-21-2012, 01:48 AM
LOL, again your head is in the sand.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-21-2012, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From your response I don't see where you would disagree with what I posted. I agree with the ideas you propose and add them to what I already think.

eg8r </div></div>

The difference is this: the crime involved in killing OBL, if there was one, was the violation of Pakistani sovereign territory against their will and allowance.

I suggest that there was no unallowed violation of Pakistani sovereign territory, that they did approve it, were involved in the operation's execution (by eye witnesses' reports, Pakistani forces were there well ahead of time cordoning off the compound), and the APPEARANCE of their strong disapproval is for their own public consumption, not reality.

Probably a large percentage of official reactions across the board on all matters, in this country and others, is exactly this kind of lying misrepresentation for public consumption. Especially when the country has a disputatious segment of their public in strong opposition.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 04:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, again your head is in the sand.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Killing bin Laden was definitely illegal considering where and how it was done. Will Pakistan do anything about it, probably not other than withhold access to the country. Right now they are holding military supplies that were destined to Ashcanistan. Could they, theoretically, yes and are currently giving us the cold shoulder. Would any other country defend them, no not really. I understand why there has been little backlash on the President and I am fine with it. But unlike yourself I will still call a spade a spade. I don't change my opinions based on the (D) or the (R) like you do.

eg8r



</div></div>

This entire paragraph of yours is completely, patently absurd and untrue.

Now see if you can locate your own head.

G.